Dec. 30 (UPI) — More Chinese buyers are snapping up South Korean real estate, accounting for more than 60 percent of foreign real estate purchases in the
Which renewable energy source would be the most dependable in the long term?
The best choice is hydro electric power as it is renewable, cheap and plentiful.
Hydropower is renewed through the natural water cycle
Hydropower starts with energy from the sun. The sun’s heat causes water to evaporate and rise into the atmosphere, where it condenses and turns into clouds that are blown about by the wind. When the droplets and ice crystals that form clouds become too heavy, they fall back onto the ground as rain or snow. The water then flows through the rivers, and generating stations harness this cycle to produce electricity.
U.S. fails to harness hydro power potential
Michael McDonald, November 28, 2015
One of the more interesting types of green energy is hydroelectric power. Among green energy sources, hydroelectric power is second only to nuclear power in terms of generation capacity. In many respects hydroelectric plants are something like a miniature version of nuclear power plants; they are costly to put up but once they are built, they last for decades providing power at close to zero marginal cost. Yet despite their effectiveness, hydroelectric power plants have not garnered the kind of focus that wind turbines and solar arrays do.
Hydroelectric plants represent an intriguing opportunity to generate more energy without increasing carbon output. In particular, there are a significant number of existing dams at rivers across the U.S. where hydroelectric power is not being used. The U.S. Department of Energy did a study suggesting that up to 12 gigawatts of additional power could be generated simply by taking advantage of these existing plants. Beyond that proverbial low hanging fruit, there is a significant amount of construction activity around building new dams and hydro plants; over 600 dams are currently under construction with several thousand more planned for the future.
Most of these new hydro power plants are being built outside the U.S. though. Like nuclear power plants, hydroelectric plants have gone out of vogue in the U.S. it would seem. The U.S. has plenty of opportunities to add to hydroelectric capacity as the DoE study demonstrates, yet little is being done on this front. In theory hydroelectric power could be a threat to the explosive trend towards greater natural gas use (and the associated phase out of coal power). Yet there is no indication that utility companies are looking to switch away from gas or any other source and towards hydroelectric in large quantities.
Fans of hydroelectric power talk about expanding its portion of the aggregate generation capacity in the U.S., but even for hydro-bulls, this is a very slow process that might see hydroelectric power double its share of generating capacity over the course of several decades. That growth trajectory pales in comparison to the level of growth in wind and solar (albeit off a much smaller base of installed capacity for the latter sources).
The limited interest in hydroelectric plants might be for a couple of reasons. First, it is not a source of energy that many environmentalists are excited about. Criticsderide its effects on river ecosystems, the fish it kills, the potential flooding of areas around newly built dams, and even the simple impact on views of rivers. Second and arguably more importantly, hydroelectric power seems to be being held back by its upfront capital cost. While hydroelectric power plants are far less expensive than nuclear plants to build, they are still very costly and entail extensive permits. A study by the EIA showed that conventional hydroelectric capital costs per kw were close to three times as expensive as a comparable natural gas project.
One of the most remarkable aspects of the decarbonization of the U.S. over the last 15 years is how wrong many pundits were when making predictions about the future of energy. Rather than clean energy sources like solar, wind, and ethanol helping to lower carbon output, the process has largely been driven by the switch from coal to cleaner-burning natural gas. This has been driven not by a desire to help the environment, but instead by the profit motive of utility companies. As long as hydroelectric plant costs remain uncompetitive with conventional sources, it’s likely the resource will remain underutilized going forward.
YES. Hydro power needs more attention including hydrokinetic power or run of river because water is not intermittent like solar and wind. Indeed recent experience with solar power in Indian villages has been so bad the locals dub it “fake electricity” and Scientific American titles the article “COAL TRUMPS SOLAR IN INDIA.” Further the analysis of Google engineers bent on solving climate change concluded depending on wind and solar is a lost cause. Recently in the same vein the indomitable Bill Gates urges more research for a new “miracle energy” to overcome the deficiencies of solar and wind making no dent in the global use of hydrocarbons. Really, hydro power in its different forms is a proven miracle energy source of large amounts of power, fully renewable and cheap.
Like · Reply ·
Comment by Dr. Richard C. Willson
1 hr ago
There is no rational argument against maximizing the use of hydro power. Its renewable – nature will do the heavy lifting and provide the water with gravitational potential forever. Its not intermittent as long as we dedicate some storage areas to facilitate the conversion of water’s gravitational energy to electrical on our chosen timescale.
The rationale of many who protest against hydro power is degraded by their religious adherence to an extreme conservationist ideology that cannot withstand objective scrutiny. Their underlying concept appears to be that virtually all things biological except homo sapiens fit properly into the natural scheme of things on Earth.
