SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Math is hard
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1627641781

Message started by WebsterMark on 07/30/21 at 03:43:01

Title: Math is hard
Post by WebsterMark on 07/30/21 at 03:43:01

From Francis Menton at Manhattan Contrarian
Yesterday’s post made the point that states or countries seeking to march toward 100% “renewable” electricity don’t seem to be able to get past about the 50% mark, no matter how many wind turbines and solar panels they build. The reason is that, in practical operation, due to what is called “intermittency,” no output is available from the solar and wind sources at many times of high demand; therefore, during those times, other sources must supply the juice. This practical problem is presented most starkly in California, where the “renewable” strategy is based almost entirely on solar panels, with only a very small wind component. Daily graphs published by the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) show a clear and obvious pattern, where the solar generation drops right to zero every evening just as the peak demand period kicks in from about 6 to 9 PM.

Commenter Sean thinks he has the answer: “Given the predictable daily power generation cycle of solar in sunny places like California and the predictable daily demand which peaks in the evening perhaps solar generators should be required to have electricity storage equivalent to the daily generation of their PV system.”

I thought it might be instructive to play out Sean’s idea to see just how much solar generation capacity and storage it would take to make a system out of just those two elements that would be sufficient to fulfill California’s current electricity requirements. Note: this is an exercise in arithmetic. It is not complicated arithmetic. There is nothing here that goes beyond what you learned in elementary school. On the other hand, few seem to be willing to undertake the effort to do these calculations, or to recognize the consequences.

We start with the current usage that must be supplied. Currently, the usage ranges between a low of around 30 GW and a high of around 40 GW over the course of a day. For purposes of this exercise, let’s assume an average usage of 35 GW. Multiply by 24, and we find as a rough estimate that the system must supply 840 GWH of electricity per day.

How much capacity of solar panels will we need to provide the 840 GWH? We’ll start with the very sunniest day of the year, June 21. California currently has about 14 GW of solar capacity. Go to those CAISO charts, and we find that on June 21, 2021, which apparently was a very sunny day, those 14 GW of solar panels produced at the rate of about 12 GW maximum from about 8 AM to 6 PM, about half that rate from 7-8 AM and 6-7 PM, and basically nothing the rest of the time. Optimistically, they produced about 140 GWH for the day (10 hrs x 12 GW plus 2 hrs x 6 GW plus a little more for the dawn and dusk hours). That means that to produce your 840 GWH of electricity on a sunny June 21, you will need 6 times the capacity of solar panels that you currently have, or 84 GW. When 7 PM comes, you’ll need enough energy in storage to get you through to the next morning at around 8 AM, when generation will again exceed usage. This is about 13-14 hrs at an average of 35 GW, or around 475 GWH of storage.

That’s June 21, your best day of the year. Now let’s look at a bad day. For the past year, a good example would be December 24, 2020, which besides being one of the shortest days of the year, must also have been rather cloudy. Production from the existing 14 GW of solar capacity averaged only about 3 GW, and only from 9 AM to 3 PM. That’s 18 GWH in that window (3 GW x 6 hrs). Then there was another about 1 GWH produced from 8 to 9 AM, and another 1 GWH from 3 to 4 PM. About 20 GWH for the whole day. You need 840 GWH. If 14 GW of solar panels only produced 20 GWH for the day, you would have needed 588 GW of panels to produce your 840 GWH. (14/20 x 840) That 588 GW of solar panels is some 42 times your existing 14 GW of solar panels. And when those 588 GW of capacity stop producing anything at all around 4 PM, you are also going to need at least 16 hours worth of average usage in storage to get yourself to 8 AM the next morning. That would be around 560 GWH of storage.

So you can easily see that Sean’s idea of providing storage “equivalent to the daily generation of the PV system” doesn’t really get to the heart of the problem. Your main problem is that you will need capacity of close to 15 times peak usage (nearly 600 GW capacity to supply peak usage of around 40 GW) in order to deal with your lowest-production days of the year.

Cost? If you assume (charitably) that the “levelized cost” of energy from the solar panels is the same as the “levelized cost” of energy from a natural gas plant, then this system with 15 times the capacity is going to cost 15 times as much. Plus the cost of storage. In this scenario, that is relatively modest. At current prices of around $200/KWH the 560 GWH of storage will run around $112 billion, or around half of the annual budget of the state government of California.

