How do we get green energy from here to there and at what cost?
Morocco is the ideal place for both wind power and solar power. It is sunny and windy. But how do we get energy from Morocco to where it’s needed? At what cost?
The Wall Street Journal says it’s a New Era of Clean Energy Using Transcontinental Power Lines.
A grandiose project to build a nearly 2,500-mile subsea power line would connect vast wind and solar farms in Morocco to the U.K., providing a reliable supply of electricity to meet a projected boom in demand.
The plan’s architect, Simon Morrish, said it is the U.K.’s best option for clean electricity.
“It was like, well, why is no one doing this?” said Morrish, a former management consultant who also runs a landscaping-services company.
If you seriously ask that question it’s because you can’t think. Nonetheless let’s continue.
Morrish has secured early-stage investment and hired a seasoned team, but his vision faces long odds. He needs to coax subsidies from the U.K. government, raise tens of billions of dollars and secure crucial permits from countries that control the seabed. The plan involves building Scotland’s tallest building—a giant cable factory—and a special ship to lay the lines.
The project nevertheless shows how the electricity map is changing.
The map is changing only because no one is forced to pay for this boondoggle, yet. Any project that needs subsidies to survive is not really viable.
It will take nearly 10,000 miles of cable for four offshore transmission lines—far more than existing suppliers could serve up. So Morrish started a cable-supply company to build a factory, with a tower taller than the Washington Monument, in which colossal cables will be lowered as they are coated in insulation.
The factory’s construction near the Scottish village of Fairlie has been delayed several times. Locals are doubtful it will happen.
Transmission projects can take well over a decade to materialize. In the U.S., the Biden administration is pushing to ease permitting for lines that strengthen the country’s grid, boosting hopes for more projects.
Quebec to NYC and Arizona to California
A 339-mile high-voltage transmission line that is under construction will bring hydropower to New York City from Quebec. A 550-mile line will bring wind power to California and Arizona from New Mexico.
Overseas, Meridiam is the lead investor in the first connection between the U.K. and Germany, and intends to invest in a planned 750-mile power line connecting Greece to Israel, via Cyprus. The project will lower lengths of cable weighing as much as the Eiffel Tower to depths of around 2 miles in the Mediterranean.
“What we are trying is bigger than what has been done before, both in terms of the size of the project and in terms of the amount of electricity we are trying to transmit,” said Pascal Radue, who leads the generation and transmission unit at Nexans, a cable supplier working on the Greece-to-Cyprus first leg of that project.
Here’s Another Beauty
Returning to Morocco …
Morrish has persuaded investors including TotalEnergies, Abu Dhabi’s state-controlled utility company and General Electric’s power-and-wind spinoff to buy into his plan. Xlinks closed a £100 million funding round in April, equivalent to $126 million.
But construction costs alone will be between £22 billion and £24 billion, Xlinks says. The company is talking to the U.K. government about a subsidy that Morrish hopes would spur investments, but those discussions have dragged.
The dream of sending North Africa’s wind and sunshine to Europe isn’t new. An earlier effort, which would have moved power over land, fell through over a decade ago amid infighting between its backers and political turmoil in the region.
“I have absolute confidence it will get done,” Morrish said. “It’s just taking a bit longer than I’d hoped.”
Assume Wild Success
Assume this Morocco project will be a success beyond your wildest dreams.
By that I mean no cost overruns, no regulatory hurdles, and no delays.
The cost will be a mere £22 billion and delivered on time. In US dollars, that’s the equivalent of $27.84 billion.
The UK has ~28.4 million households. That amounts to a charge of about a $980 per household.
But that is just the cost of the lines. It does not reflect the cost of the solar panels or wind turbines, line maintenance, battery storage, or any other details needed to make the scheme work.
And how much clean energy does this provide to the UK?
Drum roll …. about eight percent of UK needs.
This is from one of the best spots on the planet to produce green energy. It would produce perhaps 0.5 percent of US needs and require a big transmission grid upgrade to do so.
Morocco is rated economically and politically stable. But will that always be the case?
Who wouldn’t want to bet the country on Morocco?
“Why is no one doing this?” asked Morrish.
What a hoot!
Net Zero Is a Very Unlikely Outcome
It’s not that wind an solar have no use ever. In the right places they do.
Rather, the idea we are going to power all or even most of our energy needs by 2050 using wind and solar is ridiculous.
Also note that misguided attempts to do so on an impossible to meet schedule are highly inflationary.
Along those lines, please consider Sorry Green Energy Fans, Net Zero Is a Very Unlikely Outcome
Let’s discuss the Kyoto Protocol climate objectives and dozens of reasons why a net zero by the 2050 target has virtually no chance.
The link above is very detailed and it does not come from what people label “climate deniers”.
Please check it out.
why not just use the energy where it is produced? Many manufacturing processes these days are of modular design such that they fit in 40′ containers. Move the plants to Morocco. You don’t move the kingdom to the king, you march the king to the kingdom.
What the flying F.
OK let’s move GM to Morocco and all the drivers of cars there too.
Heck, let’s move all of China to Morocco.
Unless you have not noticed it, a lot of Western presence in China is moving to India or Vietnam. They are taking their factory equipment with them.
https://techdetector.de/stories/portable-factory
https://www.qwant.com/?q=manafacturing+headed+for+india&client=brz-brave&t=web
https://www.qwant.com/?client=brz-brave&q=manafacturing+headed+for+vietnam&t=web
Not all processes qualify, but rest assured the equipment in those buildings are designed to fit a 40′ container. How else would you explain a how ASML chip machinery from the Netherlands ends up in Taiwan for TSMC?
The minuscule EV market in the UK would not justify the billions it would cost to run the power to the UK. Industry is a larger consumer of electricity than the car market.
Would you rather have some Ethiopian working in Morocco or freeloading in London on the taxpayers dime?
“We do things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.” -JFK
Get your head out of the sand.
I haven’t found much on long distance transmission to the tune of 1000 to 2000 miles. But there is economic analysis of shorter distances. From what I have read in other articles, the cost of HVDC transmission is coming down but still costs more than overhead transmission on land. There are benefits and advantages to undersea and underground transmission physically. Undersea transmission seems clear that it can work, but will need government infrastructure support. If it desired enough, it will be paid for. Its just the will and commitment.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544222006168#sec6
6. ConclusionsThis work proposes an alternative energy project with a high voltage direct current electric transmission system through 222 km submarine cables for offshore wind farms. Electrical energy, obtained from wind farms are in Bozcaada and Gokceada (Turkey), will be transmitted it to Istanbul (Turkey). A life-cycle cost analysis, with a cash flow calculation for voltage source converters, shows that this project has a potential for a feasible solution in a developing country in terms of economic profits and environmental terms. Particularly, after the installation of the transmission link is completed, it is expected to make contribution to Turkey for energy supply and security.
