Why Is Clean Energy Bad?

[Nadiru]

The idea that renewable clean energy sources can't provide baseload power at some point in the future because they can't now is fucking ridiculous. It's like watching the Wright Brothers first flight and being like "well there's no way airplanes can ever replace cars because this one only carries one person for 90 feet".

At present, the only way solar provides baseload power is through one of the following scenarios:

Solar screens up in orbit which beams down power to a specialized station capable of receiving those beams and turning them into electricity.

A global solar panel grid which utilizes ubiquitously inexpensive high-temperature superconductors to take electricity generated where it is day and distribute it to where it is night.

A national solar panel grid which utilizes ubiquitously inexpensive long-lasting and dynamically discharging battery technology and ubiquitously inexpensive high-temperature superconductors to store electricity when it is generated and distribute it to where it is needed through the night.

All of these are far off, not just from a technical standpoint but from a political/legal one as well. Solar beaming is arguably death ray technology at the level of wattage employed. Global grids are a political nightmare for most of the world and subject the planet to going with less or without power on the act of some rando in Zimbabwe or Yemen. A national renewable grid would require trillions in the US alone, far in excess of what could be reasonably paid for, and that's even if the technology was shovel-ready, which it isn't.

[Noradin]

if that would be true, it would mean that green energy is the most profitable.. why on earth isnt everyone and their mother rushing to use it? I mean if it would be cheaper to produce, wouldnt it give a huge leg up on every other form of energy... and since we live in a capitalist society, how come companies arent rushing to using it?

Simple: People have set up a system where others (the general public) get to pay the (future) costs, and those who set it up get to enjoy the benefits now, why would they want to keep it that way? You get three guesses...

[KrazyK923]

cuz coal duh maga #rekt Dem dang hippies and liburls just want to waste our tax dollers on some bullshit when we all know the real cash is diggin up dat coal in da MINES

(/s)

[Deathquoi]

At present, the only way solar provides baseload power is through one of the following scenarios:

Solar screens up in orbit which beams down power to a specialized station capable of receiving those beams and turning them into electricity.

A global solar panel grid which utilizes ubiquitously inexpensive high-temperature superconductors to take electricity generated where it is day and distribute it to where it is night.

A national solar panel grid which utilizes ubiquitously inexpensive long-lasting and dynamically discharging battery technology and ubiquitously inexpensive high-temperature superconductors to store electricity when it is generated and distribute it to where it is needed through the night.

All of these are far off, not just from a technical standpoint but from a political/legal one as well. Solar beaming is arguably death ray technology at the level of wattage employed. Global grids are a political nightmare for most of the world and subject the planet to going with less or without power on the act of some rando in Zimbabwe or Yemen. A national renewable grid would require trillions in the US alone, far in excess of what could be reasonably paid for, and that's even if the technology was shovel-ready, which it isn't.

But nobody is saying that solar should immediately become the sole source of energy for the entire world. Whether or not solar can provide baseload power on its own, today, in 2017, is completely irrelevant to anything.

[Hammerfest]

Educate me, please.

Why is clean energy bad?

It isn't... unless it's bad.

[Nadiru]

But nobody is saying that solar should immediately become the sole source of energy for the entire world. Whether or not solar can provide baseload power on its own, today, in 2017, is completely irrelevant to anything.

It's very relevant to clean energy becoming a viable energy source 24/7, though. Which is the endgame of renewable energy to begin with.

[Deathquoi]

It's very relevant to clean energy becoming a viable energy source 24/7, though. Which is the endgame of renewable energy to begin with.

No, it isn't. Again, the fact that solar energy is not capable of providing 100% of our baseload power in 2017 is utterly irrelevant to whether or not renewables can eventually replace fossil fuels and nuclear.

[Nadiru]

No, it isn't. Again, the fact that solar energy is not capable of providing 100% of our baseload power in 2017 is utterly irrelevant to whether or not renewables can eventually replace fossil fuels and nuclear.

What exactly do you think will eventually be required for fossil fuels and nuclear to be phased out by renewable electricity? I even took the time to outline the things which would have to happen between now and the future where fossil fuels and nuclear are phased out by renewable electricity.

[Deathquoi]

What exactly do you think will eventually be required for fossil fuels and nuclear to be phased out by renewable electricity? I even took the time to outline the things which would have to happen between now and the future where fossil fuels and nuclear are phased out by renewable electricity.

I don't know how you want me to phrase it. Looking at the state of renewables now and declaring that they will not be able to provide baseload power at some point in the future is as dumb as seeing a demo of a telegraph and saying "this will never replace writing letters".

[Nadiru]

I don't know how you want me to phrase it. Looking at the state of renewables now and declaring that they will not be able to provide baseload power at some point in the future is as dumb as seeing a demo of a telegraph and saying "this will never replace writing letters".

I'm hardly saying "never ever" but we're talking about a generation-long project, at least.

[Deathquoi]

I'm hardly saying "never ever" but we're talking about a generation-long project, at least.

I never said it would be soon. It could be 25-30 years from now or more, but eventually we have little choice but to adopt new/renewable sources of energy.

[Osmeric]

What exactly do you think will eventually be required for fossil fuels and nuclear to be phased out by renewable electricity? I even took the time to outline the things which would have to happen between now and the future where fossil fuels and nuclear are phased out by renewable electricity.

Somewhat better diurnal storage, and some dispatchable demand.

There are battery technologies headed for < $100/kWh cost at 15,000 cycle lifespans. This would contribute < $0.01/kWh to the cost of stored electrical energy (+ interest costs) for diurnal storage. For longer periods excess capacity can be built and then used to drive dispatchable demand, for example hydrogen production (this requires sufficiently cheap electrolyzers that can be run maybe 1/2 the time, but that's also reasonable.)

[Nadiru]

I never said it would be soon. It could be 25-30 years from now or more, but eventually we have little choice but to adopt new/renewable sources of energy.

Advancing technological strides is a good reason to adopt renewables in 25-30 years. It's not a great reason to adopt them today.

Somewhat better diurnal storage, and some dispatchable demand.

There are battery technologies headed for < $100/kWh cost at 15,000 cycle lifespans. This would contribute < $0.01/kWh to the cost of stored electrical energy (+ interest costs) for diurnal storage. For longer periods excess capacity can be built and then used to drive dispatchable demand, for example hydrogen production (this requires sufficiently cheap electrolyzers that can be run maybe 1/2 the time, but that's also reasonable.)

This is reasonable, though I think you're rather handwaving the cost of nighttime storage.

[Osmeric]

This is reasonable, though I think you're rather handwaving the cost of nighttime storage.

Here's one that's moving in that direction. 20 years is 7,300 cycles. They must be assuming serious interest or installation costs to get the cost up to the level in the third paragraph though.

http://www.windpowerengineering.com/...attery-system/

Eos Energy Storage (“Eos”), pioneer of the safe, ultra-low cost Znyth battery, today announced forward pricing for the company’s Eos Aurora DC Battery System. The company is taking orders today for volume purchases at a price of $160/kWh for shipment in 2017 and $95 per usable kWh for shipment in 2022.

Eos is the first company to accept orders below $100 per usable kWh for a complete dc battery system including battery modules, battery management system, and outdoor-rated enclosure. Eos’ price-cap guarantee ensures that future purchases will receive the lower of the contracted price or any future price for an equivalent volume purchased the same year. The company is also offering up to 20-year performance guarantees at additional cost to optimize capacity under a wide range of applications and use cases.

“These price points correspond to a levelized cost of energy of approximately $50 to 60/MWh for storage, roughly 30% lower than the lowest projected cost for any competing storage system,” says Jim Hughes, Eos Chairman of the Board. “With these economics, Eos will become the default solution for new peaking capacity and will enable a dispatchable renewable energy product that outcompetes conventional power generation.”

[Nadiru]

Here's one that's moving in that direction. 20 years is 7,300 cycles. They must be assuming serious interest or installation costs to get the cost up to the level in the third paragraph though.

It's probably not just installation, but maintenance and disposal. People abuse batteries and cause them to break down in unforeseen and sometimes dangerous ways.