How much of the Mix can Renewables be?

[abu afak]

50-80% looks very possible to me. After that, it's very tricky.
We have been adding renewables in Vast majority last 5 years: 2/3 (2016) - 85% (2021).
How much of the mix is possible/can they ultimately be.. how soon.
I posted this pair years ago as part of my series of the most Major issues in the debate.
Two opinions:

1. Is 100% renewable energy realistic? Here’s what we know.

"...Today’s models, at least, appear to agree that “a diversified mix of low-CO2 generation resources” add up to a more cost-effective path to deep decarbonization than 100% renewables. This is particularly true above 60% or 80% decarbonization, when the costs of the renewables-only option rise sharply.​

Again, it’s all about balancing out VRE. The easiest way to do that is with fast, flexible natural gas plants, but you can’t get past around 60% decarbonization with a large fleet of gas plants running. Getting to 80% or beyond means closing or idling lots of those plants. So you need other balancing options."..."​

-
Some say 100% os possible, I don't see it any time soon without new technology.

2. 100% renewable energy - Wikipedia​

"...Two potentially large sources of dispatchable carbon-free power are nuclear and fossil fuels with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). Suffice it to say, a variety of people oppose one or both of those sources, for a variety of reasons.​

​

So then the question becomes, can we balance out VRE in a deeply decarbonized grid without them? Do our other dispatchable balancing options add up to something sufficient?​

​

That is the core of the dispute over 100% renewable energy: whether it is possible (or advisable) to decarbonize the grid without nuclear and CCS."..."​

`

 

[MarathonMike]

The problem with this mad push toward renewables is it is way too much way too fast. Maybe 100 years from now when the technology is mature and efficient enough renewables could be 50% of the mix. But what about nuclear? What about hydrogen? Are EVs REALLY that good of an idea given that each battery weighs 1000 pounds and is loaded with toxic metals?

 

[Calypso Jones]

We are headed toward some really very bad times....starting this winter would not surprise me in the least.

 

[MisterBeale]

There is no such thing as "renewables." All renewables require hydrocarbons to create. Because of how long they last, they eventually need to be replaced. The mining, and manufacture of them, the materials, and the energy, require hydrocarbons. It is a fantasy and a lie that renewables do anything, it is an extra-step.

It is a waste.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

50-80% looks very possible to me. After that, it's very tricky.
We have been adding renewables in Vast majority last 5 years: 2/3 (2016) - 85% (2021).
How much of the mix is possible/can they ultimately be.. how soon.
I posted this pair years ago as part of my series of the most Major issues in the debate.
Two opinions:

1. Is 100% renewable energy realistic? Here’s what we know.

"...Today’s models, at least, appear to agree that “a diversified mix of low-CO2 generation resources” add up to a more cost-effective path to deep decarbonization than 100% renewables. This is particularly true above 60% or 80% decarbonization, when the costs of the renewables-only option rise sharply.​

Again, it’s all about balancing out VRE. The easiest way to do that is with fast, flexible natural gas plants, but you can’t get past around 60% decarbonization with a large fleet of gas plants running. Getting to 80% or beyond means closing or idling lots of those plants. So you need other balancing options."..."​

-
Some say 100% os possible, I don't see it any time soon without new technoply.

2. 100% renewable energy - Wikipedia​

"...Two potentially large sources of dispatchable carbon-free power are nuclear and fossil fuels with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). Suffice it to say, a variety of people oppose one or both of those sources, for a variety of reasons.​

​

So then the question becomes, can we balance out VRE in a deeply decarbonized grid without them? Do our other dispatchable balancing options add up to something sufficient?​

​

That is the core of the dispute over 100% renewable energy: whether it is possible (or advisable) to decarbonize the grid without nuclear and CCS."..."​

`

50-80% looks very possible to me.

Only if we have 50% to 80% nuclear.

 

[Augustine_]

We need to invest in nuclear for total energy independence that can't be affected by the whims of dictatorships and theocrats. The tech is there and we can keep making it better.

 

[multivita-man]

1. We need to invest in renewables.

2. That by itself won't solve the problem -- we need to find ways to do the following:

a) radically consume less and/or recycle more
b) produce an endless source of energy (nuke fusion)

 

[abu afak]

I think we can get to 50%, probably 60% very quickly, and we are seeing that now.
The scarcity/price of oil has hastened the rush that is already running at 85% of the New generating mix Here.
After ie 60%, it starts to get tricky both technologically and reliability wise.
Any new tech my raise those numbers.

Amazingly, we are going at near at a near GND rate now without legislation.
It is not "too fast" IMO.
Wall St is very socially conscious/PC now ('ESG') and there is endless money for renewable, and double the P/E multiples for the stock prices of renewable energy cos.
Many investors/funds view buying Exxon like buying a Tobacco stock. I do not. I have lots in NatGas.

`

 

[DGS49]

There is no scarcity of oil, and there is a positive abundance of PROVEN natural gas reserves...enough to last hundreds of years. The country has struggled (against Democrat sabotage) for DECADES to become energy independent, and we finally achieved it under Trump.