No doubt, you would have said the same of the rural electrification program, the Manhattan project, the search for elementary particles using heavy ion colliders and so on. One wonders, given your soi disant wisdom on so much, why are you just blogging to us peons…
So everyone else is delusional. What, precisely are YOUR credentials for the advanced guesswork that you do?
Strawman much?
I don’t know about anybody else but my qualifications are ……..you want me to pay for it……
In addition to the points you made, there is a 3% loss of energy for every 1000km (600 mi.) of transmission line so this 2500 mile line will lose over 12% before arrival.
I have lived off grid for a number of years and if the world wants to move away from fossil fuels, we need something other than solar and wind. I have 7200 watts of solar and 2000 watts of wind turbines with 4 kWh of storage.
In December and January I produce so little solar that I couldn’t run a few light bulbs. There is generally no wind when it’s minus 30 and very little sunlight on short days so a generator is a must have. Even if I had a hundred batteries, the system would slowly die over a period of weeks because there is so little energy produced.
Water storage is useless in cold climates and lithium batteries don’t like cold temperatures. In summer I produce 4 times what I need but can’t store that energy for 6 months.
The arrogance and ignorance of people pushing green technology is the problem. Try living exclusively with solar and wind and you will learn to appreciate the smell of engine exhaust in the winter.
So why are you trying? Because you are both ignorant and arrogant?
If you read his comment you will see that he uses wind and solar to supplement his other energy sources. From lived experience he has found that wind and solar don’t work as the primary energy source in much of the world for much of the time. .
Nope. That isn’t how it reads. He uses other sources to supplement his renewables. What does “living off grid” mean to you?
Don’t be foolish and let me rephrase your complaint.. “I Live Near the Arctic Circle with Polar Bears and / or Walrus…Which very FEW people on the planet do…So MY example is a great basis for comparison.”
Why the put down? The o.p. wasn’t talking about the merits of electricity. He was talking about wind and solar.
Norway gets eighty five per cent of its electricity from Hydro. As a consequence, Norway gets abundant, cheap, dispatchable electricity which encourages electricity usage. In dry years, they have to import electricity. Norway makes his point not yours.
Solar doesn’t work in Ukraine for much of the year and I’m sure even you realize it is pretty far away from the Arctic circle.
Yes, sir. I lived 3 years in an off-grid small home in CO, because the REA didn’t have the $$ to do my area in rural CO. When they were finally able to come to install grid power, I was SO HAPPY!
I still have solar at my home in Mexico, but the daylight hours, angle of the sun, etc, are so much better, and the unsubsidized elec costs so much higher there, that I can get a 2-year paybac( on my house.
Wind and solar are not really the problem. Storage is. Even where gas or coal is the the source, peak demand is always an issue. Much better and simpler solutions exist like pumped storage where excess power is used to pump water from a lower source to a higher resevoir. When need for the stored power is required, the sored water is allowed to run back down through turbines like in any hydro dam. The UK has ample locations for such a system.
I think distributed power like UK to Morrocco is a disaster waiting to happen. A large part of the benefit of wind and solar power is the potential for energy independence. Cables that run across borders open up political and security risks that renewable energy should avoid. Rooftop solar in Germany with battery storage like a friend has, helps insulate his household from the whims of Russia and Opec. On a national level, that should be the same consideration. The costs are now cheaper to do this than setting up new gas or coal generation plants. Undersea cables between countries is a nice concept but a terrible risk that will cause problems down the road.
In Canada we have only 2 or 3 months per year that have no risk of freezing so water storage doesn’t work here.
How many times has Niagara Falls stopped flowing and producing power in the last 100 years?
In additon, this may surprise you:
https://www.hydroreview.com/hydro-industry-news/pumped-storage-hydro/canada-has-more-than-8000-gw-of-pumped-storage-potential/#gref
Reproducing the Niagara Falls at multiple locations to make winter time water storage feasible as an electricity source seems impractical to me.
This is a bunch of silly exaggeration. The VAST majority of Canadians live within 100 Miles of the US Border (160+ Kilometers) in Toronto, Montreal, Ottowa, etc.
I ran a LARGE business unit for a Fortune 500 where our major customer was a huge Canadian company and while it’s colder than the US…the Majority of the Canadian population isn’t hunting Narwhals or fighting off Polar Bears or about to die in Jack London’s “Call of the Wild” / “To Build a Fire”.
Pretending that what is going on in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon where there’s less than 0.32% of the population. That’s ZERO point .32 percent Only One Third of 1%. There’s only 50k Canadians in ALL of the Northwest Territory. NOT who is going to matter in the global switch to Battery Storage and Solar.
Making up problems where there really aren’t any…especially while we KNOW that Norway and Sweden and Finland have already 10X The Electric Vehicles % of Canada is not remotely relevant.
I lived within a hundred miles of the U.S. border. Solar didn’t/couldn’t provide a reliable source in the winter with its extended periods of below zero temperatures which often accompanied by zero wind. Not to mention the snow and ice covering the solar panels everyday during those periods. Removing the snow and ice from a few house panels is doable if inconvenient. Dealing with a thousand panels in a solar farm is a practical impossibility from an economic point of view. Especially when the snow falls as fast as you clean it off.
Assuming that all of North America has the same weather conditions as you experience which is what have posted several times, does merit the otherwise pointless ridicule that you direct to other posters.
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/ip3/nextgenhighways.org.icohttps://nextgenhighways.org › wp-content › uploads › 2023 › 01 › NGH_Buried-HVDC-Cost-Competitive.pdf
PDF Buried High-Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) Transmission is Cost C
Comparing buried to overhead HVDC transmission is difficult since, in recent years, HVDC transmission development has been limited in the U.S. Current estimated costs, however, suggest buried HVDC transmission is roughly two to four times more expensive than overhead HVDC.
Furthermore, for a few reasons, the projected costs of buried HVDC transmission lines is declining: • Converter station costs –which are required to convert DC power to AC– have fallen from $300 million per GW per converter down to a conservatively estimated $200 million per GW per converter. • Installed cable costs have fallen from over $3 million per GW-mile to $1-2 million per GW-mile. The fact that these HVDC projects are in active development suggests a level of project value and cost acceptance from the developers, customers, regulators, and other stakeholders.
Buried HVDC may reduce the need to build new power plants. You may pay more for the buried transmision, but it could save in other ways.
. For example, a single HVDC line may reduce the need to build power plants or local transmission, however, those benefits may not be included in the initial evaluation of project value.
This is just a general article, but does list places where they are spending more on transmission due to expected benefits.
