Is Germany’s Energiewende (Energy Transition) Really a Disaster?
Here’s a conversation I’m having on the subject of Germany’s Energiewende that I thought I’d share:
I have to admit that I’m suspicious of the “haters” of the Energiewende, if only because I happen to know people who live in Germany, and none of them report problems with the reliability or price of electrical power. I asked one such friend to provide her experiences, and she writes: I know about the Energiewende, but I am not an expert. What I am aware of is that solar panels and wind farms are everywhere and energy prices are reasonable. All new construction is required to have solar panels to generate at least part of their energy. Hope that helps.
Yes, that helps a great deal. Also informative is the pie chart above, showing that 92% of German’s support the effort.
The magnitude of the bare-faced lies we find in the media is always amazing.
—
Next thing I know, 2GreenEnergy super-supporter Gary Tulie chimes in from England with this:
As others have commented, a complete electricity system is difficult to achieve entirely based on solar and wind power. This is further compounded when considering other energy demands such as heating, cooling, and transport.
That said, when combined with hydro power, thermal storage both hot and cold, demand side management, and energy storage some of which will come through an increasing fleet of electric vehicles, a substantial proportion of a nation’s energy supply can be achieved by cost effective low carbon energy sources.
Where nations cooperate to share their power grids, the viable proportion can go even higher.
It should be remembered that whilst Germany invested heavily in the early days of solar – incurring high costs in the process, you now have solar farms installing without subsidy in some places such as Chile, and Italy and matching or beating the bids of coal, nuclear etc on a per kWh basis in a large number of other countries such as India, China, and UAE.
Through its early support, Germany caused the cost of solar power to drop to the point where large utility solar farms are installing solar in India for around 70 cents all in.
If current trends continue, solar, wind, and energy storage will soon reach costs where certain countries and territories will be able to affordably achieve near 100% of supply of electricity, thermal loads, and transportation from solar, wind, and hydro.
In this, I expect that Hawaii and the Caribbean islands could probably achieve this now, with Australia, India, most of Africa, and the middle East not far behind.
—
Thanks very much for putting all this into perspective, Gary. The migration to renewables (and efficiency, etc.) is not only possible, but it’s happening in front of our eyes.
For me the take-away from our experience with the Energiewende is that all good things start someplace, and the fact that (in hindsight) we see that Germany appears to have gone into solar too fast and too hard doesn’t mean that it hasn’t had numerous beneficial effects.
New technology is a magnet for haters; we’ve seen this all through history, e.g., many folks’ reaction to the “horseless carriage” of the early 1900s. Yet, while this counter-reaction is to be expected given what appears to be a response that is innate in many people, it’s a shame to see it occurring here with such ferocity, since we won’t have a civilization here in a few decades if we take a business-as-usual approach to energy generation and consumption on this planet.
The high support in Deutschland does not indicate that Energiewende is capable of practically eliminating CO2 emissions, and that is what has to happen. That said, there are situations where solar power can be exceedingly helpful, as the following link will show:
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37257242
Although it has been clearly shown that solar power can greatly improve the quality of life for people in remote areas, that does not mean that it is suitable as a major source of power for most large prosperous countries.
It will be, not many decades, just many years away (for cheap battery storage).
Solar is down to like 3 cents/kWh in some places already!
Robert,
You cannot plug your waffle iron directly into a solar panel and expect to make waffles any time you want to. To be able to get solar power to your waffle iron, you need much more than simply a solar panel. In your stated cost, have you included all the necessary ancillary equipment required to enable the solar panel to power your waffle iron? Does that include everything needed to be able to make waffles if you awaken hungry during the middle of the night?
If not, could you provide a cost which would include all of the above?
So true my 3.84kw system cost me 10,200 after tax credit and it going to cost me another 5200 or less to add another 12 after tax credit in a few years
Craig,
Even for you, your latest method of evaluating Germany’s experience with Energiewende, by asking one unqualified German their opinion, displays an astonishing lack of objectivity.
(perhaps reading the opinion of such better qualified Germans, like Dr Christine Sturm might be more instructive)
The German government works hard to portray Energiewende as still capable of fulfilling it’s grandiose promise. In reality, it’s failure were created by poorly thought out government policies. Not only hasn’t it deliver any environmental benefits, (Germany’s emissions have actually increased), but German energy production cost have soared by 40%.
Energiewende’s continuing support will only remain as long as German government policies can continue to mask the disadvantages of Energiewende from the general public.
The German government manages to conceal energy problems by re-opening coal fired power generation, taking advantage of cheaper natural gas and buying Nuclear generation from France and the Czech Republic.
Germany has the most complicated (and secretive) energy pricing, reporting and subsidization process in the world. It’s a complex bureaucratic nightmare designed to make any independent analysis or evaluation extremely difficult.
Craig, I’m also afraid you are equally guilty as the media in repeating ” bare faced lies” !
No survey, not even your revered pie chart, shows “93% of Germans support !
The survey you cite was conducted by the Government agency responsible for implementing Energiewende. The poll sample was less than 1400 people, who were asked a question as to whether they believed Energiewende was essential, very important, important, less important or not important to the country’s development.
All those who relied favorably to the first three options were listed as “supporters”. The questions were cunningly phrased to produce a desired result, since although the public may recognize something as important, it doesn’t necessarily indicate support!
Naturally the 6.3 million Germans unable to pay their electricity bills, weren’t consulted in the survey, or the 317,000 households disconnected for failing to pay increased prices. The German Federal government is forced each year to pay increasing billions to state counter-parts in order to cover rising energy welfare payments.
The 92% myth is based on a cleverly manipulated lie, then repeated and repeated by lazy journalists until it becomes excepted as a fact.
Sadly, this is becoming an increasingly common devise used to produce disingenuous results. By shrewdly utilizing a ” Mom and apple pie” questioning technique and obscuring the methodology, the result becomes a commonly believed and often cited “reality”.
Energiewende receives support from some very powerful vested interests in Germany. Corporations such as Siemens, Enercon etc, are huge employers and very influential in shaping public opinion. It’s estimated that nearly 500,000 Germans work in the renewable energy industry.
However, even a reluctant German government is being forced to accept economic reality. The German federal cabinet is finally being forced to agree to reform of the Renewable Energy Law of 2000.
The Renewable Energy Law of 2000 created Energiewende, and the complicated set of regulations governing it growth and regulation,
One of those regulations forced Germans utilities to buy Wind and Solar as a first preference. This resulted in unprofitable and uneconomic over-production. The same regulations enforced an aggressive feed-in tariff subsidy system forcing electricity transmission utilities to buy power offered by any wind or solar electricity generator at a “tariff” or flat rate per kilowatt-hour guaranteed over a 20-year contract.
These often concealed subsidies contributed to Energiewende’s spectacular growth and popularity.
It will be a very difficult task for any government to turnthe elephant around. The German Energy and Economy Minister Sigmar Gabriel admitted grid operators had to pay a billion euros for wind power capacity that went unused, worse still the government acknowledged that “dumping’ of excess generation was obscured and unreported by complications and complexities in the existing laws.
Naturally any reform is an anathema to Renewable Power generator and supporters, including the Greens whose solution is to call for an elimination of bottlenecks in transmission grid capacity and the complete abolition of coal fired plants.
In reply to how such a concept could be achieved, or even if technically feasible, wasn’t explained.
The German government is in a most unenviable position. For years it’s sung the praises of Energiewende, only to discover it’s created a huge and cumbersome elephant, that’s increasingly difficult to control.
Reform though a complicated auction system, or some other device will only delay the inevitable.
Marcopolo,
Your analysis was very thorough. However, I strongly suspect that neither your posts nor my posts will change many minds. Minds will eventually be changed, but not until, after some years, it becomes inescapably obvious that wind and solar power, because of their intermittent nature, will never be able to provide adequate and reliable power without fossil fuel backup. Meanwhile, CO2 emissions will continue to increase.
It is impossible to know exactly how increasing CO2 emissions will affect the global climate. The worst possible scenario would be for only a remnant of humans to survive in large enclosures in an artificial environment as increasing CO2 emissions and hydrogen sulfide releases poison the atmosphere. Changes are already occurring much faster than climate scientists have predicted yet far too little is being done to prevent it.
Some countries are expanding nuclear power, but other countries, including the U.S., are depending on faith-based methods to prevent a disaster. And, unless there are radical changes, they will be saying that they are sorry, they just didn’t realize that intermittent sources of power would never be adequate to reduce CO2 levels to an acceptable level.
This reminds me very much of smoking. Smokers constantly insisted that second-hand smoke is harmless and that there was no valid reason to object to being forced to breathe it.
“Poorly thought out” gov policies helped to kick start solar’s automation. They’ll get paid back with even cheaper solar (and batteries) in the not so far off future.
By mid century EVERYTHING will be solar/battery.
@ Robert Bernal
Ah, it must be great to have the gift of prophesy !
Alexandre-Edmond Becquerel created the first cell in 1839 and of course horribly inefficient so most theoretical study’s occurred and lasted that way till the 1950s were started putting money back in research for the space mission were they become just inefficient but power is space is very limited so solar was mostly for space until the 1970s when they were starting to be put on roof but still very expensive and still not to efficient but things keep improving till today were we have a 320 60 cell panel available and the prices keep falling and the future who knows
Whatever truth there is in it can’t be cloned in the majority of countries, but it is a very nice buzz on the subject that hopefully will contribute to action on various levels and should be shared with national and local decision makers – so let’s send it off to mayors and presidents-PM!
Here is an article about a school in India which trains older women to instal small solar power systems in remote villages:
https://www.barefootcollege.org/indian-college-turns-rural-women-into-engineers-2/
The school has apparently greatly improved the lives of its students and the lives of the people who, as a result, have small solar powered lights. It is inescapably clear that these small solar systems are very beneficial. But to expect solar systems and other intermittent power systems to provide adequate power for large prosperous countries is unrealistic.
Hi Frank,
Absolutely ! In Australia I installed an excellent solar power system on my home Melbourne. (although the economic benefit is dubious, it’s very satisfying).
It’s in a rural setting that solar (and even small scale wind) becomes economically valuable. Supplying power to remote and occasional usage areas is prohibitively expensive while diesel generation can be difficult and costly. Small scale Solar (and small windmills) can prove ideal, and open up new opportunities for agriculture.
In the UK our bio-mass generator could never justify the capital cost, but serves as an interesting experiment and learning experience. The project delivers nearly all the power needs of the estate, and produces sufficient power surplus to supply two thirds of the nearby village consumption.
It’s very important to keep and open mind on technology and fall for the trap of becoming a “true believer” to any individual technology, or attempt to convert clean tech into a sort of new ideology or or religion.
Hi Frank,
I don’t share your pessimism. In its long history the planet has often experienced cycles of climate change and the human species has survived, even thrived during such events.
Human technology is moving at a rapid pace. The challenges to the environment are within the ability of human endeavor to resolve, but only by maintaining strong, vibrant, competitive, economic conditions.
Personally, I’m becoming increasingly confidant of the development and deployment of technologies capable of removing and utilizing CO2 etc, from the atmosphere.
The arrival of the Chevy Bolt and other technologies heralds evidence of real progress in curbing levels of emissions without negative economic or social change.
Conversion to advanced nuclear is inevitable since only advanced nuclear can provide the sort of economic conditions necessary to achieve a positive transition.
Let us hope that ways will be found to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. But, unless we quickly stop emitting CO2, the likelihood will be much lower that we can reduce the existing atmospheric CO2 to acceptable levels.
Ways to remove CO2 from the air have been found! Recently there are breakthroughs both by George Olah et al extracting CO2 directly from atmosphere and at the same time chemically hydrogenating it into methanol. And by Klaus Lackner et al extracting CO2 from atmosphere by means of “artifical trees”, then in a second step releasing this CO2 by means of increased temperature and then hydrogenating it into for instance methanol.
The Canadian company “CarbonEngineering” is building a factory capable of extracting 1 million ton CO2 per year from air.
Simple mathematics: Globally fossilrelated CO2 emissions are now 40 billion ton per year. 40 000 such CarbonEngineering plants could balance these emissions.
200 nations are behind the COP21Paris agreement December 2015. Thus, if these 200 countries on an average will build 200 such CarbonEngineering plants each, we are in balance.
Sweden accounts for a little more than 1 promille of the global fossilrelated CO2 emissions. For Sweden that means about 50 such CarbonEngineering plants. Yes, we can! There is no technical hurdle to fix it globally either.
Hi Frank,
That’s the thing with technology, it looks so daunting, even impossible, until it’s done then it always looks so easy and obvious!
As others have commented, a complete electricity system is difficult to achieve entirely based on solar and wind power. This is further compounded when considering other energy demands such as heating, cooling, and transport.
That said, when combined with hydro power, thermal storage both hot and cold, demand side management, and energy storage some of which will come through an increasing fleet of electric vehicles, a substantial proportion of a nation’s energy supply can be achieved by cost effective low carbon energy sources.
Where nations cooperate to share their power grids, the viable proportion can go even higher.
It should be remembered that whilst Germany invested heavily in the early days of solar – incurring high costs in the process, you now have solar farms installing without subsidy in some places such as Chile, and Italy and matching or beating the bids of coal, nuclear etc on a per kWh basis in a large number of other countries such as India, China, and UAE.
Through its early support, Germany caused the cost of solar power to drop to the point where large utility solar farms are installing solar in India for around 70 cents all in.
If current trends continue, solar, wind, and energy storage will soon reach costs where certain countries and territories will be able to affordably achieve near 100% of supply of electricity, thermal loads, and transportation from solar, wind, and hydro.
In this, I expect that Hawaii and the Caribbean islands could probably achieve this now, with Australia, India, most of Africa, and the middle East not far behind.
That unlikely to happen as some days the sun doesn’t shine and some wind does blow and hydro came suffer from drought and energy storage is limited and some it plentiful for an example Germany had one day when they produced 78% of the county demand with renewable energy however that not most days that why need to Put funning developing a Liquid fluoride thorium reactor which is both melt down proof and the spent fuel only take lot less time to become total safe in just 350 years plus it would produce much less waste and a lot cheaper to build but they need at estimated 5 year to developed it if funding was there and another estimated 5 year to build them if they if be approved quickly
I would very much like to see a thorough study on energy storage methods, including how much storage on a global basis would be required to make intermittent sources of power reliable. That would include, on a global bases, the amount of energy the world uses each day, perhaps in terawatt hours, and how much storage would be required to ensure reliability considering that power from the sun is available only during the day and the wind may not blow for days at a time. That could be difficult to do because of regional variations and perhaps would need to be done on a count basis.
Assuming that the study is done only for perhaps a few countries, then calculations should be done to determine what types of storage are available. Where hydro storage would be possible, calculations should be done to determine how much the storage would cost. That shouldn’t be too difficult since pumped storage is a mature technology.
There should also be calculations to determine how much battery storage would be required and how much material would be required to manufacture the batteries. Chemists and other scientists can calculate how much lead, lithium, zinc, or other materials would be required to store a given amount of energy.
Perhaps others will be able to suggest different ways to quantify all this, but IT MUST BE QUANTIFIED! We are making entirely too many guesses. While it is true that advances in technology could effect to some degree the amount of material which would be require for adequate storage, I think we can make reasonable allowances for that.
It would also be helpful what would be required for a solar system with storage to provide adequate reliable power for the average house, including power for an electric stove, heating, cooling, lighting, TV, etc. If that turns out to be several times more expensive than reasonable, we can assume that an area-wide system would also be unreasonably costly.
In any case, WE NEED NUMBERS AND QUANTIFICATION! Even careful educated estimates would be better than nothing.
That very hard to do as while I got 20 years of electric bills I kept my electric bills at about 130 the entire time but I also Put a hurricane roof that reduced the bill about 20 it creped back up replaced the ac unit with a more efficient one the went LED and I put twelve 320 lg Panels on my roof with plans for 13 more but I need a few years to figure out to what the average yearly and the peak if I went off grid which I cannot due as I got insufficient roof space
Hi Frank,
Economic analysis of any industry with fast moving and radical new technologies is exceedingly difficult. The Energy sector is huge and very complex. Speculation is rife with all sorts of self proclaimed ‘experts’ and ‘visionaries’ predicting utopian futures with only the most distorted information.
However, some fundamentals do apply. Industrial societies require increasing amounts of reliable, flexible, economically competitive generation “on demand”. Developing nations have the same requirements in order to become industrialized societies.
For environmental reasons the world requires power generation to emit less carbon and other pollutants.
The viability of technologies competing to fulfill these conditions depends on a range of very diverse factors. A small Island nation with lot’s of sunshine, no manufacturing industry and free of hurricanes, may find Solar Power adequately meets its needs, especially if the nation has some hydro capacity.
In other regions with fierce and constant wind, Wind power can prove a valuable augmentation to power generation if appropriately controlled.
But the inherent problems associated with intermittent technology and distribution remain for large scale Wind and Solar generation. Attempting to solve these problems by rearranging other technologies and creating large scale storage, will inevitably fail economically when competing against technologies that don’t require complex compromises to work.
When confronted with the problem of fitting a square peg into a round hole, it’s possible to develop, one or more adapters that will accomplish the task.
The problem becomes when someone points out it makes more sense just to create a round peg or a square hole in the first place!
The only technology with the necessary simplicity and massive generating capacity for economically viable power, is advanced nuclear.
Popular prejudice against nuclear generation, has not been allayed by division over technology within the nuclear power industry. The nuclear industry was immensely damaged in public perception by the wide misreporting and misunderstandings of the causes and scope of the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters.
It’s not just popular fear, prejudice and obsolete regulatory regimes that have held back the development of nuclear power. Research and development of advanced nuclear technologies requires substantial investment over a lengthy period. The returns on such investment require amortization over many years.
Such long term investment requires substantial government guarantees. Politically, most governments, especially Western governments are reluctant to provide such guarantees for long term projects. This is especially true when the project is controversial and unpopular with the electorate. (especially the very vocal anti-nuclear movement).
Western governments support technologies that are enjoy at least short term popularity and approval. Wind and Solar have captured the popular imagination and possess a huge following.
These followers, like all crusaders, want action now ! They demand simple (and mostly faith based) technical solutions to complex issues.
The justification relies upon the claim that the effects of GW/Climate Change are so imminent only immediate remedies must be pursued without completing due diligence. Like all fans and true believers, the supporters of Wind and Solar will shout loudly for their chosen cause, working on the belief that if they shout loudly enough, the inherent problems will disappear.
For countries like Germany, Spain, UK, reality is just beginning to dawn. Without continuing government support, Wind and Solar are simply not economically viable. This will be a huge dilemma for those nations with huge investments and massive vested interest in these technologies.
The electorate is very unforgiving to those politicians who try to dismantle popular delusions, no matter how necessary. The backlash in Spain is evident as the government struggles to curtail losses in the failed Solar industry.
I believe the future lies with the convenience and inherent efficiency of micro-thorium power generators as developed by the Japanese. The great advantage of such technology is the ability to locate generation in the centre of demand, thus reducing the cost, losses and environmental hazards of distribution infrastructure.
The other advantage of such plants is the very low cost of construction and operation.
Marcopolo,
You wrote, “For environmental reasons the world requires power generation to emit less carbon and other pollutants.”
Probably you will agree with me when I assert that merely emitting “less” carbon is insufficient. It must be dramatically less, i.e., close to zero.
You may be right about micro-nuclear power plants; they would make a lot of sense. I don’t see their replacing huge nuclear plants; surely both have their place.
I shall be making a separate post which will include the history of proposals which address climate change.
Hi Frank,
Yes, I agree one of the conditions for new power generation investment must be as low carbon (and other) emissions as possible, although it’s still beneficial to replace coal fired plants with natural gas. (The perfect should never be made the enemy of the merely good).
You maybe right about micro-nuclear power plants not replacing huge nuclear plants, although I can see with sophisticated interconectivity, and a much lower cost of construction, deployment, operation, transmission infrastructure and maintenance, I can see an argument for mass produced micro-plant proving too economically competitive for huge plants to attract the large investment required for construction.
only problem about micro-nuclear power plants is there probably 50-100 years away as our current Nuclear plants coast 12 billion plus the next gen Liquid fluoride thorium reactor about 5 billion and is at least 10 year away
but talk about impact my Little 3.84kw solar array has saved the earth from 3,074.25lb. of CO2 Emission and that was installed just 3 and a half months ago
A Brief History of Addressing Climate Change
The “Hydrogen Economy” Folly
When it was belatedly and widely realized that reducing CO2 emissions was essential to minimize climate change, one of the first proposals for reducing CO2 emissions was to replace fossil fuels with H2. It was correctly pointed out that H2 is clean burning and emits zero CO2. There were glowing projections of the benefits of the “hydrogen economy”. It took a few years before the folly of the “hydrogen economy” was finally realized, although it took many of us only a few nanoseconds to realize the folly.
The first problem with the “hydrogen economy” was that free H2 does not exist in nature. It cannot exist in nature. It is too reactive and therefore would soon combine with other elements or, because of its lightness, would soon drift off into outer space. So, the only source of H2 for a “hydrogen economy” would be H2 liberated from the compounds in which it exists, either water, petroleum, or natural gas. But there is no efficient way to do that. Moreover, it would require using even more fossil fuels. That is the first problem for which no solution has been found. But once H2 has been liberated, there would be the serious problems of transporting, storing, and using it efficiently. So, no one any longer talks about the “hydrogen economy”.
The Biofuel Proposals
It was widely thought that biofuels could replace fossil fuels. After many proposals had been examined and found impractical, it was finally realized that biofuels would go no place. For one thing, the land masses required to grow plants for biofuels would be impractically large. However, there are niche situations where biofuels may be practical. It appears that Brazil has found that ethanol produced from sugar makes sense for them. Also, coconut oil may be useful as fuel for some small island countries. But general, the practicality of biofuels is exceedingly limited.
What Now?
Considering that the “hydrogen economy” and biofuels were found to be impractical, one would suppose that other alternatives to fossil fuels would be carefully and thoroughly analyzed before spending untold billions of dollars on them. Unfortunately, that supposition would be incorrect. We are even now depending, based on faith rather than on careful evaluations, on energy systems which are practical only in niche situations. Somehow it is assumed that, unquestionably and certainly, intermittent and somewhat unpredictable sources of power can replace fossil fuels.
At first it was widely believed that interconnecting wind and solar power systems over a large area would result in reliable power. Anyone who questioned that was ridiculed and excoriated. Then, after a number of years, it was belatedly realized that that would not work. Next, it was assumed that energy storage systems would be certain to be developed to enable intermittent power sources capable of providing reliable power. That is the situation today.
We are being asked to accept, on faith, that quickly enough to prevent a global disaster, adequate energy storage systems will be developed to make wind and solar power practical as the major source of power for the entire planet. Nuclear power, however, has been proven capable of doing the job. So, if adequate energy storage technologies are never developed, we will experience a global disaster which could have been mitigated by rapidly expanding nuclear power.
I fear that we are in for a very rough ride of unprecedented magnitude.
Why can’t we connect solar (and wind, if it can compete in the future) over long distances? Powerlines were built a plenty and China is doing it with the dc lines. It would seem that the real problem of NIMBY ism would be too remote between cities. Nothing wrong with powerlines.
Solar is getting cheap. Batteries will soon follow, like how much physical size is a kWh ?
I’ve done a rough on raw materials for the NMC battery and all the important raw materials cost less than $40/kWh.
They are better batteries, too. Eventually, just slightly more material will be used to make an even way better battery (and more raw materials will be available, too, if silly enviro laws don’t get in the way of this strategic purpose).
Sky first, this is just for car batteries, stationary batteries can be heavier and bulkier, however, the lightweight batteries will probably become the cheapest just due to already present mass automation.
It’s a shame that flow batteries are not as efficient.
Robert,
Batteries may well become cheaper, but by how much? I have never seen calculations showing how much cheaper batteries would have to become to are solar and wind power practical. If a cost reduction of 50% would be sufficient, then solar power might well become practical. But if it would require a cost reduction of 90%, then it is highly unlikely that that cost reduction would ever be achieved. So, exactly what cost reduction would be required to make wind and solar power practical? Has ANYONE done the calculations? And how does anyone know that batteries will SOON become cheaper? Currently, even if PV solar were free, the cost of solar with battery backup would be way excessive.
DC power lines have been around for decades. However, they are practical only for long distances because the equipment to convert from AC to DC is very costly, partly because when rectifying the AC current wave form must be maintained and when inverting the DC to AC, the output must be a sine wave. The same costs would occur when doing the conversions to charge batteries and retrieve the power from them.
The “Hydrogen Economy” Folly is not a folly h2 is Hydrogen and it is easily created from water but their are two issues with Hydrogen first is infrastructure there are over 100,000 gas stations in the USA so that a lot of hydrogen stations to build
and the cost of a Hydrogen care is also higher on the plus side fuel price is dirt cheep https://ssl.toyota.com/mirai/fcv.html which is why it not a folly just very limited which is why electric is more popular as you charged it from you house.
Wind solar geothermal and hydro of course are not the answer but they are part of the solution and the new Thorium-based nuclear power and while Thorium is a Actinides which means it radioactive and can boom uncontrolled but in a nuclear reactor it self controlling which it cannot go boom in that application so safe and one other thing the spent fuel break down to safe levels in just 100 years and spent fuel is 100 times smaller the uranium but there very expensive and a long time to build
Hi magusfl.
The problem for H2 deployment isn’t competition from the 168,000 gas stations in the US. Nor is the cost of either H2 or building an HFCV vehicle.
Both of these factors can be overcome with mass deployment a Toyota and Shell have demonstrated.
Nor is the capital cost. A switch to a HFCV personal transport system is easily affordable, and attractive to the major oil companies and automakers, who have the resources and technical ability to accomplish such a relatively simple logistical exercise.
Governments would also support such a move as it would ensure the current source of tax revenue from motorist would continue.
The two main disincentives is not a lack of faith in the technology, but a lack of demand. Currently the present road transport market is occupied by a highly successful business model. The threat from EV’s so far remains infinitesimal and may not be a problem for many years.
Curious as it may seem, while EV’s are not an immediate threat to the current status quo, when it comes to investing in H2, HFCV infrastructure, that’s a different story.
No one can predict when, or if, EV ESD capacity may have a “breakthrough” in technology. While no one can predict when, or if this occurs, it’s equally true to assume no one can predict it won’t!
Such a “breakthrough” would render HFCV and H2 financially untenable. It’s a gamble, but a gamble neither the auto-industry or the oil/gas industry feel any pressing need to undertake at this time.
The problem with hydrogen is that it would require 2-3x the solar fields. It is very inefficIent to split water and to convert it into liquid fuels.
That’s at the source. End use is also much less efficient than batteries.
Of course there might be a breakthrough in converting sunlight directly into fuels, and in some cases, batteries can’t be used.
magnusfgl,
H2 cannot be created. Except for nuclear reactions, the amount that exists will never change. However, it can be liberated from various compounds, including water, although doing so is exceedingly inefficient. That alone would be sufficient to make the H2 economy impractical unless nuclear power were used to liberate the H2. But if we had sufficient nuclear power, it would make more sense to use it to generate electricity.
Except possibly in niche situations, using H2 for energy makes no sense. Actually, it is only an energy carrier.
IF is so inefficient why then is a cheaper fuel as the Toyota model get 312 MPG equivalent and it about as green as EV cars 1.50 to $3.50 per kilogram which is about 3 time the power the a gallon of gas. currently we get 95% of it from refinery’s as it a byproduct of removing sulfur however you right if hydrogen cars take off other the a small market it will cause a shortage till the new generation of Thorium-based nuclear as they run at a higher temp so the bi product of them would be would be creating drinking water from salt water and or production of Hydrogen
Magnusfl,
In this post I support my statement that using H2 to store energy is inefficient. Here is the efficiency for electrolyzing water to produce H2:
“Reported working efficiencies were for alkaline in 1996 lying in the 50–60% range for the smaller electrolysers and around 65–70% for the larger plants.[21] Theorical efficiency for PEM electrolysers are predicted up to 94%.[22] Ranges in 2014 were 43–67% for the alkaline and 40–67% for the PEM, they should progress in 2030 to 53–70% for the alkaline and 62–74% for the PEM.[19]”
Here is a link to the source of the above:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water
It seems to me that throwing away from 30% to 50% of the energy to electrolyze water is not efficient. But, there is more:
“Alkaline fuel cells consume hydrogen and pure oxygen producing potable water, heat, and electricity. They are among the most efficient fuel cells, having the potential to reach 70%.”
Here is the source for the above:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alkaline_fuel_cell
Note that is the efficiency of fuel cells operating on H2 and O2. They are somewhat less efficient when operating on H2 and air, which is more practical. If you wish, you can probably find those numbers.
Now, let us analyze this a bit. If the efficiency of an electrolyzer to liberate H2 from water is 74%, which is about the maximum, and the efficiency of a fuel cell is 70%, which is also about the maximum, the overall efficiency would be 0.74 x 0.7, i.e., about 52%. That means that if PV panels or wind generators were used to produce power and, to store the power for future use H2 were used, 48% of the power produced by the PV panels or wind generators would be lost.
Does an efficiency of 52% seem acceptable to you? It is not acceptable to me. Moreover, the efficiencies I used for the calculation were not average; they were about the highest which can be expected although it is possible that further developments could somewhat improve the efficiency. However, it looks as though an overall efficiency of about 40% would be more realistic.
Granted it can be very difficult to get numbers for some things. However, in this case, it was exceedingly easy to get the numbers.
Actually, I was somewhat remiss in not getting the numbers before making a previous post in which I asserted that using H2 to store energy is inefficient. I should have got actual numbers before making that post. But, YOU were equally remiss! You also could easily have found the numbers.
It is true that LFTRs operating at high temperatures could liberate H2. However, in this discussion, I think we are mainly concerned with energy storage systems to make intermittent sources of power, i.e., wind and solar systems, practical. And H2, using present technologies, is incapable of doing that efficiently.
Hi Frank,
Just thought I’d point out that nearly 55% of all forklift vehicles use HFCV technology.
There are advantages in HFCV technology, not the least of which is it’s non-disruptive ability to copy the exiting business model as a zero-emission, taxable, replacement for gasoline and diesel in road transport.
Marcopolo,
Decades ago I worked for a company that had electric fork lift trucks. After each shift, they replaced the partially discharged battery with a freshly charged battery. I don’t doubt that that technique had been done way before I became aware of it.
Craig,
Regardless of assumptions by some folks elsewhere in the world – and notwithstanding anecdotal reports of any kind – PricewaterhouseCoopers’s research last year with the German people reveals that Germany’s well established and continuing energy transition is extremely popular with German consumers. This would not be the case if the solutions in place were proving either unreliable or expensive.
As you’ve correctly stated, disruptive advances in technology are always resisted – both for psychological and financial reasons.
In this case, the status quo is detrimental to the biosphere (humans included) and – as recognized by insurance firms and asset management companies worldwide – presents a wide range of rising material costs in the short and long term.
These costs are carefully or casually externalized from the traditional energy infrastructure business models now in place.
The more these costs make themselves felt, the more our species will move to the proven sustainable alternatives.
The final result is inexorable – humanity will move to sustainable energy from sources driven at bottom by modern sunlight. The unknown is whether the transition will be rapid enough to mitigate and minimize the costs that are (and will be) already built into the results of our present (and future) actions.
Thanks for posting this. I agree 100%.
Germany started the solar revolution and hopefully, they’ll be able to get even cheaper solar than Chile (or wherever it is that is now under 2.5 cents/kWh).
I believe the reason that leaders wouldn’t allow for expanded nuclear is because they knew what was possible with advanced machine automation, and nuclear’s security issues.
By mid century, everything will be solar/battery electric.
Exactly. My question: if we’re clearly going there (which we are), why not do it now?
That’s what we have to do (wish i was smart enough to advance battery tech).
Craig,
Reading Robert and Cameron’s replies to your comments, is a little like a listening to a congregation of true believers, each parroting faithfully a doctrine while ignoring any evidence to the contrary.
Now if you want to accept a doctrine based on faith, that’s okay by me ! I understand the need that because you believe something should be true, it must follow that it is true.
However, it preclude any objective or realistic analysis. No one can accurately predict the future. Each generation produces pundits, experts, and prophets most of whom are disproved by the generation.
The best we can do is examine known information, after verifying it’s accuracy to the best of our ability, make our best informed guesses for the future.
It’s just a political reality that governments must choose commit to support popular or ideologically based technologies for political purpose. It doesn’t matter if these projects become the hugely expensive, even detrimental, ‘white elephants’ of tomorrow.
But it’s not just that simple. Governments and politicians also know that not doing anything (or not enough) will be remembered as irresponsible.
That’s the dilemma confronting planners, politicians and governments. With so many competing (often unproven) technologies, it takes a degree of political courage to select unpopular long term superior solutions, in preference to politically popular options, especially if the consequences will not be realized until the decision maker’s term of office has long since expired.
In answer to your question “if we’re clearly going there (which we are), why not do it now?”, is simple, but you won’t like it !
It’s my belief that large scale Wind and Solar technology has reached the apex of it’s technical capacity. The irredeemable flaws in the technology are becoming evident.
The only thing still keeping these industries from sliding into decline is the problem for politicians to admit these vast, wealthy, and politically powerful industries, with massive lobbying power and widespread public support, will never fulfill the expectations so optimistically predicted.
Critics of large scale wind and solar are not “haters”, they may not be “true believers”, but criticism of the these technologies is usually based on apropriately researched, objective analysis without passion, bias or unsubstantiated predictions.
The real problem with large scale Wind and Solar is similar to Bio-fuels. These technologies work so well in small scale applications and in specialized environments. It seems so logical that larger scale installation must work equally satisfactorily.
This is a common problem with developing technology. What’s feasible on a small scale becomes impossible, or uncompetitive, when up-scaling is attempted.
Government policies including subsidies and artificially favourable trading conditions have created an image of success that’s largely a sham.
Unfortunately, both Wind and Solar have acquired some really committed supporters. These supporters, often sincerely motivated, would rather cling to a delusion as a tenet of faith, than force themselves to accept objective reality.
Parroting the same old ideas? What’s it going to be “solar can’t” or solar can?
Add i already said “solar is getting freaking cheap”.
You seem concerned about GW but also seem very pessimistic about the only way that can be scaled up a hundred fold in due exponential means. You seem to dislike powerlines (for better integration). However i have to agree with you about batteries. They are not “there” yet.
This is our only hope because nobody’s building pumped hydro at the corresponding exponential rate. And same with nuclear. It isn’t really “here” yet because of security concerns. Even the inventor of the molten salt reactor founded SERI (now NREL). I’m sure Alvin Weinberg wasn’t to concerned about mere waste issues.
Do we really want EVERY country to make fissionables?
Soon, they won’t have to because advanced manufacturing is making solar/batteries cheaper (and with less energy).
Robert,
Solar is not “cheap”. In most cases as soon a the substantial government (taxpayer) subsidies, incentives, guarantees and regulatory devices are removed, large scale Solar Collapses, except in very specialized locations.
Your knowledge of nuclear generation seems to be stuck somewhere around 1955 ! The ‘waste’ from thorium reactors is minuscule and has a half life of about 200to 350 years.
Thorium reactors can even help incinerate stuff like nuclear material from obsolete warheads etc.
We all hope for better ESD , (including battery) technology, but that’s only one of the many logistical problems associated with Wind and Solar.
I don’t “dislike” power lines (well, I think they’re unsightly) but transmission is a huge infrastructure cost that must be built, maintained etc. I don’t think you comprehend how much power is lost in transmission, especially as the infrastructure starts to age and the loads change.
Thorium reactors, especially micro reactors are incredibly safe, totally non pollutant and don’t produce weapons grade material.
At first, i read only to the “parroting” part of your comment (and replied below). Now, after reading the rest, i feel compelled to say that solar will be much cheaper than wind and that the delusion is thinking that tech can’t make it and batteries even cheaper. If we fail to support them all the way, then we’re still just supporting fossil fuels.
Critics usually do not have their education up to date (such as their desire to post old data concerning how expensive solar is, i mean, WAS).
We need FF to figure the next, more powerful step, that of evolving past FFs. Solar, at just 2.5 cents tells me that it is now unstoppable. I don’t believe all the moving parts required for wind and other sources will ever compete with PV in the future.
Marco,
I looked into various different reactor designs, yes, most my knowledge is like 1960’s (MSRs). But i don’t understand how to prevent the possible mishandling of protactinium 233 from the decay of thorium 233, to obtain uranium 233. It is a beta emitter with half life of just 27 days, meaning it is possible (If heavily shielded) to set it aside for a year to get, well you know, not so low enriched needed for security purposes. How’s to watch over every nation, especially when we can’t trust our own politicians?
This is my only concern about the MSR, oh, and public panic about nuclear in general causing the nuclear option to be a too slow option for transition from FFs.
Robert,
Contrary to what some people seem to believe, the LFTR does not form U233 into bars and neatly stack them on shelves where they can easily be picked up. Consider where the U233 is and in what form. Also, the U233 is contaminated with highly radioactive elements which make it difficult to handle without having one’s life cut very short. In that, it is unlike reactor grade uranium which is not very radioactive and can easily be handled.
If you really want to find problems with the LFTR, I can help you. To expedite reprocessing the spent fuel, a two fluid system is used. One vessel contains the thorium tetrafluoride. The other vessel, which is separated from the first vessel by a barrier through which neutrons must pass, contains the U233 salt which is what fissions to produce power. The neutrons from it from it pass through the barrier to transmute the thorium, through a couple steps, to U233 which is subsequently removed and put into the other vessel. The problem is that the neutrons change the properties of the barrier between the two vessels thereby shortening its life. It is believed by LFTR supporters, who may be right, that solutions for that problem will be found. If solutions are not found, then a one vessel / one fluid system would have to be used thereby complicating reprocessing the fuel.
If the LFTR does not work out as hoped, most likely continuing R & D will result in other reactor types which are superior to the PWRs which we are currently using. But if not, our PWRs will do the job and are far better than climate change.
People often quote the price of solar. Generally they are quoting only the price of PV cells in cents per KWH or something like that. However, there are other costs associated with solar which they practically always ignore. It’s not as though you could place a solar panel in your living room window and plug appliances into it and get power 24 hours per day.
When quoting the price of solar, please include everything that is required to make it work, deliver the power to where it is needed, and provide reliable power 24 hours per day 365 days per year. I think that the figures will be very significantly higher.
Frank,
no need for the perfectly formed bars, lol.
Anyhow, i agree that nuclear would be the easiest route to carbon free. I would rather live by a LWR than a fossil fueled plant (and would even rather see the LWR in the distance than the 30 sq km or so of solar that will become to take each such reactor’s place).
However, i learned to accept that future because i see Solar growing and getting cheaper year by year (i hope it provides enough energy to recycle itself).
As for costs, i believe we’re still in the “much to high” range (because batteries or other storage aren’t mature yet). All this stuff is getting made with less energy (and even renewable energy), so I’m not so worried about overall Eroei as i used to be. I am worried about relying on nuclear’s promise in a anti nuclear world.
I still don’t understand that one and only fear i have about nuclear, that of Pa233. You say it’s contaminated with poisons to fission ? I thought it decays into “just” U233.
Perhaps just the “once through” cycle would be good enough – we could still deal with the extra wastes, and they’re still less than LWR wastes.
Craig,
Today, I clicked on to a financial service citing reports in the Washington Post favourable for Wind Power investment and citing certain Wind Power generating corporations as particularly good investment oppourtunities.
You could be forgiven for thinking that this is just impartial reporting by the media, reflecting the growth of renewable energy.
Maybe, or maybe it’s more reflective of the wide commercial interests of Jeff Bezos (Amazon’s founder) and his recent acquisition of the Washington Post. By an amazing coincidence, Jeff Bezos has also recently made a significant number of investments in Wind Farm generators as diverse as Texas, North Carolina, Indiana, Ohio and Virginia.
But this isn’t the only media outlet linked or owned by Jeff Bezos which lends a helping hand to his commercial investment projects.
Oh, and surprise, surprise, who do we discover to be a major donor to Hillary Clinton and those state and federal politicians favourable to Mr Bezos investments ?
In return for supporting his investment position, Jeff Bezos shares the joy with not only donations, but media support,even funding an “independent” special media intelligence support unit to ” assist ” Democrat politicians, favorable scientists, activists etc who may need media assistance.
Maybe this is something for Attorney-General Eric Schneiderman should take an interest ? Well, maybe not ! It might be awkward, since ol’ Jeff is a major donor to his buddy Eric.
(Sigh), it seems no one is immune from “Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap” !:)
Just like Tesla getting help for his factories. Better than Trump cutting all RE research in favour of fossil fuel subsidies! We’ll go nowhere if we don’t collectively help out in the quest for non fossil. Even the U.S. Constitution allowed room for science research!
I didn’t know about actual corruption, just that most people don’t favor subsidy for RE development. Was Jeff really corrupt? I guess i have to look into it (but i don’t really like Amazon’s one touch “oops you gotta pay” system anyways).
I take that back, what I wrote “I didn’t know about actual corruption”.
PROVE that there has actually been “corruption”.
There was no corruption, just healthy influence. Did he steal, become violent or sell drugs? No, then no corruption!
If I was rich, I’d buy a “media outlet” and talk everyone into buying shares of both companies…
Robert
Robert,
It is not unusual for important R & D to be stopped by cutting off the funds. The funds to develop the LFTR (liquid fluoride thorium reactor) and other reactor types were cut off because they were said to be “unnecessary”. It is likely that if the funds had not been cut off we would have far superior nuclear reactor technologies operating now.
You may find it interesting to do a google search on “James Hansen”; it is a well-respected climate scientist who sees nuclear power as essential to prevent or mitigate a climate disaster. Because of the unusual spelling of his last name, a google search will easily return a number of articles he has written, including articles asserting the imperativeness of nuclear power.
Too bad we can’t have a JFK for president.
On that other comment, i said “30 sq km or so” of solar needed to displace a 1GW plant. That is based on 15% solar to electric and 20% capacity. .. However, i forgot the shadow/access spacings. If double the space needed, then a square that’s over 8 km long would be needed to replace it 24/7 using over 90% efficient batteries.
But as usual, the fly in the ointment is that there are no storage technologies, including batteries, which are adequate to make it work at a tolerable cost.
Your calculations are interesting and the numbers seem reasonable. I don’t know how much space the batteries would require. The 90% efficiency assumption may be reasonable for the batteries alone, but the necessary electronics would reduce that somewhat, to perhaps 85% I suppose. The life of the batteries would depend in part on how deeply and how often they are cycled. Right now some types of lithium batteries are in vogue, but whether those would be best for grid storage I don’t know. They seem to be best for electric vehicles, but in that application weight is important whereas weight would not be so important for grid storage. There are questions about the amount of lithium available, but perhaps more would become available if the demand for it were greater. For grid storage, other materials might be better.
Regardless of the type of power technology used, i.e., renewables, nuclear, of fossil fuel, economical storage would be helpful. But for renewables, it would be completely essential.
It would be interesting to calculate the cost of making a solar-powered home independent of the grid. Of course a single home would lack the economies of scale, but probably not be a factor of more than two or three.
Let’s just hope we won’t have Trump for president. Because the president does not have the powers of a dictator, he might be less of a disaster than often supposed, but it would be bad enough.
Interesting, albeit unsupported.
Craig,
Unsupported ? You mean it’s a matter of speculation that Jeff Bezos doesn’t control the Washington Post ?
You mean it’s unsupported that Jeff Bezos has substantial investments in Wind Farm generator’s as diverse as Texas, North Carolina, Indiana, Ohio and Virginia ?
You mean his considerable and listed political donations are unsupported ?
His ownership of a wide and diversified portfolio of media and associated interests may not actually exist ?
Hmmm… It would appear these are all verifiable from SEC fillings. Likewise his political donations are a matter of public record, although many maybe more covert and require a little more investigative work by linking front organizations.
Ol’ Jeff is doing nothing many other influential and powerful entities are not doing. The important difference is his ownership of the watch dog (the press)
So the freak what!
If I was smart, I’d do the same thing, that is donate to Hillary because she will do more for RE than the other “guy”. I would obviously promote it in my media outlet(s) and I would encourage people to buy more of it.
It’s about time the opposite of fossils as usual appears.
I would become very influential – nothing wrong with that, right? Maybe, I’ll buy something from Amazon!
Robert
@ Robert,
WTF !!??
There is absolutely no similarity with Elon Musk accepting a DOE subsidy, and a guy corruptly and covertly manipulating the media and politicians to further his political and commercial objectives.
The problem is a conflict of issue for corrupt purpose. It has nothing to do with Donald Trump, but everything to do with corrupt practices.
The Law and standards of conduct must apply to people whose agenda you may have sympathy for, as well as those you oppose. If you accept, remain silent, or turn a bling eye to any wrong doing, you as guilty as the perpetrator.
so the anti clean energy blamed Elon Musk and his tesla company from going deep in the red claiming the company was near bankruptcy however that was a total twist of the facts as yes the company is in the red but due to building the most efficient 5 billion cost 10-million-square-foot battery production plant
I was only trying to prove that there isn’t anything wrong with promoting a person’s own RE plan, like just comparing the two brilliant guys. I understand that we need to go in the red sometimes to make something work. And also believe we must collectively support RE by allowing tax credits until large enough scale to keep growing on its own.
Robert
magnusfl
I’m afraid like fireofenergy, you miss the point. Corruption can’t be justified just because you agree with a political or ideological agenda.
If you excuse corrupt behaviour for your friends but loudly condemn your enemies, then inadvertently you have become your own enemy, and all society.
Cheering for your favorite team when a corrupt or biased umpire allows them to break the rules, may produce a short term win for your team, doesn’t really promote respect for the team, supporters, or the sport itself.
In fact it does the exact opposite. Such behaviour provides genuine ammunition for candidates like Donald Trump with which to challenge the integrity of his opponents.
The inference of corruption can neither be justified by one’s particular views.
Edit:
I agree that corruption should not be justified, no matter the ideology, I’m just saying I am missing the point (about Jeff Bezos) and thus conclude that you’re just saying he or his partners are corrupt, because of his business practices.
All large businesses employ (buy) self growth strategies such as media outlets that further their own agenda. Consider if it’s RE, fossil fuels or nuclear, or medical, entertainment and even drug use (“alcohol can be good for you”). Even government programs (such as public schools) will have immense media and monetary backing. As for schools, it’s the law.
Kinda like it should be concerning a rational approach to ending the burning of fossil fuels. Since that is becoming law, there will, undoubtedly be mistakes in the processes involved, such as too high a subsidy or not enough money granted for pure science research.
I meant to say “as”, not add. “Mere” waste issues at that. I really don’t believe waste issues are the problem. Just security.
In fact, I’m not against nuclear unless that one out of a million event happened. I believe the msr is the best but i don’t really know because I’m not a nuclear scientist.
Robert,
You wrote, “I still don’t understand that one and only fear i have about nuclear, that of Pa233. You say it’s contaminated with poisons to fission ? I thought it decays into “just” U233.”
Except to nuclear engineers, which I am not, these are somewhat minor points. In the LFTR, thorium, through 2 or 3 steps, becomes U233 which is what actually provides the power through fission; protactinium is one of the short lived intermediate steps. The U233 ends up being contaminated with highly radioactive elements which are so radioactive that even brief exposure is fatal thereby making it impractical to use the U233 in weapons. Not only would the radioactivity make it exceedingly difficult to handle the U233, but the radioactivity would damage the electronic systems necessary for the weapon to operate. Also, it is proposed to reprocess the fuel while it is in liquid form at a very high temperature. Thus, a malefactor could not just run into the LFTR building and grab something which he could use for nefarious purposes.
If there were even one country that has demonstrated that renewables provide it with adequate and reliable power continuously, and at a reasonable cost, I would accept renewables as being practical. Deutschland has, for up to 24 hours or so, been able to do that, but not very often. I would be much more impressed if they could do it for one month or more continuously.
I think it’s some other isotope of Th that’s highly radioactive and that, since it’s in the same vessel, makes the Pa233 which is also highly radioactive, hard to separate from it.
I guess my concern is only applicable towards reactors that could be accessed by untrustworthy people.
If it is truly easier to build a bomb from the ground up, then there should be no reason not to pursue the closed cycle nuclear.
I believe they should have already done that 30 years ago.
Actually, the easiest path to nuclear weapons is to enrich natural uranium by using centrifuges. Before centrifuges became available, that was not necessarily true. Considering that, it is questionable that having nuclear reactors increases the risk of nuclear weapon proliferation unless countries having reactors also have centrifuges.
Here is an article on isotopes of thorium:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_thorium
Here is a quotation from the article:
“Although thorium (Th), with atomic number 90, has 6 naturally occurring isotopes, none of these isotopes are stable; however, one isotope, 232Th, is relatively stable, with a half-life of 14.05 billion years, considerably longer than the age of the earth, and even slightly longer than the generally accepted age of the universe. This isotope makes up nearly all natural thorium. As such, thorium is considered to be mononuclidic. It has a characteristic terrestrial isotopic composition and thus an atomic mass can be given.”
Actually, this sort of thing can be very complicated.
The main use of thorium used to be as an ingredient for gas light mantles and gasoline camping light mantles. It is also used in some lens coatings. Natural thorium is so slightly radioactive that for most purposes the radioactivity can be ignored.
You can find more information on the LFTR with a google search on “energy from thorium”.