But you may say, no one would build the system this way, with gigantic over-capacity in place just to cover the handful of days in the year with the very lowest solar output. Instead, why not build much less solar capacity, and save up power from the summer to cover the winter. Since the average output of the solar facilities in California is about 20% of capacity averaged over the year, then you ought to be able to generate enough power for the year with capacity of about 5 times peak usage, rather than the 15 times in the scenario above. You just will need to save up power all the way from the summer to the winter. Oh, and you will need a huge multiple more storage than for the one-day-at-a-time scenario. If 180 days per year have less production than usage, and the average shortfall of production on each of those days is 300 GWH, then you will need 54,000 GWH worth of batteries (180 x 300). At $200 per GWH, that will run you around $10+ trillion. This would be about triple the annual GDP of the state of California.

But don’t worry, batteries to store power for six months and more and release it without loss on the exchange don’t exist. Maybe someone will invent them in time for California to meet its 2030 renewable electricity targets.

Any reader can feel free to check my math.

I just can’t believe that anybody talks about this as something remotely connected to reality

Title: Re: Math is hard
Post by Eegore on 07/30/21 at 05:58:13

This report from 2011 has similar math, but obviously less simplified:

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc841736/m2/1/high_res_d/1024089.pdf

I agree that the 100% renewables push is often times oversimplified by people that like the idea. Also everything, as usual, isn't what it seems, for instance an associate brought up Aspen CO in regards to this post.

Aspen CO the city, is powered by 100% renewable energy. This means city owned buildings, not housing which is mostly natural gas. Also Aspen purchases around 20% of it's renewable power from out of state. Technically that is renewable energy, it is just transferred across the grid.

So Aspen is a good example of how renewables can work, but one has to accept the limitations and the fact that housing is still out of that renewables loop.

Title: Re: Math is hard
Post by oldNslow on 07/30/21 at 07:22:37

Aspen has a population of around 8000. I don't have any idea how many city buildings there are but I'm guessing not that many. How many people work in those buildings? A few hundred or so.

And they still buy some of their "renewable" energy from elsewhere instead of generating it themselves?

Sounds like a he*l of a deal. Sign me up ::)

Title: Re: Math is hard
Post by WebsterMark on 08/03/21 at 07:51:25

I worked for a while with a company supplying products to energy storage manufacturers. Got a trip to Japan and Hungary out of it, pretty cool. However, the same basic problem stopped both companies in their tracks. There isn’t a “battery” technology that exists that can store enough energy that makes it economically feasible to locate next to all the wind or solar energy generation sites. Sure, there are a few exceptions but globally, none exists unless massive government subsidies (taxes) are involved and for a dedicated area. Without an energy storage system that is economically viable everywhere, renewable energy will always be secondary.

Even in those ideal places where renewables provide the majority of energy, it’s still secondary because there will ALWAYS be times when renewables cannot keep up with demand. This is not a case where there is a power outage and a generator takes over. That’s different.

Maybe there’s a yet to be discovered technology out there that solves the problem. But the reality is there are some challenges with obstacles that cannot be overcome. You could cut demand but that gets into a whole other discussion about quality of life.

Title: Re: Math is hard
Post by Eegore on 08/03/21 at 14:23:44

I wonder if batteries are the next big tech challenge. The whole necessity is the mother bit.

Of course then we go down the resources needed for batteries path and find out coal uses less resources.

Then this is countered by the fact that a 19 year old today would much rather work in solar putting up panels, inverters etc. in a t-shirt and jeans for 8hrs a day than being sent down an elevator into a dark mine for 12 with all the protective gear, even with a substantial pay difference.

From a 19 year old's perspective it's much easier to meet women on a roof than in a cave.

So when doing the math, we also need to look at the numbers of people even trying to get into an industry and see if it sustainable from that angle.

Title: Re: Math is hard
Post by MnSpring on 08/03/21 at 15:18:36

0B2B29213C2B4E0 wrote:

I wonder if batteries are the next big tech challenge. ... "

I wonder if all the items needed to make batteries,
can be got,
by not using any petrochemicals, gas or oil ?