1.) Whether the cost of a buried HVDC transmission project can be offset by the reduction in system costs it will produce, and 2.) Whether burying the HVDC line would provide greater project certainty and faster permitting and siting timeline than a corresponding overhead HVDC project.
Buried HVDC transmission provides a number of important benefits not provided by overhead HVDC transmission. These benefits include:
• Facilitating public acceptance and reducing public opposition, since burying this infrastructure in the publicly-owned ROW means that people do not lose a portion of their private land for energy development and viewsheds are not disrupted
• Accelerating permitting and land acquisition timelines
• Improving project certainty
• Enhancing grid resilience by o mitigating the risks posed by severe weather events (e.g., hurricanes, ice storms, wildfires), for example, in Louisiana Hurricane Laura knocked out all nine transmission lines delivering power into the Lake Charles area of Entergy’s service territory. Hurricane Ida knocked out all eight transmission lines delivering power into New Orleans, leaving the city without power for half a month.
Babcock Ranch in Florida was built to survive a storm It was hit with 80 mph winds from Hurricane Ian with very little damage. Their power stayed on during the whole storm. They have enough solar for a town of 30,000 and have a 10 mw-hr battery system. A lot of the nimby issues could be lessened with buried HVDC tranmission.
protecting the system from geomagnetic disturbances (e.g., solar flares or an electromagnetic pulse attack).
• Significantly reducing land use impacts. Buried HVDC requires approximately onefifth of the ROW space that traditional overhead HVAC requires.
• Removing the electrocution risk for birds and the collision risk for small aircraft
There are efforts to build high voltage transmission from Iowa into the Chicago area. There have been hurdles difficult to overcome in this. A solution the transmission team is looking into is using railroad land to bury transmission cable on. It bypasses all the naysayers in the process. The Railroad would like the extra income out of this.
Key Takeaways
• While current projected project costs for buried HVDC transmission are greater than overhead HVAC transmission, buried HVDC has the potential to be a better investment for consumers, when the full set of costs and benefits are considered.
• As the underground HVDC projects referenced above are placed in-service, NextGen Highways will conduct additional costs analysis in comparison with HVAC projects.
Given that everything is fake https://fasteddynz.substack.com/p/what-if/comment/58515132 I wonder if this project is even real… if any money has been invested… (Jeff Green may have made turned his million dollar EV fleet into a few hundred thousand selling it before it goes to zero … and dumped the cash into this project)
Or maybe a pittance has been allocated towards the project — to create the perception that we can use tech to solve the problems… (we can’t … it’s TOO EXPENSIVE)…
This ties into the https://fasteddynz.substack.com/p/the-three-pillars-of-bullshit
Every mile of cable in international waters is at risk of being sabotaged.
Yes. Anything can be sabotaged. Underwater electric cables are just one more thing. There are 900,000 miles of internet cable criss-crossing the oceans. And satellites are good targets. And nuclear power plants.etc etc. But the threat of sabotage s a poor reason to not build these things.
We can probably do without a few internet cables since network traffic can easily be re-routed and the economy doesn’t collapse if you can’t access European internet sites from North America.
You can’t reroute electricity and the economy (not to mention people’s lives) tend to depend on it so losing those cables matters.
You should never rely on anything you can’t easily defend (ie within your nations borders or you are next to the country you are getting it from and they are highly reliable like US-Canada).
You should never rely on one thing. That’s why you have alternate sources, and backup plans. That’s one reason I like all forms of energy. And a lot of cooperation between nations.
And gas and oil pipelines are somehow immune sabotage? Or is your opinion colored by the fact that you seem to be in TX?
You clearly don’t know how things work…Texas continually fails on its grid because it is NOT well interconnected. While I am a BIG fan of Texas and was born there…the concept that a country can only depend on things within its borders (or next door neighbors) is a foolish notion.
As someone who has worked on environmental statements, the one thing we talk about is why nobody comments on dead birds and insects. Unreal, killing of insect killers (birds) is dismissed, and yes raptors. OK, its real, I’m stupid. Thankful that Gates is supporting a new generation nuclear reactor in Wyoming. As a bird lover, I’m thankful someone realizes that birds need to be saved.
The entire animal, bird, fish etc world is being decimated. Vertebrates (mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, amphibians) down 69% since 1970.
In Latin America and the Caribbean, down 94%.
Exactly, these people are two-faced bullshitters. They cry about birds and insects dying supposedly because of wind turbines and think nothing of the rest of the things we do on this earth that wipes out the living organisms. Bird lover my ass. I’m pretty sure these people love nuclear power as long as the true costs are not factored in.
Domestic cats kill an estimated 1.3-4.0 billion birds annually in the United States.
Collisions with buildings, especially those with lots of glass, kill from 100 million to 1 billion birds each year in the United States.
In addition to the Hydro Quebec tie in. NYS just started up the South Fork Wind Project off of Long Island, just south of Block Island. 10 turbines at 13.5 MW each. We will get max 71 MW out of this project, when the wind blows. NYS rate payers are paying $1Billion for this 71 MW. That needs active back up as the 71 MW isn’t guaranteed. Over the life of the project the rate payers will pay $1.65 Billion. Know how many gas plants we could build for a Billion Dollars? Almost three – 300 MW plants
Natural gas is very cheap right now. $2.50 natgas is equivalent to $15 oil. We should be using a lot more natgas in the US for power generation.
But I don’t mind if they keep building more renewables as well. I like ALL energy sources other than coal.
The Champlain Hudson Express that you mentioned in the article to bring 1000 MW from Hydro Quebec to Queens NY is under construction. This was Cuomo’s math to replace the 1800 MW from Indian Point that he ordered shutdown. Yes, only in NY does 1800 = 1000. The kicker is that Hydro Quebec does not have a spare 1000 MW of generation available. And they have also contracted with Boston for a similar size export. So, all this money spent and there might not be power available to sell. Unless Hydro Quebec fires up coal and oil fired generators
Strange. Hydro Quebec claims to have plenty of power to satisfy both contracts and was hoping to sign an additional agreement with New Hampshire as well, but it fell through.
Don’t believe this for a second. And put Battery Storage somewhere near the source and you can cover any peak demand using stored energy. This isn’t a problem.
Glad you are thinking about this. There is no easy answer and we are all.probably be going to be killed. But now look at hydrogen.
We have been looking at hydrogen for 50 years. It will remain a niche market.
Yes, Hydrogen powers the Sun…it provides Solar Energy…we use Solar Energy…Store it in Batteries. Thanks Hydrogen!
First, there are ALREADY several Undersea Cables shipping electricity between the North Atlantic Countries (Norway, UK, Belgium, etc.)
Using Wind or Hydro Power for generation.
This seems like an OVERLY long distance solution from Morocco.
