Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

[Hillhater]

Yep. For a fun (and insidious) oil subsidy google "depletion allowance." This tax break means they can deduct a percentage of the income from the oil they pump because the well is being "depleted." And even more fun - they can deduct more than 100% of the amount of oil in the well! Sort of an infinite deduction. Whatever oil company executive thought that one up is a genius.

You are assuming that the EIA has not included that in their calculation ?

Let's do the same thing for renewables. Let solar companies deduct 28% of the tax on any income that comes from solar generation, because after all you are depleting the sun - that thing's not going to last forever.

I doubt the solar generators would want to reduce their tax deductions down to only 28% ! :wink:
But its not inconceivable...
.. the UK used to have a “window tax”. Depending on how many windows you had in the house , and their size, the more tax you had to pay...presumeably for sunlight used ? !!
And some of us have to pay a “Rain water” tax, proportional to the roof area of the house, which dictates how much rainwater you can harvest, and/or how much water you feed into the storm drains !

 

[JackFlorey]

Let's do the same thing for renewables. Let solar companies deduct 28% of the tax on any income that comes from solar generation, because after all you are depleting the sun - that thing's not going to last forever.

I doubt the solar generators would want to reduce their tax deductions down to only 28% !

Oh, not at all! Like oil companies this will be on TOP of all their other subsidies. How good are fossil fuel companies at this? Chevron, Duke Energy, Occidental Petroleum and Dominion all owed NEGATIVE taxes in 2018 once you added up all their subsidies.

That's right. Duke Energy owed -21% in taxes in 2018. -21% of 3 billion is 630 million. Nice subsidy there.

 

[Hillhater]

That's right. Duke Energy owed -21% in taxes in 2018. -21% of 3 billion is 630 million. Nice subsidy there.

So why does $630 m cause concern compared to the $70+ bn for wind and solar ?
And doesnt Duke operate RE power generators also ?
And. Again, why do you assume EIA has not included tax rebates into their report ?

 

[jonescg]

On the subject of rainwater tax, or perhaps, regulation of small water storages, there is some method to it.

Growing up in SE Qld, rain, and the lack of it was a massive problem. So people would set about building dams on their freehold land. In a few catchments, streamflows were detectably lower due to the plethora of small reservoirs. So most state resource departments started to require notifications of new dams. Generally speaking, dams could be built on any bit of land, but creeks and rivers couldn't be dammed without an act of parliament. But tertiary tributaries and gullies were exempt.

The reason for this was not to 'tax the little man' but to keep a check on how much streamflow they could count on downstream. You can't manage what you can't measure. So when rainfall data is overlaid with topography and soil type, you can very accurately determine what streamflows you can expect downstream. Having the landscape pocked with flow-reducing dams would make this task harder. If the flood warning system relies on it, it's worth having the best data you can muster.

So in a way, rooftop solar has a similar dilemma. If the grid operators can't know how much energy is being moved around because it's behind the meter, they are less able to respond in times of high or low demand. What they do with that information is the key part - either they use it for guiding planning decisions or they can use it to limit home production and force you to buy power at certain times. That's where an aggregated VPP has the most potential and financial clout to keep the market reasonably fair.

 

[TheBeastie]

New interesting articles on Hydrogen breakthroughs etc.

Is it me or do we just never really see any breakthroughs in lithium batteries other than what looks like crappy baloney for tiny percentage gains?

Conversely when I casually look for Hydrogen news it's a brand new story like this.
New material releases hydrogen from water at near-perfect efficiency
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/05/new-material-releases-hydrogen-from-water-at-near-perfect-efficiency/
^We don't need many of these to come to fruition before it blows away lithium batteries for many applications.

Was delighted to see these articles on Hydrogen and flight.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbusinesscouncil/2020/01/10/is-electric-flight-aviations-next-era-of-innovation/#7eb97e7b7b7e

Because flying is expensive and also carbon intensive I continue believe that Hydrogen for flight can take over a lot of the aviation industry with comparatively little any help of subsidies compared to the lithium-cell car industry, if it gets the same level of subsidies then it will take over in no time.

requirements for extreme energy density, high cycle frequency and lack of biofuel scalability will make hydrogen-based aircraft propulsion a virtual necessity in our carbon-neutral future.

