I was curious about the author so I looked up his profile on the University of Delaware website [1]. Despite being listed as a Professor of Electrical & Computer Engineering, his educational background is in Sociology and Anthropology.
There are times when an appeal to authority is valid - such as an expert witness in a court of law. When it comes to scientific or engineering matters, I like to see some credentialed authority behind the research. Otherwise, I'm highly skeptical since this is the first source that I've seen to claim such a high percentage of green energy as the source for all power consumption.
The only problem with that is that Willett Kempton is not the primary author and the primary author very definitely does have an engineering background (bachelor of engineering in 2007, PhD candidate in electrical engineering). Running down the list of other authors we have a bachelor of ocean engineering, currently a graduate student in the same field, a master in oceanography and current PhD student as well as one student with more of a policy focus plus the aforementioned professor.
Your comment is ignorant and lazy. Appeals to authority can be valid, sure, but when you make them you better be damn sure you are doing it correctly, for example by quickly glancing at the abstract.
To some extents, I agree with you. On the other hand, I am not sure a background in engineering would provide more source's epistemic authority than one in sociology, in this context. Interpreting Geist is a complex practice, and the presumption to reverse engineering it may be naively and implicitly leading to failure.
"Eco-wise" the infrastructure to build and deploy solar and wind, including batteries & storage, is substantially far more un-environmentally friendly than the other main options that are environmentally friendly, which are nuclear and hydrogen. On almost any measure, nuclear power and hydrogen (which can be produced cheaply at off-peak times for vehicles) are the two key power sources we should be investing far more in, rather than the current damaging technologies being deployed on increasingly vast scales with little thought to the real environmental damage being created.
Hydrogen can be produced from nuclear, as well as hydro power. If produced in off-peak times (at late night) in bulk it can be efficiently produced and then distributed to filling stations. With at-home production units the distribution system can be largely removed at the expense of slightly higher per unit cost and less efficiency than bulk.
Synthetic petroleum is produced from coal, oil and natural gas, carbon energy sources that don't help reduce environmental footprint.
You can make gasoline out of nuclear power, too, from atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Last I looked, a hydrogen fuel cycle was slightly more efficient than a gasoline fuel cycle. But it's a lot easier to handle gasoline than hydrogen. We already have the equipment to move and store gasoline all over the country, no cryogenics needed.
(I say "gasoline" but things like methanol are also suitable.)
Wouldn't those sources of gasoline from atmospheric carbon dioxide still produce carbon emissions? While hydrogen used as a transportation fuel produces water.
I can't access the full paper but there's something wrong here. A few concerns I have :
1) Congestion rents are not mentioned anywhere when they have as large if not a larger impact on the cost to rate payers than energy price.
2) There's no mention of a "security constrained" commitment model which is what I believe PJM uses.
3) Saying that you'll just build a distributed system and assuming a low cost ignores easement costs, acquisition costs, and legal costs in building any energy infrastructure.
I'm no high power electrical engineer but I'd be surprised to see this not including some sort of drastic misunderstanding of how these infrastructures and the markets around them function.
An idea with potential is building HVDC lines from renewables to populated areas but you'll still need natural gas kickers for when demand spikes.
If that means fewer kilowatts than I get now for the same dollar, NO DEAL.
My standard of living is something I won't compromise on. Everything I value - everything that makes my life great - including medicine, cuisine, art, travel, education, and countless other things, requires huge amounts of cheap, reliable energy.
If these lame energy sources were truly worthwhile, their proponents would build a startup around it, start making a profit, attract private capital to expand, and make even larger profits. Notice that in this case, the entire stream of transactions is 100% voluntary. Everyone involved is free to pursue their own lives as best they see fit.
Instead, what they clamor for is government handouts, and laws to shackle the production of energy from sources that actually work. That's totally involuntary. If you have to force people to accept your new idea, it's no good. That's because any such forcing prevents people from acting on their own best judgement (or even having their own best judgement - a mental process detached from reality does not constitute thought), and pursuing the things they care about.
I don't think your standard of living will change. Your household devices are getting more and more energy efficient. Did your standard of living change as your car fuel efficiency of your increased? And if it did, did you not adapt?
On your other point: If your complaining about government handouts, the oil/gas industry gets billions dollars in subsidies every year.
The three largest fossil fuel subsidies were:
Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)
Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion)
Oil and Gas exploration and development expensing ($7.1 billion)
The three largest renewable fuel subsidies were:
Alcohol Credit for Fuel Excise Tax ($11.6 billion)*
Renewable Electricity Production Credit ($5.2 billion)
Corn-Based Ethanol ($5.0 billion)*
*Corn (ethanol) subsidies need to be replaced with something else. It will not work (not sustainable) and is a handout to the agriculture industry.
Also, the externalities of fossil fuel production is not priced in when purchasing the fuel. Health, disasters, other issues are not included.
By the way, do you not think that your standard of living will change when fossil fuels run out? Best thing is to be diversified.
> My standard of living is something I won't compromise on.
Maybe you phrased it stronger than intended, but this rejection of any compromise feels very egoistic and short-sighted. This is unrelated to the article itself, which I didn't even read, but I wanted to react because I think the lack of compromise is doing a lot of harm these days.
> Everything I value - everything that makes my life great - including medicine, cuisine, art, travel, education, and countless other things, requires huge amounts of cheap, reliable energy.
here is the problem. cheap, reliable energy is something that will end in 20-50 years, depending who you ask.
