[HN Gopher] Can solar and wind power Britain? An update of David... ___________________________________________________________________ Can solar and wind power Britain? An update of David MacKay's numbers Author : ZeroGravitas Score : 95 points Date : 2023-11-05 14:33 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com) | RobinL wrote: | Great post - I've been looking for a serious update to Mackay's | numbers for ages. | | One thing in curious about: developments in fixed wind turbines | tech mean they are economically viable in more locations (e.g. | deeper water) so can cover more area. | | But how much more do they produce per square km of deployment | than Mackay's estimates? | | In his book, he has a nice section explaining that bigger | turbines have to be spaced out more, so whilst theyre cheaper, | they don't produce as much more energy as the headline 'output | per turbine' would naively suggest. | | But modern turbines are higher, so they presumably 'catch' more | wind, and windspeeds are more consistent higher up. But I'm | curious how big an effect this is. | cycomanic wrote: | I don't MacKays estimates but the cited study seems to assume a | capacity factor of 50% for a 15 MW turbine. | | Average turbine capacity of turbines installed in 2021 was 7.4 | MW but all manufacturers seem to have 15+MW designs in the work | [1]. So the projection is slightly optimistic IMO. The capacity | factor seems slightly more optimistic at 50% as worldwide | average seem to have fluctuated between 35 and 45% [2]. | Although other numbers are closer to 60% for the UK [3] | | [1] https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/offshore-wind- | mark... [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1368679/global- | offshore-... [3] https://windeurope.org/about-wind/daily- | wind/capacity-factor... | yodelshady wrote: | Source [3] seems highly suspicious. There's ~24 GW of wind | capacity in the UK, the vast majority offshore, and according | to Elexon Portal (https://www.elexonportal.co.uk, a good | public frontend at http://gridwatch.org.uk/), which gives | realtime grid data, the maximum production was 10. So an | average cap factor of 39% is, well sorry it's wrong. | | And time and time again renewables _always_ seems to take | optimistic, if not ludicrous estimates. | | Mackay's papers is indeed 15 years old, and what do we have | now? _Extremely_ expensive power, backed by fossil gas, | because if wasn 't, _people would die_. Avoiding 2 deg C and | ecosystem collapse is not even vaguely possible anymore. In | that time, 40 years ago, France got to 17 g / kWh. That's | not a success and, for the literal trillions of ESG money | spent, someone should be held accountable for that. | coob wrote: | I thought the issue with wind in the UK was that its supply is | (Scotland) where the demand isn't (the south). So we'd (a) have | to build loads of pylons or expensive underground cables and (b) | lose a lot in transmission. | nradov wrote: | That's part of it, but storage for base load is still a more | significant issue. | ebiester wrote: | Considering the length of transmission lines in the US, is 500 | miles (or so) the constraining factor with transmission? | bluGill wrote: | For AC. More than that and the ends start to be in different | phases of the cycle and so generators fight. DC works over | much longer distances. | ben_w wrote: | You would have to build lots of transmission, but the losses | aren't particularly significant for high voltage lines -- it's | only about 1000 km from the Shetland islands to Southampton, | and HVDC transmission losses are quoted at 3.5% per 1,000 km. | Pricing seems to be a trade secret, but the suggested numbers | on the Wikipedia page for the 8 GW cross-channel link were | PS110M for the converter stations and PS1M/km for the undersea | cable. | | I know that a mere back-of-the-envelope calculation isn't worth | much more than the used envelope it was written on (doubly so | when it is based on guesstimates of the input numbers), but | that would be only PS1bn for 8 GW or PS4bn for 32 GW (compared | to actual average usage of 31.5 GW last year), which is the | kind of thing that the British government _shouldn 't_ blink at | but in practice actually faffs and fails at basically all the | time. | | (And the sector is theoretically privatised, so this would have | to become a business investment, which in turns will have | potential investors ask inconvenient questions like "What's the | risk we have cheaper options in 10 years that make this power | line redundant? And what about those fusion reactors I keep | reading about in the Sunday Times? What if Scotland becomes | independent and stops selling you the electricity?") | ZeroGravitas wrote: | The supply is in Scotland because the Conservative party | effectively banned onshore wind in England. | | It's not a physical or geographic limitation. | | And doesn't apply to offshore wind. | eigenspace wrote: | With proper high volatage direct current (HVDC) transmission, | the transmission losses transporting electricity from Scotland | to the south of England are not very relevant. It's like a | couple of percent. | | A bigger problem is just the UK's inability to complete | infrastructure megaprojects on land, so the connectors would | likely need to go in the sea and take a perhaps inefficient | route. | nickdothutton wrote: | There are a number of problems with wind in the UK. NIMBYism | means it's either in the north (nowhere near the consumer) or | out in the sea which is both not terribly near the consumer and | ferociously expensive to maintain. The UK Energy Catapult | estimates that a single service vessel "truck roll" or "boat | launch" (I guess) is something like PS250K. Probably much more | now as that figure is 10 years old. This means that it makes | economic sense to wait until you have several broken wind | turbines before sending out a service vessel. Couple this with | the fact that they dont seem to have as long a lifetime as was | promised (various reasons). Finally it is a meteorological | reality that when it's very cold in the UK and energy demands | are high... it is also usually very still with no wind, and of | course in the middle of winter when there are few hours of | daylight helping us with solar generation. | cycomanic wrote: | > Finally it is a meteorological reality that when it's very | cold in the UK and energy demands are high... it is also | usually very still with no wind, and of course in the middle | of winter when there are few hours of daylight helping us | with solar generation. | | Your meteorological reality seems to not correlate with | actual reality. In the UK the highest energy demand is | actually correlated with high wind speeds [1] | | [1] | https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa69c6 | s1artibartfast wrote: | The paper seems to say the opposite: | | >This reflects the variation in temperatures and wind | speeds with season, with calmer, warmer conditions in | summer and cooler, windier conditions in late autumn and | early spring. However above the 