New Mexico the Most Coal-Heavy State To Pledge 100 Percent Carbon-Free Energy By 2045 (arstechnica.com) 205
New Mexico's state House of Representatives passed the "Energy Transition Act" on Tuesday, where it's expected to be signed quickly by Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham. The bill "commits the state to getting 100 percent of its energy from carbon-free sources by 2045," reports Ars Technica. From the report: The bill includes interim goals mandating that 50 percent of the state's energy mix be renewable by 2030 and 80 percent of the energy mix be renewable by 2040. The state currently buys no nuclear power, which is not renewable but qualifies as a zero-carbon energy source. The bill passed yesterday does not require that 100 percent of the state's energy be renewable by 2045; it just specifies that no electricity come from a carbon-emitting source.
New Mexico is unique among these states because it is a relatively coal-heavy state, generating 1.5 gigawatts of coal-fired electricity as of November 2018. Last month, the state's Public Service Company of New Mexico had slated its 847MW San Juan coal plant for shut down by 2022, but a New York hedge fund called Acme Equities swooped in with an offer to buy the 46-year-old plant. According to Power Magazine, Acme intends to retrofit the plant with carbon capture and sequestration technology. If the deal goes through, Acme would use the captured carbon in enhanced oil recovery, where carbon is forced into older or weak oil wells to improve the pressure of the well and extract more oil. But with the passage of this bill, Acme's offer may not stand. New Mexico In Depth writes that the bill puts "$30 million toward the clean-up of the [San Juan] coal-fired power plant and the mine that supplies it and $40 million toward economic diversification efforts in that corner of the state and support for affected power plant employees and miners."
New Mexico is unique among these states because it is a relatively coal-heavy state, generating 1.5 gigawatts of coal-fired electricity as of November 2018. Last month, the state's Public Service Company of New Mexico had slated its 847MW San Juan coal plant for shut down by 2022, but a New York hedge fund called Acme Equities swooped in with an offer to buy the 46-year-old plant. According to Power Magazine, Acme intends to retrofit the plant with carbon capture and sequestration technology. If the deal goes through, Acme would use the captured carbon in enhanced oil recovery, where carbon is forced into older or weak oil wells to improve the pressure of the well and extract more oil. But with the passage of this bill, Acme's offer may not stand. New Mexico In Depth writes that the bill puts "$30 million toward the clean-up of the [San Juan] coal-fired power plant and the mine that supplies it and $40 million toward economic diversification efforts in that corner of the state and support for affected power plant employees and miners."
Will it be enough to help the Native Americans? (Score:3)
The summary states $40 million has been allowed to help coal workers and other residents of the norther corner of the state - but will that really be enough to help them Native American communities that suffer from coal plant shutdowns? (html links for text don't seem to be working, check out https://www.abqjournal.com/121... [abqjournal.com] for details).
It sure seems like the offer to buy the plat and retrofit it with scrubbers and recapturing technology was a win-win that should have been lauded as a green solution that also helped the residents of that part of the state.
Re:Will it be enough to help the Native Americans? (Score:5, Interesting)
will that really be enough to help them Native American communities that suffer from coal plant shutdowns?
Does this new law even apply to the Navaho coal plants? States usually have no jurisdiction on Indian land.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Solar panels are incredibly toxic to make
Bullshit.
and have horrible efficiency
They have the HIGHEST efficiency in converting sunlight - the primary source of energy for all electricity generation that isn't nuclear, tidal or geothermal (with the latter two being negligible contributors to anything on Earth at the moment) - compared to any other pathway through which sunlight ever became electricity, be it wind, oil, gas or coal.
They never pay off the emissions
They do, in a year or so.
a d toxic chemicals required to make them
That's not even a thing for them.
let alone anything beyond that, before needing to be replaced
They last 25 years or more without any problems. [psu.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
and have horrible efficiency
They have the HIGHEST efficiency in converting sunlight - the primary source of energy for all electricity generation that isn't nuclear, tidal or geothermal (with the latter two being negligible contributors to anything on Earth at the moment) - compared to any other pathway through which sunlight ever became electricity, be it wind, oil, gas or coal.
They never pay off the emissions
They do, in a year or so.
a d toxic chemicals required to make them
That's not even a thing for them.
