Utilities are starting to invest in big batteries instead of building new power plants

Utilities are starting to invest in big batteries instead of building new power plants
This is what a 5-megawatt, lithium-ion energy storage system looks like. Credit: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Due to their decreasing costs, lithium-ion batteries now dominate a range of applications including electric vehicles, computers and consumer electronics.

You might only think about when your laptop or cellphone are running out of juice, but utilities can plug bigger versions into the . And thanks to rapidly declining lithium-ion battery prices, using to stretch electricity generation capacity.

Based on our research on energy storage costs and performance in North Carolina, and our analysis of the potential role energy storage could play within the coming years, we believe that utilities should prepare for the advent of cheap grid-scale batteries and develop flexible, long-term plans that will save consumers money.

Peak demand is pricey

The amount of electricity consumers use varies according to the time of day and between weekdays and weekends, as well as seasonally and annually as everyone goes about their business.

Those variations can be huge.

For example, the times when consumers use the most electricity in many regions is nearly double the average amount of they typically consume. Utilities often meet peak demand by building power plants that run on natural gas, due to their lower construction costs and ability to operate when they are needed.

Utilities are starting to invest in big batteries instead of building new power plants
All of the new utility-scale electricity capacity coming online in the U.S. in 2019 will be generated through natural gas, wind and solar power as coal, nuclear and some gas plants close. Credit: U.S. Energy Information Administration

However, it's expensive and inefficient to build these power plants just to meet demand in those peak hours. It's like purchasing a large van that you will only use for the three days a year when your brother and his three kids visit.

The grid requires power supplied right when it is needed, and usage varies considerably throughout the day. When grid-connected batteries help supply enough electricity to meet demand, utilities don't have to build as many power plants and transmission lines.

Given how long this infrastructure lasts and how rapidly battery costs are dropping, utilities now face new long-term planning challenges.

Cheaper batteries

About half of the new generation capacity built in the U.S. annually since 2014 has come from solar, wind or other renewable sources. Natural gas plants make up the much of the rest but in the future, that industry may need to compete with energy storage for market share.

In practice, we can see how the pace of natural gas-fired power plant construction might slow down in response to this new alternative.

Utilities are starting to invest in big batteries instead of building new power plants
Grid-scale batteries are being installed coast-to-coast as this snapshot from 2017 indicates. Credit: U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Battery Storage Market Trends, 2018.

So far, utilities have only installed the equivalent of one or two traditional power plants in grid-scale lithium-ion battery projects, all since 2015. But across California, Texas, the Midwest and New England, these devices are benefiting the overall grid by improving operations and bridging gaps when consumers need more power than usual.

Based on our own experience tracking lithium-ion battery costs, we see the potential for these batteries to be deployed at a far larger scale and disrupt the energy business.

When we were given approximately one year to conduct a study on the benefits and costs of energy storage in North Carolina, keeping up with the pace of technological advances and increasing affordability was a struggle.

Projected battery costs changed so significantly from the beginning to the end of our project that we found ourselves rushing at the end to update our analysis.

Once utilities can easily take advantage of these huge batteries, they will not need as much new power-generation capacity to meet peak demand.

Utilities are starting to invest in big batteries instead of building new power plants
Credit: The Conversation

Utility planning

Even before batteries could be used for large-scale energy storage, it was hard for utilities to make long-term plans due to uncertainty about what to expect in the future.

For example, most energy experts did not anticipate the dramatic decline in natural gas prices due to the spread of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, starting about a decade ago – or the incentive that it would provide utilities to phase out coal-fired power plants.

In recent years, solar energy and wind power costs have dropped far faster than expected, also displacing coal – and in some cases natural gas – as a source of energy for electricity generation.

Something we learned during our storage study is illustrative.

We found that lithium ion batteries at 2019 prices were a bit too expensive in North Carolina to compete with natural gas peaker plants – the used occasionally when electricity demand spikes. However, when we modeled projected 2030 battery prices, energy storage proved to be the more cost-effective option.

Utilities are starting to invest in big batteries instead of building new power plants
Credit: The Conversation

Federal, state and even some local policies are another wild card. For example, Democratic lawmakers have outlined the Green New Deal, an ambitious plan that could rapidly address climate change and income inequality at the same time.

And no matter what happens in Congress, the increasingly frequent bouts of extreme weather hitting the U.S. are also expensive for utilities. Droughts reduce hydropower output and heatwaves make electricity usage spike.

The future

Several utilities are already investing in energy storage.

California utility Pacific Gas & Electric, for example, got permission from regulators to build a massive 567.5 megawatt energy-storage battery system near San Francisco, although the utility's bankruptcy could complicate the project.

Hawaiian Electric Company is seeking approval for projects that would establish several hundred megawatts of energy storage across the islands. And Arizona Public Service and Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority are looking into storage options as well.

We believe these and other decisions will reverberate for decades to come.If utilities miscalculate and spend billions on it turns out they won't need instead of investing in energy storage, their customers could pay more than they should to keep the lights through the middle of this century.


Explore further

How energy storage is starting to rewire the electricity industry

Provided by The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.The Conversation

Citation: Utilities are starting to invest in big batteries instead of building new power plants (2019, February 22) retrieved 21 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-02-invest-big-batteries-power.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
86 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Feb 22, 2019
Utilities should be forced by law to provide a complete solution(solar/wind + storage/batteries) and NOT only intermittent renewables acting as 'decorative facades' for coal/oil/gas/fracking.
Then let's see if the "whole solution" is indeed cheap.

Including batteries, wind and solar are ~20x costlier.
"The True Costs of Nuclear and Renewables" -Dec 2018
http://4thgenerat...x284.png
http://4thgenerat...newables
"The cost of wind & solar power: batteries included"
http://euanmearns...included
"Battery storage needed to convert solar generation equal to a year of Hinkley nuclear generation to baseload: $700 billion, about 28 times the ~$25 billion cost of the Hinkley plant."
http://euanmearns...-storage
"Battery storage reqd to convert Germany's 2013 solar generation to baseload: $800 billion!"

Feb 22, 2019
Then let's see if the "whole solution" is indeed cheap
It is Willie - it really is. That's why countries like China - are installing so much wind and solar - and not so much nuclear. https://cleantech...by-2030/

And the price of renewables keeps going down - which is the opposite direction for nukes Willie liar liar.

Feb 22, 2019
Then let's see if the "whole solution" is indeed cheap
It is Willie - it really is. That's why countries like China - are installing so much wind and solar - and not so much nuclear. https://cleantech...by-2030/

And the price of renewables keeps going down - which is the opposite direction for nukes Willie liar liar.

Thankfully, I don't speak Jackass, so I won't get drawn into a futile debate with the jackass who posted the above.
It's beyond the mental capacity of these jackasses to look at countries that are already heavily invested in alternative energies and yet are still burning fossil fuels. Take a gander at Germany, jackass.

