info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The wind and solar power myth has finally been exposed
4 views
Skip to first unread message
Solar fraud
May 11, 2023, 2:09:06 AM5/11/23
to
Many governments in the Western world have committed to “net zero”
emissions of carbon in the near future. The US and UK both say they will
deliver by 2050. It's widely believed that wind and solar power can
achieve this. This belief has led the US and British governments, among
others, to promote and heavily subsidise wind and solar.
These plans have a single, fatal flaw: they are reliant on the pipe-dream
that there is some affordable way to store surplus electricity at scale.
In the real world a wind farm’s output often drops below 10 per cent of
its rated “capacity” for days at a time. Solar power disappears completely
every night and drops by 50 per cent or more during cloudy days.
“Capacity” being a largely meaningless figure for a wind or solar plant,
about 3000 megawatts (MW) of wind and solar capacity is needed to replace
a 1000 MW conventional power station in terms of energy over time: and in
fact, as we shall see, the conventional power station or something very
like it will still be needed frequently once the wind and solar are
online.
The governments of countries with a considerable amount of wind and solar
generation have developed an expectation that they can simply continue to
build more until net zero is achieved. The reality is that many of them
have kept the lights on only by using existing fossil fired stations as
backup for periods of low wind and sun. This brings with it a new
operating regime where stations that were designed to operate continuously
have to follow unpredictable fluctuations in wind and solar power. As a
result operating and maintenance costs have increased and many stations
have had to be shut down.
In fact it's already common to see efficient combined-cycle gas turbines
replaced by open-cycle ones because they can be throttled up and down
easily to back up the rapidly changing output of wind and solar farms. But
open-cycle gas turbines burn about twice as much gas as combined cycle gas
turbines. Switching to high-emissions machinery as part of an effort to
reduce emissions is, frankly, madness!
Certain countries are helped because their power systems are supported by
major inter-connectors to adjacent regions that have surplus power
available. The increasingly troubled French nuclear fleet, which formerly
had plenty of spare energy on tap, for a long time helped to make
renewables plans look practical across Western Europe.
But this situation is not sustainable in the long term. Under net-zero
plans, all nations will need to generate many times more electricity than
they now can, as the large majority of our energy use today is delivered
by burning fossil fuels directly. Neighbouring regions will be unable to
provide the backup power needed; emissions from open cycle gas turbines
(or new coal powerplants, as in the case of Germany at the moment) will
become unacceptable; more existing base load stations will be forced to
shut down by surges in renewables; more and more wind and solar power will
have to be expensively dumped when the sun is shining and the wind is
blowing.
Power prices will soar, making more or less everything more expensive, and
there will be frequent blackouts.
None of this is difficult to work out. Building even more renewables
capacity will not help: even ten or 100 times the nominally-necessary
“capacity” could never do the job on a cold, windless evening.
Only one thing can save the day for the renewables plan. Reasonable cost,
large scale energy storage, sufficient to keep the lights on for several
days at a minimum, would solve the problem.
What are the options?
First we need to consider the scale of the issue. Relatively simple
calculations show that that California would need over 200 megawatt-hours
(MWh) of storage per installed MW of wind and solar power. Germany could
probably manage with 150 MWh per MW. Perhaps this could be provided in the
form of batteries?
The current cost of battery storage is about US$600,000 per MWh. For every
MW of wind or solar power in California, $120 million would need to be
spent on storage. In Germany it would be $90 million. Wind farms cost
about $1.5 million per MW so the cost of battery storage would be
astronomical: 80 times greater than the cost of the wind farm! A major
additional constraint would be that such quantities of batteries are
simply not available. Not enough lithium and cobalt and other rare
minerals are being mined at the moment. If prices get high enough supply
will expand, but prices are already ridiculously, unfeasibly high.
Some countries are gambling on hydro pumped storage. Here the idea is to
use electricity to pump water uphill into a high reservoir using surplus
renewables on sunny, windy days: then let it flow back down through
generating turbines as in a normal hydropower plant when it’s dark and
windless.
