Wind Turbines

[sparks]

Next up: Tethered rigid aerostat with biggest yet wind turbine to harness the jet stream.

Right.

"Elon Musk announces worlds tallest ladder to the Moon."

[Witness]

Wind and solar are 30-50% cheaper than thought, admits UK government

Electricity generated from wind and solar is 30-50% cheaper than previously thought, according to newly published UK government figures.

The new estimates of the “levelised cost” of electricity, published this week by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), show that renewables are much cheaper than expected in the previous iteration of the report, published in 2016.

The previously published version had, in turn, already trimmed the cost of wind and solar by up to 30%. As a result, electricity from onshore wind or solar could be supplied in 2025 at half the cost of gas-fired power, the new estimates suggest.

The new report is the government’s first public admission of the dramatic reductions in renewable costs in recent years. It had previously carried out internal updates to its cost estimates, in both 2018 and 2019, but these were never published despite repeated questions in parliament.

The BEIS report also presents new estimates of the “enhanced levelised cost” of different technologies, which reflects any wider system benefits and their “system integration costs”.

These alternative figures, which have been under development for several years, put gas with carbon capture and storage (CCS) in a particularly favourable light, with costs comparable to wind or solar. CCS is expected to feature in the upcoming energy white paper, due this autumn.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/wind-and-so ... government

[sparks]

What is this "levelised cost" of which they speak.

[Witness]

What is this "levelised cost" of which they speak.

It's in the rest of the article.

[sparks]

Nobody likes a wise guy Witness.

[Witness]

Nobody likes a wise guy Witness.

I thought I showed some restraint…

---

History of Wind Turbines

[sparks]

Indeed you did. I didn't have time to read it. (Working for a living is overrated.)

[Witness]

(Working for a living is overrated.)

You don't say so.

[Witness]

BP enters offshore wind with $1.1 billion U.S. investment

BP, the oil giant that announced a seismic strategy shift last month, made its first venture into offshore wind power with a $1.1 billion purchase of U.S. assets from Norway’s Equinor ASA.

The deal marks the start of an offshore-wind investment partnership in the region for the two companies, which have been at the forefront of the rapid changes in the oil industry as companies seek to adapt to the realities of climate change.

BP has taken the boldest steps so far in abandoning the oil-supermajor business model. Just six months after taking the helm, CEO Bernard Looney said in August he’d shrink oil and gas output by 40% over the next decade and spend as much as $5 billion a year building one of the world’s largest renewable-power businesses.

BP will receive a 50% stake in the Empire Wind and Beacon Wind developments off New York and Massachusetts, respectively, the companies said in two separate statements on Thursday. Equinor will retain 50% in both, and continue to be the operator.

Empire Wind, whose first phase could start in 2024-25, has a potential installed capacity of more than 2 gigawatts, and Beacon Wind more than 2.4 gigawatts. Together they’ll be able to power more than 2 million homes. Equinor earlier estimated total investments in Empire Wind’s first phase at about $3 billion.

Future Cooperation

The companies plan to participate in more offshore wind projects in the U.S., bringing together their significant balance sheets and experience of handling large projects.

“Our ambition would be to replicate this across the U.S.,” Dev Sanyal, executive vice president for gas and low-carbon energy at BP, said in an interview. “States are going through their own process of looking at the offshore wind sector, and as offshore leases come available both of us would like to be a part of that.”

Norway’s state-controlled Equinor has so far been the most aggressive oil major in offshore wind, seeking to capitalize on its experience in operating big industrial projects at sea. It’s now reaping the rewards of its early-mover status, expecting to book a $1 billion gain from the BP transaction.

https://www.worldoil.com/news/2020/9/10 ... investment

[Witness]

[Witness]

Not directly wind turbines, but I'll put it here:

Airbus reveals plan for first-ever ‘zero emission commercial planes’, potentially by 2035

The company says that the ZEROe concepts are a ‘historic moment’ for the aviation sector



Aerospace company Airbus announced on Monday that its first zero-emission, hydrogen-powered commercial flight may be ready for take-off by 2035.

It was dubbed a “historic moment” for the commercial aviation sector by the company’s CEO Guillaume Faury.

Called ZEROe, there are three design concepts. The first is a lot like a typical commercial aircraft you would see today, except with longer, more flexible wings.

The second resembles a turboprop plane with six-bladed propellers. The third is the most futuristic, with a “blended-wing body". But the real game-changer is the fuel source: hydrogen propulsion.

In a statement, Glenn Llewellyn, Airbus VP, Zero-Emission Aircraft, said: “As recently as five years ago, hydrogen propulsion wasn’t even on our radar as a viable emission-reduction technology pathway.

“But convincing data from other transport industries quickly changed all that. Today, we’re excited by the incredible potential hydrogen offers aviation in terms of disruptive emissions reduction."

...

Airbus estimates hydrogen has the potential to reduce aviation’s carbon emissions by up to 50 per cent.

The company said the turbofan design had the potential to transport up to 200 passengers more than 2,000 miles. The turboprop plane could carry half as many, half the distance.

https://www.independent.co.uk/environme ... 17838.html

We'll see.