The problem with solar is similar to the problem for most energy sources and that is low energy density. Solar at large scale requires lots of land. And while some PV cells are made with toxic materials, others are made with much less environmental impact. The problem is they are also lower efficiencies. Solar is great for small amounts of power which are far from generation sources. Its just not a useful energy source for large scale grid applications. Also, your definition of generation capacity use
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with solar is similar to the problem for most energy sources and that is low energy density. Solar at large scale requires lots of land.
I take it you've never driven through New Mexico. The problem with New Mexico is that it is a lot of empty land, that rarely has cloud cover.
And while some PV cells are made with toxic materials, others are made with much less environmental impact. The problem is they are also lower efficiencies.
So? Don't use PV. Thermal solar is much cheaper at grid scale and has the capacity to inherently store energy (through underground liquified salts).
Solar is great for small amounts of power which are far from generation sources. Its just not a useful energy source for large scale grid applications.
My local power company would like to see your analysis, since they've been working on different numbers and quietly building out large PV farms. Considering that thermal solar is even cheaper than PV, my thinking is tha
Re: (Score:2)
Solar is great for small amounts of power which are far from generation sources. Its just not a useful energy source for large scale grid applications.
My local power company would like to see your analysis, since they've been working on different numbers and quietly building out large PV farms. Considering that thermal solar is even cheaper than PV, my thinking is that they're telling everybody else that it isn't worthwhile to invest in home solar while they build out their own infrastructure.
Your local power company doesn't do this type of analysis. They build/buy what their regulators tell them to. Those regulators don't do analysis either, they answer to elected officials. Those elected officials don't do the analysis either unless their opposition does it, in which case they do it too but twist the numbers to say what they want. Ironically, the only folks to do these types of analysis work for banks which bet on these power companies and energy traders that bet on the price of energy in
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with solar is similar to the problem for most energy sources and that is low energy density. Solar at large scale requires lots of land.
Fortunately we have lots of spaces that we don't know what better thing to do with them.
And while some PV cells are made with toxic materials, others are made with much less environmental impact.
Yes, CdTe panels contain cadmium. Yet they are mostly an American curiosity, courtesy of First Solar, and conventional crystalline silicone panel, which contain no toxic materials, constitute 95% of the current market. So I wouldn't worry about toxicity.
The problem is they are also lower efficiencies.
Efficiency is not a problem if you have space to waste, unless you're talking about cost efficiency. But we've already achieved grid parity in many places. [youtu.be] So that should
Re: (Score:2)
There is more than one type of solar, you know. In the case of New Mexico, there is no reason not to use thermal solar. In this case, the "panels" could be nothing more than polished sheets of aluminum that all focus the sunlight on a central point.
Specifies (Score:1, Troll)
When the sun is down and the wind speed changes?
Re: (Score:2)
That's a silly question. The wind is always blowing somewhere.
Re: (Score:3)
New Mexico already does not use the coal it mines, almost all of it is exported.
Re: (Score:2)
Battery storage currently adds about $0.07/kWh, and should drop by half or better in the next 15 years as cell cost and cycle life improve. When you add grid benefits, the consumer cost can be substantially lower as it offsets transmission premiums.
Re: (Score:2)
My residential retail cost TOTAL (including all fees, etc) for electricity is currently only about $0.162/kW-hr. An increase of $0.07/kW-hr would be a 50% increase in my energy prices.
Re: (Score:2)
Your $0.162 is likely made up of about $0.07 in energy costs and the remainder is distribution costs, based either on peak demand or bundled into energy cost depending on your tariff. What should happen is that the extra $0.07 helps to offset generation (solar/wind are about $0.04-5 currently, when available), and/or a transmission costs. It could potentially add up to $0.02 to your rate over time, but it just depends on your exact situation. (That extra is essentially providing increased availability, w
Re: (Score:2)
My actual costs:
Typically industrial solar capacity is quoted at $0.035/kW-hr, so that would at most reduce the capacity and non-capacity charges by at most about $0.04. And solar has no fuel... so that would eliminate a whopping $0.002/kW-hr from my bill (fossil fuels ar
Re: (Score:2)
Power plants going off for maintenance is par for the course and is generally planned. This is generally scheduled for when demand is low, or no other plants are being take offline for maintenance.