75th percentile of demand, | average wind power reduces, which occurs predominantly in | winter and autumn. Understanding this downturn in wind | power provides the motivation for this paper. Given our | interest in high demand days, which predominantly occur in | winter (figure 1, upper right), only winter days are | considered. | | >The tendency for lower wind power during higher winter | demand is shown by the tilt of the density contours of the | daily distribution (figure 1, lower left). It is also | clearly seen when averaged across days of similar demand | (figure 2, left). Average wind power reduces by a third | between lower and higher winter demand, from approximately | 60% to 40% of rated power. | | Look at figure 2. Black is wind power, and the X axis is | demand. Wind production capacity is down when demand is | high. | nickdothutton wrote: | The very cold days in winter in the UK are always still | days. | cycomanic wrote: | Ok my statement was largely based on the abstract, I only | skimmed the paper. The abstract refers to the uptick for | very high demand percentiles (>90%), which I guess is | still much smaller than the downward trend. I apologise I | got this wrong. | s1artibartfast wrote: | Honest question: | | I frequently hear people bring up transmission losses as a | concern, and genuinely curious where this idea comes from? Was | this taught in schools or part of some disinformation campaign? | bigfryo wrote: | But can we believe anything put out by the establishment when it | comes to supporting any narrative supported by the establishment? | Doches wrote: | One piece of this really jumped out at me: the projection of | overall energy demand to shrink from 2900 TWh to 900 TWh over the | next 27 years. The article waives that away by pointing to | efficiency gains from electrification and decarbonisation -- but | that's just a stupendous change in consumption over a quite short | period of time. | | I would honestly like a deeper explanation of how electrification | will produce such a wild decrease! That's shrinking energy use by | more than 2/3, and presumably after taking into account | population/industry growth...? Or are the authors just wildly | pessimistic (not...unmerited) about Britain's trajectory over the | next quarter-century? What am I missing here? | steveBK123 wrote: | It seems sort of nonsensical to project electric usage decline | as we move from ICE to EV and from oil/gas heat to heat pump. | Scarblac wrote: | It's a decline in overall energy, presumably not in | electricity. | morsch wrote: | This is final energy demand and thus presumably includes | energy used for heating and transportation that's currently | provided via fossil fuels. In fact, that's the point: | electrical motors and heat pumps are more efficient, and the | final energy demand is reduced. In other words, demand for | electricity goes up, total energy demand goes down. | steveBK123 wrote: | That makes more sense if we are talking total energy | demand. | gpm wrote: | The ballpark number for EVs is that they are 4x more | efficient than ICE cars AIUI. | | Harder to ball park heat pumps because it depends on the | climate, but 4x is probably a reasonable guesstimate. At | worse it's equal to burning things for heating (when it's too | cold outside to use heat pumps, not sure that really happens | in Britain), at best it's... some ridiculous factor better | (when it's practically the same temperature outside and | inside). | raphaelj wrote: | From what I understand, these TWhs refer to total energy usage, | not electricity usage. | | If you replace a ICE by an BEV powered by solar cells, you | actually reduce the total TWhs because of efficiecy: | | - ICE: 6L of gasoline per 100km, that equals to about 60 KWh | | - BEV: 17KWh for the same distance. | | The same applies to heat-pumps and some industrial processes. | conjecTech wrote: | Correct, a lot of Mackay's estimates fail to account for the | difference in delivered efficiency between electric solutions | and their gas counterparts. For instance in his car | section[1], he estimate you'd need to produce 40kwh to drive | 50km. That may be close to the true energetic content of the | gas burned, but you could drive that far on just 10kwh in a | modern EV, meaning electrification dropped your gross energy | needs by 75%. | | [1] https://www.withouthotair.com/c3/page_29.shtml | ZeroGravitas wrote: | He was aware of the benefits of EVs though, from a later | chapter | | > OK, the race is over, and I've announced two winners - | public transport, and electric vehicles. | | He was also very positive about heat pumps. | | https://www.withouthotair.com/c20/page_131.shtml | | > You've shown that electric cars are more energy-efficient | than fossil cars. But are they better if our objective is | to reduce CO2 emissions, and the electricity is still | generated by fossil power- stations? | | > This is quite an easy calculation to do. Assume the | electric vehicle's energy cost is 20 kWh(e) per 100 km. (I | think 15 kWh(e) per 100 km is perfectly possible, but let's | play sceptical in this calculation.) If grid electricity | has a carbon footprint of 500 g per kWh(e) then the | effective emissions of this vehicle are 100 g CO2 per km, | which is as good as the best fossil cars (figure 20.9). So | I conclude that switching to electric cars is already a | good idea, even before we green our electricity supply. | lostlogin wrote: | And that misses the petrol station thing. Stocking the | station tanks (and that supply chain), staffing, etc, | that doesn't cost zero. | rcxdude wrote: | True, but neither does maintaining the grid | smileysteve wrote: | Marginally and variable costs it does though. A 100% | capacity charging station has few variable costs compared | to gasoline delivery; the grid interconnect and charging | cables are equivalent to filler and tank safety | inspection, not daily or weekly deliveries of fuel by | pipeline + truck. | conjecTech wrote: | I'm sure he was. It's easy for us to see 15 years later | that the combination of EVs + solar/wind has a huge | efficiency gain because you can get to avoid internal | combustion altogether, but EVs were nascent enough in | 2008 for that to not be as clear, so those assumptions | didn't make it into his calculations. | cpncrunch wrote: | I think youve misread it. 1600TWh is the demand today. The 2900 | figure is potential supply of wind and solar. | lucb1e wrote: | Could you cite where you found those numbers? I can't find | either of them: | | The submission (blog post) doesn't mention the number 900 at | all; the paper which the submission is about only mentions | 900 in a footnote saying "Total European [energy] supply was | 22,900 TWh (IEA, 2022)."; the summary pdf of said paper never | mentions 900 or 600. | | Figures in the paper ending in 600 occur in a few spots, but | nowhere 1600. There is 21'600 TWh/year (total European energy | supply, page 8), 16'600 TWh/year (idem), 10'600 TWh/year | (prior studies' estimates of UK wind resources), and 2'600 | km2 (land occupied by buildings). | | But maybe I shouldn't