Feb 22, 2019
Due to the intermittant nature of most solar related power generation, stability of power availability from those systems require power storage. That basically means batteries, as all other storage systems are inefficient compared to battery storage. So battery tech is critical. The idea that battery expense as seen by power cogenerators has fallen to one sixth of former costs and the price is still going down bodes well for renewables of all kinds, expecially photovoltaic panel farms.

Small ranches such as mine ARE going to install this, as power costs in California are obcene.

Feb 22, 2019
I have a bus that uses batteries to store power from a generator. It was once a 'greyhound' so it has 6 large luggage bays under passenger areas above, one of which house the 13,000 watt genset. It also has rooftop solar cells. These alone store enuf to keep main batteries charged, and to keep the bus's starting batteries charged, and enuf to keep the diesel generator's starting battery charged as well. Maintaining batteries is important to keep system efficient. So electrical skills are important as well as some engineering skills. Nice to pull into campgrounds and have electric whilst not being 'plugged in'. When power goes out as it more often does these days with foreigners buying into our power grid and hippies stopping new generation projects, We have our bus. California used to have 70 percent of its power from nuclear. Then came the worthless hippies. Now we have no nuclear. Power went from $25/month to 400/month. Hippies all homeless or republican politicians now

Feb 23, 2019
Good Ideas Are Always The Simplest

If your generator over its daily power output
more than meets demand
and
lithium ion batteries are financially viable
are cheaper than two or three backup power stations
it
is more efficient
to run your generator flat out
charging up batteries
for when the mongrel hoards come home from a hard days mongreling for their tea time break

Why did we not think of this sooner!

Feb 23, 2019
They could do it cheaper if they weren't so hidebound.

Feb 23, 2019
....That's why countries like China - are installing so much wind and solar...
"China is a net exporter of solar panels / wind turbines."
"We often have climate charlatans claiming China is leading the renewable revolution. Well here is the truth."
"China: No Wind Or Solar If It Can't Beat Coal On Price" - Jan 10, 2019
"China has said it will not approve wind and solar power projects unless they can compete with coal power prices."
https://www.forbe...aint-as-
"China is funding its nuclear power future by selling solar panels to those who don't know better."
"nuclear is cheapest electricity source after coal in China."
https://uploads.d...a4ec.jpg
"The Dark Side of China's Solar Boom"
http://www.sixtht...ar-boom-

Feb 23, 2019
goracle
Take a gander at Germany, jackass
I know quiet a bit about Germany - from my internet reading. They chose to shut down their nukes (a decision I would not have made - but hey it's their country right?) Now they are on track to totally replacing their grid with renewables. It may take another 50 years - but what are you doing about climate change goracle? Also note - that despite paying the highest electricity prices in Europe - Germans only spend about the same as USAerns on electricity - by being much more efficient, and most (like 90%) of Germans strongly support the energy transition.

Feb 23, 2019
Liar liar Wille
China is a net exporter of solar panels / wind turbines
Cuz they can make really cheap panels and turbines. Do you think they should stop selling their stuff on the world market? Not much of a free market supporter are you?

Hey look - article of the day - https://www.green...uArub1Ws

Hornsea One plant, which started delivering power to the grid this month, could help make up for a lack of planned nuclear generation in the U.K., as plans for new reactors have fallen by the wayside
Yep - scrapping plans for expensive nukes - in favor of cheaper/better renewables.

Feb 23, 2019
@Willie
@antigor.

The transition period between old and new tech is always 'messy'; especially if GOP/Russian/Fossil lobby/troll-factory stooges (like yourselves) try to sabotage that transition.

The point is that no-one (in their right minds) is actually advocating that no fossil fuels should be involved in the future 'mix' of energy options for certain regions not blessed with abundant wind/solar resources.

Moreover, higher temps experienced by many regions will require more air-conditioning to cool domestic/commercial spaces, hospitals etc; this will more cheaply/effectively be powered directly by local/regional wind/solar electricity than burning fossil fuels to produce that electricity.

Not to mention less overall pollution.

Besides, 'market forces' in Capitalist-social economies will drive transition trajectory based on (a)-new storage/distribution tech/systems and (b)-relative/comparative costs/benefits; eg, cleaner, safer, sustainable jobs, lower prices. :)

Feb 23, 2019
Liar liar Wille


Willie is clueless. He is happy to have plutonium-239 buried in his back garden! Lol.

Feb 24, 2019
...Cuz they can make really cheap panels and turbines...
China can make really cheap panels and turbines thanks to cheap coal and not thanks to expensive sunshine&breeze unicorn energy.
https://pbs.twimg...NI97.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...U_jn.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...L1wh.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...fPOv.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...uc-Z.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...9r_a.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...0Tyg.jpg

"...Offshore Wind Replacing Nuclear..."
wind = 20% wind + 80% coal/oil/gas/fracking to compensate intermittency.

"transition"? The only transition is being from coal to gas(methane: worse than CO2), from carbon-free nuclear to fossil fuels(backup for intermittent renewables), a disservice in the fight against Climate Change.

You green sociopaths have no option except to lie to themselves like there's no tomorrow and call liar who debunks your lies.

Feb 24, 2019
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 24, 2019
China can make really cheap panels and turbines thanks to cheap coal
Electricity is electricity - dumb ass. It does not matter if you get your cheap electricity from coal - or your cheaper electricity from renewables. Chinese panels are cheap - for many reasons. Not least of which is governments subsidies. - https://www.scien...ndustry/
But it is interesting to see people who have wet dreams over the U.S. government providing subsidies to their favorite industries - now having a cow over the Chinese government - doing the same thing.
and call liar who debunks your lies
You don't debunk lies - you are the source of lies - and then supply silly jpg pictures pulled from right wing propaganda sites to support your lies.

Feb 24, 2019
This is enabling technology for renewables. I'm surprised @Eikka hasn't shown up to tell us all why it will never work.

Feb 24, 2019
Several utilities are already investing in energy storage.

California utility Pacific Gas & Electric, for example, got permission from regulators to build a massive 567.5 megawatt energy-storage battery system near San Francisco, although the utility's bankruptcy could complicate the project.

LOL! Just a little detail of economic viability. No worries, AOC and the Jussie party can wiggle their noses and, poof!, their good intentions will make reality go away.

Feb 24, 2019
This is enabling technology for renewables. I'm surprised @Eikka hasn't shown up to tell us all why it will never work.


@DaSchneib,
Off topic, but you might like this;

http://www.intern...50706915

Feb 24, 2019
Sorry, don't go there. They got all hissy when I said Randi was a crank because he was denying global warming.