Unplanned shutdowns are a bit trickier, but it's not like nuclear (or coal) power plants are networked such that one going off affects the rest. Besides, in the US, there are 60 odd nuclear power plants. If one suddenly went offline in an unplanned way, that is less than 2% capacity (give or take) disappearing wit
25 Years... (Score:1)
... and we think this is somehow a wonderful thing. *SMH*
mnem
"Clean Coal" is, and always has been, a fucking lie.
Going Nuclear (Score:1)
https://justoneminute.typepad.... [typepad.com]
“A committed, lifelong Green pounds the table for nuclear power. People familiar with the baseload problem and the unreliable nature of wind and solar won’t find the plot surprising, but the detailed studies of California’s seasonal use and generation from wind and solar were new to me.”
Should be doable. Go Nuclear! (Score:5, Insightful)
Two, perhaps 3 nuclear power plants should be able to replace their coal fired plants. Coal and oil are going to be too valuable as feedstocks for chemical processes to just burn the stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Two, perhaps 3 nuclear power plants should be able to replace their coal fired plants.
I'm in no way anti-nuclear and its not as if NM is a stranger to uh nukes, but its got vast amounts of empty space and vast amounts of sunshine. Its pretty much the ideal place for solar.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear power plants are not getting built because the cost/benefits are not there -- otherwise you'd see more than just the Georgia plant going up that is 3x what they projected to build it for.
I'm not an expert, but I do believe that MOST of the products of oil are put to use right now except for Benzene, which we have too much of but is put in gas as a good way to get rid of it (and we tolerate this, apparently). I don't think those plastics, or fertilizers are going to need the gasoline products -- so,
Re: (Score:2)
I'll bite.
How much lower lifetime CO2 emission than coal of natural gas must a generation source emit to qualify as low carbon?
Re: (Score:2)
Well their goal is zero carbon, so it's more a question of how much can they capture. If they capture 1kg of CO2 somewhere they can then emit 1kg of CO2 somewhere else and it's net zero.
Obviously the more CO2 they emit generating electricity the more they need to capture elsewhere. So it makes sense to pick low emission technology for generation because then it's easier to get to net zero.
Nuclear can be fairly low, but only in the absolute best case for fuelling it and dealing with the waste. In practice it
Re: (Score:2)
OK. I'll bite again.
5 kg of uranium contains enough energy for one (American) person's lifetime on average. It also costs about $200 per kg, so you need about $1,000 worth of uranium to power an energy hungry American lifestyle for a lifetime.
$1,000 buys about 1,000 litres of petrol (gasoline for you Americans) I reckon. 1,000 litres of petrol produces about 2,300kg of CO2 (or 2.3 metric tonnes of CO2).
The per capita CO2 emissions for the average American is 15.53 metric tonnes per year.
So, assuming that al
Re: (Score:3)
The link - it is right there - shows you than nuclear is pretty much the lowest energy source (next to onshore wind). Solar is, on average (or median) about 4 times more CO2 emissions on a lifecycle basis.
Yes, solar doesn't need any fuel, but solar panels also don't grow on trees.
Bottom line is nuclear is lower CO2 than solar!
Re: (Score:2)
And here I though I was replying to a response to my initial post (in which I did not bring up solar by the way).
The point I was making, and the point I originally made, was that nuclear is low carbon. Heck, the link I provided (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources#2014_IPCC,_Global_warming_potential_of_selected_electricity_sources) shows it is indeed close to the lowest carbon source of energy, and that solar produces 4 times as much CO2 on average, when lifet
Re: (Score:2)
YOU brought up how low CO2 production must be to be low carbon to someone who said that nuclear wasn't really an option for NM because it's not that low.
Now we are getting somewhere. For the bit in bold, I disagree. Nuclear IS that low. It is very low indeed, close to the lowest CO2 generating source out there. SO your claim is demonstrably false, as per IPCC data (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources#2014_IPCC,_Global_warming_potential_of_selected_electricity_sources).
If you are claiming otherwise, then show us the data / information.
Re: (Score:2)
Solar uses no fuel.
So it is zero emissions.
Yes, solar is zero emissions, IF you completely ignore all the emissions producing solar panels.
Nuclear is also zero emissions - "burning" uranium does not produce CO2.
I choose not to ignore that bit, because, well, I don't like to be ignorant of facts I guess. But the facts are, solar is NOT lower CO2 than nuclear, unless you choose a measure that is misleading.
