What does it take to succesfully transition to a green energy economy?

[Willem]

I am a bit puzzled by the exclusive focus on solar and the variability of its output. After all, wind can be at least as important, and its output is quite negatively correlated with the daily and yearly trend in solar. So the combined output can be a lot flatter. On top of that, interregional connection can flatten availability even more.

 

[Marc v E]

I am a bit puzzled by the exclusive focus on solar and the variability of its output. After all, wind can be at least as important, and its output is quite negatively correlated with the daily and yearly trend in solar. So the combined output can be a lot flatter. On top of that, interregional connection can flatten availability even more.

Good point. I think the reason why solar gets so much attention is that it gives consumers the possibility to engage in the grid. To participate and make money from it.

By the way, I heard that in Denmark, citizens share in the profits from local solar and windmill projects, which apparently makes it much easier to place windmills on land as opposed to only on water/sea/ out of sight.

 

[Willem]

easier to place windmills on land

That is true and there are also such experiments in the Netherlands. However, wind at sea is rather stronger, and also stronger at 100-150 m height. An offshore location lends itself better for the really tall turbines that are most efficient because of these higher wind speeds, and because they allow for longer blades that are much more efficient.

 

[levimax]

I am a bit puzzled by the exclusive focus on solar and the variability of its output. After all, wind can be at least as important, and its output is quite negatively correlated with the daily and yearly trend in solar. So the combined output can be a lot flatter. On top of that, interregional connection can flatten availability even more.

Wind power has many externalities just ask the farmers in the mid-west what it is like to live near these things. Birds and wales don't do so well either not to mention they are ugly. The real killer is that while in general wind power is negatively correlated with solar output sometimes, like in the case of an ice storm, both solar and wind are shut down simultaneously at the same time it is cold. Then what? See Texas for the answer. To me that is the issue that needs to be solved before we subsidize investment in any of these weather dependent technologies as currently the only solution is near 100% traditional backup for every Mwh of weather dependent energy added to the grid.

 

[Marc v E]

Wind power has many externalities just ask the farmers in the mid-west what it is like to live near these things. Birds and wales don't do so well either not to mention they are ugly. The real killer is that while in general wind power is negatively correlated with solar output sometimes, like in the case of an ice storm, both solar and wind are shut down simultaneously at the same time it is cold. Then what? See Texas for the answer. To me that is the issue that needs to be solved before we subsidize investment in any of these weather dependent technologies as currently the only solution is near 100% traditional backup for every Mwh of weather dependent energy added to the grid.

Isn't that just a local grid problem that we can solve by making it interconnected with other areas, that have a proven record of different sun/wind than Texas for instance?

The weather won't be the same over a distance of say 500 miles. If we would connect the Texas grid to the rest of the US, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have these lack of wind/sun issues.

 

[RayDunzl]

Plus the cost of that is way up there. I also believe Musk's comments were a battery 1 mile, by 1 mile, by 1 mile. A mile high battery is a huge thing.

BonziBuddy speculates:

 

[blueone]

Wind power has many externalities just ask the farmers in the mid-west what it is like to live near these things. Birds and wales don't do so well either not to mention they are ugly. The real killer is that while in general wind power is negatively correlated with solar output sometimes, like in the case of an ice storm, both solar and wind are shut down simultaneously at the same time it is cold. Then what? See Texas for the answer. To me that is the issue that needs to be solved before we subsidize investment in any of these weather dependent technologies as currently the only solution is near 100% traditional backup for every Mwh of weather dependent energy added to the grid.

From what I've read, the Texas situation was more complex, as it shutdown gas wells and even a nuclear plant. This is a fascinating report:

https://energy.utexas.edu/sites/default/files/UTAustin%20%282021%29%20EventsFebruary2021TexasBlackout%2020210714.pdf

Texas was clearly unprepared for the event, some of the failure scenarios could have been avoided, and pinning it all on renewals is not accurate or fair.

Nonetheless, while I think renewables definitely can have a place in the complete US grid solution, I'm much more of a fan of nuclear power. Nuclear power that can survive a deep freeze like those already in NY and Canada. I like the upcoming modular nuclear technologies, because I believe a good part of the issues we have with current nuclear plants is that they are all custom and different, and constructed onsite. Robot welders also seem to a necessary part of the nuclear success story. When humans weld it's an art (and it's absolutely not a healthy profession).

 

[Willem]

We seem to be doing just fine with our turbines far at sea where there used to be ugly drilling platforms.
The variability problem is a challenge, but the combination of long distance grid connections and dynamic pricing will go a long way (I like the market mechanism for that). In our part of the world winds move from West to East, so storms and wind free periods arrive in the UK first when nothing has happened in the Netherlands yet. A day later it hits us, and another day later Denmark. So trading will help a lot and our utilities are confident that they can maintain the high reliability of the grid that we have become accustomed to.
In the end there is just no alternative if we want to avoid the climate disaster that science predicts.
I really am optimistic about the collective technological ingenuity of Western society. In the end we may still need some residual fossil fuel generating capacity, but we are not nearly there yet so we may as well get started. In the meantime this is a fantastic economic opportunity with a lot of new business and the potential for rather lower energy prices.