Feb 24, 2019
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 24, 2019
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 24, 2019
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 24, 2019
Chinese panels are cheap - for many reasons ... https://www.scien...ndustry/
"Why China Is Dominating the Solar Industry"
Because China has cheap coal.
"Why is China ever more addicted to coal? Because solar and wind are a joke at replacing fossils, it becomes clear in the Transportation Sector, not even the green sociopaths rely on sunshine&breeze to power their cars, they use fossil fuels instead.
...Electricity is electricity - dumb ass...
An electrical fossil-fueled grid(a host) is required by parasites(intermittent renewables) in order to survive.

Many of the things currently happening in energy / climate are not in the West anymore.
Examples:
#1 CO2 emitter: China
#1 Coal consumer: China
#1 in hydro electricity: China
#1 in wind turbines: China
#1 in solar panels: China
#1 in nuclear power growth: China

*FACT* #nuclearenergy in #china is:
* 51% cheaper than #wind
* 82% cheaper than #solar

Feb 24, 2019
And what about Fusion power?

Feb 24, 2019
with wind plus battery storage at 2.1 cents/kWh and the power from the Vogtle nukes pegged at least 15 cents/kWh, Willie has no rational argument.

And with no toxic or intensely radioactive waste from battery operation, Willie is still stuck with finding a way to store his Plutonium, the nastiest stuff on Earth.

Feb 24, 2019
NotFact
nuclearenergy in #china is:
* 51% cheaper than #wind
If it were fact - China would be building more nukes than they are wind - but they aint...

Experts, including some with links to the government, see China's nuclear sector succumbing to the same problems affecting the West: the technology is too expensive, and the public doesn't want it.
- https://www.techn...ad-news/
Reactors built with extra safety features and more robust cooling systems to avoid a Fukushima-like disaster are expensive, while the costs of wind and solar power continue to plummet: they are now 20% cheaper than electricity from new nuclear


Feb 25, 2019
...with wind plus battery storage at 2.1 cents/kWh...
If it were true that "wind/solar plus storage" is only "2.1 cents/kWh", then droves of people would be buying and installing solar panels/windmills/batteries and disconnecting from the grid with no need for any incentive/propaganda/authoritarian laws/mandates.

"Why cheap electricity doesn't necessarily result in lower bills" - Feb 8, 2019
"The main reason is subsidies for wind and solar construction."
https://www.utili.../547320/

"Wind and solar are very inefficient at capturing natural power from the environment. However, wind an solar are very efficient at capturing subsidies from hard pressed taxpayers."

"If Solar and Wind are so cheap, why is the taxpayer subsidising them so heavily and even after all the expensive subsidies we are still paying exorbitant prices for power. It was cheaper before renewables."

Feb 25, 2019
...costs of wind and solar power ... 20% cheaper...
Comparing unreliable/intermittent unicorn energy with reliable/weather-resilient carbon-free nuclear is the same as comparing apples and oranges.
Solar and wind are only reliable when backed up 100% by coal/gas-fired plants.
"Intermittent sources like all wind and all solar need firm backup to 100% of their capacity. So, if you have to build the firm backup anyway, what do you need wind and solar for? Nothing."

You RE cultists are now just a bunch of sociopaths that lie like there's no tomorrow, calling liar who debunks your lies.
Shame on you! But of course, you green sociopaths have no shame, no ethics, no integrity, you just want to lure the public to continue to steal taxpayers' money.
https://pbs.twimg...gz1X.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...CVKC.jpg

Feb 25, 2019
is the same as comparing apples and oranges
No it's not. They both produce electricity. Yes - renewables are intermittent - but they are also a lot cheaper - which is why there is so much wind and solar being built - and not so much nukes. Look - article of the day - https://cleantech...storage/

It is so fun to watch the transition happening real time....

Mar 01, 2019
...why there is so much wind and solar being built...
Facades for coal/gas:
Coal consumption is increasing worldwide, as well consumption of fracked gas, because intermittent renewables are a joke, a fraud, a trillion-dollar fiasco at replacing simultaneously coal/oil/gas/fracking, e.g. EnergieWende.
http://phys.org/n...ide.html

"The question is not whether we need nuclear or not. The question is whether we need wind and solar, and the answer has always been no, we don't need them, and we certainly don't need wind and solar lobbyists insisting that we exclude the only energy source we DO actually need!"
"Why Renewables Can't Save the Planet"-2/2019
http://quillette....-planet/
"The problem with nuclear is that it is unpopular, a victim of a 50 year-long concerted effort by fossil fuel, renewable energy, anti-nuclear weapons campaigners, and misanthropic environmentalists to ban the technology"

Mar 01, 2019
Coal consumption is increasing worldwide, as well consumption of fracked gas
As well as wind and solar. Oh you forgot that little fact didn't you Willie? And as the cost of wind and solar continues it's downward slope - obviously we will see more and more renewables. From a cost basis - it makes so much more sense - it is just a question of building out the infrastructure.

Mar 01, 2019
If you are going to use batteries to replace 1KWH of gas fired backup capacity you need at least 7KWH of capacity, perhaps even double that. Batteries are good for peaking but what about longer term backup? It it very easy to have weeks with little wind or solar.

Mar 01, 2019
As wind an solar provide a greater percentage of power the problem gets worse. Fossil backup charges skyrocket as the less used plants still have to be manned and paid for.

Mar 01, 2019
@MR66.
As wind an solar provide a greater percentage of power the problem gets worse. Fossil backup charges skyrocket as the less used plants still have to be manned and paid for.
Natural Gas power plants are quick response and mostly automated or remotely triggered (with minimal number of humans on site). And anyway, as high-capacity BATTERY developments/constructions/sitings allow almost-instant/distributed back-up systems not needing to 'import' power over long distances from large/centralised 'coal' plants, the grid/power distribution system's response times and region-wide failure-modes both decrease. All making renewable power systems/prices cheaper/safer and more efficient/reliable in the long run. Try to get all the info next time; and to be more objective. :)

Mar 01, 2019
MR
If you are going to use batteries to replace 1KWH of gas fired backup capacity you need at least 7KWH of capacity
I think you probably don't understand the units you are referencing here - but let's be kind and assume you do know the difference between a Kw, and a Kwh - please give us a link that supports your assertion - that replacing 1 Kwh of gas fired back up - you will need 7 Kwh of battery backup.

Mar 01, 2019
"I think you probably don't understand the units you are referencing here."

KWH is the proper term Onions. KW is a unit of instantaneous power and KWH is a unit if energy. I hope that I am having a discussion with some one who knows the difference between the two.

Mar 01, 2019
"please give us a link that supports your assertion - that replacing 1 Kwh of gas fired back up - you will need 7 Kwh of battery backup."