Let me put it another way. I could choose, at the outset, to mine all the materials I need (iron, rare earth metals, uranium etc) that I will need
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh.
Solar is not zero emissions because it doesn't demand fuel any more than nuclear power. Solar panels require mined material as much as if not more than nuclear. The fact that with solar power you get to incur all your carbon costs at the outset is not an advantage.
To use an analogy, if I was buying a house and I had two options - pay for the house at the outset and pay X, or pay for the house in instalments and pay half as much. Your position is that the first option is better because it doesn't involv
Re: (Score:2)
Counting the emissions during the production of the solar panel but ignoring the emissions of building the nuclear plant is dishonest. The construction of the nuclear plant requires a massive amount of concrete and steel, both of which output large values of CO2.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not doing that at all. The point I made was that the lifecycle emissions for a nuclear power plant were lower than for solar. The IPCC has figures suggesting that solar CO2 emissions on a lifecycle basis are 4 times higher than for nuclear - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org].
The claim that had been made was that because nuclear required refuelling, it would continue to produce CO2 because mining nuclear fuel produces CO2. I just countered that once we take everything in the round, nuclear still produce
Re: (Score:2)
Calm down dear!
If you dispute what the bloody IPCC says, then show us the data. I.e put up or shut up.
Oh, and here is yet another study showing similar results.
http://www.dae.nic.in/writerea... [dae.nic.in]
Nuclear power produces lower emissions than solar. Again!
CCS (Score:2)
I'm interested in this idea that Acme was going to fit CCS tech. I thought it had never been commercialised?
Greenie pipe dream (Score:3, Insightful)
I used to live in New Mexico. Lovely place, but not terribly wealthy, which makes me wonder when I see legislation like this. If you read it, much of the legislation is about handing out money to various parties: incentives, but also reparations to plants and workers that will have to close. Bet: these handouts will be exploited to suck on the public teat.
That aside, here's the core message:
"...'renewable energy resource' means electric or useful thermal energy:
So it's the usual greenie idiocy: spend other people's money on a pipe dream. Solar, of course, would be great in the high desert - except for the minor little problem that the sun doesn't shine at night. None of the named technologies can possibly produce enough power 24/7, except possibly razing and burning the forests.
They could take a lesson from parts of Australia or Germany that have already made the same damned mistake: They wind up giving their solar power away, when they have too much of it. At night, or when it's cloudy, they have to import power, sometimes at outrageous prices.
Re: (Score:2)
spend other people's money on a pipe dream
More like stop helping people outsource their costs and redirect that money to things that will actually make life better for the average taxpayer.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sorry, but it's not a pipe dream.
As long as you're still overall getting the power cheaper from wind turbines or PV, it doesn't really matter that you sometimes have too much. New nuclear plants are really expensive.
As for the intermittency - how would you handle peaks in a grid with only new nuclear plants? Not by more expensive nuclear plants sitting idle most of the time... So this is actually a (solvable) problem shared between nuclear, wind and PV.
Below you cite the household prices in Germany - bu
Re: (Score:2)
At night, or when it's cloudy, they have to import power, sometimes at outrageous prices. ... go figure. ... you have no clue about the european power market.
Why would we import power at night? At night power demand is around 40% of midday peak
Power imports are not particular expensive
Re: (Score:2)
Typical idiotic AC post, but I'll answer anyway. Of course Germany overproduces power - in the summer, on sunny days. Sun produces solar power, news at 11:00.
The problem comes on cloudy days in January, when Germany is importing power from all over Europe to power their industry. Nuclear in France? Check. Coal in Eastern Europe? Check.
Dunno where you get the idea that Germany makes money doing this, because they don't. There's a reason that German household power prices are around $0.30 / kwh. What do you p
Re: (Score:3)
30cent is greatly exaggerated. ...
And household power prices are dropping
Germany is a net exporter of power. They days we import more than we export are extremely rare.
Here you can play around: https://www.energy-charts.de/i... [energy-charts.de]
The highest contribution to solar power btw. are cold sunny winter days, especially weekends when the industry is sleeping ... we had plenty of days were all our power was green.
Simple solution (Score:2)
New Mexico will just unplug California.
Lots of empty space... (Score:2)
Finally, a state that has it right (Score:2)
What is not needed is to force our nation to use just wind/solar, which from a national security POV, that is a disaster in the making.
