Renewables - Death Knell?

[AndrewJ]

Gday Glen

The problem with salt storage for mini-grid communities is that you can't control peoples usage behaviour and someone will always use way more power than someone else on that mini-grid.

Agreed, but some form of metering with proportional cost sharing could overcome a lot of that. If someone gets too bolshy, cut them off.

I'm more thinking that if they can get it cost effective for small group use, then more money will probably come in and allow refinement of the design to the point where its OK for single house use.
I am sure the big suppliers would do anything they could to stop the successful implementation of small scale distributed units, but if the new technologies can get a toehold, they may get a chance to grow.

Imagine if new houses could have modular prefab salt reservoirs installed under the foundations.
Electricity and hydronic heating could be supplied as required and all off grid.

Andrew

[Amaranthus (Barry)]

Just Google 'Energiewende'. It's paints a pretty accurate picture of what's been going on.

I posted about this recently on my website:
"Germany’s ‘Energiewende’ as a model for Australian climate policy?"
http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/06/1...itical-review/

[The_bluester (Paul)]

We have a wood heater at home as it is the only practicable method where we are. I know that emissions standards for them are much tighter than they used to be, but to a degree what you can do with them is limited as if you feed them wood that makes smoke, then they will produce heaps of smoke!

I am resigned to having to pay to run the reverse cycle on any half decent new moon weekend, specifically so as not to spoil the views with smoke hanging around the place.

Wood is the only cost effective and practical method for us as we are away from town, no natural gas. Bottled gas has always been prohibitive cost wise.

An ideal setup if solar PV and storage could largely cover it would be a ground sourced heat pump for both heating and cooling. Far more efficient to be trying to extract heat from the ground at around 14 degrees in the winter or pump heat into it at the same ground temperature than in winter, trying to extract heat from near zero air to heat the house and add heat to 45 degree air to cool the house. But the set up costs are significant.

[casstony]

Originally Posted by The_bluester

the almost certain TOU future where it might cost 60c/KWH to cook dinner in peak time, .

I see lots of casseroles being cooked in daylight hours and reheated at night if the power companies get too greedy
We can do a lot more to modify our behavior if we have to.

With our current favourable exchange rate it's not a bad idea to put 3 or 4 KW of panels on the roof and add storage later if it becomes affordable.
We have our 3.5 kw (nominal rating) solar panels facing NW to get maximum advantage of afternoon sunshine for Summer air-con use. Even in Winter on a clear day we get 600 watts by around 9.30 and we're still getting 600 watts at sundown.

[Renato1 (Renato)]

The following is from today's Australian by Maurice Newman. The content is totally at odds with the cosy view of renewables enthused about in other places.
The Economist article he mentions is at
http://www.economist.com/news/briefi...trillion-euros

Seems pretty obvious to me what's going to happen in Europe. The conventional power operators can't make money at peak times (where they used to make most of their profits). Eventually their number will get smaller and smaller. Then the remainder will say - if you want stability in the grid, forget about the free market, you have to start paying us big money for just being there as the back-up.
Regards,
Renato

"California dreaming is nuts in NSW
MAURICE NEWMAN THE AUSTRALIAN JULY 30, 2014 12:00AM

NSW Environment Minister Rob Stokes told a Clean Energy Week forum last week, “We are making NSW No 1 in energy and environmental policy.” He added: “When it comes to clean energy, we can be Australia’s answer to California.”

Really? This is an extraordinary decision that flies in the face of the Abbott government’s efforts to arrest the alarming slide in Australia’s international competitiveness and the evident failure of these policies in California and elsewhere. It suggests appalling lack of judgment and is a measure of the degree to which green fantasies have penetrated the thinking of otherwise sensible governments.

Macquarie Street’s decision overlooks what Joel Kotkin refers to in New Geography as “the futility and delusion embodied in California’s ultra-green energy policies”. Kotkin reveals, “By embracing solar and wind as preferred sources of generating power, the state promotes an ever-widening gap between its declining middle and working-class populations and a smaller, self-satisfied group of environmental campaigners and their corporate backers”.

The NSW government must also be oblivious to the steady exodus of Californian businesses and jobs. Companies like Toyota, which after 60 years has moved its US headquarters to Texas, or Occidental Petroleum, which after 50 years has left for Houston. Chevron is next. Other stalwarts like ARCO, Getty Oil, Union Oil, Fluor, Calpine and Intel have all moved in search of a more business friendly environment and lower energy costs. Texas has been the main beneficiary. It has added 200,000 jobs in the energy sector in the past decade while California has barely managed 20,000. Texas leads California in the export of hi-tech goods.

“Big Oil” may be unwelcome in his brave new world, but California’s Governor Jerry Brown is not doing well at replacing jobs and investments lost to the Lone Star state. Brown promised to create 500,000 clean-energy jobs by the end of the decade, but this is now accepted as just a pipe dream.