Energy intensity is approximated by the percentage of fuel by weight in a vehicle, and utilization by the percentage of time the vehicle is in motion. These dimensions clearly map into the key differences between battery-powered and fuel-cell vehicles: energy density, recharge time and cycle costs.

The best production battery packs today have 200 WH/kg energy density, 1,000-2,000 cycle life, and recharge time of 45-plus minutes. In contrast, a liquid hydrogen fuel-cell system can get to 3,000-plus Wh/kg and 15,000-plus cycle life and it refuels in 20 minutes. Therefore, the higher the energy intensity and utilization, the more the balance tips toward hydrogen.

Personal cars are at the bottom with 2% energy intensity and 5% utilization. Light-duty commercial vehicles are a bit better, with 3% energy intensity and a much higher 30% utilization. Next, we have medium-duty delivery trucks, with 3.5% energy intensity and an even higher utilization of 40%. Heavy-duty trucks are higher yet, at approximately 11% energy intensity and 50% utilization. Then, we come to the pinnacle of the chart: commercial aircraft. The Boeing 737-400 has an energy intensity of 40%, staying in the air about 10 hours a day, for about 40% utilization.

Clearly from this analysis, light-duty personal vehicles are the worst possible segment, where even the current batteries are good enough. A typical 200-mile electric vehicle with 1,000 battery cycles has one charge cycle per week, delivering a nice 200,000-mile lifetime, which is more than it needs. In contrast, a Boeing 737 on a San Francisco to Los Angeles service will run eight trips (cycles) per day. Of course, batteries would not work at all due to weight, but even if they somehow magically did, they would last just 4-8 months, requiring 50-plus battery replacements over the aircraft's lifetime. In contrast, hydrogen fuel-cell systems would last 10 times longer, while delivering five to 20 times the energy density, depending on how we store hydrogen. The case for hydrogen is pretty clear once you look at the fundamentals.

Therefore, we believe it is aviation, not cars — and especially not personal cars — that will finally drive hydrogen to become a mass transportation fuel. The sooner the industry and the governments realize that and align their investments accordingly, the sooner we will have hydrogen fuel scale-up.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbusinesscouncil/2020/05/26/aviation-is-the-driving-force-of-hydrogen/#1e69207da0d2

https://twitter.com/Enableh_2/status/1208040311907323904?s=20

^I would MUCH rather travel in an airplane with a hydrogen tank than traditional combustion napalm like aviation fuel, the speed at which Hydrogen disperses upwards into the atmosphere is incredibly fast.
Of course it makes more sense to release fuel if the aircraft is in trouble and needs to land, but on top of that there are a ton of ways to engineer the hydrogen tank to safety disperse upwards in the event of a full bore crash landing.

Here is a Toyota fuel cell tank being hit with a high-powered 50-caliber gunshot.
[youtube]jVeagFmmwA0[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiNNL87qQqQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMhfouDe8LA

 

[The fingers]

I was reminded by that photo of the airliner of the Pregnant Guppy which I got to see up close when I was a kid. 8)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_Spacelines_Pregnant_Guppy

 

[Hillhater]

The best production battery packs today have 200 WH/kg energy density, 1,000-2,000 cycle life, and recharge time of 45-plus minutes. In contrast, a liquid hydrogen fuel-cell system can get to 3,000-plus Wh/kg and 15,000-plus cycle life and it refuels in 20 minutes. Therefore, the higher the energy intensity and utilization, the more the balance tips toward hydrogen.

That in itself is a fair statement,.. but once you start applying the comparason to current FF flight technology, things get a little more complex.
Even in its densest form (liquid) , hydrogen is 4 times more volumous for any equivalent energy content to Aviation fuels..and then you would have to be flying with huge cryogenic tanks on board and they wont fit in the current wing designs, so major airframe redesign would be required. compressed hydrogen is even more volumous, (X2) and at high pressure, equally difficult to store/tank in a aircraft. Hence that “guppy” type design
Then you also have to convert the H2 into motive power..
H2 fueled turbofan engines are possible ( complete redesign though) and would work, ..but whilst H2 combustion does not form CO2, it does result in a lot of H2O ( water vapour) and NO emissions.
As we know H20 is a much more effective GHG than CO2 !,..so a pointless exercise really !
Then of course we could have electric drive of some form..props , ducted fans, etc, but that would need those magical fuel cells (another 2kW/kg ? To stow on board)
There are studies that suggest a 737 size aircraft with H2 +Fuel cells would be carrring 2-3 times the weight of fuel and cells, that a FF conventional 737.
So i guess to an optomistic believer, Hydrogen fueled commercial flight is possible,, but in reality it will go the same way as the Hydrogen fueled ICE cars that BMW and Merc believed in for a while.
I think we a gonna need a better solution...
Hint .. remember the Americans flew a military bomber 50+ years ago, with a Molten Salt reactor on board ! :wink:

 

[jonescg]

I think we a gonna need a better solution...

