Land requirements for renewable energy

[BigHornRam]

Simple solutions are usually the best solutions. Brought to you by the Fred Flintstone School of Engineering.

GridScale: Storing Renewable Energy in Stones Instead of Lithium Batteries

The concept of storing renewable energy in stones has come one step closer to realization with the construction of the GridScale demonstration plant. The plant will be the largest electricity storage facility in Denmark, with a capacity of 10 MWh. The project is being funded by the Energy Technology

scitechdaily.com

 

[CoffeeGoat]

Lots of good points in your post. What you cited mostly doesn’t work because of the high regulation embedded in the utilities markets. Put politicians in charge of anything and it goes to crap because they need to please voters while somehow lining their own pockets too. If you want capitalism and the free market to work, take the chains off. But you won’t like the result. Look at what Enron did during the dereg era. Electricity need to cost enough so people conserve it. Air conditioning would be a luxury, not the god-given right people view it as now and require running the thermostat at 80 during the summer, not 65. Same goes for water. It is hard to determine what the future 50yrs will hold for utilities but I guarantee it won’t look like it does today.

I disagree with that sentiment, I think there is a middle ground where we have regulations, but we also allow the market to find solutions to reduce the cost of energy. For instance, the free market development of non-conventional oil and gas was the single largest reducer of greenhouse gases the US has ever seen, it also drastically dropped the cost of energy. I think the majority of anger about it was similar to the opinion you're describing - "energy should be really expensive so people won't use it." But this is really just misanthropy disguised as environmental concern.

I'd agree that politicians often make poor energy decisions, but by and large politicians seem to make poor decisions regarding anything that is complicated (see environmental policy). It's really easy to spout buzzwords and talk about protecting this or banning that, but those of us that live and work and play in the outdoors understand managing a complex connected system is challenging and our actions may have unintended effects. It's pretty easy to pick several environmental policies that sound pretty good on the surface until you start digging into them.

I think we can be good stewards of our environment while enabling low cost energy. Availability of inexpensive energy is one of the biggest reducers of poverty there is and poverty is generally quite bad for the environment. But to do that, we have to be willing to be a little less zealous and a lot more humble.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Look at what Enron did during the dereg era.

Enron is not a story about energy market deregulation, it is a story about fraudulent accounting practices and irrational stock market exuberance in the face of the obvious phony numbers. They were crooks and *ssholes, but their story has nothing to do with proper electric grid regulation - it was the phony internet "dark fiber" swaps that brought down the house, not electricity trading.

 

[VikingsGuy]

managing a complex connected system is challenging and our actions may have unintended effects.

Sadly, I doubt our current culture or political system is up to the task for any issue that presents this concern.

 

[CoffeeGoat]

Sadly, I doubt our current culture or political system is up to the task for any issue that presents this concern.

It's a bummer, but I like to think about the"least worst" solution. That means anytime someone offers a false dichotomy I call BS.

 

[SAJ-99]

I disagree with that sentiment, I think there is a middle ground where we have regulations, but we also allow the market to find solutions to reduce the cost of energy. For instance, the free market development of non-conventional oil and gas was the single largest reducer of greenhouse gases the US has ever seen, it also drastically dropped the cost of energy. I think the majority of anger about it was similar to the opinion you're describing - "energy should be really expensive so people won't use it." But this is really just misanthropy disguised as environmental concern.

I'd agree that politicians often make poor energy decisions, but by and large politicians seem to make poor decisions regarding anything that is complicated (see environmental policy). It's really easy to spout buzzwords and talk about protecting this or banning that, but those of us that live and work and play in the outdoors understand managing a complex connected system is challenging and our actions may have unintended effects. It's pretty easy to pick several environmental policies that sound pretty good on the surface until you start digging into them.

I think we can be good stewards of our environment while enabling low cost energy. Availability of inexpensive energy is one of the biggest reducers of poverty there is and poverty is generally quite bad for the environment. But to do that, we have to be willing to be a little less zealous and a lot more humble.

You can’t compare O&G to a electric utility. Like apples and cantaloupe. The price of electricity is set by a commission to make it cheap for customers but still give the utility a return. That is why it is so hard to change. Tax incentives are all screwed up and then you add some renewable incentives to make it even more confusing. There is no “free market capitalism” in the utilities business- Electric, water, waste, whatever. Any news you see about utilities fighting renewables comes down to tax incentives.
None of my statements have anything to do with what is possible, impact on environment, or what will happen. Just pointing out that today the argument is about money. Always is.

 

[SAJ-99]

Enron is not a story about energy market deregulation, it is a story about fraudulent accounting practices and irrational stock market exuberance in the face of the obvious phony numbers. They were crooks and *ssholes, but their story has nothing to do with proper electric grid regulation - it was the phony internet "dark fiber" swaps that brought down the house, not electricity trading.

Have to disagree, but only slightly so not worth rehashing that old story. Enron killed the thought of electrical utilities being deregulated. Only Texas didn’t learn the lesson. Maybe 2021 will change that as customers get $10,000 electricity bills. Funny part is if it happened again today

Enron would be worth tens of billions today because it wouldn’t have to do the phony accounting to look good. Firms that burn cash seem to be rewarded more than ever.

 

[CoffeeGoat]

You can’t compare O&G to a electric utility. Like apples and cantaloupe. The price of electricity is set by a commission to make it cheap for customers but still give the utility a return. That is why it is so hard to change. Tax incentives are all screwed up and then you add some renewable incentives to make it even more confusing. There is no “free market capitalism” in the utilities business- Electric, water, waste, whatever. Any news you see about utilities fighting renewables comes down to tax incentives.
None of my statements have anything to do with what is possible, impact on environment, or what will happen. Just pointing out that today the argument is about money. Always is.

This is absolutely not true for a large part of the US. The US has several electric authorities and each has their own method for pricing power. There are several different markets for several different time scales (seasonal, week ahead, day ahead, minute by minute) and some of them even have ancillary markets that determine the price for things like reserves (spinning, non-spinning, black start etc), voltage and current support, and other grid support activities. It is true that some of these markets are not open, but they bid for new generation and transmission just like any other market.

For an introduction look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_transmission_organization_(North_America)

It's also very reasonable to compare connect electric G&T market and O&G as the spark spread (difference between the price of fuel and the cost of electricity) is the historical driving force for electrical prices. Certainly the electric market is not the entire footprint of carbon emissions, but it's a big chunk.

You are absolutely correct that economics are involved, and policy, and technology, and people. I certainly can't speak for all utilities, but the ones I know are trying to keep the lights on, and renewables can make that challenging and expensive. Texas is a good example of a catastrophic failure, easy to see in retrospect, but quite challenging to predict due to the number and magnitude of connected causes. Even harder to convince folks to plan and pay for fixes in advance.

 

[SAJ-99]

This is absolutely not true for a large part of the US. The US has several electric authorities and each has their own method for pricing power. There are several different markets for several different time scales (seasonal, week ahead, day ahead, minute by minute) and some of them even have ancillary markets that determine the price for things like reserves (spinning, non-spinning, black start etc), voltage and current support, and other grid support activities. It is true that some of these markets are not open, but they bid for new generation and transmission just like any other market.

For an introduction look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_transmission_organization_(North_America)

It's also very reasonable to compare connect electric G&T market and O&G as the spark spread (difference between the price of fuel and the cost of electricity) is the historical driving force for electrical prices. Certainly the electric market is not the entire footprint of carbon emissions, but it's a big chunk.

You are absolutely correct that economics are involved, and policy, and technology, and people. I certainly can't speak for all utilities, but the ones I know are trying to keep the lights on, and renewables can make that challenging and expensive. Texas is a good example of a catastrophic failure, easy to see in retrospect, but quite challenging to predict due to the number and magnitude of connected causes. Even harder to convince folks to plan and pay for fixes in advance.

Not sure what we disagree on? The O&G comparison? Ok Whatever. If you want to compare them fine but O&G profits are driven by markets daily/hourly while electricity prices are set by commissions every year or two. MLPs are a better comparison but still weak IMO. Nothing is like a utility company from a financial viewpoint.

I think utilities and employees work to keep the customer happy. Don’t fault them at all. The executive work to make a return for investors (and themselves). That gets harder and messy every time a person puts solar panels on the roof of their house. Cutting demand means distributing costs over a smaller customer base. This is a super complex problem and every time you see these it always boils down to money because that is the common denominator people understand. Legislators at the federal level aren’t smart enough to fix it so thinking state Legislators can is comical.

 

[SAJ-99]

This is absolutely not true for a large part of the US. The US has several electric authorities and each has their own method for pricing power. There are several different markets for several different time scales (seasonal, week ahead, day ahead, minute by minute) and some of them even have ancillary markets that determine the price for things like reserves (spinning, non-spinning, black start etc), voltage and current support, and other grid support activities. It is true that some of these markets are not open, but they bid for new generation and transmission just like any other market.

For an introduction look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_transmission_organization_(North_America)

It's also very reasonable to compare connect electric G&T market and O&G as the spark spread (difference between the price of fuel and the cost of electricity) is the historical driving force for electrical prices. Certainly the electric market is not the entire footprint of carbon emissions, but it's a big chunk.

You are absolutely correct that economics are involved, and policy, and technology, and people. I certainly can't speak for all utilities, but the ones I know are trying to keep the lights on, and renewables can make that challenging and expensive. Texas is a good example of a catastrophic failure, easy to see in retrospect, but quite challenging to predict due to the number and magnitude of connected causes. Even harder to convince folks to plan and pay for fixes in advance.

Here is an example from today’s WSJ. I get both sides of the argument. The ? Is which is more important investing in renewables, keeping electricity prices low, or ensuring utilities make a return so they can stay in business? All are important and tough to separate.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ws...-divide-utilities-solar-producers-11620404888

 

[CoffeeGoat]

Here is an example from today’s WSJ. I get both sides of the argument. The ? Is which is more important investing in renewables, keeping electricity prices low, or ensuring utilities make a return so they can stay in business? All are important and tough to separate.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ws...-divide-utilities-solar-producers-11620404888

I love the final quote in that article, it reminds me of so many things in energy - to paraphrase:

"the other guy lobbied for a rule change that gave gave him an unfair advantage, that's not fair, only I'm allowed to do that...."

It's a tough right now, we all lose if we end up like California with high costs and poor performance. But we also want to be cleaner, it's going to be an interesting decade.

 

[TOGIE]

on it's face, i like what i see in this article. anything that incentivizes rooftop solar will help further spur rooftop solar innovation. hopefully making it a technology that's far more scalable, efficient, and economic into our future than it currently is.

it's basically the only type of solar energy i support.

Democrats aim to boost solar roof tiles in U.S. budget bill

A pair of Democrats hope to expand a U.S. federal renewable energy tax credit to make it easier for consumers to install roofs with solar shingles like those made by Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) and GAF Energy, betting it will boost a nascent segment of the industry.

www.reuters.com

 

[SAJ-99]

on it's face, i like what i see in this article. anything that incentivizes rooftop solar will help further spur rooftop solar innovation. hopefully making it a technology that's far more scalable, efficient, and economic into our future than it currently is.

it's basically the only type of solar energy i support.

Democrats aim to boost solar roof tiles in U.S. budget bill

A pair of Democrats hope to expand a U.S. federal renewable energy tax credit to make it easier for consumers to install roofs with solar shingles like those made by Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) and GAF Energy, betting it will boost a nascent segment of the industry.

www.reuters.com

The problem with rooftop is installation cost. It is cheaper to install solar panels over 10acres of bare ground than over 20-50 rooftops. This addresses the issue a little by changing the economics of the roof itself. Personally, I figure the Fed is buying $120b in treasuries, it would be put to
better use training installers and scaling up rooftop panel installation. But it’s complicated.