Renewables should be allowed to go on line, to the extent that they are economically feasible.

Keep in mind that the fight against nuclear power is a fight against the safest energy source in the history of the world. There has not been a single radiation-related death in the history of American nuclear power, roughly 1953. It is fucking insane to stand in the way of this source.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The scarcity/price of oil has hastened the rush that is already running at 85% of the New generating mix Here.

Stop subsidizing/mandating it and see what the true demand for renewables is.

Amazingly, we are going at near at a near GND rate now without legislation.

Where is this lack of legislation?

Wall St is very socially conscious/PC now ('ESG')

Following the lemmings. Malinvestments in the name of "green". Moronic.

double the P/E multiples for the stock prices of renewable energy cos.

We'll see how they look when the tide goes out.

Many investors/funds view buying Exxon like buying a Tobacco stock.

Lots of idiots out there.

 

[abu afak]

There is no scarcity of oil, and there is a positive abundance of PROVEN natural gas reserves...enough to last hundreds of years. The country has struggled (against Democrat sabotage) for DECADES to become energy independent, and we finally achieved it under Trump.
Renewables should be allowed to go on line, to the extent that they are economically feasible.

Keep in mind that the fight against nuclear power is a fight against the safest energy source in the history of the world. There has not been a single radiation-related death in the history of American nuclear power, roughly 1953. It is fucking insane to stand in the way of this source.

There are ample reserves of O&G now.
Of course their distribution is very Political as we see now and have in the past.
A cartel (+Russia) now largely controls the price/supply.
Ooops.
Not quite as bad with wind and solar.


""Renewables should be allowed to go on line, to the extent that they are economically feasible."

That IS what's happening now.
In good scenarios/locales Solar is 85% cheaper than it was in 2010. Efficiency and lower front-loaded interest rates.
This is not about subsidy any more. (see my other threads).
It's cheaper and our priceless but deteriorating environment/atmosphere counts too.
AGW has consequences that more become aware of it every year, but some (many denier trolls here) deny because of low IQ and/or RW politics.
`

 

[1srelluc]

Remove the .gov kickback subsidy schemes and 87% of "renewables" die, it's just as simple as that.

 

[Samofvt]

I think we can get to 50%, probably 60% very quickly, and we are seeing that now.
The scarcity/price of oil has hastened the rush that is already running at 85% of the New generating mix Here.
After ie 60%, it starts to get tricky both technologically and reliability wise.
Any new tech my raise those numbers.

Amazingly, we are going at near at a near GND rate now without legislation.
It is not "too fast" IMO.
Wall St is very socially conscious/PC now ('ESG') and there is endless money for renewable, and double the P/E multiples for the stock prices of renewable energy cos.
Many investors/funds view buying Exxon like buying a Tobacco stock. I do not. I have lots in NatGas.

`

I have no problem with solar and wind being a good part of the mix. Within feasible limits.

The problem comes when you consider the globalist eviro-nuts are forcing a switch from internal combustion engines to electric vehicles. This is happening in my little state, where they have mandated an end to sales of ICE's by 2035.

Here's the catch: the amount of electric energy required to charge the batteries of all vehicles will more than double the current electrical generation and transmission capacity currently used.

Add to this the push to move from home heating fuel (oil) and LPG and NG to electric based heat pumps, and the demand will be more than triple the current demand.

They claim they will use renewable energy sources to fill the gap. I'm so sorry, but in order to produce enough electricity by solar farms would require a land area approximately equal to HALF of all the agricultural land area in the state. This includes dairy farms, corn and hay fields, and apple and berry orchards, among others crops.

Nuclear would be the only way to feasibly power the grid. Even then, the increased number of transmission lines and branch feeder infrastructure will cause a grotesque amount of environmental damage, but would be better than starving to death.

Have a nice day!

 

[Muhammed]

50-80% looks very possible to me. After that, it's very tricky.
We have been adding renewables in Vast majority last 5 years: 2/3 (2016) - 85% (2021).
How much of the mix is possible/can they ultimately be.. how soon.
I posted this pair years ago as part of my series of the most Major issues in the debate.
Two opinions:

1. Is 100% renewable energy realistic? Here’s what we know.

"...Today’s models, at least, appear to agree that “a diversified mix of low-CO2 generation resources” add up to a more cost-effective path to deep decarbonization than 100% renewables. This is particularly true above 60% or 80% decarbonization, when the costs of the renewables-only option rise sharply.​

Again, it’s all about balancing out VRE. The easiest way to do that is with fast, flexible natural gas plants, but you can’t get past around 60% decarbonization with a large fleet of gas plants running. Getting to 80% or beyond means closing or idling lots of those plants. So you need other balancing options."..."​

-
Some say 100% os possible, I don't see it any time soon without new technology.

2. 100% renewable energy - Wikipedia​

"...Two potentially large sources of dispatchable carbon-free power are nuclear and fossil fuels with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). Suffice it to say, a variety of people oppose one or both of those sources, for a variety of reasons.​

​

So then the question becomes, can we balance out VRE in a deeply decarbonized grid without them? Do our other dispatchable balancing options add up to something sufficient?​

​

That is the core of the dispute over 100% renewable energy: whether it is possible (or advisable) to decarbonize the grid without nuclear and CCS."..."​

`

The term "renewable energy" is farcical.