be drawing conclusions based on trying | to search character sequences in a semi-picture format... | hwillis wrote: | > They estimate that it could produce 2,895 TWh of | electricity each year from solar and wind. That's almost | double its estimate for final energy demand in 2050. See | the chart below. [...] We can see this when we look at | other estimates of energy demand from the literature. The | National Grid FES projects that Britain will need just 900 | TWh in 2050. [...] Total final energy demand today is 1599 | TWh. | | It's right under the first main heading. Just above and | below the first picture. Searching for 900 in the post took | me right to it. I have no idea how you missed it. | marcosdumay wrote: | Electrification doesn't cause such a decrease. Fixing your | projection so it's not anymore a "we can't do anything, we must | keep investing in BP" piece into a realistic one is what | reduces it. | | Honestly, anybody claiming in 2008 that PVs are too expensive | so we should not invest on them is safe to ignore. | Gibbon1 wrote: | That's close to the time frame when I realized solar was | going to win just based on pure business accounting. | | Thing to consider the ultimate price of a manufactured good | tends to track production volume, device complexity, and | energy required to produce including raw material. | | Solar panels require complex machines to produce but are | themselves simple, the volume is high at scale, and energy | requirements are low. That points to something where the | price is close to the energy and material costs. | marcosdumay wrote: | > energy requirements are low | | They can surely become low, but currently they are not. The | EROEI of PV panels is barely on the region where it stops | being one of the largest factors in its cost. | | But yeah, PV has space to improve a by a few orders of | magnitude more. | acdha wrote: | I could believe some reduction if there were massive efficiency | increases (e.g. replacing resistive heating with heat pumps) | but that seems impossible on that scale unless they're also | forecasting entire industries leaving the country. | ViewTrick1002 wrote: | Take a look at the amount of rejected energy we waste by using | for example heat engines today. Electrical engines and heat | pumps vastly reduce those losses. | | https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/ | greenthrow wrote: | ICE vehicles turn less than 35% of their energy consumption | into productive work. The rest is waste heat. That's the main | reason transitioning to pure EVs must happen. | s1artibartfast wrote: | IT looks like the 900 number is discussed in chapter 3 of this | document [1]. | | As far as I can tell the current usage of 1200 TWh include | electricity and combustible chimerical energy of gas. | Electricity use is ~300 Twh, and Gas usage is ~800 Twh. | | The proposal is that gas heating would be entirely replaced | with heat pumps and most gas generation would be replaced with | modular nuclear reactors and offshore wind. | | The numbers are a little misleading because of the way gas and | electricity are summed to get the top level numbers. A TWh of | gas consumption is not the same as a TWh of electricity | consumption. In thier model, 50 TWh of electricity can replace | 400 TWh of gas. The challenge with this approach is that it is | not show what is going on with user consumption. Are they | getting more, less, or the same thermodynamic work done? | | https://www.nationalgrid.com/document/138976/download#:~:tex... | . | vlovich123 wrote: | I would bet that electricity demand goes up, not down. When a | good becomes cheaper/more efficient, demand increases. | hwillis wrote: | 1. They're talking about all energy (cars, heat, and | electricity), not just electricity. | | 2. _Demand_ is up in this scenario, not supply, because of | all the things being electrified. | bluGill wrote: | But the change is not a 1:1 linear ratio. Demand increases, | but only if there is pain that more could use. Once a room is | bright enough you won't add more light. | vlovich123 wrote: | Sure, but you may not be as diligent turning off the | lights. | bluGill wrote: | Exactly, but the improved efficiency is more than the | loss from leaving it on. | vlovich123 wrote: | > Exactly, but the improved efficiency is more than the | loss from leaving it on. | | The improved efficiency needs to be more than the drop in | marginal cost which is what governs demand, nothing to do | with how much more electricity you use today. And even | then, that relationship isn't linear because a 30% | reduction in cost can drive a 60% increase in demand | because that reduction puts it in a new price bracket | where a lot more people can afford it (since wealth is | non-linear). This stuff is super non trivial and has all | sorts of higher order effects. | cycomanic wrote: | There is no such projection, it seems you misread something. | | The O'Callaghan et al. paper (in the Blog post here the related | figure is fig 1) says that current (2023) demand is 1500TWh and | current supply is 2885 TWh. There are different projections for | total demand in 2050 (note all of them project a reduction of | demand, due to efficiency gains), one of these is the national | grid FES which projects 900 TWh. Importantly the O'Callaghan | paper opts to be conservative and choose to use the current | demand as the demand for 2050. This is conservative, because it | is higher than all projections which all assume that we get | demand reduction from efficiency gains. | cycomanic wrote: | I want to add that Britain's energy demand has already fallen | by one quarter in the last 15 years even without the efficiency | gains from large scale electrification, so a 2/3 reduction | (which to stress again is not what the paper assumes) is not so | outrageous. | nradov wrote: | Some of that is due to efficiency gains (good). But some is | also due to deindustrialization and increased imports of | energy intensive products (bad). We have to look at full | lifecycle global CO2 emissions in order to perform a valid | analysis of any changes. | snapplebobapple wrote: | The better question is why do they think more efficiency will | lead to lower use rather than higher consumption? I know, if | the price stays the same per unit of energy and i stop spendjng | so much because of efficiency gains, i have a ton of other | stuff i would love to do that consumes energy so my decrease in | usage would be tiny. What will decrease my usage is price | increases, which can only go so far as taxes to capture | proposed externalities before i revolt and elect someone who | will axe the tax (as is about to happen in canada). | bobthepanda wrote: | Energy use per capita has already been falling for two | decades in the US: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/04 | /10/176801719/two-... | snapplebobapple wrote: | Thats not really what that chart looks like to me, or at | least the effect is very moderate. The big drops correspond | to economic shocks. Even if i ignore that the chart is | topping at roughly 350 in 1975 and