
Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of all power by 2030 - iProject
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/15/renewables_study/
======
nhebb
I was curious about the author so I looked up his profile on the University of
Delaware website [1]. Despite being listed as a Professor of Electrical &
Computer Engineering, his educational background is in Sociology and
Anthropology.

There are times when an appeal to authority is valid - such as an expert
witness in a court of law. When it comes to scientific or engineering matters,
I like to see some credentialed authority behind the research. Otherwise, I'm
highly skeptical since this is the first source that I've seen to claim such a
high percentage of green energy as the source for all power consumption.

[1] <http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/people/profile.aspx?willett>

~~~
arrrg
The only problem with that is that Willett Kempton is not the primary author
and the primary author very definitely does have an engineering background
(bachelor of engineering in 2007, PhD candidate in electrical engineering).
Running down the list of other authors we have a bachelor of ocean
engineering, currently a graduate student in the same field, a master in
oceanography and current PhD student as well as one student with more of a
policy focus plus the aforementioned professor.

Your comment is ignorant and lazy. Appeals to authority can be valid, sure,
but when you make them you better be damn sure you are doing it correctly, for
example by quickly glancing at the abstract.

Here is the actual paper:
[http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/windpower/resources/BudischakEtAl-2...](http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/windpower/resources/BudischakEtAl-2013-CostMinimizedWindSolarPJM.pdf)

Have at it.

------
nekojima
"Eco-wise" the infrastructure to build and deploy solar and wind, including
batteries & storage, is substantially far more un-environmentally friendly
than the other main options that are environmentally friendly, which are
nuclear and hydrogen. On almost any measure, nuclear power and hydrogen (which
can be produced cheaply at off-peak times for vehicles) are the two key power
sources we should be investing far more in, rather than the current damaging
technologies being deployed on increasingly vast scales with little thought to
the real environmental damage being created.

~~~
bcoates
Does hydrogen have anything to offer over synthetic petroleum as a vehicle
fuel?

~~~
nekojima
Hydrogen can be produced from nuclear, as well as hydro power. If produced in
off-peak times (at late night) in bulk it can be efficiently produced and then
distributed to filling stations. With at-home production units the
distribution system can be largely removed at the expense of slightly higher
per unit cost and less efficiency than bulk.

Synthetic petroleum is produced from coal, oil and natural gas, carbon energy
sources that don't help reduce environmental footprint.

~~~
danielweber
You can make gasoline out of nuclear power, too, from atmospheric carbon
dioxide.

Last I looked, a hydrogen fuel cycle was _slightly_ more efficient than a
gasoline fuel cycle. But it's a _lot_ easier to handle gasoline than hydrogen.
We already have the equipment to move and store gasoline all over the country,
no cryogenics needed.

(I say "gasoline" but things like methanol are also suitable.)

~~~
nekojima
Wouldn't those sources of gasoline from atmospheric carbon dioxide still
produce carbon emissions? While hydrogen used as a transportation fuel
produces water.

~~~
brazzy
> Wouldn't those sources of gasoline from atmospheric carbon dioxide still
> produce carbon emissions?

Sure - exactly as much carbon dioxide, in fact, as was removed from the
atmosphere when the fuel was produced.

~~~
danielweber
Exactly. It's just as carbon neutral as hydrogen produced by electrolysis.

------
iaw
I can't access the full paper but there's something wrong here. A few concerns
I have :

1) Congestion rents are not mentioned anywhere when they have as large if not
a larger impact on the cost to rate payers than energy price.

2) There's no mention of a "security constrained" commitment model which is
what I believe PJM uses.

3) Saying that you'll just build a distributed system and assuming a low cost
ignores easement costs, acquisition costs, and legal costs in building any
energy infrastructure.

I'm no high power electrical engineer but I'd be surprised to see this not
including some sort of drastic misunderstanding of how these infrastructures
and the markets around them function.

An idea with potential is building HVDC lines from renewables to populated
areas but you'll still need natural gas kickers for when demand spikes.

~~~
danielweber
_ignores easement costs, acquisition costs, and legal costs in_

That's actually pretty common among scientists who are imagining they are
designing utopia.

------
maxharris
"ALL POWER"?

If that means fewer kilowatts than I get now for the same dollar, NO DEAL.

My standard of living is something I won't compromise on. Everything I value -
everything that makes my life great - including medicine, cuisine, art,
travel, education, and countless other things, requires huge amounts of cheap,
reliable energy.