 

[ding]

50-80% looks very possible to me. After that, it's very tricky.
We have been adding renewables in Vast majority last 5 years: 2/3 (2016) - 85% (2021).
How much of the mix is possible/can they ultimately be.. how soon.
I posted this pair years ago as part of my series of the most Major issues in the debate.
Two opinions:

1. Is 100% renewable energy realistic? Here’s what we know.

"...Today’s models, at least, appear to agree that “a diversified mix of low-CO2 generation resources” add up to a more cost-effective path to deep decarbonization than 100% renewables. This is particularly true above 60% or 80% decarbonization, when the costs of the renewables-only option rise sharply.​

Again, it’s all about balancing out VRE. The easiest way to do that is with fast, flexible natural gas plants, but you can’t get past around 60% decarbonization with a large fleet of gas plants running. Getting to 80% or beyond means closing or idling lots of those plants. So you need other balancing options."..."​

-
Some say 100% os possible, I don't see it any time soon without new technology.

2. 100% renewable energy - Wikipedia​

"...Two potentially large sources of dispatchable carbon-free power are nuclear and fossil fuels with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). Suffice it to say, a variety of people oppose one or both of those sources, for a variety of reasons.​

​

So then the question becomes, can we balance out VRE in a deeply decarbonized grid without them? Do our other dispatchable balancing options add up to something sufficient?​

​

That is the core of the dispute over 100% renewable energy: whether it is possible (or advisable) to decarbonize the grid without nuclear and CCS."..."​

`

What part of zero carbon emissions don't you understand? Are you admitting it can't be done?

 

[abu afak]

Here's the catch: the amount of electric energy required to charge the batteries of all vehicles will more than double the current electrical generation and transmission capacity currently used.

Add to this the push to move from home heating fuel (oil) and LPG and NG to electric based heat pumps, and the demand will be more than triple the current demand.

No one will be shutting any Fossil Fuel plants unless there's the Renewable juice to replace it.
Very simple. Businesses can do math and the state can too.

They claim they will use renewable energy sources to fill the gap. I'm so sorry, but in order to produce enough electricity by solar farms would require a land area approximately equal to HALF of all the agricultural land area in the state. This includes dairy farms, corn and hay fields, and apple and berry orchards, among others crops.

We just had the discussion in another thread
("could save 5.6 Bil....")
I posted this last night

​

"..Could you power the US with solar?​

Solar's abundance and potential throughout the United States is staggering: PV panels on just 22,000 square miles of the nation's total land area – about the size of Lake Michigan – could supply enough electricity to power the entire United States .https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/solar-energy-united-states#:~:text=Solar's abundance and potential throughout,power the entire United States .​

​

Solar Energy in the United States​

- - -

22,000 sq miles is .0057 of the USA's 3.8 Million sq miles

Even if you live in a highly AG state you can use wind which is already Dotting Farm fields and earn more income for them.
But overall the land taken is MINISCULE.

Now that you have the facts you'll change opinion.. RIGHT?
LOL
`

 

[MisterBeale]

No one will be shutting any Fossil Fuel plants unless there's the Renewable juice to replace it.

Except that can never, and will never happen.

Electric needs keep increasing, and it takes materials and energy to produce renewable juice in the first place, there isn't enough renewable juice to create the windmills, the panels, and the batteries, AND supply all the demand for current power needs and demands.

And then replace all of the renewable infrastructure when it all wears out? It is simple physics. You can't get something for nothing.

 

[Woodznutz]

Use renewable carbon (wood and paper) for energy production.
Produce biogas and fertilizer from food waste.
Produce fertilizer from lake weeds.
Reduce energy use through conservation, insulation, and innovation.
Sequester carbon through improved ag practices.
Keep planting trees.
Eat less, drive less, turn out the lights when you leave the room.
Use off-peak electricity if available and feasible.

 

[MisterBeale]

Use renewable carbon (wood and paper) for energy production.

. . . and now we know why, the cost of toilet paper, tissue, paper towels, paper cups, printer paper, and every other paper product seems to be doubling every two or three years.

Paper products are basically, FUEL, in direct competition with energy.

I never really understood that part, till I found out, just how many "biomass electric generation," facilities they have been setting up, and I didn't know, that these facilities, get state and federal direct energy subsidies, under renewable energy regulations.

Nor did I know, that these places are working with logging companies, to destroy forests. Which. . . seems sort of at odds, that environmental organizations, are in bed with the same companies that are destroying the environment?

The whole thing is clown world.

I really do think you are right, we need to change our whole culture norms. Folks will be watching this funeral of the Queen, and see all that wealth? It won't help the situation at all. People don't need to see all that.

The mass media conditions them to consume, and then to also conserve? It is a mixed message. It makes no damn sense.

 

[Oddball]

That IS what's happening now.

No, it isn't happening right now...."Renewables" still require massive subsidies to even get them in place and running....None of them are anywhere near their break-even point, let alone turing a profit.