World’s ‘solar and wind capital’ freezing due to snow ‘blanketing millions’ of solar panels

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Steve N, Feb 15, 2021.

  1. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,361
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Texas suffered an anomalous single failure. Germany has created a systemic strategic weakness.
     
    Reasonablerob likes this.
  2. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,361
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We shall see.
     
  3. Tigger2

    Tigger2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2020
    Messages:
    3,661
    Likes Received:
    1,680
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeah accept they have already murdered two people in the UK with their clumsy attempts at hunting down those who dare disagree with king Putin.
     
  4. Tigger2

    Tigger2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2020
    Messages:
    3,661
    Likes Received:
    1,680
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sure Texas failure was nothing to do with systemic strategic weakness. Just bad luck :rolleyes:
     
  5. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,361
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    [​IMG]
     
  6. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,361
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Bad weather. Poor management. Fixable virtually overnight. Not quite the same thing as Germany dismantling its power generation capability.
     
    Reasonablerob likes this.
  7. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,361
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  8. HockeyDad

    HockeyDad Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2019
    Messages:
    5,266
    Likes Received:
    6,854
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well the left should be proud of themselves, they slaughtered 10% of the entire world elephant population to prevent "desertification due to global warming". So they are certainly doing their part. I certainly hope they can exterminate the entire herd fast enough to prevent global warming. I am also glad we have "experts" to manage the crisis. Their "new system" of managing a crisis is certainly novel.... make the big animals go extinct. Gotta trust the "science"....

    upload_2021-4-8_20-20-46.png

    upload_2021-4-8_20-24-51.png
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2021
  9. Josh77

    Josh77 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2014
    Messages:
    10,256
    Likes Received:
    6,974
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I saw a video about him a few years back. He was talking about how wrong they were and that it still haunts him. What a terrible thing to have to live with. He has done a lot of good work since then though. Nobody is beyond redemption.
     
  10. HockeyDad

    HockeyDad Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2019
    Messages:
    5,266
    Likes Received:
    6,854
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Of course not, he should be proud that his hard work will pay off in his grandchildren living in a world free of African elephants. Never say that one man can't make a difference.... in this case tipping the scales toward extinction for the largest land mammal.... there is something about human induced genetic bottlenecks that sort of cement the deal. Dude is totally admirable and represents the kind of bold liberal leadership that we need in this troubled age. I know that eugenicists like Bill Gates want to see a drastic decline in the human population, I wonder if their thinking will move beyond culling the elephant herd and toward culling the human herd to solve the crisis.
    upload_2021-4-8_20-48-27.png
     
  11. Tigger2

    Tigger2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2020
    Messages:
    3,661
    Likes Received:
    1,680
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Firstly, Alan Savory was not "The left"
    Secondly, he didn't do it to stop climate change, but the preserve the local environment.
    Thirdly, the mans a nutter and his views were not supported by the scientific community.
    Fourthly, it has absolutely nothing to do with wind turbines.

    Still I'm glad you got this off your chest.
     
  12. Reasonablerob

    Reasonablerob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,852
    Likes Received:
    3,831
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree with him although I can't see any way to achieve this unless you're Hugo Drax. That's why I back Elon Musk even if he is an utter goon.
     
  13. Reasonablerob

    Reasonablerob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,852
    Likes Received:
    3,831
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Renewable MUST have a nuclear backup for just this sort of occasion. Meanwhile the French have come up with something remarkable;
    Electric flight - Zero emission - Airbus

    What an age we live in?
     
    Ddyad and Jack Hays like this.
  14. Tigger2

    Tigger2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2020
    Messages:
    3,661
    Likes Received:
    1,680
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't even mind gas back up if its backup. What we have found in the UK is that wind energy is remarkably reliable. So the amount of gas burned would not be damaging the planet.
    And, well done Airbus, well ahead of the competition. Hydrogen is definitely the way forward for aircraft and probably large road transport.
     
  15. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,361
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Texas is plagued by problems of their own making.
    Wind Output Plaguing Texas (ERCOT weathers on)
    Guest Blogger
    Until sufficient utility-scale battery storage is available, which is unlikely anytime soon due to the cost of current technologies, the ERCOT power grid and all others will require substantial natural…
     
    Boilermaker55 and Ddyad like this.
  16. David Landbrecht

    David Landbrecht Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2018
    Messages:
    2,005
    Likes Received:
    1,163
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Conservation remains the biggest single contribution that can be made in the efforts concerning energy. Waste is rampant on all levels in the modern world and especially in the U.S.
     
  17. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,361
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Really? The data do not support that claim.
    From the MANHATTAN CONTRARIAN

    Francis Menton

    Bill Ponton’s new Report, “The Cost of Increasing Wind Power: A Reality Check,” contains a short but pithy section addressing the question of energy storage. Here’s the question to be addressed: If after the first round of overbuilding, adding new wind generation resources adds little useful energy and most of the added generation ends up getting “curtailed,” then why not just add some batteries or other energy storage to the system? Wind energy advocates suggest that some form of batteries can store the excess electricity production until it is needed, and everything will then just balance out in perfect equilibrium.

    Is there any problem here? Ponton does the simple calculations with his UK 2022 spreadsheet to derive how much storage in GWh will be needed, and what its functional characteristics must be. His results are very similar to the results of comparable exercises previously undertaken by Roger Andrews for California and Germany, and Ken Gregory for the U.S.

