Slashdot Mirror
Renewable Energy Shows Strong Gain In U.S. (arstechnica.com)
WheezyJoe writes: According to the US Energy Information Administration, solar, wind, and gas dominate new US generating capacity in 2016. This year is notable because it will see the first new nuclear plant brought online in 20 years, contributing 1.1 GigaWatts to the grid. But that contribution will be dwarfed by renewable power sources, which together account for nearly two-thirds of 2016's new capacity. Part of the boom in renewables came because the tax incentives for their installation were in danger of expiring, so utilities rushed to get projects through the pipeline ahead of the end of the year. 9.5GW of capacity is expected to come online from solar -- more than the past three years combined. Another 6.8GW is expected from planned additions of wind power, largely spread across the Great Plains. Of new fossil fuel plants, the vast majority are going to be burning natural gas; there are no planned additions of coal plants.
Oh, so close. Just 110 megawatts short, Doc.
"natural gas produces less CO2 than coal" It's more than that, coal also produces ash that ends up warming the snow it lands on by absorbing sunlight. Re: arctic.
Not to worry. The Koch Brothers will never permit renewables to overtake oil. Jesus loves oil and will send every single advocate or developer of renewal technologies to hell after having them assraped by demons. The Koch's will give Congress and State legislatures enough hookers and blow to create a new constitutional amendment allowing alternative energy researchers to be hunted down and killed for sport.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The principle advantage I have seen claimed for natural gas other than the lower carbon content is that the generators used for natural gas in electricity production can be quickly ramped up and down to adapt to demand. A possible marginal benefit is that infrastructure for natural gas distribution in heating could also start mixing in biogas, perhaps even replacing it completely with a renewable. Also it is probably easier to get a PEM fuel cell to work on it.
Someone had to do it.
TFA tells us that in 2016, 18.1GW (9.5GW of solar and 8.6GW of wind) renewable energy is expected to come online in America
Very good
On the other hand ...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
According to bloomberg's article
China eyes at least 15 gigawatts of solar power additions ...
... in the same year, China gonna have at least35GW of new renewable energy coming online
We could do better
In fact, we should do better
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Aren't you also interested in seeing if the coal industry and the oil industry are able to continue without tax breaks?
http://www.taxpayer.net/librar...
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/...
http://www.investopedia.com/ar...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Not really dwarfed.
1.1 GW * 0.903 capacity factor = 0.99 GW actual production by nuclear
9.5 GW * 0.145 capacity factor = 1.38 GW actual production by solar
6.8 GW * 0.25 capacity factor = 1.7 GW actual production by wind
I mean we get it, renewables = good. But comparing based on installed capacity is like comparing farmland based solely on land area, not how much of that land is actually arable.
They are talking about the Watts Bar Unit 2
They started building it back in 1973 then took a short lunch break in 1988 resumed work in 2007 and finished in 2015.
Since it was 80% done in 1988 that means at least 80% of the reactor unit is at least 27 years old now.
http://thebulletin.org/watts-b...
http://www.latimes.com/busines...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Still nice to see another plant online shame took 42 years to finish it especially since it was only given a 40 year operating licence.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
I pass by a wind turbine on the way to work and it's been down for about six months now. It's Chinese built and the township can't get a part from the firm that built it.
They have received an offer to purchase the site. And no, Enron isn't the company that offered to purchase it.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
"Burn it all down, so the Russians can't have it. "
Why WOULDN'T we want the Russians to have the Middle East? After a few generations of good old colonial exploitation, the ME will have completely forgotten about hating the US and, depending on the effectiveness of Russia's indoctrination and cultural reprogramming, could emerge as the "India" of the 23rd or 24th century.
Another article talking 'capacity' but not talking about how many MWh's each source will actually produce. Capacity alone is a meaningless unit. Natural Gas is the biggest addition by far in terms of how much electricity will be produced.
First it was this is physically impossible.
then it was there isn't enough wind or solar - Germany is sunnier than the USA.
Now it's not about capacity, but how much is being produced at any given moment?