Solar and wind power can be useful for locations/situations where other forms of power are difficult to provide. However, neither will ever be practicable on the scale of general power needs and are never going to be cost-competitive with fossil fuels and hydro.
Last but not least the search for ‘carbon neutral’ energy sources is a false priority at this point in time. There are no credible demonstrations that anthropogenically generated CO2 has any significant impact on global climate and we have fossil fuel resources that should provide human energy needs into the next millennium – plenty of time to develop the next primary source of energy.
The worst renewable choice is wind or solar as they are failing on a massive scale to change global energy consumption away from fossil fuels because of intermittency. It is a terrible catch 22 as the more wind and solar applied to the grid the more expensive electricity becomes because of back up inefficiency.
Bill Gates is right wind and solar are a mess.
Bill Gates Slams Unreliable Wind & Solar: ‘Let’s Quit Jerking Around With Renewables & Batteries’
February 18, 2019 by
Bill says it’s time to stop jerking around with wind & solar.
When the world’s richest entrepreneur says wind and solar will never work, it’s probably time to listen.
Bill Gates made a fortune applying common sense to the untapped market of home computing. The meme has it thatin the entire world. Gates thought otherwise. Building a better system than any of his rivals and shrewdly working the marketplace, resulted in hundreds of millions hooked on PCs, Windows and Office. This is a man that knows a thing or two about systems and a lot about what it takes to satisfy the market.
For almost a century, electricity generation and distribution were treated as a tightly integrated system: it was designed and built as one, and is meant to operate as designed. However, the chaotic delivery of wind and solar have all but trashed the electricity generation and delivery system, as we know it. Germany and South Australia are only the most obvious examples.
During an interview at Stanford University late last year, Bill Gates attacks the idiots who believe that we’re all just a heartbeat away from an all wind and sun powered future.
Gates on renewables: How would Tokyo survive a 3 day typhoon with unreliable energy?
Jo Nova Blog
14 February 2019
If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?
Wind intermittency makes coal a necessary and expensive partner
OVER the last year, the media have published story after story after story about the declining price of solar panels and wind turbines.
People who read these stories are understandably left with the impression that the more solar and wind energy we produce, the lower electricity prices will become.
And yet that’s not what’s happening. In fact, it’s the opposite.
Between 2009 and 2017, the price of solar panels per watt declined by 75 percent while the price of wind turbines per watt declined by 50 percent.
And yet — during the same period — the price of electricity in places that deployed significant quantities of renewables increased dramatically.
Electricity prices increased by:
- 51 percent in Germany during its expansion of solar and wind energy from 2006 to 2016;
- 24 percent in California during its solar energy build-out from 2011 to 2017;
- over 100 percent in Denmark since 1995 when it began deploying renewables (mostly wind) in earnest.
What gives? If solar panels and wind turbines became so much cheaper, why did the price of electricity rise instead of decline?
Electricity prices increased by 51 percent in Germany during its expansion of solar and wind energy.
One hypothesis might be that while electricity from solar and wind became cheaper, other energy sources like coal, nuclear, and natural gas became more expensive, eliminating any savings, and raising the overall price of electricity.
But, again, that’s not what happened.
The price of natural gas declined by 72 percent in the U.S. between 2009 and 2016 due to the fracking revolution. In Europe, natural gas prices dropped by a little less than half over the same period.
The price of nuclear and coal in those place during the same period was mostly flat.
Electricity prices increased 24 percent in California during its solar energy build-out from 2011 to 2017.
Another hypothesis might be that the closure of nuclear plants resulted in higher energy prices.
Evidence for this hypothesis comes from the fact that nuclear energy leaders Illinois, France, Sweden and South Korea enjoy some of the cheapest electricity in the world.
The facts are the most expensive retail electricity comes from countries with the most renewables! The harm is to the bottom of our society economically who are in effect subsidizing an effete vanity of the wealthy thinking they are being environmentally responsible. The result is many more deaths from heat poverty. In the UK more die from freezing than from road accidents.
CHEAP ENERGY DEPENDS ON FOSSIL FUELS WITHOUT SUBSIDIES FOR WIND AND SOLAR RENEWABLES.
Electricity rates around the world are the worst in the countries with subsidies for costly intermittent renewables. Coal power and natural gas are vital to make cheap electricity. The human benefit of cheap electricity is inestimable. Health, education and prosperity are directly related to this factor. What happened to the social conscience of the left abandoning millions to energy penury and living in the dark.