[sparks]

By burning coal or oil to crack water. Zero emission my bony butt.

[Rob Lister]

Or nukes, or wind, or solar. I'm not a fan of hydrogen power for cars but it could work for aviation. For sure, crashes will be more exciting.

[ed]

H2O ----> H2 + O2

What is the (unexpected) consequence of dumping large amounts of O2 into the atmosphere? "More and faster oxidation" ... ok, thanks Mr. Wizard.

What else?

Bigger expositions when H2 aircraft crash perhaps?

[sparks]

The point is that the energy required to crack water has to come from somewhere. We are still a fossil fuel driven economy in spite of Listy's noting that the energy could also come from nukes and renewables.

[Rob Lister]

Cracking water -- and and just as importantly compressing the resultant hydrogen -- seems like the perfect application of solar. The unreliability and unpredictability of solar doesn't really have an impact there.

[robinson]

Yep


But unless they fly low it’s still going to dump a lot of water vapor into the upper troposphere, which causes climate change

[robinson]

It’s not zero emissions at all

[Rob Lister]

You'll have to convince me the effect would be measurable.

https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/d ... 2/joc.4303

didn't.

[robinson]

Contrails are not the same as humidity

Even so the conclusion of the paper states contrails should be considered for both weather and climatology

[robinson]

But hey, there actually is an entire set of deniers who claim stratospheric water vapor also has zero effect on climate, so it’s all good

[Rob Lister]

Contrails are not the same as humidity

Even so the conclusion of the paper states contrails should be considered for both weather and climatology

what part of 'didn't' didn't you get? It didn't convince me.

I submit (and I think the math would support me) that the energy budget of the entire aviation world running on hydrogen and making water vapor would not move the needle one iota compared to evaporation of water caused by the sun (at 1,368 watts per square meter).

Not even times a million.

It's like saying a windmill would measurably slow down the wind on a global scale.

But I have an open mind.

[robinson]

Like I said, if they still fly high it changes the natural balance of water vapor near the tropopause, which does effect climate

Flying over the poles jets dump a lot of WV into the stratosphere, which normally is very dry

No doubt it alters the energy balance there

[robinson]

In the mid latitudes the stratosphere is around 32,000 feet, but at the poles it is 23,000

Sometimes lower

Dumping tons ( many many tons) of WV from burning fossil fuels seriously alters the chemistry in the polar regions

Burning hydrogen would increase the amount, while reducing CO2

Adding a fuckton of water vapor to an extremely dry stratosphere alters things

There are few natural ways for water vapor to get into the stratosphere, no matter how much is below in the troposphere

[robinson]

Contrails are a different story

[Rob Lister]

I don't doubt there is an effect. I submit that the effect is comparatively so small as to not be measurable.

In that paper, what value did they give?

[robinson]

I am speaking to water vapor added to the very dry stratosphere

Not the same thing as mid latitude contrails

[robinson]

Try to follow along

[Rob Lister]

I am speaking to water vapor added to the very dry stratosphere

You say it is significant. Give me a metric and number.

Here's one for you. At any moment, the atmosphere contains an astounding 37.5 million billion gallons of water.<google>

Here's another: At any given time there are ~6000 jets in the air. <google>

How many gallons of water vapor would hydrogen powered aviation add to that if all of them burned hydrogen?

I'll try to follow.

[robinson]

Studies have shown even small changes in stratospheric humidity may have significant climate impacts

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featu ... phere.html

[Rob Lister]

Give me the number.

[robinson]

Nonsense question

Try harder

[Witness]

Solar meets 100 per cent of South Australia demand for first time

The combination of rooftop and utility scale solar met 100 per cent of demand in South Australia for the first time on Sunday, reaching a milestone that will surely be repeated many times over – and for longer periods – in the future.

The milestone was reached at 12.05pm grid time (Australian eastern standard time), with rooftop solar providing 992MW, or 76.3 per cent of state demand, and utility scale solar providing a further 315MW – meaning all three of the state’s big solar farms, Bungala 1m Bungala 2 and Tailem Bend were operating at full capacity.

The new record came just weeks after solar set a previous milestone of 94 per cent of state demand and rooftop solar output reached 900MW for the first time. On Sunday, that level (94 per cent) was beaten for more than two and a half hours. The combination of sunny weather, mild temperatures and relatively low weekend demand is sure to see more records fall.

The state’s generators were producing more than they needed and exporting most of the surplus to Victoria with some going into the state’s big batteries.

South Australia is currently required to run a minimum amount of gas-fired generation to provide grid services such as inertia and system strength, but the need for this will be reduced when four new synchronous condensers are switched on over the next 12 month, and as battery storage begins to provide “synthetic” inertia services.

The expanded Hornsdale big battery is trialling those inertia services, and has the capacity to meet half the state’s inertia requirements. The construction of a new link to NSW will also further reduce the need for local gas fired generators, and will accelerate the shift towards the state Liberal government’s target of net 100 per cent renewables (averaged over a year).