Hey - we'll get off your lawn, mister.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The Koch Brothers will never permit renewables to overtake oil.
Turn on the TV and watch the news. The Kochs exercise their influence through the Republican Party establishment, which is in the process of being shredded by Donald Trump. The Republicans have thrived by building a coalition of social conservatives, who tend to be less educated middle class people, and economic conservatives that mostly do not share their interests, but control the political establishment. That coalition is collapsing. Trump doesn't give a crap about the establishment. In the general election, where he is almost certainly headed, he is going to hit Hillary from the right with social populism, and from the left with economic populism. As one pundit put it, Hillary's political machine is like a super-tanker ... that is about to be boarded by Somali pirates.
Donald may lose in November, but the Republican Party is going to be changed forever. Trump has shown that he can win without the party establishment, and that rank-and-file Republicans will vote for somebody that speaks their language and channels their anger, rather than someone that shares their ideology. Even this year, this change will have a big effect down-ballot, in house and senate races. The influence of people like the Koch brothers is fading. Their money certainly didn't do much to help Jeb Bush.
The Republicans have thrived by building a coalition of social conservatives, who tend to be less educated middle class people, and economic conservatives that mostly do not share their interests, but control the political establishment.
There are two types of Republicans: millionaires and suckers.
-- author unknown
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
"natural gas produces less CO2 than coal" It's more than that, coal also produces ash that ends up warming the snow it lands on by absorbing sunlight. Re: arctic.
Well fine, but if you're going to use natural gas, make sure you burn it and not just let it escape to the atmosphere. Sadly, the latter happens all-too-often.
As a greenhouse gas, methane (the principal component of natural gas) is much worse than carbon dioxide.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
It's interesting because I know 0% of democrats will vote for Trump and I've seen *recent* polls (on 538.com) showing that 47% of republicans will stay home rather than vote for Trump.
I get the facist, authoritarian appeal of the man. It's scary because this is how democracies are lost. But... I don't think you can be elected with 53% of the republican vote.
OTH, the 35% who hate Hillary and would never vote for her are mostly republican anyway.
It's hard for me to judge between her and Bernie. Bernie is a lot more likable. Hillary is a lot tougher and has a ton of grit and also showed herself to be an extremely loyal democrat last election.
When you mix in the supreme court thing- all obama has to do is nominate a highly qualified moderate but slightly liberal hispanic supreme court justice candidate and when the republicans refuse to even give that candidate a hearing (much less a vote- and much less a no vote), they can kiss florida and perhaps texas and arizona goodbye for the next 20 years.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Hillary supports expanding H1-B visas.
Bernie opposes the H1-B visa program.
Pretty obvious difference, which should matter a lot to this audience.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
It's interesting because I know 0% of democrats will vote for Trump
Don't be so sure. Trump is a political chameleon, and on economic issues he is more of a left-wing populist than right wing. On trade, entitlements, etc. he is closer to Bernie Sanders than to the Republican mainstream. His supporters care less about what he says, and more about how he says it. So far, he has paid no consequences for flip-flopping, so he is free to adjust his positions to anything that appeals to the general electorate. If Hillary stumbles (or is indicted), she could easily lose.
This year is notable because it will see the first new nuclear plant brought online in 20 years, contributing 1.1 GigaWatts to the grid
How is THAT supposed to get us excited.... it's not even enough to power a single time-traveling DeLorean.
It's really bizzare that an extremely blatant liar is seen as "authentic", but that's the way it's going.
The way he is tearing into the other Republicans is more vicious than any comedy act - it's far stranger than fiction.
Readers should note that nuclear decay means you want to use those fuel rods as much as possible so nukes are not something you turn off and use to cover only peak loads.
The above poster should be ashamed of their idealogical driven apples vs oranges comparison. This is supposed to be a tech site and not a political cheerleading site.
Shill and idiot. You're stove took energy to produce too. And you know what it doesn't produce clean energy. Where as solar does.