Nuclear fission (replaced by fusion in the future), Geo-thermal combined with wind, solar on rooftops, and storage, would be the best idea going.
Re: (Score:2)
contaminated the groundwater in 48 states you mean (Score:1)
In actual-reality America the vast, vast mass of toxic fly ash sits unused in huge piles alongside rivers and other waterways, and has contaminated the groundwater of all 48 lower states. https://www.grandforksherald.com/business/energy-and-mining/4583002-report-unsafe-levels-coal-ash-contamination-found-north-dakota
Re: (Score:2)
In actual-reality America the vast, vast mass of toxic fly ash sits unused in huge piles alongside rivers and other waterways, and has contaminated the groundwater of all 48 lower states. https://www.grandforksherald.c... [grandforksherald.com]
Well that comes down to regulations and enforcement of those regulations however when it comes to climate change https://www.carbonbrief.org/ma... [carbonbrief.org] paints an interesting picture. Instead of complaining about the converted western countries who are clearly closing plants to their own economic detriment to appease the climate change brigade. Why don't those same people go protest in countries who are building more coal fired plants and tell them what they are doing is bad for the planet. And note:- those count
Re: (Score:1)
Took you out of poverty? What country are you in that had a history of poverty?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The new jobs and work moved many into the middle glass.
Gentrification and better education for all. Winning.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure some are taking their time, however IMO there certainly seems correlation between the 2.
Of course, someone else has discounted that, but as noted there is more than just electricity driving reduction in poverty.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ucenergy/2018/03/09/does-providing-electricity-to-the-poor-reduce-poverty-research-suggests-not-quite/#38144646e39b
Re: Clean, Powerful Coal (Score:2)
Any country with a liberal enough government reduces poverty significantly when electricity penetration is high.
I can't argue with your hollow generalized generalization because I have no idea whether you're using the traditional definition of "liberal" (i.e. a modern, enlightened humanist who's against feudalism and monarchy) or the virtually opposite Jeffersonian/Hamiltonian definition (an authoritarian Tory determined to prevent the decentralization of power).
Re: (Score:2)
Strange definitions as here a Tory is opposite a Liberal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, someone else has discounted that, but as noted there is more than just electricity driving reduction in poverty. https://www.forbes.com/sites/u... [forbes.com]
Did you read that article? They hooked up a couple of huts to a grid then measured those families 18 months later. But that's a fundamentally dishonest way to measure it. Having reliable electricity allows for heavy industry to exist. It reduces spoilage of food stuffs. And it has a fundamental impact upon an economy. These things can't be measured marginally like the authors of your study assume. A few more huts having electricity doesn't fundamentally change the businesses that are now possible. I
Re: (Score:2)
While you're correct that energy equals wealth, so does things like clean air, clean water and a stable environment.
These have to be balanced and if the cheap power is subsidized by dirty air etc, the power isn't really cheap.
I think the environmentalists are trying to balance these things in general. Of course capitalism leads to things like Exon funding Greenpeace to protect their business model. Can't have cheap nukes can we.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the fatal flaws about conservatives is they usually believe the answers are simple.
...and then proceeds to lay out a system that he believes is simple, except ignoring all the complexities.
Have you not heard ANYTHING about that Green New Deal the leftists are pushing? It has the same fatal flaw that you have presented here. A simple solution where we cede control to people that know better, so that they can make decisions for us.
Re: (Score:2)
Every country has had a history of grinding poverty ... before it started massively exploiting fossil fuel.
Yeah, but what time in the US was before fossil fuel? Think you missed the point.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Thank God for coal. Something that made us a 1st world nation and took us out of poverty. Very sad to hear that you don't understand history. You're very cozy and extraordinary way of life you can owe all to fossil fuels. Standards of living, life expectancy all went up because of fossil fuels.