They should be able to put plenty of Solar in Spain and there’s a much shorter cable needed there, Spain has plenty of Sun and low value desert areas that are not good for growing crops or other significant uses.
Guessing these particular cherry picked, long distance plans are getting some major incentives and don’t really have anything to do with what’s the best way to do this. Because MOST Solar and Wind generated electricity is short haul near population centers, within 100 miles or so.
Battery Storage is ramping up rapidly over the last couple of years and will make some of these extreme distance electricity shipments (as well as Coal and OIL) irrelevant. Sorry Coal people…the time is passing rapidly in the developed world.
If Morocco (or any African Country) wants to ship Electricity, it should do so to the Southern Coasts of Europe. Very short and very simple, relatively speaking. On site Battery Storage near the delivery and / or usage points solves the need for much of the generation.
And Batteries ARE recyclable for those Fossil Fuels FUDsters out there. They’re also getting cheaper and more prevalent as the industry grows rapidly.
Cheers!
China is likely to hit peak coal in 2024. Coal use should begin to drop in China because of the huge amount of renewables they are adding.
Ya think they will be able to ditch coal? https://www.statista.com/statistics/302233/china-power-generation-by-source/
What about the intermittency issues… how do you run a factory at night when there is no electricity being generated?
Hydro-electric power dumbass. Also look into pumped storage hydroelectricity. That’s just one idea. You’re not an engineer obviously so you could never figure out alternatives to what you are told to think.
But we’ve already installed dams on all the major rivers….
I know!!! Let’s blast man made tubes into the ground on the oceans and direct the water through turbines… into the centre of the Earth!!!
I will raise a fund for this – you wanna invest? I can provide my bank account info
No, you’re a moron. A huge percentage of US energy comes from hydroelectricity. You also obviously have no ability to understand what pumped storage hydroelectricity is, which can act as energy storage and release to balance the difference between generation and demand variability.
Of course I have heard of that… I have also heard of things like thorium… remember the guy who ran a car on water then Exxon killed him???
I have even heard of this – my favourite https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20181119-why-flammable-ice-could-be-the-future-of-energy
My money is on flammable ice!!! hahahahaha funny how you read these hopium stories every so often yet they never come to fruition.
Never. Cuz they are fed to you so you don’t panic
I check cnnbbc regularly to see what idiocy they are planting in the brains of the herd of imbeciles that believe the MSM exists to inform.
Pumped storage is not happening … because it’s too expensive etc… see the Disadvantages https://renewablesadvice.com/energy/pumped-storage-hydropower/
And btw — even if we could generate all of our electricity from hydro (we cannot come even remotely close globally)…
Did you know that nearly half of oil and gas is used in creating petro chemicals for farming … plastics etc…
The reality is … we are totally dependent on fossil fuels … and we’ve burned up most of the affordable stuff.
No. In the US about 65% of all OIL / Petroleum Distillate are used for Transportation. Mostly Ground Transportation.
That will, of course, decrease slowly and then dramatically and mostly go away as EVs become the dominant type of vehicle in both Commercial and Private Transportation.
The Industrial part of OIL will also begin to go away as things are converted too.
Gas will last much longer…but can also be highly replaced as plastics get cut back.
Yep. But it will obviously take a long time. The point is that 2024 will likely be peak coal in China. They are building so many renewables each year, that coal use will start to drop. Yes, they are still building more efficient new coal plants, while they are simultaneously decommissioning old, inefficient plants. But coal is destined to be base load and backup in China to supplement their renewables.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/11/01/china-coal-energy-environment-climate-change-policy-fossil-fuel/#:~:text=Coal%20has%20long%20reigned%20over,output%20has%20begun%20to%20fall.
https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/china-coal-plants
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-monthly-drop-hints-that-chinas-co2-emissions-may-have-peaked-in-2023/
Oh how cool is that! China can follow Germany and have hugely expensive power and drive industries elsewhere hahahaha
German energy prices are so high they’re driving companies to relocate, industry body says https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/21/high-german-energy-prices-are-seeing-some-companies-relocate-bdi.html
GO CHINA GO!!!
Why Germany’s nuclear phaseout is leading to more coal burning
Between 2011 and 2015 Germany will open 10.7 GW of new coal fired power stations. This is more new coal coal capacity than was constructed in the entire two decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The expected annual electricity production of these power stations will far exceed that of existing solar panels and will be approximately the same as that of Germany’s existing solar panels and wind turbines combined. Solar panels and wind turbines however have expected life spans of no more than 25 years. Coal power plants typically last 50 years or longer. At best you could call the recent developments in Germany’s electricity sector contradictory. https://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2015/06/06/why-germanys-nuclear-phaseout-is-leading-to-more-coal-burning/
Germany Runs Up Against the Limits of Renewables
Even as Germany adds lots of wind and solar power to the electric grid, the country’s carbon emissions are rising. Will the rest of the world learn from its lesson? After years of declines, Germany’s carbon emissions rose slightly in 2015, largely because the country produces much more electricity than it needs. That’s happening because even if there are times when renewables can supply nearly all of the electricity on the grid, the variability of those sources forces Germany to keep other power plants running. And in Germany, which is phasing out its nuclear plants, those other plants primarily burn dirty coal. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601514/germany-runs-up-against-the-limits-of-renewables/
Germany put themselves in a foolish position and trusted the Russians…and got screwed by TWO of their former Prime Ministers who prematurely shut down their nuclear…one got a Gazprom Board Seat…nothing “Sketchy” there! Bahaha!
They’re now paying for that foolishness / corruption currently…but will continue to move away from Russian OIL and Gas Dependence. It will take a couple more years for them to get Battery Storage and LNG Gas and other things to help stabilize energy prices…but they will absolutely get off the OIL faster than they planned before.
Europe just learned a lesson about trusting Russia for much of anything.
I like it how when faced with hard facts … most humans just make shit up.
Did you read the articles? If you did then what is wrong with you? You need help.
The reason they are building coal plants is because when the sun is not shining and the wind not blowing … there is NO ELECTRICITY PRODUCED.
But factories and people want electricity – 24/7. And they do not want expensive electricity … as we are seeing if it’s expensive industry packs up and leaves…
So you need to get that electricity somewhere.
With coal (or nuclear or gas or whatever) powered plants … you cannot just flip on a switch when the sun goes down… they have run 24/7….
So what happens is you end up operating two power generating systems… the fake renewable one that works when it’s sunny/windy…. and the real one … that is fired with coal.
Surely you are capable of understanding that operating two systems… increases the cost of your electricity????
Surely that is not too difficult to understand.
And there is no solution to that … because if you tried to store the intermittent electricity from the fake renewable system… the cost of the batteries would be insanely high….
Which of course would drive power costs to businesses and homes even higher….