The continued surged in rooftop solar installations means that South Australia is also likely to reach a new milestone of having rooftop solar alone meet 100 per cent of its demand needs.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/solar-meets ... ime-78279/

[Rob Lister]

Solar meets 100 per cent of South Australia demand for first time
...
ten for more than two and a half hours. The combination of sunny weather, mild temperatures and relatively low weekend demand is sure to see more records fall.

The state’s generators were producing more than they needed and exporting most of the surplus to Victoria with some going into the state’s big batteries.

What is the $/kwh of that battery?

South Australia is currently required to run a minimum amount of gas-fired generation to provide grid services such as inertia and system strength, but the need for this will be reduced when four new synchronous condensers are switched on over the next 12 month, and as battery storage begins to provide “synthetic” inertia services.

I guess I could google 'synchronous condensers' and "synthetic inertia services" but it sounds like battery.

The expanded Hornsdale big battery is trialing those inertia services,

I envision a day when a battery technology exists that can compete. I know it is out there.

I'm so tired. I try to always respond to BS solar news. I never get debate. I should stop. I don't think I excelled in this debunking but nobody is likely to respond.

I am bullish on batteries. The $/kwh will someday make sense. I don't see that happening in my very short life.

[sparks]

Batteries are essentially chemical in nature. No Rob. They will never compete. It's better nukes or nothing.

[Rob Lister]

Batteries are essentially chemical in nature. No Rob. They will never compete. It's better nukes or nothing.

I'm not going to be it's bitch, but I think it will compete in certain markets.
The car market is certainly one that competes, thus far, when few have it. When more millions have it, the true cost will emerge.

The home market eludes, even with huge subsidies and buzzwords like inertia.

[Witness]

I'm so tired. I try to always respond to BS solar news. I never get debate. I should stop. I don't think I excelled in this debunking but nobody is likely to respond.

Rest assured I always appreciate your comments/criticisms.

Rest also assured that just being read is already high praise in this epoch of immediate/visual content, even if the praise isn't explicit.

As for the debate you crave, (sadly?) I don't necessarily endorse the stuff I post – being aware it's somewhere between wishful thinking/vaporware and early results – and so have little motivation to fight your criticism. But I think these are interesting data points, even when stripped of excessive optimism, seeing it as a movement in a direction I approve.


Specifically for Australia, they seem to believe in Photo Voltaic:



But the batteries you despise are only a small part of it (yet there is a market for home installations, at 10,000 - 20,000 Au$), e. g. Tesla's Hornsdale Power Reserve now upgraded to 150 MW.

All BS?

[ceptimus]

I still find it difficult to imagine having enough battery storage to cope with a few weeks of dark, cold, windless, winter weather.

Presumably, a country will still need to maintain lots of conventional generating capacity, even though those generators may then sit idle for much of the time?

But capitalism won't want to do that - so there will be power shortages during periods of bad weather.

[Rob Lister]

But the batteries you despise are only a small part of it (yet there is a market for home installations, at 10,000 - 20,000 Au$), e. g. Tesla's Hornsdale Power Reserve now upgraded to 150 MW.

All BS?

Lister loves batteries, does not despise. It's BS because it leaves out the costs.

Even though the price of the solar kWh is practically free, the storage is stupid expensive. And solar without storage is worthless for 16 hours in 24.

South Australia tops the list with just under A$0.50 per kWh, with New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria also represented in the world’s top 10 highest electricity prices. As a comparison point, the European Union average is just over A$0.30 per kWh, while US consumers, benefiting from a glut of cheap gas, pay between A$0.10 and A$0.20. A report published in June by the Grattan Institute found that wholesale electricity prices increased by 130% in the NEM between 2015 and 2017.

https://www.power-technology.com/featur ... gy-prices/

I bitch about my peak summer electric bill of $100 (.11/kWh)¹. They pay four times that for the same kWh. I'm guessing swamp coolers are popular there.

On the bright side, there's a lot of theoretical room for improvement in battery technology; 5 times li-ion is doable.


1. We really need to move. I'm heating and cooling 3200 square feet of house and we use maybe, maybe 1000 square feet of that; den, kitchen, mast bed and bath. The wife won't even entertain the notion. "What if the kids need to move back in!?" I say, move and don't tell them the new address!

[Rob Lister]

I still find it difficult to imagine having enough battery storage to cope with a few weeks of dark, cold, windless, winter weather.

Presumably, a country will still need to maintain lots of conventional generating capacity, even though those generators may then sit idle for much of the time?

But capitalism won't want to do that - so there will be power shortages during periods of bad weather.

I agree with everything but the last sentence. Capitalism demands the meter never stops turning. That's what lobbyists are for, I suppose. Brownouts will not be tolerated long, for real.

Nuclear as a base load and
natural gas for peaks and
wind to make environmentalists feel better
is the way to go right now.

I hate coal. I hate coal with all my manly firmness. I couldn't give less of a shit about global warming, but coal is dirty, nasty and stinky.

But damn, where would we be without it! Abject poverty. It fueled our first-world wealth. I don't think a sane man would disagree.

It's good to be in a situation where we can move away from it. But solar isn't the answer. Solar isn't a panel, it's a system. The most expensive system that exists.