Thank goodness for diapers. Something that conveniently held our piss and shit in when we were all babies and incontinent. Very sad that you've turned your back on diapers in favor of something new, different, and arguably more sanitary. Anyone in the world who ever shit in a diaper but now uses a toilet is a hypocrite and has zero credibility not only on where to shit, but every other conceivable topic as well. I'll excuse you while you make your daily remittance to your parents, grandparents, great grandp
Re: (Score:2)
I believe you mean "whale oil". Also note that major health problem skyrocketed because of fossil fuels. Of course other health problems went down because of better medicine, and that has the major effect on life expectancy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It didn't work out that way did it? And yet trillions were spent.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
He's actually more correct than not. Sherman's March did raze large sections of the south. The South was in economic ruins and the plantation owners were also in ruins. Slavery was paid for in blood and treasure. Jim Crow, you can argue was not. But then, the whole idea behind the Great Society rhetoric which expanded welfare and the like in the 1960s, was to jump-start black economic progress. It didn't work out that way did it? And yet trillions were spent.
Actually, from the 1960s to the 1980s, approximately half of all African-Americans moved from lower class to middle class. The great society was actually hugely successful. But then in the early 1980's Reagon cut all of those programs and that progress halted and even reversed. Its likely that we have much larger bills for policing and social services today because we cut those programs in the 1980s. But do go on repeating what Rush or whatever AM talk radio personality you got that from.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you want to dispute that?
Re: (Score:1)
States that can provide energy at lower costs 24/7 for production lines.
Re:They are making things worse (Score:4, Interesting)
Never mind that the modern renewables are already cheaper than coal. Coal's days are done.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus it's so done. I'm looking forward to mod my car to start Rollin' Nuclear.
Re: (Score:2)
Never mind that the modern renewables are already cheaper than coal. Coal's days are done.
We stop the subsidies then
Re: (Score:1)
If modern renewables are already cheaper than coal, then there is no need for a law to ban coal, people will just naturally switch to the cheaper technology instead.
It's only because they aren't that New Mexico politicians feel the need to virtue signal to their constituents that someday (when they are safely out of office and maybe even dead) the State will be on 100% non-fossil fuels. In the meantime, they'll spend some more of other people's money for their favorite special interest groups of the week.
Re: (Score:2)
No.
There should be a move to the government owning and controlling the transmission lines, the allowing anyone to produce and sell electricity in the same way that anyone can start a trucking company.
At that point, you'll see which technology is truly viable.
Re: (Score:2)
+1
Which is the only reason the politicals are making up their laws. They're just trying to stay ahead of the parades so that they can keep calling themselves the leader.
If ANY of the 50 united states should be leading in the solar revolution, it should be New Mexico (and it would be a head-to-head race with Arizona and eastern Texas).
Re: (Score:1)
Yea too bad we never invented a way of storing surplus electricity for later use. /sarcasm
Re: (Score:1)
Yea too bad we never invented a way of storing surplus electricity for later use. /sarcasm
To those who read energy-related news (no offense intended to those that don't), this is an exciting time for the prospects of electrical energy generation and storage. Wind turbines, photovoltaics (residential and large-scale industrial), solar steam plants, molten salt heat storage, ever-less-expensive chemical battery technologies, decentralization . . . It's a time in which it only makes economic sense to dispense with old and adopt the new.
Re: (Score:2)
Wind turbines when the wind speed is productive.
Photovoltaics when the sun is out.
Molten salt heat storage works until the molten part cools and gets stuck.
Ever-less-expensive chemical battery technologies is still too expensive
Re: (Score:1)
Yea, but it's a minor initial buy-in for a long-term savings that makes mathematical sense even aside from the whole saving the environment thing.
Plus, it creates jobs... actually a lot more jobs than the coal mine and power plants they shut down.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing you don't do NPV calculations for a living...
Re: (Score:2)
Wind turbines, photovoltaics (residential and large-scale industrial), solar steam plants, molten salt heat storage, ever-less-expensive chemical battery technologies, decentralization . . . It's a time in which it only makes economic sense to dispense with old and adopt the new. Wind turbines when the wind speed is productive. Photovoltaics when the sun is out. Molten salt heat storage works until the molten part cools and gets stuck. Ever-less-expensive chemical battery technologies is still too expensive. Someone is going to have to pay for all the new. Low cost 24/7 power is what the USA needs.
Add all of those up, even without considering cost and only limiting with issues like world-wide mining production of various raw materials and you still won't even replace 10% of our current power production. Scale matters. Energy density matters. When PG&E says they will get 50% of their power from renewables, they are calculating nameplate capacity only. At 50% nameplate capacity, only 5% of the power generated will actually be from renewables with the rest coming from fossil fuels and nuclear.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, molten salt loops only last 6 hours. Not an especially useful grid scale backup storage mechanism.