Meanwhile, in the real world, California’s unemployment rate is 7.4 per cent (fourth highest in the country). It compares to 5.1 per cent for Texas and the national rate of 6.1 per cent. California’s relative joblessness lends weight to the UK Versa Economics study, which found that for every job created in the wind industry 3.7 jobs are lost elsewhere.

While it is America’s biggest economy, (it’s outside the top 10 for growth), California has serious fiscal imbalances with huge off-balance sheet unfunded pension and medical liabilities. To achieve a surplus this year, it borrowed $500 million from the state’s cap-and-trade emissions reduction program. It remains the country’s highest taxer.

This is not a strong position from which to pursue *
growth-limiting green policies. San Francisco and LA are already the most expensive cities in the US to create a startup. In its agricultural and manufacturing regions, one person in five lives in poverty. Economist John Husing observes, “California’s green-energy fixations are widening an ever-growing chasm based on geography, class and race”.

Yet, with electricity prices already 40 per cent above the national average and twice as high as Texas, its aggressive policies are set to push up prices 47 per cent in real terms over the next 16 years. Is this really what the Baird government wants?

California is not alone in experiencing significantly adverse unintended consequences from large-scale integration of renewable power. Europe, too, has learned that it increases costs to consumers, leads to unreliable electricity supply, relegates base-load generators to inefficient back-up services and yields problematic emissions reduction. The European Commission has been forced to acknowledge the macroeconomic effects are just too negative, particularly for manufacturing industries and job creation.

As in California, energy poverty in Europe is a growing green phenomenon. So, in deference to reality, the EC has approved new guidelines for renewable energy which will see the removal of all feed-in tariffs from 2017. Previous support mechanisms will be replaced by technology agnostic auctions, which will effectively create a level playing field for all generators. This poses a serious threat to further investment in renewables.

The financial markets are alive to this. Last year, The Economist ran a story (“How to lose half a trillion euros. Europe’s electricity providers face an existential threat”) highlighting the dreadful performance of utility stocks.

A recent article in the Financial Times was headed “Private equity retreats from renewables fad” with CalPERS, the world’s sixth largest pension fund, admitting to annualised losses of 12 per cent from this sector. CalPERS’s chief investment officer describes clean tech as “a noble way to lose money”.

Last December, ratings agency Fitch warned: “The outlook for the overall renewables sector is negative. This reflects increased political risk and the expectations that the industry will need to adapt to less favourable operating requirements and economic incentives.”

Windfarm operators are warning they will abandon the Australian market if the Renewable Energy Target is adjusted downwards to a true 20 per cent from what has become in reality a 27 per cent to 28 per cent target. This is a measure of their rent-seeking dependence. But NSW is indicating that, regardless, it will stay with the old RET.

It is an extraordinary stance to take at such a late stage, especially given the compelling evidence against it. It will certainly set back planned reform of the national economy, already beset with too many *
self-imposed rigidities.

While NSW will offer fresh opportunities to Queensland and Victoria, there will be national fallout as our biggest state comes to grips with the economic and social consequences of its actions.

However strong Mr Stokes’s faith in green delusions, belief and enthusiasm are insufficient grounds for him and his government to find noble ways to squander pensioners’ and taxpayers’ money."

[multiweb (Marc)]

I posted about this recently on my website:
"Germany’s ‘Energiewende’ as a model for Australian climate policy?"
http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/06/1...itical-review/

Some good came out of it no doubt but associated costs and subsidies at the tune of 16 billions a year and turning the energy distribution pyramid literally on its head has created a massive problem. They're also still dependant on coal/nuclear for 77% of their power generation. When you realise how ingenious and disciplined Germans are it's a hard sale to the rest of the world. Hope it works though. That'd be great news for all of us but not holding my breath. Still a step in the right direction overall.

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by Renato1

Can't argue with that - but remember who it was that introduced the Renewable Energy Target? John Howard!

A very costly policy turned into law to grab a few votes.

And plenty in the Liberals still seem to be in favour of it. The main public proponent of it is former Liberal leader John Hewson.

And so far, in Australia, all those wind farms - apart from all the shortfalls you've mentioned - have hardly reduced any coal consumption, because the coal fired stations can't be turned off when the wind farms are pumping power.
Regards,
Renato

In your closed minded economics driven dreams Renato. We change or we fry, GET USED TO IT!

[Amaranthus (Barry)]

Change - yes, but there is another option, Rom. Nuclear.

[Retrograde (Pete)]

Originally Posted by Renato1

The following is from today's Australian by Maurice Newman.

You mean This Maurice Newman (also Tony Abbott's business advisor)?

Former NSW premier Barry O'Farrell intervened in the community consultation process for a wind farm in the Southern Tablelands after being lobbied by the federal Liberal Party's chief business adviser, Maurice Newman, who owns a multimillion-dollar property near the proposed development.