I'll choose "fly less" for $20

 

[sendler2112]

Keep in mind that the Arstechnica article about this new direct catalytic water splitting technique states " nearly achieves 100% of the theoretically predicted efficiency". But it never gives any metric indication of what the productivity would actually be. How many hydrogen grams per square meter per and energy input per day? How do you insolate or energize all of these plates while also having a collection system for the gas? The article is optimistically spun as is usual for Arstechnica and doesn't bother to tell us any meaningful information of actual production.

 

[CONSIDERABLE SHOUTING]

Or how you get around some of the serious limitations of Hydrogen- you still need 15,000PSI connections and Fuel cells are still heavy. You still need batteries even if you're burning it in a turbine, and you can't use the old fuel tanks anymore so a retrofit is out and you'd have to clean-slate the entire plane.

 

[TheBeastie]

Keep in mind that the Arstechnica article about this new direct catalytic water splitting technique states " nearly achieves 100% of the theoretically predicted efficiency". But it never gives any metric indication of what the productivity would actually be. How many hydrogen grams per square meter per and energy input per day? How do you insolate or energize all of these plates while also having a collection system for the gas? The article is optimistically spun as is usual for Arstechnica and doesn't bother to tell us any meaningful information of actual production.

Yes, I do agree it is lacking in detailed information of how it all happens.
I suspect this is a combination of the researchers not wanting to "show all their cards" because they don't want competitors stealing their idea, but still they still to tell the public what they are doing.

Watching the fuelcell news on this Twitter account makes me feel like a lot of movement is happening.
https://twitter.com/fuelcellsworks
But I do relate to the idea that the slowest place to see FuelCells is inside regular passenger cars.
I think it's a bit like being offered two models of a advanced home robot that can do all the same things but one is fuel-cell and the other is lithium-ion.
Even though the fuel-cell robot might be able to stay powered for 5 times longer before needing a refuel, I would still take the lithium-ion battery robot because it can conveniently charge it self at home without me having to do anything.

But conversely heavy industries have very different problems. So the benchmark of fuel-cells taking over the world by measuring the standard passenger car take is completely all wrong, it isn't as viable in this area.

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2020/06/04/nikola-executive-chairman-trevor-milton-on-the-companys-public-debut.html
[youtube]NYBj83HttG4[/youtube]

This is why we keep seeing fuel-cells taking over in trains, buses, ships.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200227-how-hydrogen-powered-trains-can-tackle-climate-change
https://www.railwaygazette.com/traction-and-rolling-stock/hydrogen-fuel-cell-train-trials-completed/56545.article

Conversely I been wondering how far have these charts claim lithium-ion cell price claims are going to cheaper than fossil fuel etc.
We are past the half way mark to 2021 now but to me lithium-ion cells still cost about the same as a few years ago?
https://www.mining.com/chinese-battery-breakthrough-neednt-worry-cobalt-price-bulls/
I am currently thinking we have hit the peak of how cheap lithium-ion cells can get, I dont think they will get any cheaper.

Are these price claims of the past and future accurate?
According to this article we should be at $160 per kwh in lithium-ion now in 2020 in June.

How do we measure it?

I like to go to this site and order 1 kwh of cells
https://ru.nkon.nl/rechargeable/li-ion/21700-20700-size/samsung-inr21700-50e.html

If we take the Samsung INR21700-50E at 5Ah per cell.
5Ah x 3.6v = 18Wh per cell.

1000wh / 18Wh_cell = 55.5_Sansung_50E_cells

55.5 x €3.80 = ‭€210 for 1Kwh
Or $237 USD.
Whether these price projections are supposed to include shipping and building costs of the actual pack could be included and would cost more, or some folks would say they can source cells cheaper?