 

[RandomEar]

Wind power has many externalities just ask the farmers in the mid-west what it is like to live near these things. Birds and wales don't do so well either not to mention they are ugly. The real killer is that while in general wind power is negatively correlated with solar output sometimes, like in the case of an ice storm, both solar and wind are shut down simultaneously at the same time it is cold. Then what? See Texas for the answer. To me that is the issue that needs to be solved before we subsidize investment in any of these weather dependent technologies as currently the only solution is near 100% traditional backup for every Mwh of weather dependent energy added to the grid.

Sorry, but I can't hear the same old and plain incorrect "arguments" again and again. Yes, wind power does have an effect on the local wildlife population. Some species actually favor to live around wind farms, many favor to keep some distance. However, these effects are localized and do not alter the complete ecosystem of our planet. Additionally, the number of birds killed by wind farms is absolutely irrelevant, when compared to other sources. Looking at the US, you will find that

• About 1.4x10^9 birds per year are killed by domestic cats (!!!) [1]
• About 0.365x10^9 birds per year are killed by the collision with windows [1]
• About 0.089x10^9 birds per year are killed by the collison with vehicles [1]
• In harsh contrast to this, about about 0.00014x10^9 birds per year are killed by the collison with wind turbines with some upper end estimates ranging up to 0.00057x10^9 birds/year [1, 2]

Even if you increase the amount of wind power by 100 and assume that this also kills 100 times as many birds, the number would still be just 1% of the number of birds killed by cats. While the distriution of species killed will likely vary by cause of death, I think the insane difference of currently five orders of magnitude between "cats kill birds" and "wind turbines kill birds" should make it clear, that this is something that should be studied but can absolutely not be used in any way shape or form as an argument against wind power. It doesn't make sense.

Mentioning the need for 100% traditional backup in conjunction with renewables and then outages in Texas sounds like you're missing the point that Texas had sufficient "traditional" backup and the massive failure of those traditional plants in severe weather is what caused the outages in the first place. This contradicts the very argument you're trying to make.

 

[blueone]

Sorry, but I can't hear the same old and plain incorrect "arguments" again and again. Yes, wind power does have an effect on the local wildlife population. Some species actually favor to live around wind farms, many favor to keep some distance. However, these effects are localized and do not alter the complete ecosystem of our planet. Additionally, the number of birds killed by wind farms is absolutely irrelevant, when compared to other sources. Looking at the US, you will find that

• About 1.4x10^9 birds per year are killed by domestic cats (!!!) [1]
• About 0.365x10^9 birds per year are killed by the collision with windows [1]
• About 0.089x10^9 birds per year are killed by the collison with vehicles [1]
• In harsh contrast to this, about about 0.00014x10^9 birds per year are killed by the collison with wind turbines with some upper end estimates ranging up to 0.00057x10^9 birds/year [1, 2]

Even if you increase the amount of wind power by 100 and assume that this also kills 100 times as many birds, the number would still be just 1% of the number of birds killed by cats. While the distriution of species killed will likely vary by cause of death, I think the insane difference of currently five orders of magnitude between "cats kill birds" and "wind turbines kill birds" should make it clear, that this is something that should be studied but can absolutely not be used in any way shape or form as an argument against wind power. It doesn't make sense.

Mentioning the need for 100% traditional backup in conjunction with renewables and then outages in Texas sounds like you're missing the point that Texas had sufficient "traditional" backup and the massive failure of those traditional plants in severe weather is what caused the outages in the first place. This contradicts the very argument you're trying to make.

The bird kill estimates were discussed a bit in this thread:

Zero-emission vehicles, their batteries & subsidies/rebates for them.- No politics regarding the subsidies!

The general direction of this thread is for the following examples but not limited to: Note - Please keep politics out of the thread - Subsidies and lithium as examples can be discussed without involving politics. Zero emission vehicles include: Battery-electric. Plug-in hybrid electric...

www.audiosciencereview.com

starting at post #3105. (I know. It's a huge thread.) The numbers you're quoting above were called into question, especially since the estimates for the total population of birds in North America are about 7.6 billion. Assuming the domestic cat kill estimate for the US is real, that would mean about 369 birds per square mile per year, including AK and HI, just from cats. Just saying, I'm not believing it. And I'm not taking the side of turbine bird kills are a huge problem either.

 

[Willem]

Recent research by Dutch conservationists arrives at the same conclusion: yes some birds are killed but not that many.

 

[Inner Space]

Recent research by Dutch conservationists arrives at the same conclusion: yes some birds are killed but not that many.

