They are demanding an expensive, highly subsidized wind/solar/battery replacement of fossil fuels that has zero chance of success, as was shown in Europe in 2021, well before the Ukraine situation, and in 2022.
Europe is frantically trying to correct its under-investments in fossil fuel and nuclear.
It’s only a question of when, and how big, will be the wind/solar/battery failure, and how damaging the consequences of the failure will be.
Paul Homewood posted on his website "Not A Lot Of People Know That", an article titled “Why Solar Power Is Useless In Winter.”
Homewood obtained the hourly data of electricity generation from UK solar systems from this website.
For context, the typical daily electricity loaded onto the high voltage grid of the UK, at this time of year, per Homewood, is about 840 GWh, or 840/24 = 35 GW of hourly average load; some hours are less and others are more, depending on the daily demand curve.
The rated capacity of the UK solar systems is about 14 GW, as AC loaded onto the high voltage grid.
In there UK and NE, the days are short from early November to End February, the sun gets up late and goes to bed early, and there are lots of clouds, and often there is snow and ice on the panels, and some panel systems are out of service.
So how much did the solar facilities actually produce today?
Here is the chart:
The peak output of the solar panels was about 1.33 GW, as AC loaded onto the high voltage grid, much less than the rated output of 14 MW.
This is only 1.33/35 = 4% of the 35 GW hourly average loaded onto the high voltage grid that day.
Production from the solar panels (the area under the curve) was 5.46 GWh, or 5.46/840 = 0.65% of the 840 GWh loaded onto the high voltage grid. By any definition, this is a nothing-burger.
The times of peak electricity demand are early morning and late-afternoon/early-evening.
At those times the UK’s solar systems produced absolutely nothing, i.e., a nothing-burger during peak hours.
In fact, the solar systems produced absolutely nothing from 4 pm to 8 am the next day; for 16 hours!!
So, how would the UK and NE ever get a meaningful amount of its electricity from solar panels, in winter?
What About Building More Solar Systems?
Well, considering just today, the UK could have built 840/5.46 = 154 times as many solar panels as the UK currently has.
With the wind/solar/battery trio, favored by zero-carbon folks, the UK could have obtained the exact amount of electricity loaded onto the high voltage grid, 840 GWh from solar, if winds had been near-zero, as often happens during a UK winter, and an NE winter, and a German winter.
However, almost all of that solar electricity would be at midday, when it was not needed
There would be near-zero solar electricity during the morning peak, 6-8 AM, and during the evening peak, 5-8 PM, as shown by the graph
To cover those peak periods, the UK would need a lot of energy storage.
Hundreds of GWh of storage would be needed just for this one day.
One GWh = one million kWh
Most of the day's solar electricity would be stored, and partially released during the evening peak, with the rest released during the morning peak of the next day.
That roundtrip procedure involves about 18 to 20% of losses, on an A-to-Z basis. See below.
What About Seasonal Solar Variations?
You could save the electricity from the summer time, when there is more intense sun, for more hours.
But for that, tens of thousands of GWh of storage would be required, just for the UK, just for the winter.
Solar electricity would be stored for about 6 months, and released during the winter months, as needed by demand.
All-in, Turnkey Capital Cost of 1666 GWh of Li-ion Battery Systems
On an everyday basis, grid-scale batteries should not be discharged to less than 20% full and not be charged to more than 80% full, to achieve their 15-y useful service life, per Tesla recommendations.
On rare occasions, such a rare, long-distance driving, in case of EVs, discharging and charging from 10% to 90% is OK.
Battery system rated capacity would be
1000 GWh/0.6, available-capacity factor = 1666 GWh, delivered as AC at battery voltage
All-in, turnkey, capital cost of Li-ion battery systems would be
1666 million kWh x $400/kWh/$1000000000 = $666 billion; most of it would need to be replaced every 15 years. See Note
NOTE: The rated capacity of the Moss Landing, California, Tesla battery system, owned by Pacific Gas and Electric Company is 300 MW/1200 MWh
The all-in, turnkey, capital cost was $370 million, or $370 million/1200000 kWh = $308/kWh, delivered as AC at battery voltage; 2018 pricing. Pricing precedes commissioning dates by about 1.5 years.
