Slashdot Mirror
The World Set a New Record For Renewable Power in 2017, But Emissions Are Still Rising (qz.com)
In 2017, the world deployed an ever-expanding amount of solar and wind power, setting a new record for renewable-power capacity added to the grid. From a report: In fact, the money spent on renewable installations was more than twice the sum spent on nuclear and fossil-fuel power, according to the annual Global Status Report published by renewables policy group REN21. Over the past 10 years, global installed renewable-power capacity, which includes hydropower, has doubled.
That growth, however, isn't enough to reduce emissions. World demand for energy increased by 2.1% last year, and low-carbon sources could not keep pace. As a result, the word's energy-related carbon emissions rose by 1.7%, the first rise in four years. It's an important reminder that, despite all the talk about the growth of renewables, we still rely heavily on fossil fuels.
That growth, however, isn't enough to reduce emissions. World demand for energy increased by 2.1% last year, and low-carbon sources could not keep pace. As a result, the word's energy-related carbon emissions rose by 1.7%, the first rise in four years. It's an important reminder that, despite all the talk about the growth of renewables, we still rely heavily on fossil fuels.
But the capacity factor is low and the O&M cost is not free. The land required is not free. The capital cost is not free. The owners cost is not free. The cost of T&D is not free. Levelized cost means renewables still cannot compete with natural gas.
You will be using fossil fuel your entire lives. Get over it.
Take all proven reserves and extrapolate the new finds, add 25% for extraction methods. All of this will become C02 or methane. No matter how much one tries not to, there will be burning of fossil fuels. since lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is longer than the time it will be reuired to burn it all you now know how much CO2 will be in the atmosphere. We will roast ourselves, and acidify the ocean. The real question is are there any positive feedback effects? such as the acidity of the ocean causing a fall off in it's absorption, the build up of oil films decrasing the flux of CO2 into the oceans, the metltng of the tundra releasing methane?
And finally there's the one big one we already have the in sedimentary layers to guide us: forests die, release carbon, and the heat kills more forests. Oddly many people think that is the origin of hysteresis that causes the iceage cylce. It's not proven but the theory says ice ages are triggered by global warming transporting more water to the cold regions.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Nuclear fission reactors are clean and produce continuous power.
Ah yes, lines from 1979 by the great physicist, Dan Fogelberg.
The carbon bubble/fossil fuel capital abandonment issue is an issue that is looming 10+ years from now (though there are present situations that can be held up as analogies, such as the ongoing conversion of coal plants to natural gas plants https://energynews.us/2017/02/... which is causing coal capital abandonment). Renewables are near the bottom of the adoption S-curve, where they're just starting to take off, so they're still a small player today even if they're starting to have a visible impact and that impact is accelerating.
Personally, I'm very surprised that energy-related carbon emissions were flat for 4 years despite ever growing power demand.
But the capacity factor is low and the O&M cost is not free. The land required is not free. The capital cost is not free. The owners cost is not free. The cost of T&D is not free. Levelized cost means renewables still cannot compete with natural gas.
Capacity factor is irrelevant for levelized cost, O&M is significantly lower for newly built renewables than for most other sources, and there's no shortage of unused land in the world.
You will be using fossil fuel your entire lives. Get over it.
If you're sixty or more, then maybe. Otherwise...nope.
Ezekiel 23:20
Fuel's already mined. High-level waste is compact and mostly solid -- shield it, store it, and don't freak out about it. Far better than pumping tons of pollutants into the air from burning fossil fools.
If you ignore the fact that solar has and will continue to double in efficiency / decreased price per watt / decreased price of installation over regular, repeatable time periods, you have a point.
You don't need direct Sun light. Solar panels can generate around 80% of peak during dismal overcast days. And there are batteries. They really are not that expensive. Some places are even pairing batteries with fossil fuel like coal. A recent case study showed they were able to save $35mil in fuel over a 6 month period from a $55mil battery bank. Seems to me that batteries pay for themselves.
Nuclear fission reactors are clean and produce continuous power.
They produce little carbon pollution and other particulates but they are decidedly NOT clean. Nuclear waste is the very definition of not clean. Manageable maybe but not clean and certainly dangerous.
High-level waste is compact and mostly solid -- shield it, store it, and don't freak out about it.
Tell that to the folks who used to live near Fukushima. Or Chernobyl. Nuclear power is very safe... until it isn't. Nuclear waste is mostly manageable but incredibly toxic and nobody wants it nearby.
Far better than pumping tons of pollutants into the air from burning fossil fools.
Probably true but definitely not without problems. And people are a lot less scared of fossil fuels even if they shouldn't be.
There's nothing more or less tyrannical about a carbon tax than any other tax.
So what you're saying is "tax == tyranny at gunpoint".
A radical extreme libertarian viewpoint, in other words.