>If these lame energy sources were truly worthwhile, their proponents would build a startup around it, start making a profit, attract private capital to expand, and make even larger profits.
there's no option for this because digging out energy without taking into account the price of pollution when selling it can't be beaten if the only thing that matters is the dollar. that's without government subsidies and tax breaks for mining companies.
>Instead, what they clamor for is government handouts, and laws to shackle the production of energy from sources that actually work.
that's because people like you can't be arsed to change their unsustainable lifestyle by themselves. go do the world a favor and read something about exponential growth.
If by "sources that actually work" you mean nuclear, I'm all for it. All civilization would run on nuclear if government weren't in the way.
If you mean fossil fuels, then your lifestyle is subsidized in part by the destruction of my environment. I consider that an unjust initiation of force. Remove that involuntary infringement on my property rights, by paying to clean up the trash you're dumping in the atmosphere, and then we'll see what solutions really succeed best in the marketplace.
> That's because any such forcing prevents people from acting on their own best judgement
That is not how societies work, if you believe Hydrogen cyanide is the best thing to paint your house that doesn't mean you are allowed to do it; it doesn't matter if you realize or not how poisonous it is.
Hydrogen Cyanide is actually a colorless liquid that would evaporate in the sunlight. You may be looking for Prussian blue, which has got a lovely blue color, but isn't very toxic.
Anyway, this is orthogonal to the effectivity of your analogy, but I thought you may want to know.
Bill Gates makes the argument that energy storage is way behind. If you used all the batteries currently in existence you would only have minutes of energy, not enough to make it through the night.
If he really made that exact argument, he was very much beside the point. Nobody is planning to use batteries to buffer grid energy production. Batteries are for small-scale storage. For large-scale storage, there are much better mechanisms. Pump-storage hydro is already widely deployed but can't be built up arbitrarily. There are other technologies in development, such as storing energy in the form of compressed air, or as heat inside huge concrete blocks.
Interesting -- do you think the idea of pumping tons of water up and down a mountain for long-term, high-capacity energy storage could help bridge that gap?
People are... completely out of touch with the scale of our industrial infrastructure.
Cities us 3% of the Earth's land surface. Fossil fuels inject power into earth at a rate 3x the tides. We intercept about 30% of the total power generation we could get from rainfall.
On the topic of energy storage, for the USA you'd need a lower reservoir approximately the size of Lake Erie, and a flow rate 150x that of Niagara Falls.
I'm not saying it can't be done -- energy storage at this scale has to be done for a switch to renewables -- I'm saying that the scale is absolutely immense.
I've thought about this before but the issues is that the energy is dinged 3 times by inefficiency losses. First when you capture it from the sun(or whatever), then when you pump it and convert it to potential, then when you let it out and use it to generate.
They actually already do this to some extent, I think the "St. Lawrence Pump Station" is one facility.
they already do this a lot more than to some extent, it is quite common. Batteries have an internal impedance as well which means losses putting energy in and taking it out. 15% loss on a battery is a reasonable estimate
"As a result of this intensive modeling effort, the researchers say they've discovered that a carefully designed combination of renewable sources – wind and solar – with batteries and fuel-cell electricity-storage systems could by 2030 supply enough power to keep a large electrical grid fired up 99.9 per cent of the time, and do so at a cost comparable to today's not-so-renewable energy grid."
The one thing that worries me is the word 'comparable'. With no prices listed one Congress's 'comparable' is another Congress's 'unaffordable'. Granted prices for renewable energy sources should trend downward, as has been the case, but I'm not sure if lower costs in the future have been accounted for.
More than anything I want this to be true and enough to convince governments to invest in these technologies. More than that I want people advocating for renewable energies to speak with more confidence. The article says, "could provide," why not "CAN provide"? If the ultimate issue is swaying public opinion why are such things not discussed with more confidence? Granted I know this seems a little nitpicky but I believe every word counts. Additionally I'm curious what other people have to say about this.
I'd love to see what kinds of silly assumptions they're making about costs for buildout, solar efficiency improvements, magical new energy storage technology, etc...
Looking at the paper abstract online, looks like the storage they're building this theory on are: Hydrogen, "Centralized battery" (Li-ion? not sure), and Grid-Integrated-Vehicles. Can anyone comment on the feasibility of these in the real world?
Drivers will want them charging during peak usage hours, and the grid will want them discharging, so grid integration can only do so much, unless you expect drivers to massively subsidize the power grid by buying batteries they don't want. Hydrogen is not viable and as far as I know has never been taken seriously as a fuel storage or transport material.
Centralized battery works just fine but it's currently cost-prohibitive. I'm not sure why the paper's authors think that will change by 2030.
It assumes 2030 technology that doesn't exist yet. Check back in 18 years, then we can start the many-decade project of deployment. Pencil in 2080 or so.
It's not a reliability number. For comparison, right now 31% of California's energy comes from renewable sources (according to wikipedia).
What 99.9% means is that they'll keep some traditional power generation mechanisms, like gas turbines, around to fill in when the renewable supply is not sufficient. That could be because there isn't enough sun or because there is unusually high demand. The power isn't going to go out.
What's the big deal with downvoting heavily someone who tries to inform others of the reality of the fact? It's because people like me are ignored and suppressed that this problem is, at this point, pretty much guaranteed not to be solved.
There are times when an appeal to authority is valid - such as an expert witness in a court of law. When it comes to scientific or engineering matters, I like to see some credentialed authority behind the research. Otherwise, I'm highly skeptical since this is the first source that I've seen to claim such a high percentage of green energy as the source for all power consumption.
[1] http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/people/profile.aspx?willett