Many pumped systems have been built in China, Japan and United States but
they have storage sufficient for only 6 to 10 hours operation. This is
tiny compared with the several days storage that is needed to back up wind
and solar power through routine sunless calm periods. Much larger lakes at
the top and bottom of the scheme are needed. There are very few locations
where two large lakes can be formed with one located 400-700 m above the
other and separated by less than 5-10 km horizontally. Such a location
must also have an adequate supply of make-up water to cope with
evaporation losses from the two lakes. Another problem is that at least 25
per cent of the energy is lost while pumping and then generating.
Hydro pumped storage will seldom be a feasible option. It cannot solve the
problem on a national scale even in countries like the USA which have a
lot of mountains.
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) for fossil fuel stations is also touted
as way of avoiding the problems of wind and solar power. But this is not a
technology, just a case of wishful thinking. In spite of many years of
work and enormous amounts of money spent, nobody has yet devised a
technology that can provide large scale, low cost CCS. Even if capture
worked and didn't consume most or all the energy generated, storing the
carbon dioxide is a huge problem because three tonnes of carbon dioxide
are produced for every tonne of coal burned.
Hydrogen is another technology which is often suggested for energy
storage: but its problems are legion. At the moment hydrogen is made using
natural gas (so-called “blue” hydrogen). This, however, will have to stop
in a net-zero world as the process emits large amounts of carbon: you
might as well just burn the natural gas. Proper emissions-free “green”
hydrogen is made from water using huge amounts of electrical energy, 60
per cent of which is lost in the process. Storing and handling the
hydrogen is extremely difficult because hydrogen is a very small molecule
and it leaks through almost anything. At best this means that a lot of
your stored hydrogen will be gone by the time you want to use it: at worst
it means devastating fires and explosions. The extremely low density of
hydrogen also means that huge volumes of it would have to be stored and it
would often have to be stored and handled cryogenically, creating even
more losses, costs and risks.
The conclusion is simple. Barring some sort of miracle, there is no
possibility that a suitable storage technology will be developed in the
needed time frame. The present policies of just forcing wind and solar
into the market and hoping for a miracle have been memorably and correctly
likened to “jumping out of an aeroplane without a parachute and hoping
that the parachute will be invented, delivered and strapped on in mid air
in time to save you before you hit the ground.”
Wind and solar need to be backed up, close to 100 per cent, by some other
means of power generation. If that backup is provided by open-cycle gas or
worse, coal, net zero will never be achieved: nor anything very close to
it.
There is one technology that can provide a cheap and reliable supply of
low-emissions electricity: nuclear power. Interest in nuclear power is
increasing as more and more people realise that it is safe and reliable.
If regulators and the public could be persuaded that modern stations are
inherently safe and that low levels of nuclear radiation are not
dangerous, nuclear power could provide all the low cost, low emissions
electricity the world needs for hundreds or thousands of years.
But if we had 100 per cent nuclear backup for solar and wind, we wouldn't
need the wind and solar plants at all.
Wind and solar are, in fact, completely pointless.
Bryan Leyland MSc, DistFEngNZ, FIMechE, FIEE(rtd) is a power systems
engineer with more than 60 years experience on projects around the world
<https://news.yahoo.com/wind-solar-power-myth-finally-094338655.html>
emissions of carbon in the near future. The US and UK both say they will
deliver by 2050. It's widely believed that wind and solar power can
achieve this. This belief has led the US and British governments, among
others, to promote and heavily subsidise wind and solar.
These plans have a single, fatal flaw: they are reliant on the pipe-dream
that there is some affordable way to store surplus electricity at scale.
In the real world a wind farm’s output often drops below 10 per cent of
its rated “capacity” for days at a time. Solar power disappears completely
every night and drops by 50 per cent or more during cloudy days.