Interesting. I'd like to see some numbers on that. What is it that limits the size of an underground holding tank?
Re: (Score:2)
Also, molten salt loops only last 6 hours. Not an especially useful grid scale backup storage mechanism.
Interesting. I'd like to see some numbers on that. What is it that limits the size of an underground holding tank?
Doesn't matter. Its a limitation of the molten salt material itself. Any size will have a max limit of about 6 hours with current technology. It has nothing to do with the size/scale of the salt loop. Perhaps it will get better in the future but the limitation is quality of insulation and that's unlikely to radically improve.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, molten salt loops only last 6 hours. Not an especially useful grid scale backup storage mechanism. You need at least 80 hours worth to backup a grid, ... why would anyone want 80h backup is beyond me.
Perhaps you want to look at a demand curve
When PG&E says they will get 50% of their power from renewables, they are calculating nameplate capacity only.
When a power company says it produces 50% of its power by renewables than it so. Perhaps they have twice or thrice the name plate capacity install
Re: (Score:2)
If you're watching the energy market, you would see that they ARE trampling each other. There are solar panel shortages. What is happening is that the "greedy companies" are slurping up the subsidies that were put in place while the panels were more expensive. Now they are getting the benefits of subsidies AND an economically viable solar solution.
More corporate welfare. This time from the left.
Re: (Score:2)
Use solar thermal to liquify salts (or some other chemical) and store it underground. You can then have a HUGE power reserve. If you need more reserve, just dig another hole and put a tank in it. There are options other than PV.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When you factor in battery costs, and renewable maintenance (replacing those old wind turbines and solar cells that require massive reliable power to fabricate)
The generators are cheap even accounting for lifetime costs.
Battery costs will be a non-issue if BEVs spread due to the synergistic effect of renewable generation growth and BEV fleet growth. Massive amounts of load can be shifted to or from BEV charging almost instantly, so lots of BEVs allow for greater renewable generation deployment, and conversely, lots of renewable generators ensure that there's extra electricity available for lots of BEVs, which will standing around most of the time anyway like almos
Re: (Score:2)
The generators are cheap even accounting for lifetime costs.
Battery costs will be a non-issue if BEVs spread due to the synergistic effect of renewable generation growth and BEV fleet growth. Massive amounts of load can be shifted to or from BEV charging almost instantly, so lots of BEVs allow for greater renewable generation deployment, and conversely, lots of renewable generators ensure that there's extra electricity available for lots of BEVs, which will standing around most of the time anyway like almost all cars.
This old one again. Look, its not possible to make enough Li-ion batteries (or batteries of any type) to back up a grid for even a day. Your solution is off by about a factor of 100x in terms of being about to do what you claim.
Germany and other countries/states have shown, those with the highest percent of renewables have the highest power costs.
Or, it's the other way round and countries with high electricity costs turn to renewables in order to lower power costs in the future. Germany just had a "bump" problem in the sense that it was the first one to do it on such a scale that early costs bit them, but that's a 2010 thing, not a 2020 thing.
Germany has higher energy costs because of renewables. They had lower costs in 2010. Then they installed a lot of renewables (from 2010-now) and now they have higher costs. Also, more CO2 output because of all the natural gas they burn to backup their wind. But don't let facts
Re: (Score:2)
This old one again. Look, its not possible to make enough Li-ion batteries (or batteries of any type) to back up a grid for even a day. Your solution is off by about a factor of 100x in terms of being about to do what you claim.
A straw man. I never said that (that this was a "solution" "to back up a grid for even a day"), even though there are reasons to believe that you're completely wrong about that, too. Why do you believe that it is impossible to manufacture 7 kWh of batteries per citizen of Earth? And why that random "100x" factor, of all things?
Germany has higher energy costs because of renewables. They had lower costs in 2010.
Lots of countries had lower costs in 2010, for reasons having nothing to do with renewables.
Then they installed a lot of renewables (from 2010-now) and now they have higher costs.
Setting aside post hoc ergo propter hoc, any extra costs Germany incurred specifically in t
Re: (Score:2)
Also, more CO2 output because of all the natural gas they burn to backup their wind.
Double wrong. Our CO2 output sank drastically.
There was a 1% raise from 2016 to 2017, or 2017 to 2018, I forgot: due to cold winters and more CO2 produced due to heating. Germany has not many gas plants anyway, so actually tripple wrong.
