A renewable world

[Denny Crane!]

This is about the cost to cover most of the world power with renewables. Now it is entirely academic because in the next 30 years we don't know what will be happening with new types of nuclear, wind or solar because all of which have have massive new technologies in development as well as other fields like Bacteria that crap diesel (see Phiers thread in here). I'm guessing they are basing this on standard silicon panels which are pretty much out of date but here goes.

So bearing in mind this is just a thought experiment I was wondering if anyone would or could crunch the numbers to work out how many trillion it would cost to get free of oil.

1.7bn 3KW solar PV systems.
90m solar power plants
4m 5mw wind turbines.

I could probably hazard a guess at the costs of each system if no one else can, it is the numbers to the powers of 10 I get all confused with.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-...le-energy.html

PhysOrg.com) -- New research has shown that it is possible and affordable for the world to achieve 100 percent renewable energy by 2030, if there is the political will to strive for this goal.
Achieving 100 percent renewable energy would mean the building of about four million 5 MW wind turbines, 1.7 billion 3 kW roof-mounted solar photovoltaic systems, and around 90,000 300 MW solar power plants.
Mark Delucchi, one of the authors of the report, which was published in the journal Energy Policy, said the researchers had aimed to show enough renewable energy is available and could be harnessed to meet demand indefinitely by 2030.
Delucchi and colleague Mark Jacobson left all fossil fuel sources of energy out of their calculations and concentrated only on wind, solar, waves and geothermal sources. Fossil fuels currently provide over 80 percent of the world’s energy supply. They also left out biomass, currently the most widely used renewable energy source, because of concerns about pollution and land-use issues. Their calculations also left out nuclear power generation, which currently supplies around six percent of the world’s electricity.
To make their vision possible, a great deal of building would need to occur. The wind turbines needed, for example, are two to three times the capacity of most of today’s wind turbines, but 5 MW offshore turbines were built in Germany in 2006, and China built its first in 2010. The solar power plants needed would be a mix of photovoltaic panel plants and concentrated solar plants that concentrate solar energy to boil water to drive generators. At present only a few dozen such utility-scale solar plants exist. Energy would also be obtained from photovoltaic panels mounted on most homes and buildings.
Jacobson said the major challenge would be in the interconnection of variable supplies such as wind and solar to enable the different renewable sources to work together to match supply with demands. The more consistent renewable sources of wave and tidal power and geothermal systems would supply less of the energy but their consistency would make the whole system more reliable.
Delucchi is from the Institute for Transportation Studies at the University of California, Davis, while Jacobson belongs to Stanford University’s Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. They first began to study the feasibility and affordability of converting the world to 100 percent renewable energy sources in a Scientific American article published before the Copenhagen climate talks in 2009.
The pair say all the major resources needed are available, with the only material bottleneck being supplies of rare earth materials such as neodymium, which is often used in the manufacture of magnets. This bottleneck could be overcome if mining were increased by a factor of five and if recycling were introduced, or if technologies avoiding rare earth were developed, but the political bottlenecks may be insurmountable.
More information:
-- Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part I: Technologies, energy resources, quantities and areas of infrastructure, and materials, Energy Policy, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.11.040
-- Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part II: Reliability, system and transmission costs, and policies, Energy Policy, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.11.045
© 2010 PhysOrg.com

[Agent Miles]

The problem with wind and solar power sources is that they aren’t a source of power 24/7. Our energy needs don’t stop at night or when the wind doesn’t blow. If the U.S. had 1000 nuclear power plants instead of 100, then we could run our entire country continuously off of these alone. The Navy has built scores of nuclear power plants, which power ships, while the commercial industry has not been allowed to do the same. Whatever the fear factor is, the facts are that we are not allowed to even consider power sources that are proven to work and are renewable with breeder reactors. Environmentalists turn a blind eye to the Navy and continue to strangle a viable energy alternative for reasons that the fleet seems to have gotten around.

[Denny Crane!]

The problem with wind and solar power sources is that they aren’t a source of power 24/7. Our energy needs don’t stop at night or when the wind doesn’t blow. If the U.S. had 1000 nuclear power plants instead of 100, then we could run our entire country continuously off of these alone. The Navy has built scores of nuclear power plants, which power ships, while the commercial industry has not been allowed to do the same. Whatever the fear factor is, the facts are that we are not allowed to even consider power sources that are proven to work and are renewable with breeder reactors. Environmentalists turn a blind eye to the Navy and continue to strangle a viable energy alternative for reasons that the fleet seems to have gotten around.