Like you, I disagree strongly with the idea that coal is somehow 'cleaner' than solar energy etc, but I don't think it is justified to start calling people idiots for stating their views, even if they appear uninformed. But what I REALLY take issue with is when people are modded 'Troll' simply because they have a different opinion; that is the stupidest way to respond, no better than schoolyard bullying. Insults and bullying can only hurt the viewpoint you appear to be supporting.
With nukes those fuel rods are decaying over time no matter what you do so that's another reason to have them run flat out until it's time to shut down for maintainance or refuelling.
Technically, yes they decay, but no it doesn't actually have a significant effect. U235 (the fissile fuel in enriched uranium) has a half life of 700 million years, so even if you waited that long, you'd still have half the fuel left. MOX uses a mix of U235, Pu239, and U233. The shortest (Pu239) has a half life of 24,000 years, so even if you left it standing for 100 years, you'd still have 99.7% of the plutonium left. The other sort-of fuel is U238, which absorbs a neutron turning into Pu239 which is a fuel during the reactor operation. U238 has a half life of 4.5 billion years.
In other words, you can leave the fuel sitting around for human timescales without a problem or significant loss.
eg. worshippers of 1970s nuke tech who say we should build dozens of nukes now instead of incremental improvement then dozens of nukes that may be half-decent
I do wish we had 2010 eara nuke plants.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
That's the incredibly weird thing since he says that after used car salesman tricks, blatant lies, deliberately insane fantasies and frequent backflips. That's the deliberate showmanship but for some reason people swallow it as authentic.
The even more strange thing is an old money born Republican who used his party contacts to get his balls out of the fire four times, not to mention exploiting it to get deals, is seen as an "outsider". A bit over as couple of hundred years ago he was exactly the sort of person the revolution was supposed to stop from running the place - a full on inherited money aristocrat.
With nukes those fuel rods are decaying over time no matter what you do so that's another reason to have them run flat out until it's time to shut down for maintainance or refuelling.
Technically, yes they decay, but no it doesn't actually have a significant effect. U235 (the fissile fuel in enriched uranium) has a half life of 700 million years, so even if you waited that long, you'd still have half the fuel left. MOX uses a mix of U235, Pu239, and U233. The shortest (Pu239) has a half life of 24,000 years, so even if you left it standing for 100 years, you'd still have 99.7% of the plutonium left. The other sort-of fuel is U238, which absorbs a neutron turning into Pu239 which is a fuel during the reactor operation. U238 has a half life of 4.5 billion years.
In other words, you can leave the fuel sitting around for human timescales without a problem or significant loss.
Unused fuel rods don't decay much, it's true, but once you start using them, they fill up with short-lived fission products which will decay and produce heat at a high level over days and weeks, even if you quench the fission reaction entirely. You have to remove that heat (which is why some form of cooling is needed in nuke plants for weeks after they shut down to stop the fuel melting or burning) and so it is economically very desirable to use it to generate power and to use that power.
So using a fission reactor to respond to day or week long variations in demand is horribly inefficient and expensive. Gas plant is much easier to start up and shut down, as in wind, while solar (PV to be specific) generates power when it does, but uses no fuel (except hydrogen in the core of the sun, which is not in shortage) so you can just dump the power.
Electricity production was and is a highly subsidized area of the economy. They funded up nuclear and they will have to subsidize the storage of nuclear wast for centuries to come. They subsidize coal in Germany, which is totally counter productive if you want to phase the shit out. Anyway, to give solar and wind a chance they subsidize it. While the subsidize model for renewables is not perfect, it resulted in an improvement in efficiency in production and cost. Nowadays in production a MWh is cheaper coming from a on shore wind turbine than from a coal plant.
Apart from our government which is unable to have a plan, we will make this move to renewables in the decades to come. FYI: Denmark will reach this level in 2020 and the north German state of Schleswig-Holstein produced more energy from wind power than they consumed. And they assume that they will able to triple the output in 2025 selling the surplus to the other countries and states to the south.
The main issue at the moment in energy management and storage, but we will find a way to solve these issues.
We are not so good at World Wars and Empires. Therefore, we decided to have a smaller military and spend the money on social and ecological stuff. After all we have (or had) the image of being good engineers.