What about this 18650 cell
https://ru.nkon.nl/rechargeable/li-ion/18650-size/samsung-inr18650-32e-3100mah-6-4a.html
This seems to be one of the best decent cheap cells I could find, but its not the premium lithium-on chemistry used in EV car cells of NCM (nickel-cobalt-manganese) or nickel-cobalt-aluminum

I am using their "Buy 600 times for €2.15" and excluding the delivery costs...

89.6 cells for 1Kwh.
89.6 x €2.15 = €192 or $216 USD.

Tesla currently can't be used because they just lose money, so we should be trying to use some kind of non false economy metrics here.

 

[Hillhater]

Tesla currently can't be used because they just lose money.....

I do not know how they manage to lose money on batteries,..the last 64-5 MWh batch of Powerpacks,they sold to Aeon for the Hornsdale power reserve battery expansion, cost $71.0 m.. or $1100 /kWh
Even allowing for the included electronics etc, and exchange rates, thats still a healthy margin over your $200/kWh

And then you have info like this from 2018, quoting $92/kWh retail for new branded EV cells ?
https://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=97564

EDIT...
Beastie, ..you are looking at cell “retail” ..prices.
That Bloomberg chart is refering to “PACK “ costs ?
Much of the press speculation about cell costs is based on info regarding “manufacturing cost” with no explanation of what it actually includes ,..margins , etc.
I doubt anyone (even Musk !), other than a few closeted Cost Accountants and Manufacturing specialists, actually know the real cost of cell production.
But whatever that cost is, it is way below any genuine “retail” price offered to consumers.
And last year the NY Times reported..

...Executives at Volkswagen, .........., have hinted that economies of scale have allowed them to push the cost of batteries in the ID.3 below $100 per kilowatt hour. ............

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/08/business/volkswagen-trademark-electric-vehicles.html?searchResultPosition=1

 

[Cephalotus]

In Germany electricity production from coal is falling very quickly now, even lignite power blocks are shutting down, so they are only switched on alternately for some days. Production from natural gas is more or less stable so far (expected to rise after the final nuclear shutdown), renewables have provided more than 50% of electricity in 2020 so far.

Now also the German hydrogen strategy has been published.

Government will spend 9 billion Euro on electrolysis systems, 7 billion Euros to domestically built 5GW capacity up till 2030, 2 billion Euro to support hydrogen production in other countries like Morocco with cheaper sources of solar- and wind power.

Main usage for green hydrogen should be chemical industry, steel industry, trucks and gas power plants. Households and cars are not considered significant consumers of hydrogen, Direct usage of electricity is preferred there.

The Corona economy stimulus package includes subsidies for electric cars.

 

[Cephalotus]

New interesting articles on Hydrogen breakthroughs etc.

"...New material releases hydrogen from water at near-perfect efficiency..."

"...Only works at UV wavelengths..."

The energy of UV is less than 10% of total solar irradiation.

No need to read and further.

 

[Cephalotus]

I'll choose "fly less" for $20

Using biofuels in ICE cars is a very stupid waste of precious resources. Just fly less and use biofuels for the remaining planes. Problem solved.

 

[JackFlorey]

Using biofuels in ICE cars is a very stupid waste of precious resources. Just fly less and use biofuels for the remaining planes. Problem solved.

Agreed. Batteries work just fine,

 

[Hillhater]

In Germany electricity production from coal is falling very quickly now, even lignite power blocks are shutting down, so they are only switched on alternately for some days. Production from natural gas is more or less stable so far (expected to rise after the final nuclear shutdown), renewables have provided more than 50% of electricity in 2020 so far..

Sure, but since there has been little change in the installed capacities of either RE or Fossil fueled generation....
....the difference is just that it has been a windy/sunny start to 2020 compared to previous years.
And of course , if the wind is blowing then the fossil plants get turned down. !

 

[Cephalotus]

In Germany electricity production from coal is falling very quickly now, even lignite power blocks are shutting down, so they are only switched on alternately for some days. Production from natural gas is more or less stable so far (expected to rise after the final nuclear shutdown), renewables have provided more than 50% of electricity in 2020 so far..

Sure, but since there has been little change in the installed capacities of either RE or Fossil fueled generation....
....the difference is just that it has been a windy/sunny start to 2020 compared to previous years.
And of course , if the wind is blowing then the fossil plants get turned down. !

