• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Where Will Our Clean Energy Come From?

Solar and Wind Just Passed Another Big Turning Point

Wind power is now the cheapest electricity to produce in both Germany and the U.K., even without government subsidies, according to a new analysis by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF). It's the first time that threshold has been crossed by a G7 economy.

But that's less interesting than what just happened in the U.S.

To appreciate what's going on there, you need to understand the capacity factor. That's the percentage of a power plant's maximum potential that's actually achieved over time.

Consider a solar project. The sun doesn't shine at night and, even during the day, varies in brightness with the weather and the seasons. So a project that can crank out 100 megawatt hours of electricity during the sunniest part of the day might produce just 20 percent of that when averaged out over a year. That gives it a 20 percent capacity factor.

Etc...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ind-reach-a-big-renewables-turning-point-bnef
 
SOLAR PANELS GROWN ON THE MOON COULD POWER THE EARTH
A FAR-OUT PLAN TO CREATE SWARMS OF SELF-REPLICATING SOLAR PANEL SATELLITES

Building solar panel satellites on the moon and then launching them into Earth orbit could potentially supply electricity to all of Earth.

"Global warming is the greatest challenge our species will face in the next 100 years," says Justin Lewis-Weber.

Currently a high school senior in California, Lewis-Weber has just published a paper in the journal New Space with what he thinks could be the solution to the upcoming energy crisis: putting self-replicating solar panels in space. These solar panels would to build copies of themselves, autonomously, on the surface of the moon. Then they would enter Earth's orbit, collect the sun's energy, and wirelessly beam it to the ground. Lewis-Weber's paper builds onthe work of John C. Mankins from Artemis Innovation Management Solutions.

Self-replicating solar panels on the moon may sound like a crazy idea, but the notion of space-based solar power actually dates back several decades, gaining some steam during the 1970s oil crisis. It was set aside after oil prices went back down, but since then, two things have happened: One, the world has become a lot more desperate to solve climate change; and two, technological innovations have brought this crazy idea out of the realm of science fiction. The idea is gaining attention, and with some big investments, it's possible that space-based solar power could become a reality within a few decades.

Why Put Solar Panels In Space?
Of all the energy sources available to us Earthlings, the sun is pretty much as good as it gets, says Lewis-Weber. "As Elon Musk has stated, we have a fusion reactor in our sky."

The problem with regular solar power is that the sun isn't always up. We have nights, and cloudy days. The panels also take up a lot of land.

http://www.popsci.com/for-nearly-in...plicating-solar-panels-on-moon?src=SOC&dom=tw
 
The construction of solar power satellites from lunar materials has been an idea for a long time; Gerard K O'Neill included it in his space colonisation blueprint back in the 70's. What is (relatively) new is the idea of self-replicating systems, which might strike some people as speculative or even unlikely.

What we should remember that all of human civilisation and industry can be regarded as a self-replicating system. To create self-replicating systems on the Moon, all we need to do is establish a sufficiently advanced industrial base- this could conceivably be achieved using remote-controlled robots of various kinds- unlike Mars, there is only a light-second of delay between the Moon and the Earth, so teleoperated devices there could respond quickly to instructions.

Don't expect this sort of development with a decade or even two- but by the end of the century, when power shortages could really start to bite, this sort of thing should be relatively straightforward.
 
eburacum said:
Don't expect this sort of development with a decade or even two- but by the end of the century, when power shortages could really start to bite, this sort of thing should be relatively straightforward.
Click to expand...
Energy shortages will occur if we keep our ridiculous bias against nuclear power. Even if there is a risk (and it's the human factor not the technology which is the problem) this should be set against the doom-laden scenarios we're aiming to prevent, not least of which is the civil unrest that a major power outage can cause.

While 'renewables' have a place, they're not under our control and provide pitiful amounts of power, when set against what is required to run an industrial society. Renewable marketing is sly in this respect, using 'houses' as a measure of the benefit of a renewable development, peak output as the power output of the 'solar/wind farm' and the 'house' unit of consumption doesn't include the heating of the 'house'.