“Capacity” being a largely meaningless figure for a wind or solar plant,
about 3000 megawatts (MW) of wind and solar capacity is needed to replace
a 1000 MW conventional power station in terms of energy over time: and in
fact, as we shall see, the conventional power station or something very
like it will still be needed frequently once the wind and solar are
online.
The governments of countries with a considerable amount of wind and solar
generation have developed an expectation that they can simply continue to
build more until net zero is achieved. The reality is that many of them
have kept the lights on only by using existing fossil fired stations as
backup for periods of low wind and sun. This brings with it a new
operating regime where stations that were designed to operate continuously
have to follow unpredictable fluctuations in wind and solar power. As a
result operating and maintenance costs have increased and many stations
have had to be shut down.
In fact it's already common to see efficient combined-cycle gas turbines
replaced by open-cycle ones because they can be throttled up and down
easily to back up the rapidly changing output of wind and solar farms. But
open-cycle gas turbines burn about twice as much gas as combined cycle gas
turbines. Switching to high-emissions machinery as part of an effort to
reduce emissions is, frankly, madness!
Certain countries are helped because their power systems are supported by
major inter-connectors to adjacent regions that have surplus power
available. The increasingly troubled French nuclear fleet, which formerly
had plenty of spare energy on tap, for a long time helped to make
renewables plans look practical across Western Europe.
But this situation is not sustainable in the long term. Under net-zero
plans, all nations will need to generate many times more electricity than
they now can, as the large majority of our energy use today is delivered
by burning fossil fuels directly. Neighbouring regions will be unable to
provide the backup power needed; emissions from open cycle gas turbines
(or new coal powerplants, as in the case of Germany at the moment) will
become unacceptable; more existing base load stations will be forced to
shut down by surges in renewables; more and more wind and solar power will
have to be expensively dumped when the sun is shining and the wind is
blowing.
Power prices will soar, making more or less everything more expensive, and
there will be frequent blackouts.
None of this is difficult to work out. Building even more renewables
capacity will not help: even ten or 100 times the nominally-necessary
“capacity” could never do the job on a cold, windless evening.
Only one thing can save the day for the renewables plan. Reasonable cost,
large scale energy storage, sufficient to keep the lights on for several
days at a minimum, would solve the problem.
What are the options?
First we need to consider the scale of the issue. Relatively simple
calculations show that that California would need over 200 megawatt-hours
(MWh) of storage per installed MW of wind and solar power. Germany could
probably manage with 150 MWh per MW. Perhaps this could be provided in the
form of batteries?
The current cost of battery storage is about US$600,000 per MWh. For every
MW of wind or solar power in California, $120 million would need to be
spent on storage. In Germany it would be $90 million. Wind farms cost
about $1.5 million per MW so the cost of battery storage would be
astronomical: 80 times greater than the cost of the wind farm! A major
additional constraint would be that such quantities of batteries are
simply not available. Not enough lithium and cobalt and other rare
minerals are being mined at the moment. If prices get high enough supply
will expand, but prices are already ridiculously, unfeasibly high.
Some countries are gambling on hydro pumped storage. Here the idea is to
use electricity to pump water uphill into a high reservoir using surplus
renewables on sunny, windy days: then let it flow back down through
generating turbines as in a normal hydropower plant when it’s dark and
windless.
Many pumped systems have been built in China, Japan and United States but
they have storage sufficient for only 6 to 10 hours operation. This is
tiny compared with the several days storage that is needed to back up wind
and solar power through routine sunless calm periods. Much larger lakes at
the top and bottom of the scheme are needed. There are very few locations
where two large lakes can be formed with one located 400-700 m above the
other and separated by less than 5-10 km horizontally. Such a location
must also have an adequate supply of make-up water to cope with
evaporation losses from the two lakes. Another problem is that at least 25
per cent of the energy is lost while pumping and then generating.
Hydro pumped storage will seldom be a feasible option. It cannot solve the
problem on a national scale even in countries like the USA which have a
lot of mountains.