Sure.

But the existing coal power plant itself causes littel harm, it's the amount oif coal that gets burnt inside that's the Problem.

And the amount of electricity production from burning coal is falling quickly:

Lignite: https://energy-charts.de/energy.htm?source=lignite&period=monthly&year=all
hard coal: https://energy-charts.de/energy.htm?source=coal&period=monthly&year=all

 

[sendler2112]

Germany has made big increases in offshore wind. And these charts indicate it is a net exporter of electricity. It has also been in recession since 2018.
.

.

.

.

 

[Hillhater]

Germany has made big increases in offshore wind. And these charts indicate it is a net exporter of electricity. It has also been in recession since 2018.
.

The increase shown is “generated” power.
But 3.3 TWh increase over 2018 is actually only 0.6% of the annual total generated.
The increase in offshore wind installed capacity 2018-2019 was just l80MW, or less than 0.1% of total capacity.
Infact , their total Offshore Wind capacity (7.6GW) is less than 4.0% of total generation capacity.
Germany should be a NET exporter of power, since as you know it has an installed generating capacity of over 200 GW, for a domestic peak demand of 75-80 GW !...Huge overcapacity !

 

[JackFlorey]

Or how you get around some of the serious limitations of Hydrogen

Easy; convert it to methane via the Sabatier process. MUCH easier to store and transport.

 

[JackFlorey]

Sure, but since there has been little change in the installed capacities of either RE or Fossil fueled generation....
....the difference is just that it has been a windy/sunny start to 2020 compared to previous years.
And of course , if the wind is blowing then the fossil plants get turned down. !

That's exactly how it's supposed to work. As the amount of coal/gas that is burned decreases, then:

1) Carbon emissions and pollution go down
2) Fuel prices go down (supply/demand)

Win/win.

 

[Cephalotus]

The increase shown is “generated” power.
But 3.3 TWh increase over 2018 is actually only 0.6% of the annual total generated.
....Huge overcapacity !

+3,3TWh/a would be +100TWh/a in 30 years

And it's just one source, there is also onshore wind and photovoltaiks (and biomass)

I possible electricity mix foe Germany in 2050 (still 30 years to go) would be something like 200TWh/a solar, 600TWh/a onshore wind and 200TWh/a offshore wind and 100tWh/a rest (hydro, biomass, gas2power)

If you have to replace wind every 20 years and solar every 30 years and if onshore wind has 3000h/a, offshorw wind 5000h/a and solar 1000h/a you end up with a installation of ca. 7GW solar/a, 10GW/a onshore wind and 2GW/a offshore wind on average.

We are not there yeat (with some exeptions), but it is doable.

Those amount of electricity includes the needs for electric cars, storage losses, electric heating, industry and some amount of hydrogen. There will be some amount of hydrogen and maybe eFuels to be imported.

 

[Cephalotus]

Easy; convert it to methane via the Sabatier process. MUCH easier to store and transport.

I think that the next 10-20 years we should concentrate on the elecricity mix and make some hydrogen out from electricity and some hydrogen from natural gas via pyrolysis (Kvaerer)

As long as you use natural gas (invl natural gas to make hydrogen) I don't think it makes much sense to create syn methane out from hydrogen on a large scale.

For us the most important thing now is

1. get rid of nuclear power in the next 2 years (doesn'thelp the climate but will happen anyway)
2. get rid of most of the coal. keep the capacity, but stop using it much. Can be done in 5-10 years
3. Add large amount of solar and wind
4. Switch to electric cars quickly
5. Switch to electric heating
6. Build some hydrogen production capacity (plan is 5GW till 2030)

So far it does work. Maybe not as fast as it should, but it's better than most...

In 2019 CO2 emissions have been on the level of 1952. In just 10 years, in 2030 emissions will be at the level of around 1910.

 

[JackFlorey]

1. get rid of nuclear power in the next 2 years (doesn'thelp the climate but will happen anyway)

In fact it harms the climate tremendously. I can't get behind an attempt to damage the climate beyond what's already been done. We should be working on ways forward, not ways to go backwards.

5. Switch to electric heating

In areas that need it, natural gas is a lot more efficient than electric. (eventually syngas or methane from hydrogen.)