I’ve tried to explain this as one would if one was invited to present to a grade 3 class… I can’t make it any simpler….
However if you have any questions let me know… I am here to help
Yep. And I replied with references. But you will have to wait for it. It’s awaiting approval.
People who drive EVs and believe solar and wind power is renewable… are suffering from Mental Illness.
Discuss
Lol! Let me know when the sun will stop shining, all wind will stop blowing, all rivers will stop flowing, waves will stop, tides will stop, etc.
Mankind has been taking advantage of all these things for centuries. Only morons would think otherwise.
Pretty much ALL energy on Earth is originally based on Solar. All Fossil Fuels were produced originally from Organic Matter. The Fact that the Earth has a livable temperature is thanks to the Sun and the MASSIVE amount of Energy that hits the earth every single day. The Earth would be a Frozen Ball of Ice and Dirt without it. This isn’t a question of Solar and Wind being sufficient…It’s a matter of implementation…and conversion of most of the OIL and Coal usage to Electricity / Battery Storage.
The $2.5 trillion reason we can’t rely on batteries to store energy
Fluctuating solar and wind power require lots of energy storage, and lithium-ion batteries seem like the obvious choice—but they are far too expensive to play a major role.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611683/the-25-trillion-reason-we-cant-rely-on-batteries-to-clean-up-the-grid/
“To provide most of our power through renewables would take hundreds of times the amount of rare earth metals that we are mining today,” according to Thomas Graedel at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies.
So renewable energy resources like windmills and solar PV can not ever replace fossil fuels, there’s not enough of many essential minerals to scale this technology up.
http://energyskeptic.com/2014/high-tech-cannot-last-rare-earth-metals/
Pumped hydro storage generates power by using electrically powered turbines to move water from a lower level at night uphill to a reservoir above.
During daylight hours when electricity demand is higher, the water is released to flow back downhill to spin electrical turbines. Locations must have both high elevation and space for a reservoir above an existing body of water.
Pumped hydro uses roughly 20–30 % more energy than it produces, with more electricity required to pump the water uphill than is generated when it goes downhill. Nonetheless, pumped hydro enables load shifting, and is important to balance wind and solar power.
Appearances can be deceiving: Pumped hydro is not a Rube Goldberg scheme. Many of you have used a kilowatt or two of pumped hydro yourself. PHS accounts for over 98 % of what little current energy storage exists in the United States, and is the only kind of commercial storage that can provide sustained power over 12 hours (typically, the other 12 hours are spent pumping the water up).
Existing PHS facilities store terawatts of power annually, but account for less than 2 % of annual U.S. power generation. In 2018, the United States had 22.9 gigawatts (GW) of pumped storage hydroelectric generating capacity, compared with 79.9 GW of conventional hydroelectric capacity. This isn’t likely to increase much, since like hydroelectric dams, there are few places to put PHS. Only two have been built since 1995, for a grand total of 43 in the U.S., with most of the technically attractive sites already used (Hassenzahl 1981).
PUNCHLINE:
Most were built between 1960 and 1990; nearly half of the pumped storage capacity still in operation was built in the 1970s (EIA 2019).
https://energyskeptic.com/2019/pumped-hydro-storage-phs/
It’s not as if they have not tried to replace fossil fuels… it’s just that fossil fuels are energy dense and up until recently very cheap… so they cannot be replaced.
Battery Storage is ALREADY being used in many location to stop intermittency. This isn’t Rocket Science. Batteries are way better than Coal, less polluting and highly recyclable.
Yes I have a drill with a battery….
The $2.5 trillion reason we can’t rely on batteries to store energy
Fluctuating solar and wind power require lots of energy storage, and lithium-ion batteries seem like the obvious choice—but they are far too expensive to play a major role.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611683/the-25-trillion-reason-we-cant-rely-on-batteries-to-clean-up-the-grid/
Yep…whenever they hit “Peak Coal” it will become more and more obvious that Coal has run its course. It will still take many years to get them off of Coal completely…but they will definitely take advantage of Renewables, Battery Storage and EV’s to wean off of imported OIL and Coal.
Don’t you love it when people behave like cockatoos and spew whatever they hear on cnnbbc … no questions asked?
I like to ask questions https://www.businessinsider.com/why-its-so-hard-to-recycle-electric-car-batteries-2021-9
Henry Blodget from Business Insider just hates Elon and anything he does and will have his team write almost anything to get clicks. It’s a shame because they could be much more useful as a “news” source. They chase clicks and aren’t a serious publication.
What does this have to do with Musk? (I like how you refer to him as Elon … as if he is your mate)
An electric-car battery can weigh thousands of pounds. As more electric cars hit the road, the race is on to find a sustainable way to deal with these batteries once they die. One startup uses a high-tech shredding system to recycle battery waste. But it can’t recover all the valuable metals from it just yet.
BTW – Why most plastic can’t be recycled
With only 9% of annual plastic waste recycled, the myth that we can recycle our way out of a mounting plastic pollution crisis doesn’t add up.
https://www.dw.com/en/why-most-plastic-cant-be-recycled/a-64978847
Seems recycling plastic would be a whole lot easier than recycling a complex battery …. yet after decades of trying … we still can’t recycle most plastics….
Say hi to Elon next time you see him… tell him Fast Eddy says he’s a fraud and that he’s nothing more than the false messiah foisted upon us to make us believe the future is awesome
One thing is certain. The world needs more energy every year if we want continued economic growth and improved living standards worldwide.
Every year, more and more of that increasing energy is coming from renewables. And yet, it is still not enough to meet the entire annual growth in energy needs. So we continue to use MORE fossil fuels each and every year.
Which means more emissions, more global warming, and hopefully, more profits from my oil and gas investments.
I applaud ALL new energy, including renewables. But as I discovered two years ago, renewables are still not investable. I bought a few shares of 20 different renewable companies and followed their progress. Only one of them was a winner (LIN). The rest were pretty much write offs.
So I continue to focus on oil and gas companies. Most of which have been huge winners over the last 4 years.
Mish is correct. We cannot run the world on renewables by 2050. Maybe 2150.
And we will likely be using more fossil fuels in 2050 than we are today.
However, the result will not be pleasant. Global warming and climate change are going to cost us a lot in both economic and human terms. Which is NOT anything to cheer about.
Kool-aid anyone? It’ll help you beat the heat.
No thanks. You can keep drinking it.
nailed it… these clowns do not deal in reality https://www.statista.com/statistics/273273/world-electricity-generation-by-energy-source/
I gotta urinate on your parade… I’m up here on the 15th floor taking a piss as you walk past … https://www.statista.com/statistics/273273/world-electricity-generation-by-energy-source/
Lol! Your stats completely agree with what I stated.
What exactly did you think you were saying?