Onions a 1KW gas generator can supply 1KW for an infinite number of hours. Thus if you have a home that uses 7KWH of energy a week the generator can back the house up in the event that solar or wind fails for one week. Whereas a battery backup for the same house would need to store 7KWH in order to power the same house for a week.

Mar 02, 2019
I hope that I am having a discussion with some one who knows the difference between the two
To someone who does understand the difference - this statement makes no sense
If you are going to use batteries to replace 1KWH of gas fired backup capacity you need at least 7KWH of capacity
Had you said 1 Kw of gas fired backup - then it would make sense.
Onions a 1KW gas generator can supply 1KW for an infinite number of hours
Correct. Which means you are not replacing a "1 Kwh of gas fired backup" as you assert - but you are replacing a 1 Kw generator - which as you say can supply 1 Kw for ever.

Mar 02, 2019
...the cost of wind and solar continues it's downward slope...
Low-quality product is usually cheap because it doesn't work when it's most needed or you need to buy something else to pretend it works, such as coal/gas-fired backup plants, expensive and complex transmissions lines(smart grids), etc.
"This is why studies show that in California when solar penetration reaches 30%, a solar kWh will lose two-thirds of its value"
https://www.natur...gy201636
https://pbs.twimg...JhtT.png
"If you think renewables are cheap, read this. You need massive grid uprades & new transmission to make it work. The Germans still need 5900kms of transmission. Germany already has the highest electricity costs in Europe. What an expensive mess."
https://reuters.c...8N1SD09B

Mar 02, 2019
"Correct. Which means you are not replacing a "1 Kwh of gas fired backup" as you assert - but you are replacing a 1 Kw generator - which as you say can supply 1 Kw for ever."

Onions in the context in which it was written 1KWH of gas fired backup makes a lot of sense. We were talking about what was needed to provide 24/7 renewable energy. Thus KWH is the proper unit of measurement.

Mar 02, 2019
Costs might not be the proper term.

Mar 02, 2019
Equipment is a better term. One needs to compare apples to apples and that was what I was trying to do. Since a battery can only store a limited amount of energy and a fossil generator is only limited by its fuel supply the term 1KWH of gas fired backup capacity is a perfectly reasonable unit of measurement.

Mar 02, 2019
@greenos, they're innumerate and don't understand the difference between power and energy, that is the difference between kW and kWH.

Mar 02, 2019
term 1KWH of gas fired backup capacity is a perfectly reasonable unit of measurement
No it is not. It is gibberish.
Perhaps I can show your gibberish this way. A 1 Kw gas generator - running for 1 hour - will supply 1 Kwh of energy. Please explain how you need 7Kwh of battery energy - to replace this 1 Kwh of gas generator energy. This is your assertion. I will post it again for you.
If you are going to use batteries to replace 1KWH of gas fired backup capacity you need at least 7KWH of capacity


Please supply links to support that gibberish.

Mar 02, 2019
MR said "Onions a 1KW gas generator can supply 1KW for an infinite number of hours. Thus if you have a home that uses 7KWH of energy a week the generator can back the house up in the event that solar or wind fails for one week. Whereas a battery backup for the same house would need to store 7KWH in order to power the same house for a week."

Onions if you cannot understand this simple concept then I now realize why you feel that renewables and batteries are ready to replace fossil.

Mar 02, 2019
Thus if you have a home that uses 7KWH of energy a week

My home is very efficient. Averaged electricity cost is around $70 a month. That is a comparatively low bill. Last month my homes used 469 Kwh of energy. In the summer that is more like 1,000 Kwh. I would need around 250 Kwh of battery - to back up my efficient home for a week. So you want to talk about a home using 7Kwh of energy a week, and then convince yourself that you know about electricity?????? I wish you could see the dunning kruger here.

The bigger point is that your statement
If you are going to use batteries to replace 1KWH of gas fired backup capacity you need at least 7KWH of capacity
Is gibberish. If I wanted to talk about a back up generator for my house - I would talk in terms of Kilo Watts (Kw's). I would probably need about a 10 Kw genny to make sure I covered peak demand. God I wish you could understand that you talk gibberish.

Mar 02, 2019
Nope, 166. If you even have a toaster, your 1 kW generator is worthless to you.
A 7kW battery could do it nicely. My 28kWh Tesla PowerWall II set can do it easily.


Mar 02, 2019
Just for fun Onions calculate how many KW solar array and KWH of battery storage would be needed to power a home that has a constant power requirement of 1KWH a day. Assume that the sun always shines at full output and optimum angle 8 hours a day.

Mar 02, 2019
For even more fun, compare your home power rate with the new rates for renewables and nukes. Renewables are around 2 Cents/kWh, while the new Vogtle nukes will be over 15 cents/kWh.

What would either of these do to your bill? Which one would you choose?

Mar 02, 2019
a home that has a constant power requirement of 1KWH a day
Did you read any of my last response? An efficient home (mine) uses somewhere between 400, and 1000 Kwh per month. That's an average of about 700 Kwh a month - or 23 Kwh per day. So right of the bat - your stupid hypothetical - is nonsense.
Now -show us the links - that support this gibberish
If you are going to use batteries to replace 1KWH of gas fired backup capacity you need at least 7KWH of capacity
Links please MR - and maybe get someone to read them to you - cuz you may actually learn something.

Mar 02, 2019
1KWH was just for computational purposes. Now you are just being silly.

Mar 02, 2019
Now you are just being silly
No I am not. I am expecting you to take responsibility for your words. You show you know nothing about the subjects being discussed - and yet throw yourself around as an expert - and accuse people of weird stuff like being globalists, and socialists.

So come on MR - give us some links to show us where you actually derived this gibberish -
If you are going to use batteries to replace 1KWH of gas fired backup capacity you need at least 7KWH of capacity

Mar 02, 2019
@MR166.

I I understand the 'point' you were (trying) to make with 7x calculation for one week's power back-up needs. But not only was it a little misleading, it was also way off base re reality of what the Renewables and DISTRIBUTED SMART GRID will mean 'on the ground' during dark/windless days. Consider: not all regions will have no/low wind for the local wind farms; and not all regions will have no/low insolation for their rooftop and/or local solar-plants. So having Batteries distributed at homes, businesses and community-owned battery farms, will remove the usual large-scale failure modes and provide instant/efficient 'back-up' and 'stabilising' power feed into the grid at very low cost and very high returns from all those distributed systems on the smart grid stretching vast distances yet being 'locally fed' most of the time and so greatly reducing 'long-distance transmission losses/costs'. It's all win-win: more stability, less large-area failure vulnerability, etc. :)

Mar 02, 2019
RC you are correct that battery backups can provide a very quick response to grid disruptions and serve a real purpose in grid management. I was just pointing out that they really do not replace any backup generators unless they are massively oversized.