bottoming around 310 in | what i assume is 2023, which makes it what? A 0.22% annual | decrease? | kjkjadksj wrote: | You are making the assumption there won't be some new | technology that gobbles up significant energy. At one point | an American's electrical consumption might have been home | lighting and a radio. Then it jumped by an order of | magnitude with the refrigerator and air conditioner. | passwordoops wrote: | As an aside re: Canadian politics. New Governments don't get | elected, old ones are voted out of office. The shelf life is | generally 10-15 years and this government has gotten stale. | It just so happens the party in position to replace them | plans to remove the carbon tax (which hasn't been implemented | in any meaningful way) as part of their platform | snapplebobapple wrote: | Thats true but a misinterpretation of the data in my | opinion. Old ones are voted out because their policies | mismatch the current pain points, which is definitely | happening here. Libs were elected on a luxury beliefs | platform that isn't compatible with the current state of | the economy/interest rate regime/inflation. Enough people | have finally realized this to grow disillusioned and change | voting patterns.that the libs appear to be a bunch of | kleptos and/or incompetent and/or corrupt is speeding up | that realization. | | If the libs had kept the klepto stuff to a less obvious | level and adapted the binding parts of their luxury beliefs | platform they probably would still be polling a majority | and could have kept this going for quite a while longer. | immibis wrote: | The answer to the headline question ultimately doesn't matter. | Either the answer is "yes", or we figure out how to make the | answer "yes", or we all die. | gpm wrote: | There are other options... nuclear power is more expensive but | if cost wasn't the issue (e.g. running out of land was) is an | option. | | If cost is the issue there are still risky moonshots like | "throw tons of money at fusion" (attacking the cost of nuclear) | and "throw tons of money at high temperature superconductor | research" (attacking the amount of energy we need), and | "geoengineering" (risking screwing it up worse). Not guaranteed | to work, but you know, better than rolling over and dying. Also | has the side benefit that a lot of the moonshots are worth | trying anyways. | immibis wrote: | Hard reliance on nuclear power is one of the "we all die" | options. Didn't we learn our lesson about building a whole | civilization on consuming a limited resource dug out of the | ground? | gpm wrote: | Sure, at least with regards to fission, but it plausibly | extends the timeline out so that the moonshots are no | longer quite so difficult. | kristjank wrote: | Is it not the case that Uranium and Thorium are not just | more abundant than existing fuels, but also about a million | times more energy dense? I find it hard to believe running | out is a chance we'll face soon. | ben_w wrote: | Million times more energy dense, yes. | | More abundant? Depends. There's a lot in the sea, which | isn't currently recoverable. There's a lot we could do | (but actually don't) with breeder reactors to make more | fuel. | | This means the answer to the question "how long could we | last on just nuclear fuel alone?" varies from 5.7 | years[0][1] to 4.3 billion years[1]. | | [0] https://globalwarming-sowhat.com/renewables | | [1] https://whatisnuclear.com/nuclear-sustainability.html | immibis wrote: | Don't forget about induced demand. | lucb1e wrote: | Not like the sun is renewable either. Everything is finite | if you use enough of it. The problem is that the _old_ | "limited consumable resource dug out of the ground" changes | our natural habitat as a side effect of creating energy, | assuming we continue to use it as we do today. | | (By that last bit, I mean: powering EVs from coal plants | with carbon capture at exhausts might be different, idk, | but probably not cheaper than just not polluting in the | first place.) | gpm wrote: | "Renewable" isn't the best word for wind and solar, | better would be "use-it-or-lose-it", either you harvest | it or it dissipates into useless low grade heat. Using | more of it doesn't deplete the supply of it. | | Solar energy (and thus wind assuming otherwise constant | environmental conditions) is only going to get more | plentiful for next 5 billion years... | ianpurton wrote: | The problem with nuclear is that their is so much FUD around | it that it becomes not just expensive but very difficult to | build. | | Mainly due to new regulations meaning projects have to re- | engineer themselves before they are even complete. Leading to | delays and cost overruns. | dv_dt wrote: | The problem with nuclear is that it's slow and expensive to | build and there is FUD that it is not. | immibis wrote: | But it's slow and expensive to build because of | ReGuLaTioNS. If we just remove all the rEGUlaTiONS it | could be fast and cheap. What's a Chernobyl? | WillPostForFood wrote: | We are all going to die! But nuclear power is to | expensive, so let's sit in the roads and block traffic | and subsidize Teslas for rich people. | | Either we are under an existential threat, in which case | nuclear power is an amazingly cheap way to save 8+ | billion people, or there is some other agenda at play. | gpm wrote: | The primary constraint limiting the speed at which we | move away from fossil fuels is cost. Investing in more | expensive alternatives like nuclear increases the risk of | the threat becoming existential, and the damage it does | if it doesn't become existential, compared to investing | in cheaper alternatives like solar and wind. | | It is not a case of "we should do everything" because we | can't afford to do everything. If we could afford to do | everything we could easily do a small subset of | everything and solve the problem. | WillPostForFood wrote: | Hard disagree, the primary limitation is availability of | energy. There is no path to 100% solar + wind + storage | without mass deindustrialization. | | Nuclear would stop being expensive if it was committed | to. Building 1 bespoke plant avery few decades is not a | good approach. | gpm wrote: | The article is literally about showing that there is in | fact enough solar and wind energy available to fulfill | expected (not artificially constrained or | "deindustrialized") demand. | WillPostForFood wrote: | The article doesn't have a plan for storage, and relies | on a plurality of energy from floating offshore wind, | which has never been relied on at any scale. There are 4 | windfarms in the world generating just 193MW. You are | going to bet humanity on that? | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_wind_turbine | ben_w wrote: | Superconductors are probably a red herring. It's | _technically_ possible to make a 1 O global power grid for | only a few hundred billion in raw materials, a superconductor | isn 't going to help _much_ with anything except the material | cost, including but not limited to the cost of actually | installing that cabling, the geopolitics of where to put