ENERGY Poverty Insanity : Struggling Families To Subsidise Solar Panels For The Rich
Posted: March 14, 2018 | Author:|
AUSTRALIA has entered the realm of third world countries with residential power disconnections rising by as much as 140 per cent in six years.
THE mad rush into unreliable ‘energy’ – wind and solar – created by virtue signalling politicians aiming to appease the UN climate gods has resulted in the average household paying more than double to keep the lights on, unprecedented South Australia, officially, the .and now for
IF that wasn’t bad enough, Australian taxpayers, namely the poorest in the community, are set to add another $160 to their annual power bill thanks to a further $1.3bn in government solar subsidies.
ALL this extra pain to make zero difference to the climate.
From The Australian:
Energy consumers will be forced to pay more than $1 billion for rooftop solar installation subsidies this year, increasing power costs by up to $100 per household,according to an industry analysis.
Operators warn of a spike in the number of unscrupulous operators unless the green-power subsidy is wound back.
The solar industry is expecting the subsidy to increase to about $1.3bn this year after the regulator estimated in January that 22 million new certificates would be created over the year.
GLOBAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION DATA
The media distorts reality by too much focus on production and supply and too little attention to consumption which is everything in the long run.
The impact of wind and solar on global consumption at less than 0.1% is too small to matter. The renewable paradigm is a fraud. When introduced into the grid wind and solar make the cost of electricity increase depreciate the value of fossil fuels because of intermittency. These are the facts ignored by media and politicians around the world.
Wind and Solar PV Produce 0.7% of World’s Energy
- Published on November 14, 2017
President at Copenhagen Consensus Center
With the all the excitement for solar and wind, keep the perspective.
The newest data from the International Energy Agency for 2015 shows that wind produced 0.53% of the world’s total energy supply.
Solar PV (your standard solar cells) produced 0.13% of global energy supply. In total, solar PV and wind produced 0.66%.
In the same year, 2015, the IEA estimates that the world spent $34 billion in subsidies for wind and $57 billion in subsidies for solar PV.
When you hear much higher estimates, it is typically because you are told about a specific country at a specific time (e.g. when the wind was blowing steadily for many days) and because you are being told the proportion of *electricity* which is only a subset of all energy use.
And while 2015 is the latest global data available, using the IEA’s latest data and estimates for 2020, expecting all countries to live up to their Paris climate promises (the New Policy scenario), solar PV and wind for 2017 is likely going to be:
Wind 2017: 0.68%
Solar PV 2017: 0.24%
In total, 0.92% of global energy.
But just remember, global subsidies are similarly increasing from $91 billion in 2015 to $125 billion in 2017.
So a billion dollars of subsidies bought 0.007 percentage points of solar and wind energy in 2015.
In 2017 it still buys 0.007 percentage points.
Yes, 2017 provided even more solar and wind (0.9%) but at an even higher subsidy cost.
By 2040, with all nations living up to their Paris promises, the IEA estimate wind will contribute 1.88% and solar PV will contribute 1.03%, or a little less than 3% in total.
Finally, remember that when someone argues that we spend lots of money on subsidies on fossil fuels – those are wrong, too. But stupid subsidies to fossil fuels don’t make it okay to hand out subsidies to renewables.
See all data.
And data on subsidies from the latest IEA World Energy Outlook 2016, Figure 11.15, page 471.
My argument to stop fossil fuel subsidies,.
Wind and solar are not reducing global rise of Co2. Data from the Global Energy Statistical Yearbook for 2018 is instructive showing little impact.
New growth in CO2emissions (+2.1%) after three years of stabilisation
After three years of stagnation linked to weak economic growth, reductions in energy intensity and changes in the fuel mix, global CO2 emissions grew by 2.1% in 2017. CO2 emissions remained stable in the United States, in line with its energy consumption, but the strong economic growth pushed China’s coal consumption – and CO2 emissions – upward, despite its coal-to-gas switching policy that had maintained its emissions stable since 2014.
The global economic growth helped raise energy consumption and CO2emissions in most countries, such as India, Russia, Japan, South Korea, Canada or Iran. Adverse hydropower conditions also contributed to the increase in Brazil and Europe (significant 1.9% increase in 2017 compared with a -1.9% average decrease in the past decade; emissions grew particularly in Turkey (higher use of coal), Germany, Spain, Poland and France but fell in the United Kingdom against higher renewable generation.
Conversely, CO2 emissions decreased in Mexico and in Ukraine, where coal consumption was cut by a higher nuclear generation.sumption..
First increase in coal consumption after 3 years of decline (+0.9%)
In 2017, global coal consumption was spurred by India and Turkey, and by Russia and China to a lesser extent.
