How net zero works in reality

[oldkettle]

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2022-1-25-how-about-a-pilot-project-to-demonstrate-the-feasibility-of-fully-windsolarbattery-electricity-generation

 

@SteamyTea Do I recall correctly you are a fan of pumped storage solutions? I did not check the numbers in this post but then it references the original project and it doesn't look very promising even in quite good conditions.

I wonder whether you are going to have a different view on the whole thing. 

Edited January 27, 2022 by oldkettle

[IanR]

From the second sentence:

 

Quote

As I understand this concept, it means that, within two or three decades, all electricity production will be converted from the current mostly-fossil-fuel generation mix to almost entirely wind, solar and storage.

 

Suggests he/she hasn't done any research in to their opinion piece, so is not worth investing the time to read.

 

Edited to add:

 

From UK Government published White paper 2019. 

Edited January 27, 2022 by IanR

[markc]

I am all for organisations and individuals reducing their impact on the environment, reduce waste, recycle more, use different processes and materials etc. But it really grinds my gears when all these inefficient, heavily polluting and wasteful organisations pat themselves on the back for being so green by buying credits! Surely that’s like showing you are not in debt by borrowing more money

[oldkettle]

1 hour ago, IanR said:

From the second sentence:

 

 

Suggests he/she hasn't done any research in to their opinion piece, so is not worth investing the time to read.

 

Edited to add:

 

From UK Government published White paper 2019. 

 

How about you look at your graph and compare how much electricity should come from renewables in less than 30 years. And ignore the fact that the rest is - for now - planned as a whole 35 or 40%. It really changes nothing in the calculations. 

The guy is in NY where things are worse (i.e. even more delusional plans) so your comment is well beside the point. 

[SteamyTea]

2 hours ago, oldkettle said:

@SteamyTea Do I recall correctly you are a fan of pumped storage solutions?

No you do not remember correctly.

I am neither a fan or a critic.  I do like the idea of compressed air storage, but in old salt caverns (they already exist), not bottles and cylinders.

 

That opinion pieces is a bit confused and I don't have enough time to unpick it.

But.

Is the system performing as designed, or not performing as expected?

That may seem a quirky question, but if I design a beam to take a 5 tonne load with only a 10mm deflection, then I put a 20 tonne load on it, has the beam fails because it has deflected 150mm, it is not comparing the same thing.

[ProDave]

11 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

I do like the idea of compressed air storage, but in old salt caverns (they already exist), not bottles and cylinders.

There is an interesting "facility" up here, old oil storage tanks hewn from solid rock in the hillside.  Presumably they are vented to the surface, but i wonder if the vents were capped how well they would do as pressure vessels.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inchindown_oil_tanks

 

https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/inchindown-oil-tanks

 

 

[oldkettle]

7 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

No you do not remember correctly.

I am neither a fan or a critic.  I do like the idea of compressed air storage, but in old salt caverns (they already exist), not bottles and cylinders.

 

That opinion pieces is a bit confused and I don't have enough time to unpick it.

But.

Is the system performing as designed, or not performing as expected?

That may seem a quirky question, but if I design a beam to take a 5 tonne load with only a 10mm deflection, then I put a 20 tonne load on it, has the beam fails because it has deflected 150mm, it is not comparing the same thing.

 

Thank you. Yes, this is a different type of storage then. Sorry for the confusion. 

 

I am not discussing whether pumped is any good. I am only interested in figuring out whether there is any feasible solution to the problem. Taking numbers from the project site this one seems insufficient. 

[SteamyTea]

2 minutes ago, ProDave said:

There is an interesting "facility" old oil storage tanks hewn from solid rock in the hillside. 

I don't know if anywhere has one of those old gas storage things that used to be in towns.  Be fun to work out how much energy they could store.

[ProDave]

2 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

I don't know if anywhere has one of those old gas storage things that used to be in towns.  Be fun to work out how much energy they could store.

I have edited my post above to show some links to the underground storage tanks.

 

The other half of that setup is the above ground storage tanks by the shore.

 

https://www.28dayslater.co.uk/threads/seabank-tank-farm-invergordon-02-08-09.42247/

 

[IanR]

1 hour ago, oldkettle said:

planned as a whole 35 or 40%

 

So, 35% - 40% is not renewables. Where as the authors' quote was "almost entirely wind, solar and storage". 

 

1 hour ago, oldkettle said:

The guy is in NY where things are worse

 

But his fantasy piece starts with "most of the “Western” world", which isn't restricted to NY.

 

The author's an activist that is pushing a political agenda, not providing a fact based opinion piece.

[oldkettle]

1 hour ago, IanR said:

 

So, 35% - 40% is not renewables. Where as the authors' quote was "almost entirely wind, solar and storage". 

 

But his fantasy piece starts with "most of the “Western” world", which isn't restricted to NY.

 

It really changes nothing if in an ideal case where the island has a natural pumped storage all they can get out of it is 14% of their energy needs. With diesel generators helping to pump (!) when renewables run out. But there is no point looking into numbers because the author is "an activist". Interestingly, people who we should thank for the current level of electricity prices are not "activists", oh no. 

 

And yes, most of the western world bought into "net zero" without a proper cost benefit analysis. Heck, without any CBA. 

[IanR]

56 minutes ago, oldkettle said:

most of the western world bought into "net zero" without a proper cost benefit analysis. Heck, without any CBA. 