it, | conflicts involving it. | | A superconducting cable probably also makes attempts to | damage the thing easier -- to get 40,000 km of aluminium down | to 1 O, it needs to have a cross section of 1 m^2, which is | kinda hard to damage, though also you don't really want a | single cable because that, with current global electrical | demand and reasonable (i.e. currently in use) choices for the | voltage, would be in the order of 1.5 mega-amperes and match | Earth's geomagnetic field at a distance of about 11 km. | gpm wrote: | My understanding is that that if they have nice properties | they'll enable substantially more efficient | motors/generators thanks to strong magnetic fields. I can't | say I'm that confident in that knowledge though. | revscat wrote: | Very true, but extremely unpopular to say. The downvotes are as | expected as they are cause for despair. | jfengel wrote: | Even if the answer were "we'll still need 50% from fossil | fuels" it still cuts CO2 in half. If the answer were "we still | need 10% for unusual cases", it still means that fossil fuels | stop being the problem, at least for that one country. | | This isn't insurmountable. It doesn't have to be perfect. Even | a real but incomplete effort makes a genuine difference. | | The problem, unfortunately, remains the US, who has a large and | powerful minority who is convinced it's all a hoax. The | solution doesn't have to be complete but it does have to be | something. With many millions of people actively making it | worse, even 100% in the UK doesn't come anywhere near close. | dvh wrote: | There's a lot of assumptions there, wouldn't it be easier to put | some panels on rooftop, car sized battery in the garage and see | what happens? | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | The article literally goes into pretty specific detail about | how much energy rooftop solar could provide. | morsch wrote: | I was left wondering why only 8% of roofs quality for rooftop | solar. I haven't checked the underlying paper, maybe it has | an answer. | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | That's what I thought was so great about this article. Even | if you _quadrupled_ the estimate of total rooftop solar, it | is still just a drop in the bucket compared to the total | energy generation needed. It 's almost not worth talking | about because it's such a minor amount of capacity. | | I didn't read the paper, but from personal experience: | | 1. Rooftop solar depends on lots of individuals to make an | investment to put solar on their houses. If you say "let | the government subsidize it", that doesn't really make much | sense because the government can get a much better return | on each dollar spent by investing in more efficient | technologies. | | 2. Many roofs are not suitable for solar. They are either | facing the wrong way, at a bad angle, shaded, or, in my | case, too "origami-like". Solar panels need to have minimum | clearance fro ridge lines on a roof, which can drastically | reduce the total coverable area. | Tams80 wrote: | Exactly. It's a quadruple whammy: | | 1. Most residences not being suitable for significant | generation. | | 2. The return on investment is decades long (yes, so is | double glazing, but that is useful for far more | households), not that most households can afford it at | all. | | 3. The total generation capacity is piddle, especially | for government investment. | | 4. The materials that go into making PV panels are | horrible to extract. | | I'm not saying PV panels are useless, but they are not | much of anything. Not something my lecturers at uni liked | hearing/reading, but lo and behold pretty much nothing | substantial has changed since. They're too busy blowing | Sustainable Development smoke up their own arses though. | s1artibartfast wrote: | rooftop power is basically the most costly and least efficient | mode of generating power. It many places, it easily costs 10x | for the same nameplate capacity, and because of suboptimal | locations and angles, it only produces a fraction of that | nameplate. | ZeroGravitas wrote: | Consumer rooftop is about the same price range as nuclear. | | Commercial rooftop (warehouses, big box stores etc) is a bit | cheaper than nuclear, with the most expensive being the same | cost as an average nuclear plant, and the low end for new | commercial rooftop solar being the same as the running costs | of already built nuclear: | | https://www.lazard.com/media/2ozoovyg/lazards-lcoeplus- | april... | s1artibartfast wrote: | You link is broken, is this the same [1]?. | | https://www.lazard.com/media/2ozoovyg/lazards-lcoeplus- | april... | | It still shows rooftop clearly to clearly have the worst | LCOE. I bet the assumptions for Rooftop dont include | suboptimal builds, like builds in San Francisco, on a north | facing roof, under a tree, with storage. | | Rooftop can be good in niches, but it is hardly a panacea. | ZeroGravitas wrote: | It's not clearly worst, since it shows that some rooftop | solar is cheaper than the cheapest nuclear, there's | mostly overlap in prices. | s1artibartfast wrote: | Im not sure why you are looking at the minimum solar | costs instead of the average. | Tams80 wrote: | We're talking about the UK here. | | Ain't no sunshine. | rcxdude wrote: | Rooftop power (or other local generation) has a big economic | incentive behind it, which is that the energy it generated | essentially goes for residential rates as opposed to | wholesale rates (which is at least in part actually born out | by a reduction in the utilization of the grid). So I expect | it to continue to happen, despite it being less efficient in | theory than grid-scale. Local battery storage has a similar | incentive, but even more accessible (at this point, a home | battery system is likely a better house upgrade investment | than solar). | s1artibartfast wrote: | Selling rooftop energy for residential rates isn't | economically sustainable, and has already been eliminated | in California unless you are grandfathered in. | | This is because only a small fraction of the residential | rates goes to production costs, and the rest go to | distribution infrastructure and operations. Distributions | and infrastructure costs/ kWh go with more residential | production, not down. | | Think of it this way. With commercial power you might pay | 0.10/kWh production and and 0.30wh distribution. You can | make your own rooftop for 0.35/kw, but the grid still costs | the same or more, so that gets added to your bill. | | Residential rates for rooftop solar only ever made sense as | a huge subsidy for early adopters. | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | I thought this was a really excellent post. The thing I liked | best about it was how it presented the different set of numbers | and didn't try to say "one is wrong or one is right", but instead | tried to explain where the numbers came from, and what the | outcome would be if some assumptions were wrong so the reader can | do their own analysis. What I found particularly helpful: | | 1. Explaining the difference between MacKay's