I was saying that pretend renewable energy (I fail to see how solar and wind are renewable… the devices degrade and they don’t grow on trees)… represents next to zero in terms of our energy supply… therefore a transition is impossible…
Like this
Replacement of oil by alternative sources
While oil has many other important uses (lubrication, plastics, roadways, roofing) this section considers only its use as an energy source. The CMO is a powerful means of understanding the difficulty of replacing oil energy by other sources. SRI International chemist Ripudaman Malhotra, working with Crane and colleague Ed Kinderman, used it to describe the looming energy crisis in sobering terms.[13]
Malhotra illustrates the problem of producing one CMO energy that we currently derive from oil each year from five different alternative sources. Installing capacity to produce 1 CMO per year requires long and significant development.
Allowing fifty years to develop the requisite capacity, 1 CMO of energy per year could be produced by any one of these developments:
4 Three Gorges Dams,[14] developed each year for 50 years, or
52 nuclear power plants,[15] developed each year for 50 years, or
104 coal-fired power plants,[16] developed each year for 50 years, or
32,850 wind turbines,[17][18] developed each year for 50 years, or
91,250,000 rooftop solar photovoltaic panels[19] developed each year for 50 years
The world consumes approximately 3 CMO annually from all sources. The table [10] shows the small contribution from alternative energies in 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil
Good strategy. Ignore the recent stats that you posted that prove my point and find something useless from 2006 instead!
That was even before the iphone came out. And before the big growth in renewables. Lol!
We agree on “one” thing. It is “difficult” to replace fossil fuels. Which is a big part of my investment thesis. Perhaps you have never read any of my hundreds of posts for the last 4 years that discuss that fact.
But it is not impossible. Which is where we disagree. China is growing renewables so quickly now that they will begin to reduce their coal consumption next year.
China installed 87 GW of solar in 2022 and 217 GW in 2023. Their total so far is 609 GW of solar. The US has a total of 175 GW.
Same for wind. 441 GW total vs 148 GW in the US.
And China keeps accelerating the pace of their buildout; up 37% in Q1 2024 compared to Q1 2023.
China’s goal was 1200 GW of renewable capacity by 2030. They are already at 1300 GW.
As this pace of renewables growth continues it disproves your “belief” that it can’t be done.
Renewable energy ‘simply won’t work’: Top Google engineers
Two highly qualified Google engineers who have spent years studying and trying to improve renewable energy technology have stated quite bluntly that whatever the future holds, it is not a renewables-powered civilisation: such a thing is impossible.
Both men are Stanford PhDs, Ross Koningstein having trained in aerospace engineering and David Fork in applied physics. These aren’t guys who fiddle about with websites or data analytics or “technology” of that sort: they are real engineers who understand difficult maths and physics, and top-bracket even among that distinguished company.
Even if one were to electrify all of transport, industry, heating and so on, so much renewable generation and balancing/storage equipment would be needed to power it that astronomical new requirements for steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage etc etc would appear.
All these things are made using mammoth amounts of energy: far from achieving massive energy savings, which most plans for a renewables future rely on implicitly, we would wind up needing far more energy, which would mean even more vast renewables farms – and even more materials and energy to make and maintain them and so on. The scale of the building would be like nothing ever attempted by the human race.
In reality, well before any such stage was reached, energy would become horrifyingly expensive – which means that everything would become horrifyingly expensive (even the present well-under-one-per-cent renewables level in the UK has pushed up utility bills very considerably).
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/
Renewables make up 30% of Electricity Production in 2022…According to Your chart.
(Solar, Wind, Hydro, Bio)
Just 12 years before that in 2010 they only made up 19%
That is a 50% increase in just 12 Years. And it
They’re growing much FASTER now in pure total Gigawatts Installed every year.
The chart YOU referenced proves that Renewables are GROWING fast and will continue to accelerate.
Solar and Wind and Hydro are Renewable because you don’t need to BURN them to produce energy.
The Sun Shines on Earth Every Day.
The Wind Blows in Windy Areas most days,
the Water Flows in most areas that use Hydro Every Day.
THAT is what makes them renewable.
Solar panels last 30 years+.
Dams last 50 Years+
Windmills can last decades.
Oil and Gas are burned EVERY DAY you need new, non-renewable Fossil Fuels EVERY DAY, it never ends unless they’re replaced.
The drills and pumps and pipelines and Tankers and Tanker Trucks and Wells for OIL & Gas wear out too. A LOT faster than Solar.
This is NOT Rocket Science. Renewables will continue to replace Fossil Fuels…and do so at a faster and faster rate in terms of Total Energy. Plus Battery Storage is replacing much of the need for additional generation during Peak Evening Hours.
How much does wind and solar comprise?
Because we are not going to see any increases in hydro unless we magically create new rivers….
As for batteries…
The $2.5 trillion reason we can’t rely on batteries to store energy
Fluctuating solar and wind power require lots of energy storage, and lithium-ion batteries seem like the obvious choice—but they are far too expensive to play a major role.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611683/the-25-trillion-reason-we-cant-rely-on-batteries-to-clean-up-the-grid/
The thing with trusting bbccnn… is that they are lying to you … therefore you are easily made to look like a fool when you repeat the lies … and a great white shark like Fast Eddy … is in the area….
Now I am going to dump a bucket of shit on your parade:
“To provide most of our power through renewables would take hundreds of times the amount of rare earth metals that we are mining today,” according to Thomas Graedel at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. So renewable energy resources like windmills and solar PV can not ever replace fossil fuels, there’s not enough of many essential minerals to scale this technology up. http://energyskeptic.com/2014/high-tech-cannot-last-rare-earth-metals/
Renewable Penetration https://gailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/iea-primary-energy-suppy-1973-and-2015.png
Renewable Energy’s $2.5 Trillion Problem https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611683/the-25-trillion-reason-we-cant-rely-on-batteries-to-clean-up-the-grid/
Renewable energy ‘simply won’t work’: Top Google engineers
Two highly qualified Google engineers who have spent years studying and trying to improve renewable energy technology have stated quite bluntly that whatever the future holds, it is not a renewables-powered civilisation: such a thing is impossible.
Both men are Stanford PhDs, Ross Koningstein having trained in aerospace engineering and David Fork in applied physics. These aren’t guys who fiddle about with websites or data analytics or “technology” of that sort: they are real engineers who understand difficult maths and physics, and top-bracket even among that distinguished company.
Even if one were to electrify all of transport, industry, heating and so on, so much renewable generation and balancing/storage equipment would be needed to power it that astronomical new requirements for steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage etc etc would appear.
All these things are made using mammoth amounts of energy: far from achieving massive energy savings, which most plans for a renewables future rely on implicitly, we would wind up needing far more energy, which would mean even more vast renewables farms – and even more materials and energy to make and maintain them and so on.