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) for fossil fuel stations is also touted
as way of avoiding the problems of wind and solar power. But this is not a
technology, just a case of wishful thinking. In spite of many years of
work and enormous amounts of money spent, nobody has yet devised a
technology that can provide large scale, low cost CCS. Even if capture
worked and didn't consume most or all the energy generated, storing the
carbon dioxide is a huge problem because three tonnes of carbon dioxide
are produced for every tonne of coal burned.
Hydrogen is another technology which is often suggested for energy
storage: but its problems are legion. At the moment hydrogen is made using
natural gas (so-called “blue” hydrogen). This, however, will have to stop
in a net-zero world as the process emits large amounts of carbon: you
might as well just burn the natural gas. Proper emissions-free “green”
hydrogen is made from water using huge amounts of electrical energy, 60
per cent of which is lost in the process. Storing and handling the
hydrogen is extremely difficult because hydrogen is a very small molecule
and it leaks through almost anything. At best this means that a lot of
your stored hydrogen will be gone by the time you want to use it: at worst
it means devastating fires and explosions. The extremely low density of
hydrogen also means that huge volumes of it would have to be stored and it
would often have to be stored and handled cryogenically, creating even
more losses, costs and risks.
The conclusion is simple. Barring some sort of miracle, there is no
possibility that a suitable storage technology will be developed in the
needed time frame. The present policies of just forcing wind and solar
into the market and hoping for a miracle have been memorably and correctly
likened to “jumping out of an aeroplane without a parachute and hoping
that the parachute will be invented, delivered and strapped on in mid air
in time to save you before you hit the ground.”
Wind and solar need to be backed up, close to 100 per cent, by some other
means of power generation. If that backup is provided by open-cycle gas or
worse, coal, net zero will never be achieved: nor anything very close to
it.
There is one technology that can provide a cheap and reliable supply of
low-emissions electricity: nuclear power. Interest in nuclear power is
increasing as more and more people realise that it is safe and reliable.
If regulators and the public could be persuaded that modern stations are
inherently safe and that low levels of nuclear radiation are not
dangerous, nuclear power could provide all the low cost, low emissions
electricity the world needs for hundreds or thousands of years.
But if we had 100 per cent nuclear backup for solar and wind, we wouldn't
need the wind and solar plants at all.
Wind and solar are, in fact, completely pointless.
Bryan Leyland MSc, DistFEngNZ, FIMechE, FIEE(rtd) is a power systems
engineer with more than 60 years experience on projects around the world
<https://news.yahoo.com/wind-solar-power-myth-finally-094338655.html>
Jim Wilkins
May 14, 2023, 8:00:33 AM5/14/23
to
"Solar fraud" wrote in message news:u3i0pv$j7o$1...@toxic.dizum.net...
Many governments in the Western world have committed to “net zero”
emissions of carbon in the near future. The US and UK both say they will
deliver by 2050. It's widely believed that wind and solar power can
achieve this. This belief has led the US and British governments, among
others, to promote and heavily subsidise wind and solar.
These plans have a single, fatal flaw: they are reliant on the pipe-dream
that there is some affordable way to store surplus electricity at scale.
-----------------------
Large scale energy storage doesn't motivate conservation. People would learn
to conserve only if they had individual household storage such as a
Powerwall and had to monitor and ration its use during grid outages.
https://www.tesla.com/support/energy/powerwall/mobile-app/powerwall-modes
Many governments in the Western world have committed to “net zero”
emissions of carbon in the near future. The US and UK both say they will
deliver by 2050. It's widely believed that wind and solar power can
achieve this. This belief has led the US and British governments, among
others, to promote and heavily subsidise wind and solar.
These plans have a single, fatal flaw: they are reliant on the pipe-dream
that there is some affordable way to store surplus electricity at scale.