original | "technically possible" vs. "practically possible" supply numbers. | I agree with the article, the world has changed a ton since 2008 | and I do think much more of that technical possibility is now | practical due to changes in tech and attitude. | | 2. One thing I was cautious about is that the lion's share of | final 2050 supply in the updated numbers comes from floating | offshore wind, which in my understanding is the _least_ | technologically "ready" solution. Can someone with more | knowledge comment on this? Is floating wind really as "production | ready" as would be needed to match these numbers? | trebligdivad wrote: | It doesn't seem to mention storage, which for something so wind | driven is surprising. | PaulHoule wrote: | Not one word about storage... | ZeroGravitas wrote: | > To be clear: this does not mean that this is the 'optimal' | electricity mix in 2050. Not least because energy storage costs | would be very high. We would probably want to diversify a bit, | not least to help with grid balancing. Before all of the | nuclear fans get mad: I think there's room for nuclear in there | too. | | > But the point still stands: it seems we have a lot of | untapped solar and wind resources and they could make up a | large chunk of our grid, even if they're not 100% of it. | Tade0 wrote: | There's one component that could not have been a part of the 2008 | analysis: batteries. | | Global annual manufacturing capacity is currently enough to | produce 50min worth of storage for the whole world (as a fraction | of annual electricity production). | | That's not a lot and it's not utilized fully, but still well | within the capabilities required to shave off the evening and | morning peaks - assuming batteries last more than 5 years, which | is a conservative estimate. | | Nuclear would have been a great component here, but IIRC Hinkley | Point C is still under construction and will remain so until | 2027. | Kon5ole wrote: | A common issue with all predictions from a few years ago is that | they failed to predict the 90% fall in cost of solar panels. We | see a similar thing today when battery storage is dismissed as | being too expensive. | | Unfortunately, current policies are often based on predictions | from a few years ago. | nradov wrote: | Battery storage has excellent long term potential but costs are | falling much more slowly than with solar panels. There are some | significant constraints on raw materials supplies. Those can | eventually be worked through but it will take longer. | Kon5ole wrote: | You may be right of course, but I believe the reason for the | slow drop is mostly because most of the battery factories | currently under production are not online yet and EV makers | are still grabbing all the batteries they can get. VW just | started building one of their planned 6 last year. | | Once the transition to EV's is mostly done and car sales fall | to normal levels there will be an immense surplus of battery | production capacity. | | My understanding is also that LFP batteries have basically | eliminated the raw materials bottleneck, which was another | development that few analysts (or anyone else) were able to | predict just a few years ago. | Gibbon1 wrote: | Battery economics have really changed in the last 5 years | without a lot of notice. California has installed 5GW worth in | the last 4 years. Max demand in California is about 50GW. | What's driving batteries is the spread between price per MHW at | 12am and 6PM. | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | When it comes to storage there are also a lot of other | technologies that may be viable if solar/wind are built out to | the point where they are particularly over-subscribed (meaning | that on a particularly windy/sunny day they provide much, much | more than 100% of demand). | | For example, using things like clean hydrogen or Power-to- | methane processes that can create gas to be used in existing | peaker plants. | conjecTech wrote: | I love this kind of hypothetical analysis, but I'd also like to | point out there are already people making real strides towards | this on an individual level in the UK. Youtube channels like | ElectricVehicleMan catalog what a conscientious person can | practically accomplish by themselves with readily available | solutions today. I've particularly been impressed by the | synergies between rooftop solar, battery storage, and combined | heat-pump hydronic heat/hot water solutions. | | It seems plausible that even a person in a typical row house | could offset most of their household consumption with solutions | that will end up with a reasonable return over time. | | https://www.youtube.com/@ElectricVehicleMan/videos | divbzero wrote: | As OP mentions, David MacKay's _Sustainable Energy: Without the | Hot Air_ is available for free online: | | https://www.withouthotair.com/ | | The book provides an excellent overview of how different forms of | energy production and consumption add up and which energy | solutions could make a real impact. I strongly recommend reading | it as context for these updated numbers. | cycomanic wrote: | I haven't read the book, but my impression from reading this | Blog post is very poor. | | He seems to have written a book dismissing renewables by | assuming fixed technology/costs from 2008 for projection into | the future (if everybody did this companies would not invest in | anything). On top of that he even hand waved the rest away by | saying their installations would not be accepted by the public. | That seems to me that he was set out to dismiss solar and wind | and just looked for numbers to confirm this. | | Generally I believe if you want to show the feasibility of a | technology you should be conservative in your estimates, and if | you want to dismiss it you should be optimistic in your | estimates. Ideally you show both conservative and optimistic | projections. | RecycledEle wrote: | I applaud anyone in any side of any issue who makes a good faith | attempt to do the math and use common sense engineering to answer | questions. | theptip wrote: | Some discussion here about storage, but I am interested in | modeling around dynamic load shedding / smart grid / "virtual | batteries". | | Seems to me that as the energy mix moves more towards renewable, | to the extent that the renewable-skeptics' prediction that | variability is an issue comes true, then we would have to build | gas peaker plants and start charging more for electricity at peak | times. In response to this increased market rate delta it would | become more viable to invest in dynamic pricing and load | shedding/deferring tech. | | So there is a modeling exercise which looks at the peak time | price premium for various levels of increase in peaker plants | required as the input variable, and compares that to the | viability of virtual batteries at those price deltas as the | output. I haven't seen anything along these lines. | megaman821 wrote: | I wonder why oversized hot water tanks don't get more play | here. You can heat up the water with excess electricity at | basically any time