Did this look like a debate about which is better nuclear power or renewables. Congratulations on not reading the thread and the 'thought' exercise bit or the part about the fact that it is irrelevant because new technology is imminently coming to market on both nuclear and renewables which makes your point doubly redundant.

[Agent Miles]

Sir, I did read your thread in its entirety, especially the part “new types of nuclear…technologies” and I merely pointed out that you should include the part where solar and wind are supplements, not sources, to the power grid. Nuclear power is a renewable. Future solar panels that turn 100% of the sunlight into electricity still don't work at night. I thought that this was a thought experiment, not a dream experiment.

[Hotspur]

There are ~ 80 million single family homes in the US and the average cost for an installed PV system is $10,000 per kW.

Some maths later...

$800,000,000,000 per kW.

2.4 trillion dollars to equip all US single family homes with a 3 kW system.

[Dr. Oza]

There are ~ 80 million single family homes in the US and the average cost for an installed PV system is $10,000 per kW.

Some maths later...

$800,000,000,000 per kW.

2.4 trillion dollars to equip all US single family homes with a 3 kW system.

Supply

&

Demand

=

price

[Tiwaz]

Supply

&

Demand

=

price

Which is why price of solar panels went up when Germany started to pay subsidies for solar energy.

You also have to take account any possible shortages in required materials which can affect the price.
For example supply of lithium is speculated to have chance to become the bottleneck for battery production.

[Hotspur]

Supply

&

Demand

=

price

You must have missed the point in the OP that stated that rare earth material mining would have to quintuple to meet demand.

[Plant]

So bearing in mind this is just a thought experiment I was wondering if anyone would or could crunch the numbers to work out how many trillion it would cost to get free of oil.

1.7bn 3KW solar PV systems.
90m solar power plants
4m 5mw wind turbines.

I could probably hazard a guess at the costs of each system if no one else can, it is the numbers to the powers of 10 I get all confused with.

Please hazard a guess at the costs of the following systems:

3KW solar PV systems.
solar power plants
5mw wind turbines.

Then we can easily answer your question.

Btw, you get confused by numbers to the powers of 10? Seriously? The fact that you can write a coherent sentence should mean that you have the ability to understand numbers.

[Viking Prince]

Actually, the argument of some sources not being available 24/7 is a false argument. Aggregation over the national grid need not mean that a windmill at any particular location is critical. Besides, even power sources considered 100% 24/7 are still shut down periodically for maintenance. This is why many nuclear, coal, and gas powered generation facilities have multiple generators at a single location. The difference with the windmill farm is more an issue of dispersion and not one of 24/7.

Also -- for small scale generation (such as a home off of the 'grid') power is generated and stored -- thermal mass, batteries, etc. There may also be a gasolene generator as a backup as well. Yes off grid means losing out on scale as well as some reliability, but this is not a hospital. And the hospital cannot rely on the grid 100% either -- temporary generators must still be available for back up.

The problem with any scheme towards renewables is not feasability, it is the inefficient diversion of resources for political and economic reasons. R&D all you want. Fund the R&D. But when political activists amdate more expensive renewable options, the economy loses jobs and output.

[chamaeleo]

The problem with any scheme towards renewables is not feasability, it is the inefficient diversion of resources for political and economic reasons. R&D all you want. Fund the R&D. But when political activists amdate more expensive renewable options, the economy loses jobs and output.

Actually, I'd be happier if they concurrently dropped both mandates AND the Energy subsidies...level the playing field and allow a free-er market to play itself out.

You'd quickly find that certain regions, those more ideally suited for particular renewables, will substitute and supplement to a greater extent than regions which are more limited or better endowed with hydrocarbon resources (plus those which are more idealogically opposed to adaptation). Renewables are no universal panacea, but at the local scale they may potentially eliminate the demand for nonrenewables altogether.

Rural regions stand to gain the most from solar/wind:

1. no distribution infrastructure to build and maintain.
2. Cheaper land = more affordable surface area to cover with generators.
3. Wind/solar arrays and ranching are not mutually exclusive...rather, they complement each other nicely (shade structures/roofing material, localized power for irrigation wells, etc.
4. distinct lack of architectural features which might obscure sun's rays or create turbulence for wind towers.
5. Few neighbors to complain about noise or unsightly panels.
6. More choice geographical features which improve efficiency: South-facing slopes for solar, and valleys which funnel winds.