Large scale energy storage doesn't motivate conservation. People would learn
to conserve only if they had individual household storage such as a
Powerwall and had to monitor and ration its use during grid outages.
https://www.tesla.com/support/energy/powerwall/mobile-app/powerwall-modes
Siri Cruise
May 14, 2023, 2:45:09 PM5/14/23
to
Jim Wilkins wrote:
> These plans have a single, fatal flaw: they are reliant on the
> pipe-dream
> that there is some affordable way to store surplus electricity at
> scale.
Gosh darn capitalism. It keeps identifying market opportunities
> These plans have a single, fatal flaw: they are reliant on the
> pipe-dream
> that there is some affordable way to store surplus electricity at
> scale.
and then develop technology to sell on the market. PGE can
increase profits by selling electricity when generators are offline.
https://investor.pgecorp.com/news-events/press-releases/press-release-details/2020/PGE-Poised-to-Expand-Battery-Energy-Storage-Capacity-by-More-Than-420-Megawatts/default.aspx
--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 2.L / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohammed
Ian gay
May 14, 2023, 7:50:26 PM5/14/23
to
Siri Cruise wrote:
> Jim Wilkins wrote:
>> These plans have a single, fatal flaw: they are reliant on the
>> pipe-dream
>> that there is some affordable way to store surplus electricity at
>> scale.
>
> Gosh darn capitalism. It keeps identifying market opportunities
> and then develop technology to sell on the market. PGE can
> increase profits by selling electricity when generators are offline.
>
>
https://investor.pgecorp.com/news-events/press-releases/press-release-details/2020/PGE-Poised-to-Expand-Battery-Energy-Storage-Capacity-by-More-Than-420-Megawatts/default.aspx
>
Interesting that that blurb gives only power levels of various storage
> Jim Wilkins wrote:
>> These plans have a single, fatal flaw: they are reliant on the
>> pipe-dream
>> that there is some affordable way to store surplus electricity at
>> scale.
>
> Gosh darn capitalism. It keeps identifying market opportunities
> and then develop technology to sell on the market. PGE can
> increase profits by selling electricity when generators are offline.
>
>
https://investor.pgecorp.com/news-events/press-releases/press-release-details/2020/PGE-Poised-to-Expand-Battery-Energy-Storage-Capacity-by-More-Than-420-Megawatts/default.aspx
>
units, but not their capacity. So how many seconds - days - years can
PGE storage cover when the generators are offline???
Scout
May 15, 2023, 1:38:19 PM5/15/23
to
"Jim Wilkins" <murat...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:u3qidk$2kdg5$1...@dont-email.me...
> "Solar fraud" wrote in message news:u3i0pv$j7o$1...@toxic.dizum.net...
>
> Many governments in the Western world have committed to “net zero”
> emissions of carbon in the near future. The US and UK both say they will
> deliver by 2050. It's widely believed that wind and solar power can
> achieve this. This belief has led the US and British governments, among
> others, to promote and heavily subsidise wind and solar.
Which simply exports their pollution to the East... If countries were
>
> Many governments in the Western world have committed to “net zero”
> emissions of carbon in the near future. The US and UK both say they will
> deliver by 2050. It's widely believed that wind and solar power can
> achieve this. This belief has led the US and British governments, among
> others, to promote and heavily subsidise wind and solar.
ACTUALLY after net zero then they would need to figure in ALL carbon
emissions from mineral extraction, through transportation, fabrication,
installation, operation, disposal, destruction, reclamation, reprocessing
and finally disposal of what remains.
Then consider while at the time they are trying to transition over.. they
are also working to MASSIVELY increase their demand for electricity.
The bitch is I had a net zero heating system.. and the local government made
me remove it.. something about burning wood was bad for the environment...
100% use of waste and discarded wood.
Jim Wilkins
May 23, 2023, 8:35:10 AM5/23/23
to
"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message news:u3vu4u$11ngg$1...@dont-email.me...
>If you planned to cripple the West there's hardly a better way than
>convincing us to discard all the practical and reliable sources of energy.