 

Most of the western world has bought in to net zero because no one has yet come up with a sensible alternative.

[oldkettle]

6 minutes ago, IanR said:

 

Most of the western world has bought in to net zero because no one has yet come up with a sensible alternative.

 

An alternative to what? The death of the Universe? The 3 degree average rise in temperature? Whatever it is we want to prevent there is a cost that can and should be allocated to such event and it needs to be weighed vs the cost of suggested solutions. Every time someone says "but we need to do something" unless this something is a direct action right here, right now I know that this person very likely hasn't advanced his or her thinking beyond the level of a teenager. I was there, I hope I've learnt my lesson.

 

In any case, you don't want to discuss the numbers (not even costs) in the post or on the project website https://www.goronadelviento.es/en/who-are-we/ , this is fine. I just hoped someone would. 

 

[IanR]

24 minutes ago, oldkettle said:

 

An alternative to what? The death of the Universe? The 3 degree average rise in temperature? 

 

Why would our burning fossil fuels effect the Universe? Pretty sure the effects will be limited to our own planet.

 

And why would the temp rise stop at 3° if we choose to do nothing?

 

Not that "just" a 3 degree rise wouldn't be catastrophic for many.

 

 

Edited January 27, 2022 by IanR

[oldkettle]

17 minutes ago, IanR said:

Most of the western world has bought in to net zero because no one has yet come up with a sensible alternative.

 

By the way, this is not correct. You just claim that "sensible" alternatives don't exist because you don't accept any solution which doesn't reach the goal that you agree with. 

[IanR]

2 minutes ago, oldkettle said:

 

By the way, this is not correct. You just claim that "sensible" alternatives don't exist because you don't accept any solution which doesn't reach the goal that you agree with. 

 

Whatever.

[SteamyTea]

My Spanish is not good enough to look at the data tonight.  Saw Firefighter and Evacuation.  Not sure where they fit into the data.

https://www.goronadelviento.es/en/statistical-information-and-data/

[oldkettle]

14 minutes ago, IanR said:

 

Why would our burning fossil fuels effect the Universe? Pretty sure the effects will be limited to our own planet.

 

And why would the temp rise stop at 3° if we choose to do nothing?

 

Not that "just" a 3 degree rise wouldn't be catastrophic for many.

 

 

Universe - sarcasm. 

 

3 is a completely random number. Choose yours. 

 

And finally - catastrophic for how many? And what exactly do you mean by catastrophic? Will 10 million people die with no way of saving them? Or is it 1 billion? Or does this really mean people may need to move, potentially quite far away? 

 

 

[SteamyTea]

There are viable alternatives, mainly mass migration and rebuilding.

As far as the UK is concerned, we have voted that one out.

 

Regarding the costs, we know what large scale off shore wind, large scale solar and new nuclear cost, and we know that large, off shore, wind is also 40% more expensive than large, on shore wind.  We have voted to not have large, on shore wind.

So we know the costs of some alternatives, and even though they are lower, we coted against them.

[oldkettle]

3 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

My Spanish is not good enough to look at the data tonight.  Saw Firefighter and Evacuation.  Not sure where they fit into the data.

https://www.goronadelviento.es/en/statistical-information-and-data/

 

Chrome does a good job translating this. 

[SteamyTea]

Just now, oldkettle said:

Chrome does a good job translating this. 

That is how I got Firefighter and Evacuation.

 

Here is the file.

 

Datos-1º-trimestre-2021.xlsx

[IanR]

1 minute ago, oldkettle said:

Universe - sarcasm. 

 

You'll need to start using emojis to make it clear which statements you make are meant to be taken seriously.

 

3 minutes ago, oldkettle said:

3 is a completely random number. Choose yours. 

 

I really can't see the point. This argument was put to bed in the naughties.

[oldkettle]

41 minutes ago, IanR said:

I really can't see the point. This argument was put to bed in the naughties.

 

What argument? About the specific number of degrees? It really does not matter, IPCC reports are not getting worse. And you don't want to specify what "catastrophe" actually means. I know why: it would be laughable. If say 100 million people need to move it is not a catastrophe - if the problem regions are identified 10 or more years ahead. 

[IanR]

42 minutes ago, oldkettle said:

 If say 100 million people need to move it is not a catastrophe - if the problem regions are identified 10 or more years ahead. 

 

Did you really just say that? I'm not sure you've thought this through, or perhaps I've missed your sarcasm again.

[oldkettle]

51 minutes ago, IanR said:

 

Did you really just say that? I'm not sure you've thought this through, or perhaps I've missed your sarcasm again.

 

No sarcasm whatsoever, dead serious. It may be a big problem and expensive problem but it is certainly not a catastrophe. Catastrophe in my mind is people dying with no way of helping them, becoming destitute. Moving - nope. 

 

Just think about how many people move home every year. Sometimes move thousands of kilometres. Sometimes to a different country. Internal migration is massive, just think about China, India, US, Mexico (just to name the largest I know of), external - certainly in millions, likely tens of millions annually. The important point is of course that most of these people (or should I say us because I moved many times in my life and by thousands of kilometres twice) relocate because they choose to do so freely. Still have doubts? 

 

Just checked out of interest. 4.5 million Americans make an interstate move every year according to moving.com