My partner is a lifelong ornithologist, and reports that she and her organizations (Audubon, Sierra, Cornell Labs etc) very regretfully prefer that some birds be killed by turbines, rather than all birds be killed by runaway climate change.

 

[levimax]

Sorry, but I can't hear the same old and plain incorrect "arguments" again and again. Yes, wind power does have an effect on the local wildlife population. Some species actually favor to live around wind farms, many favor to keep some distance. However, these effects are localized and do not alter the complete ecosystem of our planet. Additionally, the number of birds killed by wind farms is absolutely irrelevant, when compared to other sources. Looking at the US, you will find that

• About 1.4x10^9 birds per year are killed by domestic cats (!!!) [1]
• About 0.365x10^9 birds per year are killed by the collision with windows [1]
• About 0.089x10^9 birds per year are killed by the collison with vehicles [1]
• In harsh contrast to this, about about 0.00014x10^9 birds per year are killed by the collison with wind turbines with some upper end estimates ranging up to 0.00057x10^9 birds/year [1, 2]

Even if you increase the amount of wind power by 100 and assume that this also kills 100 times as many birds, the number would still be just 1% of the number of birds killed by cats. While the distriution of species killed will likely vary by cause of death, I think the insane difference of currently five orders of magnitude between "cats kill birds" and "wind turbines kill birds" should make it clear, that this is something that should be studied but can absolutely not be used in any way shape or form as an argument against wind power. It doesn't make sense.

Mentioning the need for 100% traditional backup in conjunction with renewables and then outages in Texas sounds like you're missing the point that Texas had sufficient "traditional" backup and the massive failure of those traditional plants in severe weather is what caused the outages in the first place. This contradicts the very argument you're trying to make.

How ever many birds and whales are killed it is more than killed than by other green energy sources so it is an externality. People seem to think green energy does not have externalities which is not the case. You could make an argument that Hydro power is the worst offender of any energy source as it has wiped out entire species of fish which will never again be seen. My point is not that wind can't be an important part of our long term energy solution rather that subsidies mean misallocation of resources and too many windmills being built too soon and put into the wrong places.

 

[levimax]

My partner is a lifelong ornithologist, and reports that she and her organizations (Audubon, Sierra, Cornell Labs etc) very regretfully prefer that some birds be killed by turbines, rather than all birds be killed by runaway climate change.

Strawman alert.

 

[Willem]

Any economist will tell you that subsidies can play a useful role to get something started. In the long run the argument is different, of course. By now most green energy strategies have moved or almost moved beyond the stage where they need such subsidies and have become more than commercially viable.
In the Netherlands subsidies are being moved to the reduction of energy consumption by things like home insulation. We privately invested quite a bit in the upgrade to the insulation of our house. The subsidies were very welcome and encouraged us to be more ambitious. So what is wrong with that if it reduces emissions and reduces my country's dependence on precarious fossil fuel supplies? The biggest challenge is to ensure that not just prosperous peopl7e like ourselves can make the green transition, but also the poor who suffer most.

 

[RandomEar]

How ever many birds and whales are killed it is more than killed than by other green energy sources so it is an externality. People seem to think green energy does not have externalities which is not the case. You could make an argument that Hydro power is the worst offender of any energy source as it has wiped out entire species of fish which will never again be seen. My point is not that wind can't be an important part of our long term energy solution rather that subsidies mean misallocation of resources and too many windmills being built too soon and put into the wrong places.

Then you should make that argument and not the incorrect statements above. I kind of get your point here, but I would counter it with another perspective:

Global warming is currently around 1.1 K compared to pre-industrial. We are on a path to 2.5 K and more. Dangerous and unpredictable tipping points lure somewhere around 2.5 to 3.5 K. If we reach those tipping points, it's unclear where we would end up. It would be devastating and would make whole regions of the planet uninhabitable and kill thousands of species. To make it short: Efficiency of funding isn't our main concern right now, as a species. It might be for individuals or companies, but governments should care about more than that. They should care about all citizens - those of today and those of tomorrow. Therefore, I'd argue that some inefficiences in subsidies are a very small price to pay if those still result in a faster transition to a carbon-neutral society.

 

[RayDunzl]

Bird deaths from wind turbine's drop by 72% when one blade is black

Scientists conducted a trial on the remote island of Smola comparing how many birds were killed by four painted turbine compared to their untouched equivalents.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Inner Space]

Bird deaths from wind turbine's drop by 72% when one blade is black

Scientists conducted a trial on the remote island of Smola comparing how many birds were killed by four painted turbine compared to their untouched equivalents.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Probably just the Daily Mail's "journalism", but the article says "painting one of the four white blades on a wind turbine black" above a photo of wind turbines all with three blades ... like all of them I have ever seen.

 

[RayDunzl]

Must be the invisible blade that gets 'em.

 

[droid2000]

I’d rather buy Bitcoin than TSLA.

Wise man. Bitcoin has significantly outperformed Tesla (and everything else) since its inception.