renewables as affordable as current electrical systems

[Trakar]

Cost-minimized combinations of wind power, solar power and electrochemical storage, powering the grid up to 99.9% of the time
Open Access Article
Abstract
We model many combinations of renewable electricity sources (inland wind, offshore wind, and photovoltaics) with electrochemical storage (batteries and fuel cells), incorporated into a large grid system (72 GW). The purpose is twofold: 1) although a single renewable generator at one site produces intermittent power, we seek combinations of diverse renewables at diverse sites, with storage, that are not intermittent and satisfy need a given fraction of hours. And 2) we seek minimal cost, calculating true cost of electricity without subsidies and with inclusion of external costs. Our model evaluated over 28 billion combinations of renewables and storage, each tested over 35,040 h (four years) of load and weather data. We find that the least cost solutions yield seemingly-excessive generation capacity—at times, almost three times the electricity needed to meet electrical load. This is because diverse renewable generation and the excess capacity together meet electric load with less storage, lowering total system cost. At 2030 technology costs and with excess electricity displacing natural gas, we find that the electric system can be powered 90%–99.9% of hours entirely on renewable electricity, at costs comparable to today's—but only if we optimize the mix of generation and storage technologies.
(full paper freely available through title hyperlink above)

 

[Mr. H.]

Why bother? Plenty of clean cheap natural gas around.

 

[Trakar]

Why bother? Plenty of clean cheap natural gas around.

Natural gas may emit less carbon per erg generated than oil or coal, but it isn't "clean" and it still takes sequestered carbon out of fossil stores and pumps it back into the active carbon cycle.

 

[Mr. H.]

Co2 emissions are at a 20-year low in the U.S. primarily due to the switch from coal to natural gas. And the phenomenon was market-driven.

Can renewables claim as much?

 

[Old Rocks]

Not yet

 

[Trakar]

Co2 emissions are at a 20-year low in the U.S. primarily due to the switch from coal to natural gas. And the phenomenon was market-driven.

I am gratified to see so many accepting regulation and a legitimate and noteworthy positive aspect of market economies.

Can renewables claim as much?

Sure, and a carbon tax, along with appropriate and necessary progressive carbon emission restrictions and regulations will insure and guide the efficient functioning of that market transformation. (much as they always have)

 

[Mr. H.]

Not yet

I hope I live to see the day.

Co2 emissions are at a 20-year low in the U.S. primarily due to the switch from coal to natural gas. And the phenomenon was market-driven.

I am gratified to see so many accepting regulation and a legitimate and noteworthy positive aspect of market economies.

Can renewables claim as much?

Sure, and a carbon tax, along with appropriate and necessary progressive carbon emission restrictions and regulations will insure and guide the efficient functioning of that market transformation. (much as they always have)

A carbon tax? Why?

Why not a renewables tax?

Oh... we pay those folks for their tinkering.

Funny thing about "renewables and sustainables"... there's essentially no risk.

And to be honest, here's my quarrel... my father died while busting his ass drilling oil and gas wells at his own risk. Up and had a heart attack. His own money on the line, no guarantees of finding hydrocarbons (this was the 60's mind you).

No Sanctus Obamus back then. No one to bail out his failures.

Sure he had successes, but many more failures.

But his heart popped. At 54. Leaving behind a 45 year old widow with 7 kids aged 3 to 18.

Did Uncle Sam give a flying fuck? Fuck no. Oil was $2.00/barrel and gasoline was 30 cents/gallon.

So today we have "alternatives and renewables" with government guraranteed loans. And when that shit goes south the principals bail with golden parachutes.

If the alternatives cannot survive in the market without government assistance, then they have no "business" in the market.

Risk and the potential for failure are great motivators.

Government "motivation" is a recipe for disaster.

 

[Old Rocks]

H, I understand your resentment toward the no risk aspect of the present push towards renewable energy. However, if we continue on the present path, and the GHGs in the atmosphere continue to increase, we are risking the whole of our present civilization.

 

[Mr. H.]

Ahh whiskey drama ramblings LOL.

It'll be a good day.

Happy New Year!