> It still isn't, but for the huge subsidies on both production and demand side
Ugh. Another claim utterly devoid of numbers presented as if it's true. This is in spite of the numbers being in the linked article and trivially easy to compute. DO THE FUGGING MATH. Here are the production-adjusted CAPEXs:
Natgas: $1.00 / .45 CF = $2.22 effective .35 CF = $4.30 effective .20 CF = $7.50 effective .95 = $8.40 effective
Wind: $1.50 /
Solar: $1.50 /
Nuclear: $8.00 /
That means wind is about double the expensive of a CC plant to build, yet has zero fuel costs. In comparison, nuclear costs twice as much as wind, and also has fuel costs on top of that (and the highest O&M of all of these).
If you want to consider all-in numbers from CAPEX to power price, that's a little more complex. However, NREL has done all the work for you:
http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/tech_lcoe.html
If you go to the page it is pre-set for the natural gas case, but it has an outdated price for the fuel from 2013. Reducing fuel cost to the current EIA average of 2.5 $//MMbtu produces an LCOE of 5.2 cents/kWh. If you then change the inputs for wind, CF 34%, CAPEX 1500, zero variable, zero heating rate, zero fuel cost) the equivalent cost is 4.1 cents/kWh. For PV it's the same 1500 CAPEX, but the period is 25 years, CF is 25, and O&M is 12. That gives you 4.5 cents/kWh. My 12 panels have a CF of only 15, which gives 7.4 cents.
So basically these technologies are perfectly capable of competing on their own, which is precisely why they are, by far, the fastest growing power sources in the world. Only in the US is that not *overwhelmingly* the case, and that's because of the subsidized price of natgas. Natgas received about 1/2 the subsidies of solar or wind during the last 5 years, and that's only because of the accelerating rate of production tax breaks on the later two:
https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/
But that's the US centric view. For a real idea of what's going on you'd want to look at the world as a whole, add everything up, and then come up with the averages. Which is precisely what Lazard has been doing once a year for the last nine. Here is everything you need to know, up to date as of last October:
https://www.lazard.com/media/2390/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-analysis-90.pdf
> So using a fission reactor to respond to day or week long variations in demand is horribly inefficient and expensive
That depends on the plant design. The US midwest does just this because they're using the Westinghouse reactors that throttle daily. France does it because they have all of their plants on a national grid and can do some really fancy load following that wouldn't be possible elsewhere.
> First it was this is physically impossible.
The idea that renewables cannot supply power 24/7 and that the grid could not handle a fully renewables is trivially easy to find. I assume you simply couldn't be bothered to google it because many examples come up in the first page of hits:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323699704578328581251122150
http://www.businessinsider.com/green-energy-isnt-compatible-with-us-power-grid-2013-12
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/dec/02/nation/la-na-grid-renewables-20131203
And my favourite:
http://www.zdnet.com/article/designing-the-grid-for-renewables/
Which starts with "Americans have been repeatedly told a series of lies about accommodating renewables onto the power grid: That it can't handle large amounts of intermittent power generation. That standby fossil-fueled capacity must be maintained at 100 percent of demand for those times when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. That brownouts and blackouts will inevitably result from depending on renewables. That nuclear is the only power source that can meet our needs in the future. And so on."
This has, of course, been widely debunked by, literally, hundreds of studies.
> Germany is sunnier than the USA.
This was a widely spread meme from a while back, the argument being made that it is not possible for the US to replicate Germany's policies because Germany is sunnier, which is, of course, very much opposite of the truth:
http://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/08/fox-news-can-you-get-any-more-insane-germany-is-sunnier-than-the-us-video/
If you're not even aware of *this* story, you're clearly not interested in the power industry, which leads me to ask why are you here?
> Clean coal technology is carbon neutral
a) it doesn't exist
b) no it isn't, obviously.
> actually much better for the environment that producing solar panels
No it isn't, as has been widely and repeatedly demonstrated.