Like it or not, to run our societies we need massive amounts of power (the UK is around 4TW currently) and cutting back the grid over-capacity and relying too heavily on non-predictable renewables (I'd discount tidal lagoon from that, tides are quite predictable) will cause more harm to us as a race than the CO2 will.
 
Nuclear power stations don't have to be huge power plants. An item on Radio 4 reminded me we have had nuclear subs for decades now.
So it's possible to make smaller, kit form nuclear generators transportable by truck for example. Maybe our obsession with massive power stations should be rethought.

Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are nuclear power plants that are smaller in size (300 MWe or less) than current generation base load plants (1,000 MWe or higher). These smaller, compact designs are factory-fabricated reactors that can be transported by truck or rail to a nuclear power site. SMRs will play an important role in addressing the energy security, economic and climate goals of the U.S. if they can be commercially deployed within the next decade.
Click to expand...

http://www.energy.gov/ne/nuclear-reactor-technologies/small-modular-nuclear-reactors
 
Modern nuclear plants are nothing like as dangerous as those that have caused disaster in the past. The biggest two issues with nuclear power remain cost in a world which is increasing turning to other cheaper forms of energy and the issue of where to store nuclear waste longterm. I read a few years back that modern plants are efficient enough to run on the waste from older plants, so perhaps that mitigates the second issue.

The oft repeated claim that renewable energy is inconsistent is meaningless to those who actually manage the grid. The changes in the output from different sources have proven predictable and perfectly manageable to a grid that's used to being flexible.
 
Rooftop solar could provide nearly half of US electricity demand

A major new study has significantly lifted the potential of rooftop solar PV in the United States, saying rooftop solar alone could provide 40 per cent of all the electricity needs of the world’s biggest economy, and around half if module efficiencies continued to improve.

The study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory says the estimated potential from rooftop solar has been revised upwards by more than 80 per cent since the last study in 2008, mostly because of improvements of module efficiencies, building availability and solar modelling.

In all, NREL estimates potential rooftop solar installed capacity at 1,118 gigawatts (GW) and generation of 1,432 terawatt-hours (TWh). This would account for 39 per cent of all electricity sales, but could go higher – to around 50 per cent – if higher module efficiencies were taken into account. ...

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/roo...de-nearly-half-of-us-electricity-demand-28574
 
Interesting. The average 24 hour power output for solar PV in the Northern hemisphere is around 20W per M^2.

So 1,118TW is 55,900,000,000 square meters (M^2) of solar panels.

A typical 4KW domestic installation will cover 25M^2, but remember at a 24 Average of 20W/M^2

So I'll divide 1.118TW by (25M^2 x 20W).

2,236,000,000 houses in North america (all of which need a south facing roof...). Seems a lot.

Two billion houses? Did I get that right? Anyone?
 
Seeing a link to a Obit to a physicist whose name was not familiar to me, I clicked it and found this long piece. But it's important reading for those interested in Energy use, Climate Change, and many related topics, which is why I'm posting it here, not in the RIP thread.

Professor Sir David MacKay, physicist – obituary

His book, Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air (2009), provided a user-friendly guide to how much energy we consume in our daily lives, the lifestyle changes that would substantially reduce that total, and which kinds of technology would make a difference. Amusingly written, it was acclaimed as a breath of fresh air in the often self-righteous and highly charged atmosphere surrounding the debate about climate change, and led to his appointment in 2009 for a five-year term as chief scientific adviser to the Department of Energy and Climate Change.
...
MacKay’s genius was to express all forms of power consumption and production in a single unit of measurement – kilowatt hours per day (kWh/d). A 40 watt lightbulb, kept switched on all the time, uses one kWh/d, while driving the average car 50km a day consumes 40 kWh/d. Such comparisons, MacKay argued, help to shift the focus to the major issues away from much-hyped “eco-gestures” such as believing you have done your bit by remembering to switch off the mobile phone charger. “The amount of energy saved by switching off the phone charger is exactly the same as the energy used by driving an average car for one second,” he wrote. Switching it off for a year saves as much energy as is needed for one hot bath. Such gestures were akin to “bailing out the Titanic with a teaspoon”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2016/04/15/professor-sir-david-mackay-physicist--obituary/

But why do the good die young? He was only 48. :(
(He only got his K in the 2016 New Years Honours List.)
 