 

[Katzndogz]

Natural gas is a viable alternative until the liberals do to natural gas what they did to coal. The movie Promised Land is supposed to do to fracking what The China Syndrome did to nuclear power.

 

[Old Rocks]

Liberals did not do it to coal, natural gas did. And it will be the consequences of climate change that stop the use of natural gas as soon as we get a lot more renewables online.

You are looking at a technological curve, one that is in favor of the renewables.

 

[Mr. H.]

Most likely not in our lifetime.

 

[Trakar]

A carbon tax? Why?

According to established economic principles, taxes are useful economic tools designed to perform several basic economic functions. Among these are: 1) to capture and account for externalities that otherwise escape failed/flawed market systems, 2) to discourage and elminate undesirable social activities ("sin" taxes). Personally, I don't believe that legislating morality is ever successful, but as a means to capture externalities, and balance the inequities generated in failed market systems. Taxation is a very effective and measured means of correcting failed market systems.

While a carbon tax can be employed as a social tool, I prefer a structure that is primarily designed to capture the externalities of past and current carbon emission pollutions and damages.

Why not a renewables tax?

What economic reason leads you to believe that a renewable energy tax would produce beneficial general economic results or goals?

Funny thing about "renewables and sustainables"... there's essentially no risk.

And to be honest, here's my quarrel... my father died while busting his ass drilling oil and gas wells at his own risk. Up and had a heart attack. His own money on the line, no guarantees of finding hydrocarbons (this was the 60's mind you).

I worked in the oilfields of Kansas (roughnecking on drilling crews) back in the '60s, as I knocked around a bit before joining the military, myself. It was certainly not easy, and very dangerous, even on the much smaller scale of our rigs. I respect and hold great admiration for anyone who makes a career and raises a family working these types of jobs. That said I think you are mistaken, about the risks involved in renewables. Like any other business, there are always financial risks for the investors, hazardous working conditions for the employees, not to mention the everpresent problems of negligent, incompetent and criminal managers.

No Sanctus Obamus back then. No one to bail out his failures.

Sure he had successes, but many more failures.

But his heart popped. At 54. Leaving behind a 45 year old widow with 7 kids aged 3 to 18.

Did Uncle Sam give a flying fuck? Fuck no. Oil was $2.00/barrel and gasoline was 30 cents/gallon.

I recall 19 cents/gallon, but the point is, nothing has changed between now and then in these respects. The government no more comes to the aid and rescue of a wind turbine installer and his family when he gets blown off a 200' tower by a 70 mile/hour icy breeze than they did when your father died trying to provide for his family.

So today we have "alternatives and renewables" with government guraranteed loans. And when that shit goes south the principals bail with golden parachutes.

No different than the oil and coal subsidies, research and exploration tax write-offs, and permit gifting of public resources to the oil, coal and gas industries over the last century.

If the alternatives cannot survive in the market without government assistance, then they have no "business" in the market.

Why do you approve of the past and current oil, coal and gas market distortions and yet seem opposed to the encouragement of new energy industries that operate more efficiently, engender domestic sourcing of our energy needs, and don't generate the expensive harms and damages to the economy and nation? The damages and the taxes required to deal with these damages are going to be much more oppressive than the recapture of these externalities from the individuals who have earned (and are earning) excessive profits from the public dumping of the pollution and contaminations that are the cause of these harms. This is about accountability and responsibility. I understand the "encouragement" subsidizing/offsetting of new technologies and industries, but this is what led to the current debacle where oil, coal and gas companies that are a century old and the most profittable industries on the planet trying to convince the government and populace that they still need and are entitled to such teat milk.

I have no problem eliminating all federal subsidies/offsets for renewable energy systems, if a carbon tax is implemented to account for and correct the current energy market distortions and failures, and strong regulatory statutes are enacted to keep all energy companies from generating harmful pollutions and contaminations that will require public tax dollars to pay for and correct.

 

[Mr. H.]

Thanks for taking the time to address my comments.

 

[Trakar]

Thanks for taking the time to address my comments.

They seemed like reasonable concerns and issues. I have no problem with people who have different perspectives and focuses than my own. The more I understand where they are coming from the easier it is for me to explain my own perspective and understandings. That is the beginning of finding a way to work together to resolve the issues we both find important.