Tax is how nation-state super-organisms collect and distribute resources for larger-than-the-individual functions. This allows the super-organism to behave in a hierarchically organized and energy efficient manner. Tax is somewhat analogous to blood circulation of nutrients in a body.
You can argue what the appropriate rate of taxation is, but arguing against tax is just stupid and belies ignorance of how larger organised complex systems work.
The main rule of thumb is: The organization configuration is stable if both the individual constituents and the larger whole (the organization meme) get benefits from their hierarchical relationship of semi-autonomous agents. Tax (collected usable energy resources) for co-ordination purposes is an inherent part of the logic of operation of stable hierarchical organization/co-ordination memes.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
While I applaud the concept of electric vehicles for their emissions-reducing capability, the impact they actually have on greenhouse gas emissions are probably far less than would be assumed. The electricity to recharge them is still mostly generated from coal-fired power plants, so even if the cars themselves aren't emitting as much carbon dioxide, the eplants providing the power for them are.
The over all impact of electric vehicles on emissions is negligible for just reasons you listed here. But this will not always be the case. As wind and solar become more widespread electric vehicles will start to make real impacts on environmental standards, for the better.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
These articles require more context. For example, hydro-electric plants generate 7.5% of the total electrical production in the U.S., wind generates 6.3%, and solar power still provides only about 1.3%. So, clean energy only represents about 15% of electrical production. Nuclear could also be considered "clean energy," and it produces 20% of energy. But, coal-fired power plants still produce 30% of America's power and natural gas plants provide 32%. So, fossil fuels still provide the majority of America's electricity.
Really? Are these numbers accurate? I hope you don't mind if I double check these. I actually though the numbers for renewable energy use was actually far lower than what you have here. If these are accurate then my information is out of date, which is good news.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
"Solar needs 1,600 tons of steel per MW,
Uhhhh...since when? 1 MW is something like 3500 ordinary solar panels. One weighs about twenty kilograms. Where do 460 extra kilograms of steel per panel step in?
Ezekiel 23:20
Capacity factor has no strong connection to LCOE. Even if achieving a higher capacity factor improves ROI, such improvements pale in comparison with technological improvements. Or, to put it more plainly, solar hasn't dropped in price by a factor of one hundred in the last forty years because we've improved capacity factors by said one hundred. It dropped in price by a factor of one hundred in the last forty years because we've learned to manufacture the equipment massively more cheaply.
Ezekiel 23:20
Seems to me that when I'm driving between cities on the interstate, when I look out my left side window there are vast patches of unused land that are 30 to 50 feet wide. Other than dividing the opposite lanes of traffic this land seems to serve no other purpose than a place for grass to grow. Grass that, for some reason escapes me, we seem to want to spend a great deal of time and energy to mow.
With a little thinking could not some of this land be put to better use? Say a solar farm right down the middle of the interstate?
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
If we switched to GaAs-based or CdTe based solar panel technologies, you might have had a point. But silicon cells? Nothing really dangerous about them.,
I'm not worried about solder. But clearly you didn't even take time to google PV production chemicals before responding.
I don't need to, because I actually know the technology. You seem to be not afraid of nuclear waste because it is "easy to manage, highly inert". Well, in turn, I'm not afraid of the chemicals named in that site
Let me help;
No, let me help. As I said, I actually know the technology. The chemicals named in that site are: "Hydrochloric acid, copper, trichlorosilane gas and silicon waste."
Hydrochloric acid: Wow, sounds scary! Acid! Well, uh, except just mix the waste with dilute sodium hydroxide, and it turns into salt and water.
copper: You know what? I'm not afraid of copper. Sorry. I even have it in my house-- it's in the wires!
trichlorosilane gas: Solar production don't want to waste the silane-- it's your feedstock-- but if there is waste? Burn it. It turns into silicon dioxide (sand), water, and hydrochloric acid (see above).
and silicon waste: Silicon is pretty inert.
Really. If you are not scared of nuclear waste, you should really really not be scared of solar array production waste. Use the same standards of "scaryness" for both.
(Several other chemicals are named later on in the article... which are not used in current technology panels.)
I'm not worried about solder. But clearly you didn't even take time to google PV production chemicals before responding.
I don't need to, because I actually know the technology. You seem to be not afraid of nuclear waste because it is "easy to manage, highly inert". Well, in turn, I'm not afraid of the chemicals named in that site
Let me help;
No, let me help. As I said, I actually know the technology. The chemicals named in that site are: "Hydrochloric acid, copper, trichlorosilane gas and silicon waste." Hydrochloric acid: Wow, sounds scary! Acid! Well, uh, except just mix the waste with dilute sodium hydroxide, and it turns into salt and water. copper: You know what? I'm not afraid of copper. Sorry. I even have it in my house-- it's in the wires! trichlorosilane gas: Solar production don't want to waste the silane-- it's your feedstock-- but if there is waste? Burn it. It turns into silicon dioxide (sand), water, and hydrochloric acid (see above). and silicon waste: Silicon is pretty inert.