The 2018 pricing has increased at least 30% to $400/kWh in 2022. See Appendix
In late 2021, Tesla increased its 2021 battery module pricing by 24.5% for 2022
NOTE:
Li-ion battery systems have a loss of about 18%, when new, and at least 20%, when older, on an A-to-Z basis
Here is the round-trip loss of a new, 1.666 GWh battery system, that delivers 1 GWh, as AC to the high voltage grid
Delivered by battery system is 1 GWh, as AC to high voltage grid
Charge in battery system is 1 GWh/0.92 = 1.087 GWh, as DC
Electricity to battery system is 1.087/0.92 = 1.181 GWh, as AC from high voltage grid
The 0.181 GWh round-trip loss has to be produced by additional solar panels, or other (fossil, nuclear, hydro, etc.) generators, if they were still present!!
NOTE:
Remember, all of this solar fantasy to "save the planet", including huge-capacity battery systems, and hugely expanded/reinforced electric grids, is highly subsidized with money from already-stressed ratepayers and taxpayers, primarily to provide tax shelters to line the pockets of the world's, well-connected, high rollers, who often have high-CO2 private planes, and private yachts, and mega mansions, and God knows what else.
SUPPLEMENTARY ARTICLES
.
ISO-NE REPORT OF 2021 ECONOMIC STUDY: FUTURE GRID RELIABILITY STUDY PHASE 1
https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2022/07/2021_economi...
DEEP DIVE SUMMARY OF THE ISO-NE REPORT
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/new-england-future-grid-study-iso/...
CO2 IS INNOCENT, BUT CLOUD COVER IS GUILTY
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/11/23/co2-is-innocent-but-clouds-a...
LIFE WITHOUT OIL?
Life without oil means many products that are made with oil, such as the hundreds listed below, would need to be provided by wind and solar and hydro.
Folks, including Biden's attendants, wanting to get rid of fossil fuels, such as crude oil, better start doing some rethinking.
The above also applies to natural gas, which is much preferred by many industries
If you do not have abundant low-cost energy, you cannot have modern industrial economies.
APPENDIX 1
These articles contain significant information regarding wind, solar and grid-scale battery systems
GRID-SCALE BATTERY SYSTEMS IN NEW ENGLAND TO COUNTERACT SHORTFALL OF ONE-DAY WIND/SOLAR LULL
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/grid-scale-battery-sys...
COLD WEATHER OPERATION IN NEW ENGLAND DECEMBER 24, 2017 TO JANUARY 8, 2018
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cold-weather-operation...
ANALYSIS OF WIND AND SOLAR ENERGY LULLS AND ENERGY STORAGE IN GERMANY
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-energy-...
IRELAND FUEL AND CO2 REDUCTIONS DUE TO WIND ENERGY LESS THAN CLAIMED
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reduction...
BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital...
HIGH COSTS OF WIND, SOLAR, AND BATTERY SYSTEMS IN US NORTHEAST
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-sol...
CO2 IS A LIFE GAS; NO CO2 = NO LIFE
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-a-life-gas-no-c...
APPENDIX 2
These articles explain a lot about the world-wide “Climate Crisis” scam, based on highly compromised surface station measurements, which typically read HIGH.
Climate scientists SUBJECTIVELY adjust the readings for use in their SUBJECTIVE computerized-temperature-calculation programs, which are used in the reports of IPCC, etc., for scare-mongering purposes.
New Surface Stations Report Released – It’s ‘worse than we thought’
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/new-surface-stations-r...
Weather- Just how does it happen?
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/weather-just-how-does-...
A summary of the results of three “Physics of the Earth’s Atmosphere” papers, which were submitted for peer review at the Open Peer Review Journal.
https://globalwarmingsolved.com/2013/11/19/summary-the-physics-of-t...
APPENDIX 3
Satellites and balloons measure temperatures of the Troposphere, which starts at ground level, and has an average height of 59,000 ft at the tropics, 56,000 ft at the middle latitudes, and 20,000 ft at the poles. Above those levels starts the Stratosphere.
Balloons directly measure temperatures. Satellites measure radiation, from which temperatures are calculated.
Both consistently measure much lower temperatures than the average of 102 computer-generated graphs.
See Appendix 2 and 3
The data in the below images is for a 43-y period.
There is global warming, but it is not anywhere near as much as scare-mongers are claiming.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/grid-scale-battery-sys...
1) Objective satellite and balloon temperatures increased from 0.00 to 0.5 C, or, or 0.116 C/decade
2) Subjective computer-generated temperatures increased from 0.00 to 1.20 C; or 0.28 C/decade, about 2.7 TIMES AS FAST
The temperature data by satellites and balloons are more accurate than land-based measurements.