Mar 02, 2019
" Consider: not all regions will have no/low wind for the local wind farms; and not all regions will have no/low insolation for their rooftop and/or local solar-plants."

That statement assumes that other regions have excess renewable capacity that they are willing to share. Excess capacity costs money when it is not being used. Look more than likely the grid and batteries would allow renewables to supply 20% or so of grid power just as long as no fossil plants are closed since these are the real backup safety net. The 50 to 100 percent renewable goals being put forward have no basis in reality with the energy storage systems that we have today.

Mar 02, 2019
Home roof based solar panels need cleaning otherwise efficiency drops quickly. I am not really too thrilled to have to go on the roof to clean my gutters let alone solar panels twice a year.

Mar 02, 2019
MR

So come on MR - give us some links to show us where you actually derived this gibberish -
If you are going to use batteries to replace 1KWH of gas fired backup capacity you need at least 7KWH of capacity



Mar 03, 2019
...Renewables are around 2 Cents/kWh...
"2 Cents/kWh" but "batteries not included".
The RE cultists have only gskam's magical system as example or propagandist articles written by green sociopaths such as CleanTechnica, RenewEconomy, et al.
If it were possible to convert their lies into electricity, it could power the whole world uninterruptedly (247/365) forever.
https://pbs.twimg...blo5.jpg

Real world:
"12 EU nations failed to install a single wind turbine in 2018. New UK wind "collapsed". Germany built <50% of 2017. "They will rust in place"."
https://www.cnbc....ine.html
https://mailchi.m...d-energy
"The more you know about renewables, the less you like them. The more you know about nuclear, the more you like it. The only thing holding us back is ignorance, superstition and fear of the unknown."

Mar 03, 2019
Batteries ARE included in that bid, Willie.
You LOST long ago, but I guess this is your silly little life.

Mar 03, 2019
The UK went windless for 2 weeks straight. How many GWH of battery backup would be needed to supply power if they were 100% renewable? That is the problem with this renewable dream.

Mar 03, 2019
The UK went windless for 2 weeks straight
Oh look MR just moved the goal posts. MR said bollocks
If you are going to use batteries to replace 1KWH of gas fired backup capacity you need at least 7KWH of capacity
And when I request some support for such bollocks - MR just moves the goal posts - and starts talking about wind turbines. Don't worry about the UK MR - they are building out their renewable energy grid - and finding ways to accommodate the intermittent nature of wind and solar. https://cleantech...-option/

Mar 03, 2019
Gosh, Toots, my PV system works fine.

Mar 03, 2019
If it were possible to convert their lies into electricity, it could power the whole world uninterruptedl
But you could not build a cable big enough to connect to Willies basement. Sorry Willie - nice idea - but you can't run the world off your lies.

but "batteries not included
I think I mentioned that it is including batteries - and with grid scale projects - like the one in Colorado I showed you.

It is a shame we can't harness the power of Willie's lies.

Mar 03, 2019
@MR166.
Consider: not all regions will have no/low wind for the local wind farms; and not all regions will have no/low insolation for their rooftop and/or local solar-plants.
That statement assumes that other regions have excess renewable capacity that they are willing to share. Excess capacity costs money when it is not being used. ...
You seem to be missing the fact we are IN TRANSITION; and that when transition is more advanced the many more wind/solar subsystem plants/grid connections all over the place will only need a few fossil power plants; then the whole system will be more robust, cheaper, cleaner, safer etc. Win-Win.
The UK went windless for 2 weeks straight. How many GWH of battery backup would be needed to supply power if they were 100% renewable?
No reasonable analyst has ever proposed 100% renewables everywhere on the planet. That is a 'red herring' straw man 'propaganda meme' used by GOP/Russian/Fossil lobby/troll-factory paid-for stooges.

Mar 03, 2019
"No reasonable analyst has ever proposed 100% renewables everywhere on the planet. That is a 'red herring' straw man 'propaganda meme' used by GOP/Russian/Fossil lobby/troll-factory paid-for stooges."

Oh that is rich!!! That is exactly what the Democrats are proposing here in the US. They call it the Green New Deal.

Mar 04, 2019
@mr
That is exactly what the Democrats are proposing...
erm... not quite

1- from what I can tell the AOC deal does not even share the support of a majority of the party

2- it's also unfeasible, unrealistic and nonsensical, including, but not limited to, the abject stupidity about cow farts (now deleted because, apparently, someone pointed out that the methane is considerably higher on the other end of the f*cking cow and that AOC is an idiot) and the financial burden

there are some great meme's about it, though

3- AOC's green new deal is *not* in any way "an analysis" of any kind
it's not even reasonable, considering

there are *some valid points* made in the proposal, though

for anyone wishing to read her proposal, you can find it here: https://ocasio-co...Deal.pdf

Mar 04, 2019
Capt. I realize that it was not ALL Democrats but the fact that it got the positive reception that it did just shows the ignorance that abounds.

Mar 04, 2019
Capt. if you are a Democrat you should be very worried by the rise of AOC. If knowledge was gunpowder she couldn't blow dust off of a ping pong ball. Yet she is an up and coming star of the new left.

Mar 04, 2019
@mr
Capt. if you are a Democrat you should be very worried by the rise of AOC
I am not a democrat (or any other party, for that matter) and I am truly astounded at the overwhelming stupidity of AOC

I'm worried, but not for the same reasons you are

read that proposal - really!
I've eaten alphabet soup and sh*t out a better proposal than that
but the fact that it got the positive reception
offered IMHO only
I think the positive reception is all political - as well as ignorance about what the proposal actually contains

even Pelosi kinda slammed it
I realize that it was not ALL Democrats but the fact that it got the positive reception that it did just shows the ignorance that abounds
I can agree with that

it doesn't change the facts, though

we really do need to do something, and yes, this is a global crisis
the problem is that certain idiot politicians run with that without doing homework about anything else
example: see above AOC proposal

Mar 04, 2019
Capt. I think that ignorant voters pose a larger and more immediate threat to the US than AGW does. Our rule of law has been decimated by political hacks and no one seems to know or care.

Mar 04, 2019
@mr
I think that ignorant voters pose a larger and more immediate threat to the US than AGW does
I disagree
I do agree that ignorant voters pose a threat as demonstrated above by the idiot above who downvoted my post with the AOC link
- is there anything factually incorrect about that post?
Our rule of law has been decimated by political hacks and no one seems to know or care
well, we allowed it to happen

those who do not take [legal] measures are equally complicit in the destruction of the rule of law

offered IMHO only: people get far too emotional about a situation
this is one reason they cling to party politics as it appeases their bias and allows them to feel justified in their vote, support or actions, regardless of how nonsensical or extreme they are

take a look at the posts by axdad, liar-kam, shooty or antig and it demonstrates the above

Mar 04, 2019
I would exclude askdad from that list. He makes some good logical points.

Mar 04, 2019
Do you understand "decimation"means a loss of 10%, and not a wipe-out?

And you are both ignorant that the lowest cost and cleanest sources of power for utilities is wind plus battery storage. Not coal. Not gas. Not nukes.

Need references?

Mar 04, 2019
@mr
I would exclude askdad from that list. He makes some good logical points.
no, he doesn't
Axdad has repeatedly denied legitimate validated science because he wants to believe in his political conspiracist ideation -therefore he typically argues from a political, personal or conspiracist position, which appeals to certain political beliefs (including yours)

essentially, it's like the willie/liar-kam posts
one may make a single good comment but its swallowed by the emotional idiocy and irrelevant nonsensical connected arguments that don't support the claim

example: take the above
And you are both ignorant that the lowest cost blah blah blah...
it wasn't topical to the post I made
it has no relevance to my post, your post or the quoted material from either of our discussions and yet, he baits and trolls for accolade or attention

it appeals to certain folk out of ignorance of the topic because they want to believe in [x]



Mar 04, 2019
@MR166.
No reasonable analyst has ever proposed 100% renewables everywhere on the planet. That is a 'red herring' straw man 'propaganda meme' used by GOP/Russian/Fossil lobby/troll-factory paid-for stooges.
Oh that is rich!!! That is exactly what the Democrats are proposing here in the US. They call it the Green New Deal.
Your patently emotional/biased knee-jerk reaction has led you to misread/misunderstand what I posted, mate. Please re-read it and note the "everywhere on the planet" part.

Anyhow, also note that the US does not qualify as "everywhere"; and that, even if some do espouse/vote for etc blindly for 100% "everywhere", then, by dint of the qualifier I included in my post, they are NOT "reasonable analysts".

So, please try to be less emotional/biased (and dare I say it, "political") in future when 'reading me' and/or addressing the objective facts/science/logics, and NOT your 'subjective impressions' of said objective facts/science/logics. Thanks. :)

Mar 05, 2019
...like the one in Colorado I showed you...
Green sociopaths have only projects(not fully operational systems) as show case in states powered mostly by coal and gas.
https://uploads.d...2230.png
https://www.eia.g...O#tabs-4

...Don't worry about the UK MR - they are building out their renewable energy grid - and finding ways to accommodate the intermittent nature of wind and solar...
"10 GWh of lithium-ion batteries:"
"Is the same volume as the Great Pyramid of Giza, Egypt."
"And would supply Great Britain for 20 minutes."
https://pbs.twimg...ViCH.jpg

"Idea of renewables powering UK is an 'appalling delusion' – David MacKay"
https://pbs.twimg...66nO.jpg
http://pbs.twimg....7KQd.jpg
http://www.thegua...d-mackay


Mar 05, 2019
My system still powers my household and two cars.

I guess Willie still pays others for his power, and has to go to gas stations and still gets oil changes and tune-ups.

Where is your nuclear car, Willie?

Mar 05, 2019
Idea of renewables powering UK is an 'appalling delusion
Really? And then you produce a stupid article - that says the whole of the UK would have to be 56 Km deep - all around the UK. But that is really stupid right? Considering the UK is already at 33% in 2018. Wow - does that mean they already built wind turbines 20 Km deep all around the UK? No - it means Willie is a liar. This early in the game - 33% - is pretty damn impressive Willie. https://smarterbu...ge-2018/

Mar 08, 2019
Let's take at look at Germany, another incontestable solar/wind fiasco:
"Unreliable: Adding Capacity Does Little To Solve Germany's Green-Energy Power Gaps" - Mar 6, 2019
"More installed capacity, yet less output!"
https://climatech...er-gaps/

Worse than fossil fuels:
"Renewables aren't the only energy projects facing resistance. The difference is that wind energy needs 700 times more land to produce the same amount of energy as a site that produces natural gas with hydraulic fracturing"
https://thehill.c...cussions

"Emissions alarm in Europe: CO2 Readings Going The Wrong Way" thanks to intermittent renewables
http://www.thedri...rong-way

...My system still powers my household and two cars...
You green sociopaths still believe in their own lies like retarded beasts.

Mar 08, 2019
"Renewables Are An Expensive Joke"
"Contrary to what greenies claim, there is no imminent battery storage solution"
"Despite what you've heard, there is no "battery revolution" on the way, for well-understood technical and economic reasons"
"They kill millions of birds (and bats), which greenies like to excuse as being OK because domestic cats kill many more. But actually it's not OK:"
"What house cats kill are small, common birds, like sparrows, robins and jays. Whatkills big, threatened, and endangered birds—birds that could go extinct—like hawks, eagles, owls, and condors, are wind turbines."
"Wind and solar are always doomed to fail because of the laws of physics"
"Solar panels are horribly un-eco-friendly – way worse than nuclear"
"Oh – and wind turbines kill more people than nuclear plants"
https://climatech...ve-joke/

Mar 08, 2019
You green sociopaths still believe in their own lies like retarded beasts
Notice Willie as always - resorts to vile name calling. It reflects the poverty of his articles, and knowledge. Want to check out the vile lies fed to the U.K. tax payers - in order to push for Willie's favorite boon doggle? https://www.iisd....at-cost/

Mar 10, 2019
...It reflects the poverty of his articles...
You have only showed CleanTechnica, RenewEconomy, and other biased articles written by green sociopaths with vested interests.

Carbon-free nuclear is worth the price in the fight against Climate Change.
Unlike solar and wind(trillion-dollar fiascos at reducing emissions and dependence on coal/oil/gas/fracking), carbon-free nuclear is an incontestable success.
"Japanese LNG imports to fall off with nuclear restart" - Mar 4, 2019
http://www.nextbi...rts.html

"For every $4B spent on "renewables," always keep in mind that at least 1GW of nuclear power could have been built instead. And 1GW of fossil fuels could have been completely replaced, reducing CO2 emissions per GW to near zero."

Mar 10, 2019
You have only showed CleanTechnica...
Yep - I read these sites every day. Beats you quoting Breitbart, Daily Mail etc. And these sited don't contain lies - like you do. They have well researched factual articles - i read them every day.
For every $4B spent on "renewables," always keep in mind that at least 1GW of nuclear power could have been built
Yeah - and the 2 points you fail to mention - is that once built - wind and solar have no fuel costs, and also no radio active waste that will need managing for the next 10,000 years. Wonder how much that will cost - and who will pay!!!! https://www.scien...-source/

Mar 11, 2019
..wind and solar have no fuel costs..
Wind is free, Coal is cheap, DIESEL is costlier than Coal and Wind, but even so most of ships, including Greenpeace's ships, are powered by marine DIESEL.
"LIKE the old sailors say, "The wind is free…but everything else costs money". "
"Sailing: The most expensive way to get somewhere for free"
http://pbs.twimg....9oqe.jpg
http://pbs.twimg....0esc.jpg
http://pbs.twimg....eodN.jpg

..and also no radio active waste..
"Rare earth metals are used in solar panels and wind turbines-as well as electric cars...there's not enough to meet growing demand."
http://motherboar...e-energy
"..one ton of rare earth minerals produces about one ton of radioactive waste.."
"It's now also recognised by UNSCEAR that wind and solar energy are resulting in significant radiation exposure."

Mar 11, 2019
most of ships, including Greenpeace's ships, are powered by marine DIESEL
I know Willie - you would think if nukes were so great - there would be more nuclear ships around - wouldn't you??? Well - we are starting to see battery powered ships hit the market now Willie - https://electrek....y-packs/

Wow - the times they are a changing! Guess nukes really are a pipe dream - time to wake up willie liar.

Mar 14, 2019
...nuclear ships...
Nimitz-class nuclear-powered supercarrier(up to 25 years without refueling) is virtually carbon-free. It emits less CO2 and radiation than Greenpeace's ships.
"Greenpeace Rainbow warrior emits up to 33000000 Bq of radioactivity for each tank of fuel it burns. It may be as little as 1000000 Bq, if they buy clean diesel. (The latest Greenpeace ship holds 110,000 litres of diesel. Diesel can have 300 Bq/litre see"
https://pbs.twimg...ugBf.jpg

"HIGH SPEED MANEUVERS! US Nimitz-class SUPERCARRIER..."
https://youtu.be/TN7BjeRad2I
https://pbs.twimg...w7uD.jpg

If solar/wind+batteries are so great? Why is Greenpeace explicitly advocating for fossil fuels? Because they know from practice that sunshine&breeze are a joke.
"Greenpeace UK expressly argues for ongoing use of fossil fuels."
https://pbs.twimg...GN1t.jpg
https://www.green...r-power/

Mar 14, 2019
Nimitz-class nuclear-powered supercarrier
Development of nuclear merchant ships began in the 1950s but on the whole has not been commercially successful
Cuz they are too expensive. As usual - Willie is pushing outrageously expensive - nuclear unicorn farts. http://www.world-...ips.aspx

In the world in which costs are an issue - we are starting to see the development of commercial - battery powered ships. - https://gcaptain....-system/

The world is changing Willie - keep plugging your nuclear unicorn farts - real people are doing the heavy lifting.

Mar 15, 2019
...Cuz they are too expensive...
So it's why Greenpeace, and other faux-green organizations and Eco-hypocritical celebrities, prefer DIESEL.

"Nuclear opponents routinely claim that they have little to do with nuclear's high costs and lack of success. This article is one more example of how and why that is clearly not true."
http://www.markey...ing-rule
http://uploads.di...3136.jpg
http://pbs.twimg....h6BX.jpg
http://uploads.di...a0bf.jpg

"By forcing changes in how gas power plants operate, greenhouse regulations could actually make it more difficult for utilities to use renewables."
http://www.techno...newables

Mar 15, 2019
...prefer DIESEL.
For the same reason most trucking companies prefer diesel, and most airlines use aviation fuel. It is the legacy system. A system that has taken a hundred years to evolve. But that does not mean it will always be that way. And on the same logic - how come only 15% of countries in the world have a nuclear power plant - and 100% have renewables? How about that cost curve on nukes for us Willie??????

Mar 16, 2019
...A system that has taken a hundred years to evolve...
Free energy: Windmills/Wind power
Invented: Persia ~900AD
Obsoleted ~1820 by steam engine

"In 1869 ... the first parabolic style solar cooker"
"214-212 B.C. - Archimedes' Heat Ray"
July 20th 1891: New York Times: "Solar Energy would drive all the steam engines in the World".

RE "snake oil salesmen" are good in promoting:
- old technologies as they were new;
- land-intensive bird-choppers/ land-intensive monstrosities as they were Eco-friendly;
- dirty toxic solar/wind manufacturing processes as they were clean;
- expensive energy as it were cheap.
http://pbs.twimg....w5mT.jpg
http://pbs.twimg....tMFh.jpg
http://pbs.twimg....uq5L.jpg
http://pbs.twimg....DZzL.jpg

"..renewable sources, the vast majority...is just people...burning wood...and dung for energy. That's right: feces is a more important energy source than wind power."

Mar 16, 2019
That's right: feces is a more important energy source than wind power.
And so of course - feces is a more important energy source than nuclear. So what's your point?

Mar 17, 2019
...feces is a more important energy source...
Indeed, it's an important energy source, although it's deadlier than fossil fuels.
"Indoor air pollution from burning yak dung..."
https://www.scien...14009327
https://slate.com...elp.html
"4 million people a year die from indoor cooking smoke"
https://www.treeh...oke.html
https://www.sciel...7a04.pdf
"Pollution Due To Burning Of Cow Dung & Wood As Fuel Killed 1.24 Lakh People In One Year"
https://www.india...719.html
"There are no low-energy, rich countries."

"Only nuclear power can lift all humans out of poverty while saving the natural environment."

Mar 17, 2019
Only nuclear power can lift all humans out of poverty while saving the natural environment
Nope - solar and wind can do the same thing - cheaper. Good thing really - cuz that is where all the action is these days. Only 15% of countries have nukes - and many planned nukes are now being scuttled - for cheaper, better wind and solar. Keep up there Willie.

Mar 19, 2019
...solar and wind can do the same thing...
"solar and wind" is like socialism: a lot of promises to fool the younger/naive; historically: short term gain (for the unproductive) and long term pain for all.
http://pbs.twimg....BhnC.jpg
http://pbs.twimg....nTV5.jpg
"Socialism always works in the beginning, so people are fooled... in the beginning. It's easy for governments to confiscate money, but eventually there's no more money to confiscate."
http://pbs.twimg....a8Xh.jpg
"Churchill: Socialism may begin with the best of intentions, but it always ends with the Gestapo."
http://pbs.twimg....hgKn.jpg

Socialism resulted in the impoverishment & death of hundreds of millions of people.
Capitalism has lifted billions from absolute poverty.
"No country ever dragged itself out of agrarian poverty without an Industrial Revolution. And no Industrial Revolution was ever powered by sunshine and breezes."

Mar 19, 2019
a lot of promises to fool the younger/naive
Stop projecting. The engineers at Shell can do math - and they see the writing on the wall - https://renewecon...n-70440/
Maybe that is why - Shell's plans do not include nukes, but they do include renewables and storage. May also be why only 15% of the countries in the world have a nuke, but 100% have wind and solar.

Mar 20, 2019
...The engineers at Shell can do math...
Yes, indeed, they did the math and concluded that intermittent renewables lock in fossil fuels, specifically oil/gas/fracking.
"Solar and Wind Lock-In Fossil Fuels -- And That Makes Saving the Climate Harder & More Expensive"
http://www.forbes...pensive/
http://reason.com...nd-solar

"You hear sometimes that renewables lock in gas-powered backup. The Norwegians are at least honest about it (picture taken at Brussels airport)."
http://pbs.twimg....ODVl.jpg

"Industry spent more than €100m in 2016 ... deployed over 1000 lobbyists plus an army of PR and lobby consultancies, who helped to ... push the myth that gas is a 'clean' fuel to partner renewable energy." - Oct 2017
http://corporatee...gas-lock

Mar 20, 2019
they did the math and concluded that intermittent renewables lock in fossil fuels
No they didn't - that's a lie. They concluded that the world is changing - renewables are the future - and unless some game changer comes along - nukes are uneconomic. So Shell plans to be the biggest electricity producer in the world - in 10 years - and they are looking to cheap renewables as the back bone of said plan. No wonder only 15% of countries in the world have nukes - but 100% have renewables. Where is that cost curve on nukes Willie?

Mar 21, 2019
...renewables are the future...
"renewables are the future" to keep mankind stuck on fracked gas in the future.
"In REAL life, 100% renewables = 80% natural gas & 20% renewables. No wonder natural gas is the fastest growing fuel worldwide."
"For every barrel of oil consumed over the past 35 years, two new barrels have been discovered."
https://blogs-ima...misu.jpg
https://www.forbe...e-world/

...100% have renewables...
But only ones with hydro and carbon-free nuclear have reduced emissions and dependence on coal/oil/gas and kept the electricity prices affordable.

Shell is in love with intermittent renewables.
https://pbs.twimg...0hL9.jpg
...So Shell plans to be the biggest electricity producer in the world - in 10 years...
And they will be, because in 10 years most of solar panels and windmills will be just a bunch of junkyards.

Mar 21, 2019
renewables are the future" to keep mankind stuck on fracked gas in the future
Or to do the heavy lifting of replacing our fossil fuel power system - with a cheaper, better, renewable one. Here's a neat fact
as the installations of rooftop solar and large scale renewables grows, the output of fossil fuels reduces – initially this hit brown coal, but more recently it has impacted gas generation because of its high cost
Keep up Willie liar. No wonder only 15% of countries in the world have nukes - but 100% have renewables. https://renewecon...r-28485/

Mar 23, 2019
RenewEconomy, CleanTechnica, biased articles written by green sociopaths, it's all you have.
Just compare Australia with France/Sweden/Ontario.
https://pbs.twimg...6Li1.jpg
"GHG emissions from Australian energy in the age of the renewables investment boom. PS we banned nuclear in 1998."
https://pbs.twimg...GsQs.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...K8Ro.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...HXx7.jpg

Mar 23, 2019
Just compare Australia with France/Sweden/Ontario.
Why should I? You are the one claiming that no country will ever get to be 100% renewables. I am the one showing you that we are on the way there. Australia has enough wind and solar in the pipeline - to reach 100% renewables by 2030. Show us a country on track to do that with nuclear unicorn farts! Oh right - you know that only 15% of countries in the world have nukes - and 100% have renewables. Shame you can't keep up Willie.
https://renewecon...s-81953/

Mar 24, 2019
... Australia has enough wind and solar in the pipeline - to reach 100% renewables by 2030...
If electricity in Australia is already insanely expensive with penetration of intermittent renewables into the grid, just imagine when it reaches "100%".

Not including batteries, at 1/3 of penetration into the grid, solar and wind make electricity ~5x costlier, including batteries, solar and wind can be ~50x costlier than carbon-free nuclear.
"The cost of wind & solar power: batteries included"
http://euanmearns...ncluded/
"Batteries Included: Wind + Solar + Batteries = Insanely Expensive Power"
https://stopthese...e-power/

The "100% renewables" zealots never talk about emission reduction.
Because there is already enough practical data to conclude that intermittent renewables are trillion-dollar fiascos at reducing emissions.

Mar 29, 2019
The "100% renewables" zealots never talk about emission reduction
We talk about them all the time. https://cleantech...vidends/
https://cleantech...in-2018/

Mar 31, 2019
"UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions Fell 3% In 2018"
but the RE charlatans don't mention that the demand has decreased due to expensive electricity prices thanks to the penetration of intermittent renewables into the grid.
"Energy bills jump 21% in five months leaving millions facing fuel poverty this winter" - Oct 2018
https://www.indep...901.html
https://www.bbc.c...47133564
"The more the renewables penetration, the more the price - and Germany essentially runs on COAL. Nice work, enviros."

"If Solar and Wind are so cheap, why is the taxpayer subsidising them so heavily and even after all the expensive subsidies we are still paying exorbitant prices for power. It was cheaper before renewables."

Apr 05, 2019
but the RE charlatans don't mention that the demand has decreased due to expensive electricity prices thanks to the penetration of intermittent renewables into the grid
They don't mention that - because it is not true. Renewables are becoming the cheapest form of new build energy - https://www.resil...ral-gas/

Apr 06, 2019
Yes. It's true.
"Germany and Britain both have heavily invested in wind power and have higher residential electricity prices than the United States—200 percent to 300 percent higher." - Mar 26, 2019
"In Britain, the price of residential electricity increased by 27 percent[16] in just a decade. Germany and Britain both have heavily invested in wind power and have higher residential electricity prices..."
https://www.insti...credits/

RE cultists have no option except to continue ignoring the facts, calling liar who exposes the facts and debunks their lies.

Apr 14, 2019
Germany and Britain both have heavily invested in wind power and have higher residential electricity prices than the United States


Oklahoma and Texas have heavily invested in renewable energy - and have very cheap energy rates. Your premise is a big fat lie.

Apr 15, 2019
...Oklahoma and Texas have heavily invested in renewable energy...
Oklahoma and Texas have abundant supply of cheap oil/gas. And you are unable to cite a small place(>10,000 inhabitants) that doesn't have abundant supply of cheap coal/oil/gas and that is at least 1/3 powered by solar/wind parasitizing hydro/geothermal instead of fossil fuels to compensate intermittencies, not connected to a regional fossil-fueled grid, and having affordable electricity prices.

The best you can do is to continue citing Costa Rica(>90% powered by hydro), or Oklahoma(cheap fracked gas), or Scotland(connected to UK fossil-fueled grid).
http://pbs.twimg....blo5.jpg

Solar and wind are "exponential" lies in order to continue to steal hundreds of billions of dollars from taxpayers(through subsidies/tax incentives) and to favor fossil fuels over hydro and carbon-free nuclear energy, a crime in the face of Climate Change.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more