Oh it's OK:

Mr O'Farrell denied having been lobbied on the wind farm issue and could not remember receiving any correspondence from Newman.

Was a bottle of Grange involved?

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by Amaranthus

Change - yes, but there is another option, Rom. Nuclear.

Absolutely, and I believe there are nuclear cycles that are a hell of a lot better; I am completely open to a nuclear option, BUT, only an idiot:

1/ Would be prepared to risk the future of the ONE habitable planet we have by openly denying the science.

2/ Would still all eggs in one basket, whether that be nuclear, hydro, wind, or whatever else. We need a range of solutions and NONE of them should include fossil fuels because the CHEMICALLY INEVITABLE output is Carbon

We also need decentalised energy production where ever possible. Such systems are practical and are currently in opperation.

[Amaranthus (Barry)]

Rom: 1. Agree. 2. Partially agree - whatever works, be it a mix or a concentration on a few core technologies -- provided we support the most scalable and cost-effective solutions.

Why the emphasis on decentralised? It can be useful, but is not an intrinsically desirable property of an energy system (i.e. context matters). Do you mean beyond the current NEM extent, as way to ensure 'end-of-the-line' grid stability?

[multiweb (Marc)]

Maybe instead of working out how to make renewable clean energy we should focus on using less and make our consumption more efficient with fewer resources.

[Amaranthus (Barry)]

That's definitely happening Marc, at least in relative terms - it's called 'decoupling'. But in energy terms, it typically doesn't stymie absolute growth, nor does it supply a solution to the 2.5 billion people with little to no access to energy (i.e. on <1 kWh of final non-biomass energy per year).

[rustigsmed (Russell)]

Originally Posted by multiweb

Maybe instead of working out how to make renewable clean energy we should focus on using less and make our consumption more efficient with fewer resources.

with 75 million new people a year added to the world's population less money on everything else more on fusion please.

[Amaranthus (Barry)]

Fusion will be nice in the future, but we don't NEED it right now to solve the world's energy problems. Fast neutron fission reactors can do that!

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by Amaranthus

Rom: 1. Agree. 2. Partially agree - whatever works, be it a mix or a concentration on a few core technologies -- provided we support the most scalable and cost-effective solutions.

Why the emphasis on decentralised? It can be useful, but is not an intrinsically desirable property of an energy system (i.e. context matters). Do you mean beyond the current NEM extent, as way to ensure 'end-of-the-line' grid stability?

There is little point in running a huge cable out to remote locations, (Like King Island), and there are completely sustainable solar based systems that offer 24/7 peak load output. A decentralised system is easier to maintain and a black out does not do the whole grid in. There are few instances where they cant be done ouside big cities, which are already facing extinction themselves.

However, this discussion is a complete waste of time, in the short term. You can multiply the generation capacity of everything we have got by ten and in a few decades we will be back in precisely the same place. The issue, the ONLY issue, is population. Its out of control, despite what Renato may say.

If you look at a a different system, you can see the problem. There were huge food shortages in the 50's and 60's and people by the millions dropped dead. (Population Control). Then some dumb shmuck comes up with new grain varieties and bleats "Hallelujah brothers, we can now feed the third world and the children wont die". Nobody did anything about birth control and, volia!! massive population explosion! Back to square one.

The issue folks is not power but population. We WILL have zero population growth pretty soon, but I suspect its gonna get way ugly.

Watch this:
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/arith...nergy-lecture/

[Amaranthus (Barry)]

Rom, I really don't think population growth is the problem - or at least attempts to curb population growth at this stage are not a viable solution to global sustainability challenges. Population is heading for a peak of 9-11 billion by mid century, whereas energy use show no such sign of peaking, so it is in technology that we must look for solutions.

A large population that is dependent on extraction of primary natural resources is damaging - the same sized population that is focused on clean energy, large-scale and near-complete recycling, small-land-footprint intensive agriculture etc., isn't.

[xelasnave]

So what can be done.

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by Amaranthus

Rom, I really don't think population growth is the problem - or at least attempts to curb population growth at this stage are not a viable solution to global sustainability challenges. Population is heading for a peak of 9-11 billion by mid century, whereas energy use show no such sign of peaking, so it is in technology that we must look for solutions.

A large population that is dependent on extraction of primary natural resources is damaging - the same sized population that is focused on clean energy, large-scale and near-complete recycling, small-land-footprint intensive agriculture etc., isn't.

The systems that sustain us are already failing apart; its as plain as sunrise. Many major ecosystems are in serious trouble, fresh water is becoming scarce and our oceans are actively dying. How do you plan to feed another 5 billion and who will stop them breeding?

No problem relating to humanity has ever been solved by a larger population and the crash will probably follow a bell curve. I have seen nothing to suggest it wont.

People everywhere keep waffling on about sustainable growth but the terms are mutually exclusive. We better get used to it.

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

So what can be done.

Bugger all. Heads in the sand and short term thinking rule...