See Appendix 2 and URL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset
Satellite measurements are made many times during every day and systematically cover almost the entire world; +/- 85-degree latitude.
The satellite data is vastly more complete, and accurate than would be gathered by ground stations. (See Appendix 2)
Balloon measurements, made on a sampling basis, are vastly less complete than satellite measurements, but they serve as a useful crosscheck on the satellite measurements.
NOTE: Behind the 102 computer graphs are hundreds of organizations that likely receive a significant part of their revenues from governments and subsidy-receiving wind, solar, battery, etc., businesses.
The livelihood and career prospects of the people creating these graphs is more secure, if they aim high, rather than low.
https://www.scienceunderattack.com/blog/2021/2/22/latest-computer-c...
A more detailed view of satellite temperatures.
APPENDIX 4
Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and also a member of the CO2 Coalition. Sheahen and the Coalition are collaborating on a brief.
SEPP’s October 8 newsletter contains a summary of a major 2021 paper by Happer and co-author William van Wijngaarden that completely undermines the fake “science” the IPCC and EPA used to support the case of climate alarm.
Sheahen specifically discusses the efforts of Professors William van Wijngaarden and William Happer in their pioneering work in calculating the real-world Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) of the five most common Green-House Gases (GHGs).
Sheahan explains why the approach used by IPCC is faulty, but nonetheless used by its followers, such as the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and the EPA.
These faulty methods lead to great exaggeration of the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide, methane, and other minor greenhouse gases. . . .
Sheahan shows the stunning agreement between the calculations of van Wijngaarden and Happer (W & H) with satellite measurements (and balloon measurements) of outgoing infrared radiation emitted by the earth to space . . .
Sheahan claims, because of the exceptionally good agreement between observational data and the calculations of W & H, we can conclude the W&H model has been validated.
The W&H model embodies the scientific method.
In that case, it is reasonable to use it to study other hypothetical cases.
It is not possible to do so with IPCC models, which have never achieved agreement with observations. . .
See Appendix 3
The gist of the H&W work is the greenhouse effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is almost entirely saturated, such that any additional CO2 can have almost no additional warming effect.
Here is a chart prepared by Sheahan to illustrate the H&W results.
As atmospheric CO2 increases, say from 380 to 420 ppm, it has less warming effect.
The most warming effect occurs at very low levels of CO2, say 20 to 60 ppm.
APPENDIX 5
A timely and important new paper has just been uploaded to the CO2 Coalition website on nitrogen.
The first half of the paper on the greenhouse warming effect of N2O is quite technical
It is summarized in the first link.
Link to the full paper is at the bottom. Please distribute widely.
Authors: Will Happer, C. A. de Lange, William Wijngaarden and J.D. Ferguson
Nitrous Oxide and Climate – Why restricting N2O emissions is unnece...
Nitrous oxide (N20) has now joined carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) in the pantheon of “human-generated demon” gases.
GW scare-mongers view increasing concentrations of these molecules are leading to unusual and unprecedented GW, which will lead to catastrophic consequences for both our ecosystems and humanity.
Countries around the world are in the process of greatly reducing, or eliminating, the use of nitrogen fertilizers, based on heretofore poorly understood properties of nitrous oxide.
Reductions of N2O emissions of 40 to 45 percent are being proposed in Canada , and by up to 50 percent in the Netherlands .
Sri Lanka’s complete ban on fertilizer in 2021 led to the total collapse of their primarily agricultural economy.
The CO2 Coalition has published this paper, which evaluates the GW effect of the N20 and its role in the nitrogen cycle.
Policymakers can now proceed to make informed decisions about the costs and benefits of mandated N20 reductions of this beneficial molecule.
This new paper joins previous CO2 Coalition reports on other greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide and methane.
Key takeaways from the paper:
- At current rates, a doubling of N2O would occur in more than 400 years.
- Atmospheric warming by N2O is estimated to be 0.064 C per century.
- Increasing crop production requires continued application of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer to feed a growing population.
Download the entire PDF Nitrous Oxide
Methane, CH4, aka, natural gas
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/11/19/methane-much-ado-about-nothing/
NOTE: A similar graph can be created for N2O
It is dangerous to be correct in matters, where established men are wrong, by Voltaire
You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!
Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine