"Renewable" energy sources don't affect the climate, or do they?

[Crossy]

We all know the mantra of the climate change protagonists - "Fossil fuels bad, renewable energy good" (and yes, I subscribe to the idea that we have screwed up our planet to a greater or lesser degree).

 

But, does that massive solar / wind farm down the road have any effect on the climate, both locally and (potentially) globally? After all the energy has to come from somewhere.

 

Whilst searching for something else I came across this article, http://web.archive.org/web/20130414122609/http://www.pnas.org/content/101/46/16115.full a bit heavy going but worth a scan.

 

Maybe that coal fired power-plant next door isn't such such a bad idea (yes, it still is a bad idea).

 

[steve73]

That report is a bit too heavy going for my liking...

 

I have previously looked at the environmental cost of renewables from a total emissions point of view.

Solar and wind generation both require something like 2-4 years of upfront power generation in fabrication & installation energy requirement, although thereafter the energy cost (and hence any emissions) is relatively insignificant.  This is much higher than the upfront cost of a hydrocarbon fueled station (but which of course continues to produce emissions for it's entire life).  Nuclear power also has a high upfront cost, although ongoing emissions are also very low (accidents excepted).

Main problem with renewables is their intermittency, during night-time & still days.  So without battery storage (which adds to the upfront costs & emissions), they are unlikely to be able to generate the full requirements (except in some very specific cases).  Alternative power is essential as backup, which at present is usually met with already installed conventional (hydrocarbon) generation operating part-time.  Replacement of such back-up becomes increasingly expensive since it's only required part-time.    Nuclear is probably the most attractive non-hydrocarbon back up.

 

This upfront energy cost of manufacturing and installing large scale renewable power, would in the short term, require even more conventional power (and emissions)...

 

Large Solar farms can also affect local climate.. PV panels operate at around 15% efficiency (i.e. radiant solar energy converted to electricity).. the rest is largely wasted as heat - and is significantly higher than a typical surface (where much more is reflected).  Probably no worse than the rejected heat from conventional power generation though, and any additional heating is insignificant compared to that caused by greenhouse gasses.   

[onthesoi]

Our analysis suggests that the climatic impacts of wind power may be nonnegligible, but they do not allow a detailed quantitative evaluation of the climatic changes induced by extraction of wind power. Further research is warranted on the local effects of current wind farms

 

No matter how much they try to dress it up as a scientific paper, if they can't measure the alleged effect properly then it's not based on real science, it's more about pondering and speculation.

 

I'm guessing they are cynically, stealthily, feeding a headline to the media to put themselves on the map for funding.....as the nature of the paper makes peer review impossible.

Edited July 5, 2017 by onthesoi

[ICECOOL]

Renewables are too unreliable imo for modern society. We need something new. I have recently been reading about Thorium which is a naturally occurring element. First investigated in the 60's by the yanks and scrapped because it didn't produce plutonium so no good for bombs. Amazing potential the Chinese will have these going in 3 years.

 

Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors. Look it up on You Tube.

[steve73]

8 minutes ago, ICECOOL said:

Renewables are too unreliable imo for modern society. We need something new. I have recently been reading about Thorium which is a naturally occurring element. First investigated in the 60's by the yanks and scrapped because it didn't produce plutonium so no good for bombs. Amazing potential the Chinese will have these going in 3 years.

 

Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors. Look it up on You Tube.

Useful info here...  http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/thorium.aspx

[Brunolem]

Thorium could indeed be a solution, or at least a large part of it.

More generally, until now the production of electricity has been under (big) government control and management.

A national nuclear program, for example, requires legislation, control and huge resources that only a government can put together.

Whether in the US or EU, one can hardly imagine a private company launching a thorium based nuclear program to produce electricity.

The problem is that, worldwide, governments are broke, smothered by mountains of debts, and can't start such a program, when they are not even able to maintain roads, bridges and water distribution.

Wind energy causes a lot of carbon emissions, especially because of the huge amount of cement involved, and its transportation from the factories to the sites.

Solar has made a lot of progress, but not everywhere enjoys frequent sunshine, far from it.

Yet, renewables can't match oil, for the simple reason that oil in a concentrate of solar energy, easy to store...all the advantages, save for the toxic emissions...

Wind is a derivative of solar energy.

And solar energy is nothing but nuclear energy.

In the end, there is nothing but nuclear energy...unfortunately the latter is difficult, and expensive, to master...

[onthesoi]

39 minutes ago, ICECOOL said:

Renewables are too unreliable imo for modern society.

 

It's something of a contradiction as unrenewable energy is by definition an energy source which cannot be sustained.

Edited July 5, 2017 by onthesoi

[Laza 45]

2 hours ago, steve73 said:

That report is a bit too heavy going for my liking...

 

I have previously looked at the environmental cost of renewables from a total emissions point of view.

Solar and wind generation both require something like 2-4 years of upfront power generation in fabrication & installation energy requirement, although thereafter the energy cost (and hence any emissions) is relatively insignificant.  This is much higher than the upfront cost of a hydrocarbon fueled station (but which of course continues to produce emissions for it's entire life).  Nuclear power also has a high upfront cost, although ongoing emissions are also very low (accidents excepted).

Main problem with renewables is their intermittency, during night-time & still days.  So without battery storage (which adds to the upfront costs & emissions), they are unlikely to be able to generate the full requirements (except in some very specific cases).  Alternative power is essential as backup, which at present is usually met with already installed conventional (hydrocarbon) generation operating part-time.  Replacement of such back-up becomes increasingly expensive since it's only required part-time.    Nuclear is probably the most attractive non-hydrocarbon back up.

 

This upfront energy cost of manufacturing and installing large scale renewable power, would in the short term, require even more conventional power (and emissions)...

 

Large Solar farms can also affect local climate.. PV panels operate at around 15% efficiency (i.e. radiant solar energy converted to electricity).. the rest is largely wasted as heat - and is significantly higher than a typical surface (where much more is reflected).  Probably no worse than the rejected heat from conventional power generation though, and any additional heating is insignificant compared to that caused by greenhouse gasses.   

PV  efficiency s being improved dramatically .. 15% is old news...  have a look at the newer panels..  https://cleantechnica.com/2014/02/02/which-solar-panels-most-efficient/

[Laza 45]

1 minute ago, onthesoi said:

 

It's something of a contradiction as unrenewable energy is by definition an energy source which cannot be sustained.

"Renewables are too unreliable imo for modern society."  ...  get up to date...  many innovations are making renewables  the cheapest source of energy.. batteries. pumped hydro, molten salt are all proven storage for cheap renewable energy..  fossil fuels are quickly becoming a very expensive back up for cheap renewable energy.. 

[hugh2121]

I have heard via the Thai grapevine that some people in Isaan who have solar panels for home electricity requirements are going to be billed 200 baht per month because they are not buying government electricity. Don't know if this is 100% accurate but if it is, the attitude would appear to be "sod the planet, you have to pay".

Edited July 5, 2017 by hugh2121

[johnmcc6]

[Laza 45]

2 hours ago, johnmcc6 said:

Fake news....  read this...  https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/29/turbines-energy

[observer90210]

Take the issue on paper recycling, very trendy in Europe for the last few decades if not more....but what happened? ...the paper was picked up by a bunch of large recycling firms who centralized the stocks and sent back the stuff back to China by ship!!!...We all are aware that a one way cargo route from Europe to Asia pollutes approx. as much as around 16'000'000 cars do in a year...plus considering all the co2 generated in recycling/manufacturing the waste paper in China etc. etc..what to say? perhaps it saved a few trees but doubt it make a global cleansing of the air.......much of our recycling dynamics perhaps are just to give us a good conscience, but may be a bit far from actually saving mother earth?...IMHO

 

[khunPer]

A lot of the alternative energy sources still have difficulties in producing energy at a reasonable price, if subsidiaries and tax reliefs are removed; however it's getting little better lately. When calculating the benefits from energy produced, you need to look at the total process, not only manufacturing and installation, but also what shall happen to the devices when no longer usable, and the impact on environmental pollution. Furthermore is the direct impact on environment with big windmill parks, and areas used for it (off-shore parks seem to be in favor). It's a complicated process to calculate.

 

We have seen other projects in Europe, where it initially looked really sensibly, but actually were not, when all factors had been included. One case was for example collection and recycling of aluminium cans from drinks – it showed that it was better for both environment and economy to burn them with the garbage, than to collect and recycle.

 

The other day I was thinking about the suggestion – I think a couple of years ago – to paint all roofs white or in bright colors, to reflect the sunlight back, now there's less and less white ice at the poles. Yes, the ice do perform a measurable reflection, according to science. But now we are instead having dark, almost black roof, being covered with tax-benefit solar panels...

 

The massive investments in renewable energy and CO2 kvotas may have been spent a lot better, if invested elsewhere. For quite a massive amount of people "clean energy" mean to stop burning wood and charcoal, even resulting in indoor smoke pollution. It would benefit the global climate a lot more, if we instead of renewable energy spend the money of more coal-fired powerstations – which with modern technique can be both efficient and clean – instead of billions of people shall burn wood. And some level of nuclear power may also make sense; there are new improvements on it's way.

 

It's a question of finding a balance, without being too "religious"...

 

I'm in favor of Bjørn Lomborg, leader of Copenhagen Consensus, and his view on clean and renewable energy; and especially if we can do better things with the money. Much talk lately about "Paris", which mr. Trump pulled out of, but does it, the Paris Agreement, matter anything..?

 

This is what Bjørn Lomborg think about it...

 

Quote

Bjørn Lomborg 1st July:

Paris only tackles 1% of global warming.

Getting to 2°C requires 99% more that what Paris promises to cut.

(And remember, this is if *everyone* does *everything* they've promised)

 

Quote

Bjørn Lomborg 20th June:

Environmentalists were aghast when President Donald Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris climate treaty, with some declaring that the very survival of our civilization was at stake. But is the Paris accord really all that stands between the planet and the worst of climate change? Certainly not.

This is not to deny that President Trump’s announcement was problematic. He failed to acknowledge that global warming is real and wrongly claimed that China and India are the “world’s leading polluters.”

Read More in The Wall Street Journal...

 

[steve73]

16 hours ago, Laza 45 said:

PV  efficiency s being improved dramatically .. 15% is old news...  have a look at the newer panels..  https://cleantechnica.com/2014/02/02/which-solar-panels-most-efficient/

Most commercially produced and used panels are in the 15-20% efficiency bracket.

 

The multi-junction concentrators types are still too expensive for regular use.... but perhaps in the future..?  We might have even managed fusion reactors by then.

 

Many of the most cost efficient large scale solar power generation being installed recently seem to be concentrated thermal systems,  but obviously not suitable for small scale domestic situations where limited space may well encourage the use of the higher efficiency panels.  

[Laza 45]

1 hour ago, steve73 said:

Most commercially produced and used panels are in the 15-20% efficiency bracket.

 

The multi-junction concentrators types are still too expensive for regular use.... but perhaps in the future..?  We might have even managed fusion reactors by then.

 

Many of the most cost efficient large scale solar power generation being installed recently seem to be concentrated thermal systems,  but obviously not suitable for small scale domestic situations where limited space may well encourage the use of the higher efficiency panels.  

The technology is developing rapidly.. India recently abandoned plans for a couple of dozen new coal fired power plants in favor of solar because it is cheaper.. It seems to me for home use solar collectors and a battery system is becoming the best bet.. The technology for micro grids connecting many homes.. and businesses for that mater is interesting...  No doubt there will be a vast array of options for energy collection, storage and and distribution .. one thing is clear.. the days of fossil fuel energy generation are numbered... anyone who thinks otherwise is not paying attention to developments ... this is not Sci Fi...something that may happen in the future..  this is happening now in real time.. look at what is happening in China & India...  California has been a leader in adopting green energy for many years now.. in the past year California created twice as many jobs as the next two best preforming states combined... many of those jobs are in renewable energy..  Fusion is tantalizing.. but still a very long way off for general use even if they manage to get a plant operating..   also you can build a lot of solar and wind generation for the cost of a fusion plant.. I think that is for the next generation to work out.. 

[Crossy]

A factor related to renewables (but not climate) is that of grid stability.

 

The conventional grid has a huge rotating mass tied up in all those synchronised turbo-generators. This effectively gigantic flywheel helps keep the grid frequency from drifting around. Renewable sources which use inverters (solar and wind) sync to the grid and follow it's (slow) frequency changes.

 

As the proportion of renewable energy increases the effective mass of the flywheel decreases (fewer conventional power generators) meaning that the grid can drift faster, possibly fast enough in the event of a step load (population making tea when a popular movie finishes) that capacity loses sync and drops off line. The possibility of a cascading failure is very real and a grid that has dropped out is a nightmare to re-start.

 

This issue already affects the Isle of Man which has small rotating capacity and relatively a lot of renewables. The island has an AC power link to the UK and so is effectively using the inertia of the National Grid to maintain stability, but if (when) that link goes down the island's supply drifts rapidly away from synchronism and is very, very difficult to get back. You can't just close the switch and hope it goes back into sync, the energy surge would send the island's tiny power station in to orbit.

 

[rickudon]

That paper was written 13 years ago, a lot has changed since then. I also noticed some of the authors worked for the petro-chemical industry - I think it was an attempt to discredit windpower. At least they admitted they couldn't prove it did any damage.

 

Obviously any electricity generating system will consume fuel and mineral resources. So yes, most renewal forms of power only show a benefit in the long run. As for 'clean' coal power stations, none have been built - because once you introduce all the equipment to reduce emissions, they are no longer economic ..... also you still have the environmental effects of the coal mining and lots of ash to dispose of.

 

A lot has changed this century, In the UK, renewables supplied only about 2% of our energy 20 years ago, and most of that was hydropower. The potential for more hydropower was very limited. Solar practically didn't exist in the UK back then, apart from a few garden lights, Now about 25% of our electricity comes from renewable resources, and has even been the major source for 24 hours at a time. Obviously the fluctuating production is a problem, and storage is now the critical technology for renewable power growth. However it is not as bad as some people think, because with a properly controlled power grid you can even out the availability of power to a large degree. Also solar is ideal for factory/commercial roofs - they want power mainly during the day, so do not care about it not working at night.

[Brunolem]

While I am all for clean energy, the facts remain that the world has never extracted so much oil, that carbon emissions are still at record levels, that renewables such as wind and solar still represent, worldwide, a very very small fraction of our energy sources, and that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere keeps on rising.

China is now cited as an example (!) as if it hadn't opened a couple of coal powered stations every week for years!

The fact is that the same nations that talk a lot about fighting climate change keep on celebrating every time their carmakers or their plane manufacturers beat their sales records: 16 million cars sold in the US only last year, a very tiny number of them electric, celebrations! Airbus just sold more than 100 planes to just one airline, celebrations!

Too many people, who consume too much energy...there lies the real problem...at least for the planet...

 

[Laza 45]

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jul/07/tesla-to-build-worlds-biggest-lithium-ion-battery-in-south-australia?CMP=soc_567

[johnmcc6]

On 7/6/2017 at 1:45 AM, Laza 45 said:

Fake news....  read this...  https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/29/turbines-energy

The guardian article is fake news. What would you expect to hear from a group who supports wind farms? People should be just as suspicious of big green propaganda as big oil. Follow the money.

[Laza 45]

3 minutes ago, johnmcc6 said:

The guardian article is fake news. What would you expect to hear from a group who supports wind farms? People should be just as suspicious of big green propaganda as big oil. Follow the money.

Sorry.. not fake news.. this has been planned for some months now..and finally they are at the stage of signing a contract.. here are a just a few of the media releases... I am from SA... I know what is happening.. check it out.. https://www.google.co.th/search?q=South+Australia+world's+largest+battery&rlz=1C1GGRV_enTH748TH748&oq=South+Australia+world's+largest+battery&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60j69i61.23488j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[Laza 45]

1 hour ago, Laza 45 said:

Sorry.. not fake news.. this has been planned for some months now..and finally they are at the stage of signing a contract.. here are a just a few of the media releases... I am from SA... I know what is happening.. check it out.. https://www.google.co.th/search?q=South+Australia+world's+largest+battery&rlz=1C1GGRV_enTH748TH748&oq=South+Australia+world's+largest+battery&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60j69i61.23488j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

This is a very interesting development..  installation of 100 Mega Watts of battery storage.. enough power to power 30,000 homes.. but its main advantage is that it will even out grid stability.. providing back-up during periods of high demand.. and storing energy during periods of low demand.. this will be the world's largest battery by a factor of 3... Elon Musk has promised to deliver and have up and running from 100 days of signing the contract.. or the system is free to South Australia!..Not a bad deal!  This is a fantastic addition to South Australia's renewable energy network.. and a model that will be closely watched and implemented in many places in the not too distant future.. 

 

https://twitter.com/JayWeatherill?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

[bazza73]

The world is going to change despite the efforts of the fossil fuel industry to maintain the status quo. Volvo has just announced its full range of vehicles will go hybrid.

It's the same deal as in computers. In the 1970's a computer occupied a large room, now there is much greater computing power on a smartphone.

Lithium actually could become passe for battery storage. Scientists are looking at vanadium and gold for greater efficiency. A lithium battery takes approximately 10,000 recharge cycles before expiring. There's already a gold battery in a laboratory somewhere that has achieved 100,000 recharge cycles.

Certainly renewable energy sources have their problems. Ethanol in fuel is a case in point. The hidden cost of pesticide and fertiliser runoff, monoculture and subsidies mean a true picture of the environmental worth of ethanol cannot be generated.

When the cost of solar and storage is driven down so far it becomes a no-brainer, the "baseload" fossil fuel generators are going to be stuck with dinosaurs. They are feeling the pinch already.

Edited July 8, 2017 by bazza73
misspell