Particular regions are extremely well positioned to take advantage of wind & solar, such as my very own state of New Mexico: ~310 days of sun/yr, 5000' average elevation (more photons and wind), dry (less maintenance). Traditionally we're also more independently DIY oriented and having a legacy of managing finite water and wood resources. Conservation is basically a nonpartisan issue: folks of all ideological angles live beneath flat roofs which capture and channel a maximum of rainwater (and sunlight), behind thick adobe walls serving as thermal mass to insulate our homes, enjoying their morning coffee in South facing, enclosed sunroom/greenhouse patio retreats. Grid power is often viewed as just another thing to go wrong...and in "the land of manana" you can be out of juice for days beyond the utility company's initial ETA.

We are absolutely chomping at the bit right now, waiting for something real and meaningful to come out of Washington...which is all but owned by oil companies. It also doesn't help that NM hosts vast uranium, coal, oil and natural gas reserves, so despite the fact that 80% of our citizenry wants a more progressive and integrative Energy policy, many of our damn legislators remain reluctant to piss off the companies who underwrite their political campaigns...

[Sphere]

As the article points out the big challenge is that most renewables are not suitable to form an energy back-bone. Today, fossil fuel plants often have huge secondary steam loops costing many millions of dollars that only get used a few days a year when there is peak demand and the plant needs to produce 20-30% more power than average. So even if you could even out the supply of wind and solar by having a better energy grid, you still have the problem of uneven demand. You would need to build 30-40% more turbines/panels to prevent brown and black outs during the 2-3 days a year of peak demand.

Not that that is impossible, but it makes far more sense in my opinion to have a nuclear/carbon captured natural gas backbone with renewable being a large supplemental source. That way the unevenness of demand and the supply from wind/solar can be compensated for by simply moving fuel rods up and down a few inches, instead of needing billions in extra and often idle turbines/panels.

[Denny Crane!]

Sir, I did read your thread in its entirety, especially the part “new types of nuclear…technologies” and I merely pointed out that you should include the part where solar and wind are supplements, not sources, to the power grid. Nuclear power is a renewable. Future solar panels that turn 100% of the sunlight into electricity still don't work at night. I thought that this was a thought experiment, not a dream experiment.

I didn't write the article I merely presented a thought exercise. The first part of the thread made that clear.

Solar and wind are not supplements and nuclear is not a renewable seeing as it is based on a finite resource.

The thought experiment was how much the figures proposed would cost. Do you really have that much reading incomprehension that you can't even understand a single sentence? If you do that explains why you don't understand the energy markets.

Please hazard a guess at the costs of the following systems:

3KW solar PV systems.
solar power plants
5mw wind turbines.

Then we can easily answer your question.

Btw, you get confused by numbers to the powers of 10? Seriously? The fact that you can write a coherent sentence should mean that you have the ability to understand numbers.

3kw solar system $6000
solar power plant - can't find it
5mw turbine - can't find it

I'll get back to the ones I can't find.

And if I have an idiosyncratic problem with numbers and you choose to judge me on it - do one in all honesty and I'll quite happily converse with others though quite honestly if I ever pick up on any gaps in your knowledge I'll be quick to point them out, and I'm quite knowledgeable in quite a few other areas.

Actually, the argument of some sources not being available 24/7 is a false argument. Aggregation over the national grid need not mean that a windmill at any particular location is critical. Besides, even power sources considered 100% 24/7 are still shut down periodically for maintenance. This is why many nuclear, coal, and gas powered generation facilities have multiple generators at a single location. The difference with the windmill farm is more an issue of dispersion and not one of 24/7.

Also -- for small scale generation (such as a home off of the 'grid') power is generated and stored -- thermal mass, batteries, etc. There may also be a gasolene generator as a backup as well. Yes off grid means losing out on scale as well as some reliability, but this is not a hospital. And the hospital cannot rely on the grid 100% either -- temporary generators must still be available for back up.

The problem with any scheme towards renewables is not feasability, it is the inefficient diversion of resources for political and economic reasons. R&D all you want. Fund the R&D. But when political activists amdate more expensive renewable options, the economy loses jobs and output.

That was a great post except the latter part seemed to rely on assumptions mainly around the economic cost of renewables. I'd happily see a non subsidised market with equal funding around all areas and level the playing field and then we'd see where we are at. In the EU nuclear receives the bulk of the funding.