during the day and it should stay hot for | about 24 hours if it is well insulated. | applied_heat wrote: | In New Zealand they were remotely controlling residential | customer hot water tanks and heaters with energy stored in | hot oil using a "ripple" signal on the power lines ... | probably in the eighties by the age of the equipment I saw. | hwillis wrote: | Because people want their hot water to be consistent. Even | just a simple timer that kicks on the hot water in the | morning would work, but most people want to have their sink | still be hot even when they aren't showering. | | > it should stay hot for about 24 hours if it is well | insulated. | | It takes 50 kWh to heat a 46 gallon tank up to 140 F. That's | a ton of energy. Hotter, larger tanks lose even more energy. | | Instead, get a tankless heater, backing a small heat pump | water tank. You get water as hot as you can possibly want, | heated whenever you want, and it never goes cold. | megaman821 wrote: | The whole point of over-sized water tanks isn't to be the | most efficient, only to supply a lot of demand when at | times of the day when there is surplus energy. Right now, | solar and wind are being curtailed more and more. | | Also, water consistency isn't that big a problem. Today's | 120v heat pump water heaters store water at higher | temperatures and using a mixing valve to deliver the | desired temperature of water. I am just saying, surely | electric water tanks, mixing valves, and temperature | sensors are orders of magnitude cheaper than the amount of | batteries needed to heat an equivilant amount of water. | bluGill wrote: | Tanks can be insulated and larger tanks have less surface | area per volume so keep heat longer. | | My parents 1988 switched their hot water to a plan where it | was all heated at night. 6 people making no effort to | conserve water ran out twice in all those years. Yes | the.water was hotter in the morning. But the last shower of | the day still needed to be mixed with some cold or it was | too hot. | | Tankless is worse than a large tank. Tankless needs a lot | more energy now, less over the full day, but when you turn | the water on it needs a lot now. A tank easily adjusts to | use power when the power company needs it. Sun shining or | wind blowing, then heat water to use up whatever is extra. | Clouds and no wind, just use the stored energy. | | Maybe a battery is more efficient, but tanks are cheap | applied_heat wrote: | The variability of wind/solar can also be handled without time | of use pricing by the grid operator including terms in the | energy purchase or interconnection agreement requiring the | generating facility to maintain some degree of consistency to | the output. Then it is up to the generator to figure out how to | do that, perhaps with batteries. | | The problem we saw in Ontario when the market was introduced in | 2001 or so was that it was politically unfavorable to have the | extremely high prices, even for an hour let alone long term, | that would encourage an investor to build a storage facility. | theptip wrote: | I think ideally you set up the market so that supply or | demand can move to meet these fluctuations. Agree it's | politically sensitive, but if you artificially flatten the | price curve then you remove consumer incentives to | participate in solving the problem. | | I suspect industrial/commercial power usage is the big area | for innovation here, but would love to see a breakdown of | where the low hanging fruit is. | hwillis wrote: | > Seems to me that as the energy mix moves more towards | renewable, to the extent that the renewable-skeptics' | prediction that variability is an issue comes true, then we | would have to build gas peaker plants and start charging more | for electricity at peak times. | | There are a lot of different types of variability. You're | talking about sudden short-term variance in supply, which is | easy to deal with- just build more renewables. Bad weather | doesn't cover up entire states except for extreme events, and | you can just turn it off when it isn't needed. You can build a | _lot_ of overcapacity if the alternative is to pay peaker plant | rates. | | Increased variance like I interpret most people talking about | it is those extreme weather events not necessarily hurricanes, | but things like a week of no wind or heavy clouds happening to | cover every panel in a distribution area. The fear being that | you would still need gas plants or huge batteries to run for | that one week a year, at extreme cost. The variance averages | out _most_ of the time, but not _all_ the time. | | Virtual batteries work with the former, but not the latter. | | > In response to this increased market rate delta it would | become more viable to invest in dynamic pricing and load | shedding/deferring tech. | | It's definitely not a tech problem. It's an incentives problem. | The tech was always incredibly simple, and it does literally | exist already- you can buy internet-connected thermostats. All | you need to do is connect Nest to your local electricity | distribution company and tell it how many degrees colder/warmer | you will tolerate per $ saved. 45% of a house's energy use is | in controlling the temperature of air and water (and that's not | counting the fridge, which is another 7%). | | It's as much on the suppliers as it is on consumers, IMO. | Electrical distributors are some of the laziest, worst-run | companies in the country. Half of them can't even do _billing_ | right; I know dozens of people who have been double charged or | never charged or charged for their neighbor- nobody wants to | read their electrical bill, so nobody cares. The average US | household spends ~$2450 on electricity annually, and the amount | you can save for how complicated it is is just below that | mental threshold. | | I don't see it getting better without legislation. Most | obviously, a push for subsidized smart meters that don't use | 1930s tech to measure electricity. Then a standardized | (extensible) API and/or reporting requirement, so that devices | can know the current price of electricity. A standard for | transmitting that info over the house circuits themselves, if | you're feeling fancy. Direct-to-consumer subsidies from grid | authorities for things like ancillary services, power factor | correction, and frequency stabilization. | theptip wrote: | > You're talking about sudden short-term variance in supply, | which is easy to deal with- just build more renewables. | | Easy as in simple, but I think this dramatically skews the | price viability. If I need 2x overcapacity then the price to | the consumer is 2x per MW of base capacity, and it's no | longer viable to use solar over gas. | | > It's definitely not a tech problem | | I disagree. I'm aware of some existing options, my claim is | that with a bigger delta, more options become viable to | research and implement. For example there was a thread | recently where we discussed modulating energy usage in | aluminum smelting, which requires a new design for the | furnace to keep the temperatures stable. (This