Really. If you are not scared of nuclear waste, you should really really not be scared of solar array production waste. Use the same standards of "scaryness" for both.
(Several other chemicals are named later on in the article... which are not used in current technology panels.)
Can you not read? I never said I was scared of chemicals used in PV tech. And, BTW, most of those chemicals are still used, they are just used in lesser amounts. Why are you scared of nuclear waste? You, nor anyone else with no business near it, are never likely to get anywhere near it. Can you say that for other toxic wastes that you don't fret about?
we're still burning more coal. In fact we burn more now than all of the 18th century. ANd we literally ran out of whale oil.
so what is your point?
But U.S. peak coal use was in 2007. Every year for the last five years coal consumption has fallen from the previous year in the midst of a strong economy (thanks Obama!). U.S. annual coal use is down to mid-1980s levels. By 2021 we should have turned the clock back a full 40 years.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
I got my numbers from the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Here's the website: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs...
Here in Ontario emissions from power generation have been going up despite the government going mad with wind and solar. Yes, the remaining coal plants have been shut down -- and the nukes (60% of power) and hydroelectric have been dialed back to provide space on the grid to accommodate the mandated 'first to the grid' rule for this stuff. But to fill in the fluctuations and sags in wind they have also been aggressively adding gas turbines -- so overall emissions are rising.
Never trust an AC without links. From this site it appears that Ontario's carbon emissions fell from 2005 to 2016. And all of Canada is down from 2006 despite economic and population growth.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
Really? I should respect your ignorance?
The first link on Google when I searched for
"turbines net energy manufacture"
https://www.scientificamerican...
""Within a few months, a wind turbine generates enough electricity to pay back all of the energy it took to build it,"
The *very* *first* link.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Just because you feel something is true, does not make it so. So provide a peer-reviewed source that says supports your bullshit.
I hear the thunder three miles away.
The Island's leaking into the bay
The poison is spreading
The demon is free
And people are running from what they can't even see
lol.
Total dead
Zero
The poison that spread
The demons you dread
As substantive as the fiddling of Nero
Just goes to show that fucking drama queens have always handwaived about stupid shit rather than doing something about the things which actually matter.
They're competing successfully because they don't have to worry about base load generation. Even better (for them) as you increase the penetration of renewables, the price of other forms of energy increase due to more time spent idling, so renewables look even more attractive to the ignorant layman.
To use a loose analogy, people who recieve food stamps have to earn less to get by. But the more people there are on food stamps, the more everyone else has to pay in order to make up for it. That doesn't mean the people who get food stamps are more productive, or that we should be encouraging everyone to be on food stamps. It just means they're offloading a significant fraction of their costs onto others.
Thank you for the numbers. The fossil fuel numbers are higher than I would like them to be at 62.7%. But the numbers for wind are up to twice what I thought they would be at 6.3%. Still a long way to go but I'm going to be happy with this.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
You already know Americans produce more CO2 from coal powered electricity than Chinese people.
Chinese coal plants produced 3,573 MT of CO2 in 2017 American coal plants produced 1,056 MT of CO2 in 2017
Per person America (less than 1/4 China's population) produces more CO2 from coal plants than China does...much more...OOPS.
Then on top of that America is the biggest user of natural gas. And America too, is the far biggest oil user.
It's no wonder your CO2 emissions are so much more than every one elses.
It's no wonder your CO2 emissions are so much more than every one elses.
Unless your China. Almost twice as much as the US by some reports.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
no, he's pointing out the chemicals used in PV production can be turned into being safe and usable compared to nuclear waste. Here's an interesting link for you to read about to recycling PV panels and how much of a PV panel is recycled. https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/b... As a shortcut, 96% of materials can be reused for producing new solar panels
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Unmowed grass is a fire hazard
Good point. I should have realized that.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
That's kind of my point. Nuclear power and the meltdown didn't really cause much in the way of damage and effects. The damage and effects were due to poor planning, government incompetence and panic created by the media. For some reason Fukushima took all the headlines despite even under the worst case and including the evacuation damages and deaths still pales in comparison with the actual earthquake and tsunami that caused the nuclear problem in the first place.
An estimated 1600 deaths due to the nuclear evacuation vs the close to 16,000 deaths and 2500 missing from the earthquake and tsunami. I'm not too worried about the effects of a powerplant failure caused a disaster that was at least 10x worse even considering the mismanagement of the response.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
I have read studies that show there are kind of grass, switch grass and hemp, that would make far better bio-fuels than anything we currently use. But for some reason, only Cthulhu knows, they want to continue to make it out of corn.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.