A world on 100% renewable energy. Is it feasible using the following method :

In My Humble Opinion
1

So it’s real simple. We automate the production and and streamline the installation of solar and wind turbines. The math says we can produce 100% of all energy needs this way, at least in countries with large geographic areas and a temperate desert biome, like the United States.

So that keeps the electric grid energized during the day and on windy nights. What about on calm nights and cloudy, calm days? Well, for immediate buffering, you mass produce…in a really big factory…lithium ion batteries. There are other grid scale battery technologies being researched, but currently this is the least expensive.

That stores enough power for the next few hours. You don’t try to store more than that, batteries suck.

So what now? How do you handle the tail end of the demand : supply curve, where demand exceeds supply? Part of the solution would be time of use power pricing, though unfortunately this is very abusable. Prices for energy could go up and down with how much wind and solar is produced at a given instant.

The other part of the solution is of course natural gas backup generators. Generators designed for peaking loads - so all piston engines. Modular, mass produced somewhere cheap kind of deals.

Well, that’s no good. That’s not 100% renewable, the methane is coming from the ground and adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

So the last piece is you over-install the solar by a lot. (easy to do if you can paint glass with the right compounds). And you use the excess production to electrolyze water. Only at peak times, during the day, the extra energy not being used by the grid or to charge batteries, it’s going into industrial scale electrolyzers. The hydrogen is stored compressed temporarily, then combined with CO2 to produce methane for long term storage, since hydrogen tends to leak out of any tank.

You use the resulting methane as a long term energy buffer. It’s more expensive than natural gas is today, but not after the carbon taxes (the producer gets a carbon credit equaling the tax since they get the CO2 to make the methane from the atmosphere). And high performance vehicles and large ships use the liquid methane as a fuel source.

Obviously, all the rest of the cars are electric, airliners and rockets use liquid methane, and biodiesel is used in small quantities for range extending engines, legacy aircraft, etc. (since it is easier to store than methane)

Maybe to some of you this is obvious, but this is the first time I’ve realized that an end to end, 100% renewable solution does exist.

2

No, it’s not.

3

Do you have anything more productive to add or is this just a bit of driveby low effort posting intended to get a rise out of me?

4

Mostly the latter, because, like so many of your other threads, this one is completely divorced from the realities of, you know, making a profit.

If you wanted to spend limitless amounts of money to create your renewable utopia, you could do it in any number of ways, but in the world in which most of us live, there needs to be some economic benefit to doing it before companies will invest in it.

5

Ok, do you have any specific numbers why this won’t work, or are you just guessing?

Because the numbers currently coming out for renewable say this in fact will work. 55 cent a watt solar + inverter systems is cheaper than any other form of energy production in the world.

If you even read my proposal, I point out that to make this happen, you do need to tax pollution, because you can’t compete with fossil fuels if the fossil fuel producers get to pollute for free.

6

If you’ve got a problem with the poster, take it to the Pit. Trolling the thread isn’t the answer.

7

Countries “like the USA” account for only a small fraction of the planet’s energy needs.

If the past is any indicator, it is human nature to use up whatever they have. We once thought rain would just fall from the sky, too.

8

There are some nifty means for storing energy on a large scale, to help smooth out the supply/demand curves.

One of my favorites is a lake, not far from where I live. In the daytime, when electricity is in demand, they let water out of the lake, to generate electricity.

At night, when electricity is cheaper, they pump water back up into the lake.

9

That’s great as long as you don’t live downstream.

10

The OP has read Jacobson’s paper. It’s a possibility, to be sure, but to me it seems to rely on a fair amount of technology forcing, and I suspect that its cost estimates must come with huge error bars. Here and here are a couple of reasonable critiques.

11

This recent article at Ars Technica outlines some real-life ways to store energy on a large scale.

Also, isn’t hydro generation (dam and tidal) also renewable, and capable of producing pretty much continuously?

12

I hadn’t read that paper. Apparently, you didn’t read it, either. The author does mention the problem but just cites some other paper claiming it doesn’t exist.

The key additional step in my proposal above, not mentioned in his paper as the solution, though the method is mentioned, is that you need a form of long term, high capacity energy storage. Batteries are short term - you can store for long term, technically, but only as much as you have batteries, so the capacity is extremely limited.

Pumped hydro is just another kind of battery. Obviously if you pump upstream too long, the storage lakes fill, and you cannot store any energy beyond that.