tech already | exists, but AFAICT it's not cost-effective to deploy widely.) | | There are lots of industrial processes which could | conceivably modulate their power consumption, but it's not | currently cost-effective to even design these improvements at | current levels of peak premium. | | Tech is downstream of incentives, is what I am saying, and | price signals can be a good incentive; many claim that 100% | renewable is not viable because of the cost of closing that | last 1% of daily variability, I am hypothesizing that the | system as a whole could, with appropriate price signals, | build the tech to make the demand curve much more mutable. | | This gets at seasonal variability; if we have a week with | lower energy production, then the peak-premium goes up, and | maybe we turn off the marginal industrial, residential, and | commercial consumers. | bluGill wrote: | You need most of that over capacity anyway. They still keep | generators from the 1920s operational just in case a storm | cuts off one town from the grid, turn on those generators | and let the linemen fix it a week later | theptip wrote: | I'd like to see numbers backing up this assertion, | because everything I have seen suggests the opposite at | grid scale. Sure, remote towns will have backups, but the | major metro areas do not run at substantial overcapacity | ratios. (Else, peakers would not be a thing.) | nradov wrote: | Heavy clouds often do cover multiple states (or European | countries) simultaneously. But the bigger problem for places | like the UK and the USA is that the major grid interconnects | run East so when peak daily demand hits it's already getting | dark in the places from which they can easily import | electricity. | nradov wrote: | Dynamic pricing and load shedding can reduce the need for | peaker plants and storage systems. But as a side effect it will | also drive energy intensive heavy industries offshore. Certain | types of industrial facilities can't just start and stop, and | every minute they're offline they're losing money. Major | countries have to keep certain strategic domestic industries | operating regardless of the cost or environmental impacts; it's | just too risky to depend on imports that could be interrupted | at any time due to a war or other geopolitical crisis. | ilaksh wrote: | The missing piece is renewable fuels. Having some kind of | hydrogen or ammonia, biodiesel etc. from solar and wind and | available to supplement real-time generation when needed would | make it much more feasible to drop fossil fuels. | jacquesm wrote: | Those would require a massive surplus of Solar, Wind and Hydro | which we currently do not have. It may come to that but right | now the surplus happens at best during a few minutes to 10's of | minutes at peak solar in the summer, the rest of the day (and | the rest of the year) we are running at a substantial deficit | that is still made up from fossil fuels or nuclear. | Tams80 wrote: | The issue there is that there are a few very vocal renewable | energy proponents who just don't get that at all. | | Merely mention 'hydrogen' and they go into a tirade. | | Though really, the biggest issue is apathy. | rcxdude wrote: | The efficiency is pretty awful, though. It's quite hard to make | the economics of it work (even if the electricity is free) with | current fuel prices, which is why it's not really happening. | Either the tech needs to get a lot better or the fuel needs to | get a lot more expensive (which I don't imagine would be a | popular option). | DonHopkins wrote: | Locking up SBF was a step in the right direction. Now do the rest | of the energy wasting Bitcoin shills! | jl6 wrote: | One thing I didn't appreciate until recently is how big Britain's | EEZ is. If floating wind turbines can be made practical, there is | huge opportunity not just for energy self-sufficiency, but for | export too. | | P.S. even if the numbers have been superseded, MacKay's original | book is still worth reading because it's so fantastically clear | in how it lays out the basis for estimation. | simonbarker87 wrote: | If you haven't read the book "Sustainability without the hot air" | by David MacKay then I strongly recommend it. He makes some | assumptions that may not stand the test of time but overall it's | well reasoned and he explains the maths and logic well. | | His passing is a real loss to UK science. | | I got to see him speak once, very engaging and his passion was | clear. | anovikov wrote: | One thing i don't like about this analysis is when final energy | is expressed in TWh, which is a unit normally reserved for | electricity. That creates confusion. | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | Watt-Hours is an extremely common metric to use for total | energy when talking about societal-wide energy consumption. | hinkley wrote: | I just finished, "How Big Things Get Done", I think on a | recommendation some time back from someone on HN. | | He says that among the projects that tend to be on time and on | budget, roads, solar and wind are three of them. While he doesn't | say it, I read this as "all large successful projects start as | small successful projects". Once you've built 10 miles of road | the next 10miles is mostly more of the same, subsurface | conditions notwithstanding. Once you've installed three wind | turbines in a field installing the rest looks much the same | (getting the first one in required solving a bunch of | transportation problems of course). The teams just get a little | faster with each one, because they are iterating on a pattern | they already know. | | You try to build a nuclear power plant and it might not show up | until after the politicians who pushed for it to be built have | retired. Which means it might not show up at all because all of | the skin has left the game. But if I try to cap my career as | governor with a new wind or solar farm? I may actually get to cut | the ribbon. | | It makes me feel a bit better about our prospects that solar and | wind are easier logistical problems than repeating the old | patterns. | credit_guy wrote: | > You try to build a nuclear power plant and it might not show | up until after the politicians who pushed for it to be built | have retired. | | You can try to reactivate nuclear power plants that were shut | down. | | I state I live in (New York) closed 2 nuclear reactors in 2020 | and 2021, each providing more than 1 GW of clean electricity. | Both reactor were closed because of political pressure. If we | were to apply the reverse political pressure, I think we could | have them up and running in 5 years, if not sooner. | jonplackett wrote: | What is the running cost of doing something like this? How often | do they need to be replaced and can we afford to do that for the | long term? | | Also - what about the geopolitics. The reason solar is cheap is | because china. Do we want all our energy needs to be dependent on | China? Although we are still building Hinkley Point C with | Chinese investment anyway so -\\_(tsu)_/- ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-11-05 23:00 UTC)