    The main problem identified by Ponton is the same one previously identified by Andrews and Gregory. Before you even get to the very high cost of storing electricity, there is another huge hurdle, which is that the availability of wind to generate electricity varies with a seasonal pattern. Therefore, to match electricity supplied to electricity demanded, the storage balance must be built up over about a six month period to an enormous level, and then discharged over the following six month period. . . .
     
  18. Tigger2

    Tigger2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2020
    Messages:
    3,661
    Likes Received:
    1,680
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not sure how much credibility to give an article called “The Cost of Increasing Wind Power: A Reality Check,” and contains no figures.
    And then goes onto conclude tat the only answer is battery storage. Yet last year the UK produced over 35% of it energy from renewables with hardly a battery at all.
    Overnight energy in the UK is now 14c a kwh. So guess what's happening? Yep everyone is running their appliances and charging their cars overnight.
     
  19. Cubed

    Cubed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2012
    Messages:
    17,964
    Likes Received:
    4,953
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wow, 2 year old thread. Also debunked.

    https://factcheck.afp.com/german-solar-wind-power-did-not-fail-cold-weather

     
  20. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,361
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I guess you didn't read it. Article continues:

    ". . . Ponton next assumes purchase of 12,000 GWh of battery storage capacity. With that in place, here is his chart of additions and withdrawals from storage based on the UK 2022 data:

    [​IMG]
    You can immediately see that the wind is much stronger and more consistent in the Spring and Fall than in the Summer. Then, here is the chart of the storage balance, assuming you initialized the system with zero storage at January 1, 2022:

    [​IMG]
    The batteries build up to the 12,000 GWh maximum by about March, then discharge through September, and then begin building the storage balance back up starting in October. On the particular weather pattern of 2022, the 12,000 GWh of storage capacity was sufficient to get through the year, with the minimum stored amount in September being more than 1,000 GWh.

    For readers who don’t recall the previous results from Andrews and Gregory, here is Andrews’s comparable chart for California based on 2017 data:

    [​IMG]
    And here is Gregory’s chart for the U.S. with two different lines representing 2019 and 2020 data, both again showing the characteristic seasonal pattern:

    [​IMG]
    All these results clearly illustrate the problem that the energy storage to accomplish the task of using the excess production from wind must have both very large capacity and the ability to charge and discharge in one grand annual cycle. Ponton’s comment:

    Batteries do not exist that are up to the task of such long-term energy storage.

    Pumped water storage does at least theoretically have the ability to charge and discharge to meet this criterion of an annual cycle, but it also has the problems of enormous cost and, even more important, complete lack of sufficient suitable sites. Ponton:

    If there were sites in the UK for pumped storage, it would cost $2 trillion. The UK would have to construct 500 pumped storage facilities with 24,000 MWh capacity [each]. Each would be comparable in size to the largest facility in existence at Bath, VA, which cost $4 billion to construct.

    My own comment: Ponton’s illustration of 12,000 GWh of storage needed to get through the year represents about 14-15 days of average usage in the UK. That figure is quite low compared to the amounts of storage found by Andrews and Gregory to be needed for California and the for entire U.S., which are in the range of 25-30 days of average usage. I think the difference is explained by the following things:

    • Andrews and Gregory assumed a renewables mix of wind and solar facilities in similar proportion to what exists currently in California and in the entire U.S., respectively. Ponton assumes only wind as the renewable addition. This makes a substantial difference because solar generation is much more seasonal even than wind, and operates at a much lower average annual capacity factor. (Note that both California and the full U.S. have substantial solar in the mix. Since solar is strongest in the summer, the peak of the annual charge/discharge cycle in the Andrews and Gregory spreadsheets is later in the year than in the Ponton spreadsheet. But the annual cyclical pattern is basically the same.)

    • Ponton assumes that the “other” category of generation currently existing in the UK remains in place. This “other” category consists of a mix of things like coal, nuclear, hydro and biomass, most or all of which may well be on the environmentalists’ chopping block. As shown on Ponton’s charts, the “other “ category operates at a quite steady 10 or so GW, covering almost a third of the UK’s average usage like a “baseload” generator. The continued existence of this “other” category substantially reduces the annual seasonality of production over what would be the case of wind was expected to take over all power generation.

    • Ponton has no assumptions for losses in storage, such as the loss from every charge/discharge cycle, or the dissipation loss from having energy stored in a battery for months on end. Since the costs he comes to are already ridiculous before adding these additional elements, he can be forgiven for not continuing to beat the dead horse.
    Ponton does not compute prices for 12,000 GWh of storage using lithium ion batteries, which is reasonable since those batteries are not up to the job of storing energy for 6 months to a year without catastrophic loss. But just to give an idea, at $250 per kWh (lower than current prices for grid-scale storage), 12,000 GWh would run about $3 trillion — approximately equal to the entire annual GDP of the UK. If you start trying to shift the coal and nuclear production in the UK to wind, and if you then consider major losses from trying to store power for up to a year before use, you can multiply that $3 trillion by a factor of 2 or 3 or maybe 4. Whatever.

    As stated many times at this site, this will never happen. The only question is how disastrous the crash will be when it all falls apart.

    Again, many thanks to Bill Ponton for putting in the work to demonstrate these issues, all without compensation."
     
  21. Tigger2

    Tigger2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2020
    Messages:
    3,661
    Likes Received:
    1,680
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    so many poor assumptions here (Written for the already converted). That we wouldn't share wind and solar energy with other nations to smooth out the graph. That wind energy production remains as it was at the time of the article. That we no longer use gas/nuclear as a back up at all.
    So far off that its just daft.
     

Share This Page