In China, responsible for nearly half of world coal demand, sustained economic growth, higher power consumption and relaxed coal production restrictions contributed to slightly increase coal consumption after three years of decline. Coal thus remains a pillar for the Chinese economy despite structural economic changes (shift away from energy intensive industries to a more services-oriented economy), strong efficiency gains in the manufacturing industry and in the power sector (shut-down of old and inefficient plants) and the government’s willingness to decarbonise the economy and limit air pollution.
Coal demand fell for the 4th year in a row in the United States – 28 GW of coal-fired capacity closed since 2015, no addition in 2017 – and for the 5th year in a row in the European Union (especially in Germany and the UK) due to the closure of many inefficient coal-fired power plants mainly due to stricter environmental regulations. Coal consumption also collapsed in Ukraine as nuclear and hydropower generation increased.
Wind and solar are an economic disaster failing to make any difference to energy consumption world wide. Many companies in this sector have gone bankrupt with subsidies. Now subsidies are being taken off the table leaving the industry vulnerable to market forces as it must be.
As Warren Buffett said wind farms don’t make sense without the tax credit
In the real world of business and commerce, the cost of renewables makes them unaffordable without intervention by the state. As Warren Buffet explained in 2014, “on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”
August 4, 2018 by
Interview with Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
NTZ: What danger does Germany face should it continue down its current path of climate alarmism and rush into renewable energies?
FV: Twenty billion euros are being paid out by consumers for renewable energies in Germany each and every year. Currently that amounts to 250 euros per household each year and it will increase to 300 euros next year.
Worse, it’s a gigantic redistribution from the bottom to top, from the poor who cannot afford a solar system to rich property owners who own buildings with large roof areas. The German Minister of Environment fears a burden of 1000 billion euros by 2040.
It is truly outrageous that 1) 40% of the world’s photovoltaic capacity is installed in Germany, a country that sees as much sunshine as Alaska, 2) we are converting wheat into biofuel instead of feeding it to the hungry, and 3) we are covering 20% of our agricultural land with corn for biogas plants and thus adversely impacting wildlife. We are even destroying forests and nature in order to make way for industrial wind parks.
On windy days we have so much power that wind parks are asked to shut down, yet they get paid for the power they don’t even deliver. And when the wind really blows, we “sell” surplus power to neighboring countries at negative prices. And when the wind stops blowing and when there is no sun, we have to get our power from foreign countries. In the end we pay with the loss of high-paying industrial jobs because the high price of power is making us uncompetitive.
The agitators in climate science here in Germany have done us no favors. Renewable energies do have a big future, but not like this. It’s been a run-away train and it’s too expensive. We are putting Germany’s industry in jeopardy. In reality there really isn’t any urgency because the solar cycles and nature are giving us time to make the transition over to renewable energies in a sensible way.
Mon, 16 Sep 2013 16:59 UTC
Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
And: “Extreme weather is the only card they have got left to play.”
So says German Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt, who is one of the founders of Germany’s modern environmental movement, and agreed to an interview with NoTricksZone. He is one of the co-authors of the German skeptic book “Die kalte Sonne“, which took Germany by storm last year and is now available at bookstores worldwide in English under the title:.
In Germany Prof. Vahrenholt has had to endure a lot heat from the media, activists, and climate scientists for having expressed a different view. But as global temperatures remain stagnant and CO2 climate sensitivity is being scaled back, he feels vindicated.
World’s Most Expensive Joke: $2 Trillion Squandered on Wind & Solar (So Far)…
INTERMITTENCY IS THE STUMBLING BLOCK FOR RENEWABLES
The heart of the matter is the intermittency of wind and solar when the wind does not blow and sun does not shine at the most inopportune times. The hope was for new battery storage technology to cover the gap. This is not happening. Sadly, I have personal experience working as a director with two truly innovative new battery technology start ups. Both have struggled for 5 years and counting and no light at the end of the tunnel. See the reason –
The Battery Cycle – Setting the Record Straight
By Anthony Milewski, Chairman, Cobalt 27
How long does it take from a scientific breakthrough to commercial battery production? From discovery of a new material to inclusion into a chemistry to wide spread commercial use can take between 10 and 20 years. The Joint Center for Energy Storage Research has come up with a matrix for thinking about the actual time it takes for this process:
- Scientific discovery of a new material(s) or process. There is no time frame for this.
- New class of material synthesized. Scientists may spend one to two years on this step.
- Prove performance of the half cell. Between two to five years.
- Proven performance of lab scale fuel cells. Between two to five years.
- Material scale-up, cell testing, and scaling up to pack. Between five to ten years.
The implications of this matrix are profound for the batteries that power EVs and should be considered by investors.