If these lame energy sources were truly worthwhile, their proponents would
build a startup around it, start making a profit, attract private capital to
expand, and make even larger profits. Notice that in this case, the entire
stream of transactions is 100% voluntary. Everyone involved is free to pursue
their own lives as best they see fit.

Instead, what they clamor for is government handouts, and laws to shackle the
production of energy from sources that actually work. That's totally
involuntary. If you have to force people to accept your new idea, it's no
good. That's because any such forcing prevents people from acting on their own
best judgement (or even having their own best judgement - a mental process
detached from reality does not constitute thought), and pursuing the things
they care about.

~~~
yarrel
> My standard of living is something I won't compromise on.

You can compromise on it or you can lose it entirely.

Your choice, snowflake.

~~~
orangecat
I'll go with none of the above, i.e. nuclear.

------
herf
Bill Gates makes the argument that energy storage is way behind. If you used
all the batteries currently in existence you would only have minutes of
energy, not enough to make it through the night.

~~~
Centigonal
Interesting -- do you think the idea of pumping tons of water up and down a
mountain for long-term, high-capacity energy storage could help bridge that
gap?

~~~
iaw
I've thought about this before but the issues is that the energy is dinged 3
times by inefficiency losses. First when you capture it from the sun(or
whatever), then when you pump it and convert it to potential, then when you
let it out and use it to generate.

They actually already do this to some extent, I think the "St. Lawrence Pump
Station" is one facility.

~~~
snowwindwaves
they already do this a lot more than to some extent, it is quite common.
Batteries have an internal impedance as well which means losses putting energy
in and taking it out. 15% loss on a battery is a reasonable estimate

------
carlisle_
"As a result of this intensive modeling effort, the researchers say they've
discovered that a carefully designed combination of renewable sources – wind
and solar – with batteries and fuel-cell electricity-storage systems could by
2030 supply enough power to keep a large electrical grid fired up 99.9 per
cent of the time, and do so at a cost comparable to today's not-so-renewable
energy grid."

The one thing that worries me is the word 'comparable'. With no prices listed
one Congress's 'comparable' is another Congress's 'unaffordable'. Granted
prices for renewable energy sources should trend downward, as has been the
case, but I'm not sure if lower costs in the future have been accounted for.

More than anything I want this to be true and enough to convince governments
to invest in these technologies. More than that I want people advocating for
renewable energies to speak with more confidence. The article says, "could
provide," why not "CAN provide"? If the ultimate issue is swaying public
opinion why are such things not discussed with more confidence? Granted I know
this seems a little nitpicky but I believe every word counts. Additionally I'm
curious what other people have to say about this.

------
monochromatic
I'd love to see what kinds of silly assumptions they're making about costs for
buildout, solar efficiency improvements, magical new energy storage
technology, etc...

~~~
SideburnsOfDoom
When you read the article, what did you find out on the score?

------
kalleboo
Looking at the paper abstract online, looks like the storage they're building
this theory on are: Hydrogen, "Centralized battery" (Li-ion? not sure), and
Grid-Integrated-Vehicles. Can anyone comment on the feasibility of these in
the real world?

~~~
danielweber
Vehicle-to-grid always strikes me as nutty. People don't want the batteries on
their cars being put under strain to power a building's lights.

Car batteries have much different design constraints than grid back-up
systems.

------
im3w1l
I think 4 years of backtesting is too little. Also sounds like they used the
same data for training and testing.

------
SpikeDad
Holy schnikes. Why are we not doing it?

PS. What do places without wind or sun do? Move?

~~~
bcoates
It assumes 2030 technology that doesn't exist yet. Check back in 18 years,
then we can start the many-decade project of deployment. Pencil in 2080 or so.

------
Tuna-Fish
Three nines reliability. That is appallingly bad.

~~~
jewel
It's not a reliability number. For comparison, right now 31% of California's
energy comes from renewable sources (according to wikipedia).

What 99.9% means is that they'll keep some traditional power generation
mechanisms, like gas turbines, around to fill in when the renewable supply is
not sufficient. That could be because there isn't enough sun or because there
is unusually high demand. The power isn't going to go out.

------
blueprint
It's too bad the natural environment will collapse long before then.

~~~
blueprint
What's the big deal with downvoting heavily someone who tries to inform others
of the reality of the fact? It's because people like me are ignored and
suppressed that this problem is, at this point, pretty much guaranteed not to
be solved.