As the article points out the big challenge is that most renewables are not suitable to form an energy back-bone. Today, fossil fuel plants often have huge secondary steam loops costing many millions of dollars that only get used a few days a year when there is peak demand and the plant needs to produce 20-30% more power than average. So even if you could even out the supply of wind and solar by having a better energy grid, you still have the problem of uneven demand. You would need to build 30-40% more turbines/panels to prevent brown and black outs during the 2-3 days a year of peak demand.

Not that that is impossible, but it makes far more sense in my opinion to have a nuclear/carbon captured natural gas backbone with renewable being a large supplemental source. That way the unevenness of demand and the supply from wind/solar can be compensated for by simply moving fuel rods up and down a few inches, instead of needing billions in extra and often idle turbines/panels.

THe supplemental argument is largely dismissed by VP above and based on false assumptions, that plus there are many more storage options above. That being said the thread was more focused around a cost for what the article proposes and I suspected I couldn't locate adequate costs for plants and I was hoping someone could.

[Mythos]

One way to solve the supply/demand asynchronicity is a global interconnected system of produced power transfer where it is needed so that it is not wasted. Perfect solution? Probably not. But it will significantly reduce the storing energy needs.

[Tiwaz]

One way to solve the supply/demand asynchronicity is a global interconnected system of produced power transfer where it is needed so that it is not wasted. Perfect solution? Probably not. But it will significantly reduce the storing energy needs.

Extremely bad solution actually. Because we are yet to invent room temperature (or rather higher considering there are areas which are hotter) superconductor, having to scrounge together the power output from all over means MASSIVE overproduction of plants.

First we have to compensate on intermittant nature of different methods, 30-40% excess was suggested.
Then we have to compensate for losses from long transfer distances. More excess has to be built.

My guesstimate is that to have reliable, 24/7/365 output you need to build twice as much renewables as you would with any other means.

Actually, the argument of some sources not being available 24/7 is a false argument. Aggregation over the national grid need not mean that a windmill at any particular location is critical. Besides, even power sources considered 100% 24/7 are still shut down periodically for maintenance. This is why many nuclear, coal, and gas powered generation facilities have multiple generators at a single location. The difference with the windmill farm is more an issue of dispersion and not one of 24/7.

Dispersion and massive overbuilding. Nuclear plants etc go down for maintenance during periods when demand is least likely to be high. You cannot control renewables like that.

Also -- for small scale generation (such as a home off of the 'grid') power is generated and stored -- thermal mass, batteries, etc. There may also be a gasolene generator as a backup as well. Yes off grid means losing out on scale as well as some reliability, but this is not a hospital. And the hospital cannot rely on the grid 100% either -- temporary generators must still be available for back up.

And you conveniently forget the inefficiencies of storage meaning you again have to build some extra overhead to the system.

The problem with any scheme towards renewables is not feasability, it is the inefficient diversion of resources for political and economic reasons. R&D all you want. Fund the R&D. But when political activists amdate more expensive renewable options, the economy loses jobs and output.

Problem very much is that renewables are extremely expensive for bulk production and extremely unreliable to boot.

[Hotspur]

Where did you find a $6000 3kW system?

Edit: Moar maths, based on the Deming Solar Farm in New Mexico.

300 mW solar plant: 1 billion dollars
Area: 3,200 acres

times 90,000

equals 90 trillion dollars & 450,000 square miles. That's not quite twice the planet's GDP and an area the size of California & Texas combined.

[Denny Crane!]

90 trillion wow.

And yeah it appears that my estimate was well off, I just guessed at the price of a typical roof installation when in fact:

http://www.cscuk.org.uk/docs/SolarRoofs.pdf

£15000

Now I don't know anyone who spend £15000 on electricity in 25 years so what the hell makes that even remotely worth it...I wouldn't even consider an investment that took 25 years just to repay. Even minus the 2500 grant and the subsidy on electricity fed in.

I suspected the study might contain weaknesses though I'd hoped they wouldn't be quite so broad and damning.

[Hotspur]

And it's taken five years to build. Assuming there 1000 solar companies with the capability to build a 300mW plant (which there aren't), it would take 450 years to build 90 thousand plants.

[Agent Miles]

Breeder reactors create more fusile material than they use. Nuclear really truly is renewable. The farther that you try to transmit electricity over a grid, the more of it is lost to heat transfer and other causes. Eventually solar panels in the desert and wind farms in Kansas are doing nothing for the east coast where the power is needed. But please, dream on!

[Denny Crane!]

Jesus it is like you are getting paid by the nuclear industry...

No one cares pal, there are 1000 anti nuclear or pro nuclear threads dotted around I'd suggest you take your head out of wherever it currently resides and jam it in one of those.