>Notice in particular that hydro power dams, transmission lines and
>windmills are also under attack.
https://www.acsh.org/news/2021/02/12/environmentalists-want-renewable-energy-not-power-lines-15341
"Activists are suing to stop the construction of a new 101-mile power line
in Wisconsin and Iowa because it "will have 'significant negative impacts'
on the environment, wildlife, property values, agriculture, outdoor
recreation and tourism." (Really, tourism?) In New England, the Sierra Club
is opposed to the construction of a 145-mile power line connecting the U.S.
to Canadian hydroelectric power."
.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/new-rebellion-against-wind-energy-stalls-or-stops-projects/
>If you planned to cripple the West there's hardly a better way than
>convincing us to discard all the practical and reliable sources of energy.
>Notice in particular that hydro power dams, transmission lines and
>windmills are also under attack.
https://www.acsh.org/news/2021/02/12/environmentalists-want-renewable-energy-not-power-lines-15341
"Activists are suing to stop the construction of a new 101-mile power line
in Wisconsin and Iowa because it "will have 'significant negative impacts'
on the environment, wildlife, property values, agriculture, outdoor
recreation and tourism." (Really, tourism?) In New England, the Sierra Club
is opposed to the construction of a 145-mile power line connecting the U.S.
to Canadian hydroelectric power."
.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/new-rebellion-against-wind-energy-stalls-or-stops-projects/
Jim Wilkins
Jun 17, 2023, 7:12:41 PM6/17/23
to
Bob F
Jun 17, 2023, 7:34:12 PM6/17/23
to
On 6/17/2023 4:12 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/15/solar-panels-insanity-britain/
Sounds like they are doing a great job and just need a some more solar
panels.
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/15/solar-panels-insanity-britain/
Sounds like they are doing a great job and just need a some more solar
panels.
Jim Wilkins
Jun 17, 2023, 8:09:30 PM6/17/23
to
"Bob F" wrote in message news:u6lfth$1d7bi$1...@dont-email.me...
----------------------------
I've developed lunar panels and am soliciting investments to begin
manufacture.
I've developed lunar panels and am soliciting investments to begin
manufacture.
Bob F
Jun 17, 2023, 8:14:54 PM6/17/23
to
Governor Swill
Jun 17, 2023, 10:20:05 PM6/17/23
to
On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 19:12:33 -0400, "Jim Wilkins" <murat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/15/solar-panels-insanity-britain/
A problem with solar in a country noted for rainy and overcast weather? Who'd o' thunk
it?
Swill
--
Reality is an acquired taste - Matthew Perry
Heroyam slava! Glory to the Heroes!
Sláva Ukrajíni! Glory to Ukraine! Putin is a condom!
Go here to donate to Ukrainian relief.
<https://www2.deloitte.com/ua/uk/pages/registration-forms/help-cities.html>
>https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/15/solar-panels-insanity-britain/
A problem with solar in a country noted for rainy and overcast weather? Who'd o' thunk
it?
Swill
--
Reality is an acquired taste - Matthew Perry
Heroyam slava! Glory to the Heroes!
Sláva Ukrajíni! Glory to Ukraine! Putin is a condom!
Go here to donate to Ukrainian relief.
<https://www2.deloitte.com/ua/uk/pages/registration-forms/help-cities.html>
Governor Swill
Jun 17, 2023, 10:21:56 PM6/17/23
to
seem to be making excellent progress. This story is, if anything, a testament to the need
to used mixed energy sources and NOT disassemble any older technologies like coal and
*gasp* NUCLEAR.
Jim Wilkins
Jun 18, 2023, 8:41:11 AM6/18/23
to
"Bob F" wrote in message news:u6li9r$1dgnh$1...@dont-email.me...
---------------------------
We can greatly reduce the need for electric power at night by wrapping our
refrigerators and water heaters in a thick foam blanket and shutting them
off before going to bed.
We can greatly reduce the need for electric power at night by wrapping our
refrigerators and water heaters in a thick foam blanket and shutting them
off before going to bed.
0 new messages