Title: Re: Math is hard
Post by Eegore on 08/03/21 at 19:34:08

"I wonder if all the items needed to make batteries,
can be got,
by not using any petrochemicals, gas or oil ?"

"Of course then we go down the resources needed for batteries path and find out coal uses less resources."

http://suzukisavage.com/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1627641781

Title: Re: Math is hard
Post by WebsterMark on 08/04/21 at 04:42:18

And coincidentally, ran across this: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/blaze-at-tesla-big-battery-extinguished-after-three-day-battle-for-control-20210802-p58f6x.html

This is what happened to my Japanese customer. Fires ended things before they could really get going.

This is a huge technological challenge that many politicians are waving their hands at as if it’s a minor inconvenience.

We’re not going to advance far in the coming hundred years without safety developing nuclear power. We’re fools to not direct our attention in that direction.

Title: Re: Math is hard
Post by Serowbot on 08/04/21 at 08:31:43

You want to volunteer your backyard?... :-?

'Unimaginable' radiation levels detected inside Fukushima reactor in Japan
https://www.syracuse.com/us-news/2017/02/fukushima_radiation_levels.html
http://https://www.syracuse.com/resizer/gu-IdP4eSJJL_A7V2_qpnlxB320=/700x0/smart/media.syracuse.com/us-news/photo/2017/02/07/22021616-mmmain.jpg

Title: Re: Math is hard
Post by WebsterMark on 08/04/21 at 10:18:10

No and you don’t to volunteer your backyard for a lithium ion battery production site either so what’s your point? You have no point. You use the old tried and true scare are tactics that sold a lot of movie tickets….

So explain how we supply our energy needs in the future. And use math.

Title: Re: Math is hard
Post by Serowbot on 08/04/21 at 11:34:10

I'll take battery production over "unimaginable" radiation levels...
Not even comparable...

Title: Re: Math is hard
Post by WebsterMark on 08/04/21 at 12:14:52

It is comparable as a matter fact. There have never been unimaginable radiation levels.

If you had been around when somebody first started to figure out how to use an explosive liquid like gasoline inside an internal combustion engine which is essentially a bomb then I guess we’d still be riding a horse because you would be too afraid.

And actually, that’s only true if the politics were on your side. If the politics were on the other side, you’ll be in favor of it. Let’s be honest about that.

Title: Re: Math is hard
Post by Serowbot on 08/04/21 at 14:33:11

If you want to be honest, ask that question of yourself.
It's not the explosion,... it's the half life residual radiation that lasts for thousands of years. Not to mention the storage of waste.

Petrol don't do that. Neither does solar or wind.

Title: Re: Math is hard
Post by WebsterMark on 08/04/21 at 18:22:50

We can figure it out. There’s nothing technologically impossible.

What is impossible is supplying the world’s current and future energy needs without an as of yet undiscovered storage system. Unless your plan is to drop our standard of living and condemn the world’s current poor to their fate,

Title: Re: Math is hard
Post by Eegore on 08/05/21 at 05:28:36

What is impossible is supplying the world’s current and future energy needs without an as of yet undiscovered storage system. Unless your plan is to drop our standard of living and condemn the world’s current poor to their fate,

I agree with Websermark here. Back when I had a youth program working at my shop we did a very basic energy usage evaluation. They all learned real quick that just their cellphones are burning up all the solar energy they could store on 1 acre of land in one month.

The examined alternatives were to add an energy source, or stop using those cellphones from 4:30pm to 11:00pm and 7:10 to 9:15 when the largest data transfer rates, most from GPS, are being transmitted.

Nobody opted for creating a cellphone rotation where only two students each day could use their phones during the allotted hours. Everyone voted to connect the solar into the grid and get coal powered energy.

So according to a survey these kids, if any chose to work in the field, they would first try to improve battery storage. It's less likely they will try to improve coal power, and very unlikely they will try to change cell-phone habits.

None will power off a cellphone and use less coal power to facilitate that battery efficiency research.

Title: Re: Math is hard
Post by WebsterMark on 08/05/21 at 10:37:46

Here’s the thing, anyone with a brain (who’s not afraid to use it) already knows that. But 99% of people in authority are pretending it’s not true.