The scale of the building would be like nothing ever attempted by the human race.
In reality, well before any such stage was reached, energy would become horrifyingly expensive – which means that everything would become horrifyingly expensive (even the present well-under-one-per-cent renewables level in the UK has pushed up utility bills very considerably).
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/
Yep. And 30 years ago “experts” said that we will never be able to economically extract shale oil unless oil went to $200/bbl. Which was possible, because we were about to run out of oil. Surprise! Shale oil breakeven is now $45 and Canadian oil sands breakeven is $30.
You should call up China and tell them that what they are doing is impossible so they should stop. I’m sure they will listen to you.
Lol! You should stop pissing into the wind and shitting all over yourself. Though I do find it funny.
His Charts show:
Solar Going UP at a Fast Rate!
Wind Going UP at a Fast Rate!
Coal usage going down on this chart.
What’s NOT shown is that Battery Storage going UP at an even Faster Rate than renewables Production. That removes some of the need for “Peak Energy Demand for Production”. Store the Solar, Wind or Other Production in Batteries…use it during Peak Demand.
As this continues, Coal usage in the Developed World will continue to plummet even faster.
Cheers!
“Any project that needs subsidies to survive is not really viable.”
Guess oil, coal and natural gas don’t work as energy grid sources either, then…
Nonsense. Oil/NG reserves have made countries and states rich. How did OPEC and Norway become wealthy? How is Russia financing its war of aggression? How did Texas, ND, OK, LA, PA, AK, and other states become rich? The domestic oil/NG industry is a cash cow to the federal and state governments.
“war of aggression”. No. War to stop America from using Ukraine as part of its decades-long plot to vivisect Russia.
Hold still little fishy. All I’m going to do is gut you.
The Ukraine War is FakeI can prove ithttps://fasteddynz.substack.com/p/the-ukraine-war-is-fake
Stop the silliness. The Military Industrial Complex is making TONS of money off of shipping out OLD shite that would need to be retired / destroyed to Ukraine and then overcharging the US Military for newer, much more expensive replacement equipment and Weapons Systems.
This is a great chance to ship out the old warehouses and parking lots full of Tanks and Vehicles and Artillery Shells and get shiny brand new ones.
Did you read my article….
The punchline:
Riddle me this…
Russia continues to supply gas to the EU and the NATO countries that are supposedly fuelling the Ukrainian war effort. Surely all that Putin would have to do to get his way would be to throttle back the gas supply for a week or two and drive prices through the roof.
This would without a doubt trigger mass protests across the EU as inflation would rip higher forcing NATO to abandon their coked-up front man, Zelensky. But nope, they are in discussions to renew their contract with Gazprom.
EDIT: Breaking News!!!
Russia Reclaims Its Position as Europe’s Top Gas Supplier
Big Oil pays massive taxes…https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/How-much-Tax-does-Big-Oil-Actually-Pay.html
Not nearly as much as they should for all the HARM and Destruction they cause. Don’t think that Halliburton and BIG OIL didn’t have a MAJOR role in IRAQ War #2. There’s Trillions of Dollars spent at the behest of BIG OIL to take out competing OIL Producers and drive prices higher.
Healthcare costs from Pollution from Ground Transportation also in the TRILLIONS of Dollars. This isn’t remotely what they get…and they get sweetheart deals from State and Federal Land that they drill on.
Why do you have a problem with the Iraq war?
The way the world works is everyone wants to live large like Americans… but resources are finite…
So you have to fight and take the resources from others… or some other country will.
And if you sit back and sing KOOMbaya … your fantastic lifestyle will soon resemble that of a Somalian…. as China and Russia kick your teeth in…
Over to jack for a rant on this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk
At the EXPENSE of the Population. Wars and Destruction and evironmental harm and health issues can medical costs and political bribes enable massive profits…without the Oil Companies paying for the externalities they cause.
Said fossil fuel production is all either currently subsidized or was in the past. Also all transmission infrastructure. I mean, just look at how governments bend over backwards to lower gas prices, all at the cost to the environment for future generations (which is of course a form of subsidy itself).
Anyway, why can’t it be the same with solar? Subsidize building it out, then collect profit to make the state rich?
Long distance cables are useful and USA needs more. Yet the cost required suggest it best to wait fifty years for room temperature semiconductors that would save 6% of power lost in transmission. Meanwhile we should rely on more distributed generation with clean, inexpensive, natural gas.
I heard that cold temperatures reduce power lost… maybe we could install insulation and chillers on the cables? Technology is so amazing – we can do anything (sarc)
Well, Mish this is your opinion but not really very realistic unless you compare with some alternatives. For example Nord Stream 1 cost about $11B and is less than half the distance between UK/Morocco. Since Grazpon finance a big chuck of it then I know it was subsidized. That pipe provided about %40 of Germany’s need for gas. Germany’s energy mix is about %12 gas so Germany only gets about %5 from Nord Stream of its mix. A pipeline is as vulnerable as a cable in case of war isn’t it? Yet you were all in favor of Nord Stream 2. So what’s up with that? The reality is that when you transition from one technology to another is never a step function. The world transition from wood burning to coal in time, from coal to gas again in time. So yes I expect the same here there will be a mix of energy sources and coal, gas and oil are on the way out even if you luddites don’t like it. BTW ALL sources of energy are subsidized in all countries.
The EU was poised to readily take NG.
And Russia could supply all of Europe.
Here we are talking double the money, not counting windmills or panels for just 8% of the supply for the UK.
In short, it’s idiotic
As I said it is only %5 of Germany’s gas needs with Nord Stream 1. Also like I said the distance is close to have. How much would a gas pipe line between Russia and the UK cost? Please compare apples to apples
Hey!!! Instead of freezing LNG and loading it onto those expensive tankers… why not just build a pipeline across the Atlantic and pump the LNG to Europe!!!!
Surely technology can prevail?
Of course there is the cost…
Yes it is … except that the morons think it’s brilliant… but then that is why they are morons … that is a symptom of moronism
Relying on the Russians for Strategic Resources like OIL and Gas is what is idiotic. They tried to blackmail Germany…and they bribed their former Prime Minister with a Gazprom Director Position. Nothing “Sketchy” there!
High voltage transmission loss (@33kV) is about 1% per 100km. There is a reason no one has long-range power redistribution: without cheap room-temperature superconductors it is a stupid idea. Full stop.
Or HVDC is about %3 per 1000Km. The distance between Morocco and the UK is about 3000Km. So total losses of about %9. So no you don’t need “cheap room-temperature superconductors” BTW there no cheap or expensive room-temperature superconductors. JFYI
You stole my idea!!! I was going to put together a fund to build a system to freeze the cables and reduce power loss… damn you!!!