Last edited:
I didn't realise Professor McKay was the first to do this - convert everything to watts. In the 'great Solar Fraud" the first thing the author does is convert everything to watts to underline the actual power output of some of the renewable icons.

That's where we get 20W/m^2 as the real output of a 1m^2 PV cell (200W ambient energy per m^2, 10% of it can be converted with PV effect).

Rest in Peace Prof. :(
 
'Tantalisingly close': is solar thermal energy ready to replace coal-fired power?
Australian projects are viable already – now the industry needs investors willing to take a risk on large-scale renewable energy
David Sparkes
Friday 13 May 2016 01.09 BST

Companies working on large-scale solar thermal projects in Australia say they are tantalisingly close to achieving the dream of building plants big enough to replace coal-fired energy in Australia.
Experts speaking at the Australian Solar Energy Exhibition and Conference in Melbourne last week said the technology had been proven in other countries, and projects in Australia were viable, but the challenge was getting major investors to gamble on something new.

James Fisher, the chief technology officer of Australian solar energy company Vast Solar, said solar thermal energy had been the “poor cousin” to photovoltaic solar panels for some years, but that may finally be changing.
“We’ve got a whole lot of coal-fired power stations that largely are 30-plus years old and many of them are going to retire naturally,” he said.

“[Concentrated solar power] CSP is basically a complete coal-fired power replacement.
“We can act as base-load [power], we can run 24/7 if that is what is needed and we have all the benefits that a coal plant offers to the grid.”

The theory behind large-scale solar thermal is relatively simple, even if building it is not. Curved mirrors called heliostats are positioned in a field, reflecting the sun’s energy onto a tower with a receiver on top. A liquid material, such as molten salt, is pumped through the receiver where it is heated and then pumped back down to be stored in a tank. When electricity is required, the hot material is used to heat water, creating steam and turning a turbine.

Vast Solar has a solar thermal plant in Jemalong, near Forbes, 370km west of Sydney and will complete a 6MW pilot plant at nearby Jemalong within the next few months. It will then move forward with a 30MW plant on the site, which would be a commercial-scale plant and, hopefully, a proving ground for Vast Solar’s technology.

“Obviously you want to build big and in the CSP industry you get a lot of bang for your buck as you increase the size of your turbine,” Mr Fisher said.
“Ideally, you’d be building at that 250MW scale, but we can go down as little as 30MW and make it work [commercially].”

Vast Solar’s Jemalong project uses several 27-metre towers, each with a receiver in front of hundreds of heliostats. Every model is different and Vast Solar pumps liquid sodium into its receivers, where it is heated to about 600C, before it is pumped back down and the heat transferred to molten salt for storage.

The company has raised $25m for the project so far, enough to proceed with the 30MW station.
Another, much bigger solar thermal project in the spotlight was a proposed 110MW plant to be built at Port Augusta in South Australia by US renewable energy company SolarReserve.

SolarReserve already has runs on the board, after completing an operational 110MW plant in Nevada in the United States last year.
Daniel Thompson, the director of development, said that success in Nevada, along with projects under way in other countries, could be replicated in Port Augusta.
“This is very much a blueprint from our previous projects, so it is largely de-risked and we’re very, very comfortable with what we can deliver there,” he said.

That confidence is obviously shared by the world’s biggest coal producer, Chinese company Shenhua Coal, which signed a memorandum of understanding with SolarReserve last week to build ten, large-scale solar tower and storage plants in China, totalling more than 1,000MW and at a cost of $2bn.