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf
> massive amounts of energy and dangerous chemicals
Neither is true. A cleanser used in the factory is a hazardous material, but it is contained within the factory (unless you believe the stories from China) and has no downstream risk.
http://solarindustrymag.com/online/issues/SI1309/FEAT_05_Hazardous_Materials_Used_In_Silicon_PV_Cell_Production_A_Primer.html
> We actually replaced two electric furnaces in our house with a pair of coal stoves
Which isn't clean coal by any means. However, given that heating coal is actually rather hard to get in lots of places these days I'm guessing you're writing from Ireland or the UK. Having been coal heated in the former, and having to suffer through continuous asthma as a result, anyone describing coal as clean is having a serious case of cognitive dissonance, is lying, is a shill, a troll, or some combination thereof.
You spout make-belief.
(1) It was never 'physically impossible', it was not very practical.
Depends on who you were talking to. A lot of folks I've dealt with in that past considered lead-acid cells the alpha and Omega of electric vehicles, IOW, golf carts.
It still isn't, but for the huge subsidies on both production and demand side.
We'll chat about that after the subsidies go away for all.
(2) Germany has a surplus for a few hours. For the other part of the day, they import nuclear from France and Sweden.
That's how progress works. None of this stuff spouts fully formed from the ocean like Venus, and if we demand it does, we won't get anywhere.
While once upon a time we had some things like Bell Labs doing research, modern US corporatism is too risk averse to fund basic science and startups that are as likely to fail as succeed.
But as more and more of this activity is shifted to countries who are willing to put in the basic research, we'll just sit back and become an also-ran.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Socialism. It'll hang on a bit longer than Communism. A bit longer.
Holy smoke AC. Most of the world would kill to have the economic prowess of little Germany.
Better look at some of the numbers before you open your mouth to insert your foot.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
You know, there's also this thing called "insulation." All you have to do if you want to be adequately warm (or cool, for that matter) without requiring a lot of energy is not build your dwelling with the idea that it's perfectly ok to allow heat to leak between your building's interior and the great outdoors. The tech is fully up to it, and it isn't even expensive. it *does* require actual thinking, so we don't see it much, but to imply that one must shiver or sweat "because wind/solar"... it just isn't true.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Over the course of perhaps a thousand years.
Where do you have your idiotic ideas from?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
There is no real upper limit for the efficiency of solar cells (except you take 100% as the limit). ...
Commercial cells are all around 20%. High end cells (galium arsenid or telurium based) are between 40% to 45%.
Multiple layers wont help. Convertion of photons into electricity depends on 'the colour' of the light. It is not so that half if the photons miss, and can be used in another layer. I is so that most photons 'don't fit' to cause an electron to jump into the current
Was that layman enough?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The current feed in rates are still far above competition. Especialky for old plants.
Only new set up solar plants have lower rates, and they are still high enough to make building new plants competitive.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
And what exactly do you want to tell us with noting CFs of german solar plants (which are wrong, btw)?
For me your statement: By the way, solar capacity factor in Germany is still around 10%, and their best solar plants only reach around 13 or 14%. bears no meaning. It is as if I would say: at night it is colder than outside.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
There are plenty if links where you can watch Germanies import and export of power in real time ;)
You are an idiot.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
No it is not. Especially it has nothing to do with "Laws of Thermodynamics" at all.
Solar PV cells are energy conversion devices and are absolutely subject to thermodynamic efficiency limits. At no point is the conversion of photon to electrical potential energy 100% efficient, nor can it be.
If photons below the band gap threshold can't be absorbed, that's just another problem hindering efficiency in a practical application.
And yes, the efficiency of a PV cell is dependent on temperature: Actively cooled panels perform better than passively cooled panels. Output voltage can vary by as much as 10-15% during winter-summer swings (higher in winter). Current for the same lighting intensity varies slightly in the opposite direction, but overall you get more power from cold panels all else being equal.
The theoretical limit of a single silicon P-N junction cell is ~32%. If you change the temperature of the material, the band gap changes and the efficiency changes accordingly. If you don't plan for that, you're likely going to have a very bad time.
=Smidge=