Re: (Score:1)
That's actually one of the main reasons why coal mines are closing if not the only reason. Coal is worthless now. It costs more to dig it up than it's good for on the market. Just like US Canadian tar sands shale oil.
Yep. Economics is keeping it in the ground more than any other factor by far. I don't know how it's possible that you would have any opinion on the matter and not know this basic shit, weird.
Re: (Score:2)
Both are cheaper than any new renewable installations.
Not anymore. [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
Whats missing from more pumped hydro?
The pump part?
The water part?
How much baseline energy can the US get from pumped hydro?
Re: (Score:2)
How much baseline energy can the US get from pumped hydro?
ZERO. Pumped storage is not used for baseline^H^H^H^Hload ...perhaps you want to read up what base load means.
Re: (Score:2)
Cool. Then why bother fighting tooth and nail trying to kill coal off, when you can lay back, relax and watch economy do the dirty (or clean in this case) work for you?
Because, due to the falling curve of renewable prices, it will soon replace everything else without ANY intervention. The political class can't take credit and claim they invented it if that happens. They MUST pass a pointless law legislating the inevitable BEFORE the inevitable happens.
Dude it's New Mexico (Score:3)
And RTFS, all they have to do it have no carbon emissions. There are Zero emission gas plants [google.com]. That's half the reason coal is dead. Gas is cheaper and cleaner. Clean coal doesn't work because coal is dirty as F.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
they heat their homes 3 weeks out of the year. I don't think you've ever lived in the American Southwest. And RTFS, all they have to do it have no carbon emissions. There are Zero emission gas plants [google.com]. That's half the reason coal is dead. Gas is cheaper and cleaner. Clean coal doesn't work because coal is dirty as F.
Well natural gas is cheaper and produces less soot and particulate matter. So that part is good. It also likely releases a lot of methane from leaks created during the fracking process. Its entirely likely that natural gas is much worse from a GHG POV than coal but since we can't measure the extra amount of methane emissions from the ground due to fracking, we have no idea. Also, that plant hasn't started up yet and much like "clean coal" I don't really expect to see them running in large numbers (or at
Re:They are making things worse (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyone who has driven across New Mexico in an East-West direction would notice that there are persistent strong winds that blow through the state's prairies and passes. New Mexico is the home of a lot of Department of Energy talent who I am sure have also noticed this. With the ever-decreasing costs of building giant wind turbines, the only major challenge is to develop a smart electrical grid to efficiently deliver and store the fluctuating surplus energy to provide a 24/7 smooth supply. Photovoltaic electricity, which is also getting cheaper than carbon, is also a major positive consideration for a state that has an abundance of sunshine.
Re: (Score:3)
GRID-TIED infrastructure NM needs deal with Colo and a neighbor to the west Ariz. R.E.C. guys are the long lead items on that timeline. Population centers are few, easy, low hanging fruit and far between is the R.E.C. task of getting that tied affordably. Affordability in NM approaches -$0.00- once in the pucker brush, washes and arroyo's.
New Mexico is in a good place (Score:1)
New Mexico is right next to Texas, the Great Plains, and has good solar. New Mexico could join Texas' big wind powered grid, and throw on some solar. So, getting a good amount of renewable power is not prohibitively expensive. Now, going COMPLETELY renewable, will be expensive.
Re:They are making things worse (Score:4, Interesting)
Almost the entirety of coal mined in New Mexico is exported to other states and countries. New Mexico does not need coal for energy, what it is losing by getting rid of coal are royalties given to the state. Now it may be argued whether giving up the royalties is good or bad, but that's a better argument than lying about skyrocketing energy costs.
Re: (Score:2)
You might be skeptical about this, but right now new privately owned plants based on renewables are showing up everywhere as replacements for decommissioning coal plants, so commercially the figures must make sense. A search showed one in my neighbourhood I hadn't heard of at all
Re: (Score:2)
What storage? The only storage methods we currently have with the potential for more than an hour or so are pumped hydro which isn't scaleable and thermal which only helps with heating and requires massive investments in district heating. We need reliable backup, batteries ain't it.
If building more wind&solar was cheaper than fueling a coal power plant, then they could make power cheaper right now. For now you have to pay for both the coal&gas power plants backup and the wind&solar, the combinat