...

“Right now, when it’s a first-off plant, [attracting investors] is a difficult thing, so you need an investor with a high-risk appetite,” James Fisher said.
“That really means it’s going to need government support.
“Once you’ve got the first plant built, then it comes to a different sort of [investor] and there is huge amounts of money out there looking for infrastructure investments that are giving a return over a 30-year plant life.
“There is no shortage of funds once you prove the technology,” he said.

http://www.theguardian.com/sustaina...rmal-energy-ready-to-replace-coal-fired-power

Obviously Australia has more sun than the UK, but it's possible a network of CSP stations would still be useful on its own here, since our weather is so variable that the sun can be shining somewhere when other places are clouded out. (The Met office could help with planning locations.)

But back that up with wind-power projects which are already highly developed here (especially if techniques like molten salt energy storage can be adapted for wind power) and we would really have a belt-and-braces power supply grid.

And UK also has good locations for tidal power systems, some of which are already under development. If it all works out, we could become one of the greenest countries on the planet!
 
Hallelujah!
Renewable energy surges to record levels around the world
By Matt McGrath Environment correspondent

New solar, wind and hydropower sources were added in 2015 at the fastest rate the world has yet seen, a study says.
Investments in renewables during the year were more than double the amount spent on new coal and gas-fired power plants, the Renewables Global Status Report found.
For the first time, emerging economies spent more than the rich on renewable power and fuels.
Over 8 million people are now working in renewable energy worldwide.

For a number of years, the global spend on renewables has been increasing and 2015 saw that arrive at a new peak according to the report.

About 147 gigawatts (GW) of capacity was added in 2015, roughly equivalent to Africa's generating capacity from all sources.
China, the US, Japan, UK and India were the countries adding on the largest share of green power, despite the fact that fossil fuel prices have fallen significantly. The costs of renewables have also fallen, say the authors.

"The fact that we had 147GW of capacity, mainly of wind and solar is a clear indication that these technologies are cost competitive (with fossil fuels)," said Christine Lins, who is executive secretary of REN21, an international body made up of energy experts, government representatives and NGOs, who produced the report.
"They are the preference for many countries and more and more utilities and investors and that is a very positive signal."

Investment in renewables reached $286bn worldwide in 2015.
With China accounting for more than one-third of the global total, the developing countries outspent the richer nations on renewables for the first time.

When measured against a country's GDP, the biggest investors were small countries like Mauritania, Honduras, Uruguay and Jamaica.
"It clearly shows that the costs have come down so much that the emerging economies are now really focussing on renewables," said Christine Lins.

etc...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36420750
 
rynner2 said:
Hallelujah!
Renewable energy surges to record levels around the world
By Matt McGrath Environment correspondent
...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36420750
Click to expand...

But the Dirty Man of Europe just doesn't get it:
Angela Merkel strikes deal with German states to put brakes on green energy
Pact addresses concerns that burgeoning output from renewables is putting strain on electricity grid and pushing up prices
Reuters in Berlin
Wednesday 1 June 2016 03.57 BST

The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, has hammered out a deal with state premiers on the latest reform to Germany’s renewable energy law aimed at curbing the costs and controlling the speed of the roll-out of green power sources.

After a meeting with the leaders of Germany’s 16 states that stretched into the early hours of Wednesday, the government agreed to cap the expansion of onshore wind power at 2.8 gigawatts in capacity per year.

In addition only a certain amount of new capacity will be permitted in north Germany to avoid overburdening the electricity grid.
“We have come a long way,” Merkel said after the meeting.

Generous green subsidies have led to a boom in renewable energy, such as wind and solar power. But the rapid expansion has pushed up electricity costs in Europe’s biggest economy and placed a strain on its grid.
The latest reforms are aimed at slowing the growth in renewables, which accounted for around a third of Germany’s electricity last year, up from 28% in 2014.