I really hate the term “green” energy. Hydrocarbon energy is actually the green energy, since life on earth THRIVES on CO2. “Green” also implies that they aren’t bad for the environment. Tell that to all the dead birds and whales from wind turbines.
This is not a bright comment.
Correct. There are a lot of dumb f*ck cultists here.
Yes, you are.
Says the guy who drives a Tesla … and thinks it grew on a tree. hahahahaha
Fossil Fuels FUDster propaganda. Whales are NOT killed by wind turbines…please stop with the Exxon Mobile school of lies. NOTHING green about poisoning the air, water and land with the toxic burning of OIL / Gasoline / Diesel / Coal and Gas. Never has been…never will be. Carcinogenic and will kill you slowly or quickly…depending on how much of it you’re breathing in on a regular basis.
And the alternative is???
Solar, Wind, Hydro, Batteries.
Already replacing the ICE vehicles in Norway at Scale 80%+ EVs and Sweden, Denmark, Finland and other Parts of Europe are following along at 30% to 50%.
The Chinese are already replacing nearly 50% of all New Vehicle Sales with a plug-in. Which means that the largest Auto Market BY FAR is switching rapidly to EVs.
There’s probably about 17 MILLION EVs that will be sold this year Globally…that’s larger than the ENTIRE US Auto Market. Pretending that the change isn’t already underway is just silly.
Mish wrote “Rather, the idea we are going to power all or even most of our energy needs by 2050 using wind and solar is ridiculous.”
The intelligent Greens knows that, so a big part of accomplishing their goals is the Buddhist technique of reducing our needs to fit under what is available.
(Meanwhile, we can worriedly contemplate whether their further plans are a mix of Trofim Lysenko, the Great Leap Forward, and Dr. Paul Erhlich, where they aren’t bothered that people might need to die in order to save the planet.)
When we say Reducing Our Needs we’re talking about the peasant class.
Bill Gates et al aren’t gonna reduce 1 iota of their luxury lifestlye.
Nor is anyone else
Switching from Incandescent to LED’s. Heat Pumps, Better Insulation, Better Building Codes for Energy Efficiency. More Solar panels on houses, etc. There is LESS overall energy needed per person, when you use more efficient products and appliances, etc.
“The intelligent Greens knows that, so a big part of accomplishing their goals is the Buddhist technique of reducing our needs to fit under what is available”
Huge emphasis “OUR” “needs. As determined by THEM.
As for their own needs, Al Gore “needs” his own jet to fly his imbecile self around in. And the “pretend to be tough statesmen” idiot-classes “need” to be able to bomb any random kid around the world that they entirely arbitrarily deem and hold and find is a scary hobgoblinist.
30% of the Electricity produced in the World is Renewables (Solar, Wind, Hydro & Bio) as of 2022. (It’s going up again in both 2023 and 2024)
That’s UP more than 50%+ since 2010, when 19% of Electricity was Renewable.
MORE stuff of many types is powered by Electricity and Batteries NOW than in 2010 by a good measure. (EV’s, Stoves, Hot water, etc.)
The rate of change of moving to Electricity away from Fossil Fuels to Renewables and Batteries is accelerating and will continue to do so. Battery Storage at Grid Scale means LESS Generation is needed during Peak Demand Hours (Less Peaker Plants needed). Plus more and more people are adding Solar and Battery Storage and that means LESS Production is needed for those people…and they can provide power back to the Grid through VPPs.
Cheers!
Scammers and commisionists looking for government subsidies. The great bussines of our times.
The left has control so cost and viability are not on the table. The left can always fund another study to demonstrate the feasibility of its Utopian energy future. Any disagreements with the left are dismissed with arrogance, lies of omission, and save the earth appeal.
And yet, right leaning Texas has gone big time into wind energy. As Mish has said, in certain situations, it can work. Just sayin’
Wind power has been a net disaster for TX. In the peak of hot summer afternoons, the wind hardly blows so that wind power barely produces. TX must have full backup of NG plants to compensate for the lack of wind at the time of peak power demand.
And in Texas, there exists both the political will and community support for NG power. Texas likes energy: all kinds. Wind has not been a net disaster in Texas. It may not be the full proof alternative but having the wind capacity, even if not a 24-7 source of power hardly makes it a disaster. I think Texas is going right. Wind energy as an additive source power!
Texas is doing GREAT with Wind…better than anyone in the US. And doing great with Solar too. They just need to add more Battery Storage and catch up with California and they will remove / reduce some of their need during Peak Hours.
US Battery Storage will almost DOUBLE this year in 2024. Virtual Power Plants (VPPs) are also helping solve the Peak Demand issues.
Where do you get your info? The Texas Comptroller reports say wind power has been a huge success for Texas. It currently accounts for over 25% of Texas electricity and they are continuing to expand it. Add in solar and over 37% of electricity is from renewables.
Nope. Just need Battery Backup to have the Solar and Wind Stored when it DOES blow and DOES shine. This is ALREADY Happening and they’re producing more Wind than Anyone…not exactly matching with your fable.
More importantly what happens when Morocco decides it no longer wants to send power to the UK but rather wants to keep it for itself or sell somewhere else? Then you have a big expensive power cable doing nothing. It’s nothing more than swapping dependence on Russian gas for Moroccan wind/sun.
The other thing no one talks about is that all these power cables in the pictures above are extremely vulnerable in any kind of military conflict. They assume that peace will reign forever which is highly unlikely.
Yes, the bribery case is obvious.
“are extremely vulnerable in any kind of military conflict”
Exactly. How hard is it to drag an anchor from a ship and tear the thing in two? Then the UK has no power for how long? Years?
“..what happens when Morocco decides it no longer wants to send power to the UK but rather wants to keep it for itself or sell somewhere else..”
Then “we” will no doubt “have to”; since thiiings are diiiiiferent thiiiiis tiiiiiime; show how tough Dear Leader is, by burning 5x the saved carbon fuel, on randomly bombing and shelling Moroccan children. They are, after all willingly being “human hobgoblin shields”, by living in the same country as those terroristic power cables and all..
Lots of things are vulnerable in military conflicts. Ask Russia how it’s refineries are doing against drones. BOOM goes the Drone-amite!
A couple got hit months ago. Nothing since. They’re doing fine.
You’re not up to date, are you? Russia says that 14 of its 30 refineries have been damaged by Ukrainian drone attacks, which have intensified recently. In addition, fuel depots and oil storage tanks have also been targeted.
Russia also says that the damage has been minor and repairs are quick.
But clearly, you are incorrect about only 2 refineries hit a long time ago.
Yeah Bud,
Better keep up with your news better. They’ve hit almost half their refineries and will continue to set them on fire every week or so. This isn’t hard to Google.