So I proposed solving this problem by making a crapton of methane synthetically from atmospheric CO2, which is something that costs a lot of energy relative to the energy returned, but it can be stored in very large quantities and used to run mobile vehicles.

13

Every method named has inadequate capacity. The problem is that the worldwide demand for energy is very large, and long tail events, where it is cloudy and calm over a massive area for a whole month when it is also very cold, can happen. Every method named in that article you rapidly hit a limit. You run out of storage tanks for compressed air. You run out of reagent for flow batteries. You run out of reservoir space to store water. You run out of insulated molten salt canisters.

And so on and so forth. It can work for short term - the next couple days - but if there is a long term solar/wind/hydro shortfall, you’re still going to be left in the dark. Well, maybe not left in the dark if you have a smart grid, but most heavy power consumers will have to shut down.

So the good news is those shortfalls are rare, so your solution for dealing with them can be more expensive than the solution used normally. That’s why the large energy losses with creating synthetic fuel, which is immensely storeable, are worth it.

14

There’s a wiki for that.

15

These things are absolutely “worth it” if you’re considering this as an engineering problem.

But that’s only half the battle. As alluded to by others above, it’s only economically “worth it”, if all that excess capacity makes a profit in and of itself. Which it will not, by definition, because it exists to only be used zero or one times during its economic lifespan. In fact the tail of the tail must remain unused throughout its life. If it ever gets used for even 5 minutes, we’ve under provisioned and created a failure.
The other way the tail provision can become “worth it” is if wise far-sighted regulators demand de jure that this tail capacity be put into place and provide the right balance of taxes and pricing authority on all the other market participants to ensure the whole shebang is collectively profitable enough.

Like water flowing off a mountain under gravity, economics will always win and will always deliver the outcome that’s downhill along the steepest economic path. Gradient = ROI.

If society wants something else to happen, they need the wisdom to regrade the economic landscape using tax and regulation so “downhill” is the direction they want, and then they need the political and legal horsepower to enact and enforce this forever against the natural erosive forces of honest business and the unnatural but equally inevitable sabotage forces of less-than-honest business.

*That’s *the hard part and always has been. Not the engineering. There is little to no evidence we’re getting much better at this here in the 21st Century. Which implies it will remain the hard part, perhaps forever.

16

I think you’re leaving out a whole lot of steps between those two.

ok, what’s the plan to secure enough resources and production capacity to be able to make LiIon batteries for this and for all of the electric cars we’ll be driving? Oh, and all of those mobile devices we’ll continue to use.

17

Cecil did a column on this. Here’s a pertinent part:
“In other words, if we squeeze out every available watt of alternative energy on the planet, and build nukes at an impossibly aggressive rate, we’ll barely keep up with the energy needed to support even a modest standard of living for the world’s people.”
The Master seems to suggest that a 100% alternative/renewable solution isn’t possible.

18

No, it’s not feasible. The reasons are simple. There aren’t enough rare earths being produced to do it currently. There is too much loss with the current transmission system to feasibly get power from the desert biomes in, say, the US, to the large cities where the power is needed. A lot of the first tier wind areas are already being tapped, and even some of the second tier. Those that aren’t can’t possibly provide enough to make us the gap. Even if you could, say, ramp up mining of rare earths across the globe and solve the power loss and other issues it would cost more money than the US has…and the US is the richest single nation on earth.

So, at the same time you are wanting to do the first part you want to change out the entire personal transport system as well. This, alone, wouldn’t be doable on any sort of short time frame. There are hundreds of millions of cars in the US. Just making enough electric cars and the infrastructure to just support that would be something that would take decades and strain production.

This is where ‘feasible’ comes into play. What you are proposing isn’t feasible by any definition, even if someone made you god king and you could simply order it done by fiat. Ironically, you’d be harming the environment a hell of a lot more by just trying to do this than we are currently doing with the system we have.

If you REALLY want to go whole hog down the renewable energy path, get folks to stop worrying so much about nuclear energy and stop blocking it. It’s the only technology we currently have that would be ‘feasible’ to even get close to 100% (even there we couldn’t do it completely, but we could easily get to 50% or more).

19

What about if the other car companies were drafted, too? :slight_smile:

20

Note the problem we want to solve is global warming–and renewable energy is just one approach to solve this problem. Really the primary thing all the governments of the world need to do is to universally impose a large carbon tax–and the market will do most of the rest. There are huge numbers of technologies that can be used. Energy conservation techniques are the first which come to mind.