...

Approval by the states is essential to allow the new reforms to come into effect. The government now hopes to approve the proposals in the cabinet in coming weeks. The draft law is due to come into force at the start of 2017.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...erman-states-to-regulate-green-energy-rollout

This article doesn't explicitly mention Germany's reliance on coal, a complex situation.
See this BBC piece from 2014:

German coal industry underpins renewable push
By Richard Anderson Business reporter, BBC News
  • 10 April 2014
Germany is an enlightened leader in the global battle to reduce CO2 emissions, a pioneer in renewable energy and community power projects and a champion of energy efficiency.
Or so the common narrative goes.

But try telling that to Monika Schulz-Hopfner. She and her husband, along with 250 other residents of Atterwasch, a quiet village near the Polish border, face eviction from their home of 30 years to make way for the Janschwalde-Nord coal mine.
And not just any old coal, but lignite, the dirtiest form of this ancient fossil fuel that is mined in vast opencast pits.

If the plans go ahead, the village, parts of which date back more than 700 years, will be demolished.
"Since the plans for the mine were unveiled in 2007, we have lived with this constant threat, which has taken over the lives of every individual and the community as a whole," says Mrs Schulz-Hopfner.
"Every single decision we make is affected by it."

And the residents of Atterwasch are not alone.
In the eastern German region of Lausitz, nine villages are under threat, where up to 3,000 people could lose their homes to make way for five new lignite mines that are fuelling the country's renewed thirst for coal. Two further mines are under consideration.

etc...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26820405

This is why Germany is now putting the brakes on renewables - it is still in thrall to its mining industry.
 
rynner2 said:
This is why Germany is now putting the brakes on renewables - it is still in thrall to its mining industry.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure it's that simple. Heavy industry needs power when it needs it - coal and nuclear power can respond relatively quickly to large changes in demand. Renewable's (wind and solar PV) simply don't work that way. Germany's laudable drive towards renewables, IMO, overlooked the demands of industry and in particular how to service those demands as and when required.
 
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/07/solar-cells-converts-co2-into.html
Solar Cells convert Co2 into hydrocarbon fuel

Researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago have engineered a potentially game-changing solar cell that cheaply and efficiently converts atmospheric carbon dioxide directly into usable hydrocarbon fuel, using only sunlight for energy.

The finding is reported in the July 29 issue of Science and was funded by the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Energy. A provisional patent application has been filed.

Unlike conventional solar cells, which convert sunlight into electricity that must be stored in heavy batteries, the new device essentially does the work of plants, converting atmospheric carbon dioxide into fuel, solving two crucial problems at once. A solar farm of such “artificial leaves” could remove significant amounts of carbon from the atmosphere and produce energy-dense fuel efficiently.
Click to expand...
 
Mythopoeika said:
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/07/solar-cells-converts-co2-into.html
Click to expand...
Big Oil won't like that! You can bet they'll fight it tooth and nail, especially as they're also facing competition from wind, wave and tidal power, not to mention more conventional solar power.

How would the world change if all energy was free? A living wage for everyone, without the need to work? Could robots take over essential professions like teaching and medicine? More questions than answers, no doubt, but someone has to start thinking about these things, preferably sooner rather than later.

I'm too old to expect to achieve much in what remains of my life, but maybe my words will be seeds, dispersed throughout the internet to settle in fertile young minds...

Perhaps when the time comes, humanity will be ready to cope with the coming changes...

In the end, power sources may not be a problem, but those with a lust for social power, the alpha males, politicians, big businessmen, religious leaders, and many others, may prove to be our biggest problems.

Get thinking, folks!
 
Rynner2,

...Get thinking, folks!...

Don't bother.

unless you are one of the very rich and powerful that run the world then you are just wasting your time.

No matter what good idea you come up with it will be used by the elite to their advantage.

Ever watched 'Dragons Den' ? I don't, but have seen enough clips from it to realise that the 'dragons' are the people who win. They may support someone who has an idea. But they take their cut. So really they are just sitting there awaiting people who will give up their ideas, Much easier than thinking for themselves..

This may seem very negative. But we are just along for the ride. No point in pursuing green energy if people (an ever increasing source of consumption) just use more of it.

Do not remove the rose coloured lenses. The real world is just too unbearable.

INT21
 
INT21 said:
Rynner2,

...Get thinking, folks!...

Don't bother.

unless you are one of the very rich and powerful that run the world then you are just wasting your time.

No matter what good idea you come up with it will be used by the elite to their advantage.

INT21
Click to expand...

I'm just suggesting that free energy could actually remove the elite's power base. If they can't sell us anything, they can't manipulate or control us.

It won't happen overnight, but it might happen over time.
 
rynner2 said:
Big Oil won't like that! You can bet they'll fight it tooth and nail, especially as they're also facing competition from wind, wave and tidal power, not to mention more conventional solar power.

How would the world change if all energy was free? A living wage for everyone, without the need to work? Could robots take over essential professions like teaching and medicine? More questions than answers, no doubt, but someone has to start thinking about these things, preferably sooner rather than later.

I'm too old to expect to achieve much in what remains of my life, but maybe my words will be seeds, dispersed throughout the internet to settle in fertile young minds...

Perhaps when the time comes, humanity will be ready to cope with the coming changes...

In the end, power sources may not be a problem, but those with a lust for social power, the alpha males, politicians, big businessmen, religious leaders, and many others, may prove to be our biggest problems.

Get thinking, folks!
Click to expand...
I suppose if someone came up with a good design for using this technology and then open sourced it, publishing it for free use to all, those with the ability to do so could make their own units. From there, it could spread. TPTB would do their best to suppress it or tax it...using as many dirty tricks as they can.
 
A good example is the cost of gas. When people find a way of reducing their consumption, the demand goes down. This impinges on the bottom line of the power utilities shareholders who increase the price to bring it back to where it was. The most recent example of this was when my supplier (British Gas) went back to the standing charge. So no matter how little I use I still have to pay them £189 per year.

The most vile creature in the world is a share holder in a company that produces something people have to buy to survive.

If some free energy device were to magically appear overnight (maybe dropped off by a passing alien) then the government, which comprises of people with a vested interest in the status quo, would make it illegal. If you can't tax it, ban it.

INT21
 
INT21 said:
The most vile creature in the world is a share holder in a company that produces something people have to buy to survive.
Click to expand...

This is why I personally think that any service, water, power, gas, public transport should never be a private business. As soon as 'it's a business' money will be prioritised over providing the service.
 
Coal said:
This is why I personally think that any service, water, power, gas, public transport should never be a private business. As soon as 'it's a business' money will be prioritised over providing the service.
Click to expand...
Yep. I think all utilities should be nationalised. They were once, I seem to dimly recall.
Then they were sold off to give the rich another means for getting richer.
 
...Yep. I think all utilities should be nationalised....

I tend to agree. But with one caveat.

In the past nationalised industries have been plagued by disruption caused by unions who used them to hold the country to ransom.
I propose the enactment of a law making it illegal to interfere with the nation's vital infrastructure.

And I would define it as an offense against the state.
Anyone who thinks they can gain by cutting off people's power etc should be locked away never to see daylight again.

We do not need a return to the seventies.

INT21
 
INT21 said:
...Yep. I think all utilities should be nationalised....

I tend to agree. But with one caveat.

In the past nationalised industries have been plagued by disruption caused by unions who used them to hold the country to ransom.
I propose the enactment of a law making it illegal to interfere with the nation's vital infrastructure.

And I would define it as an offense against the state.
Anyone who thinks they can gain by cutting off people's power etc should be locked away never to see daylight again.

We do not need a return to the seventies.

INT21
Click to expand...
Good point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top