Green Energy Revolution Megathread

[Admiral Yi]

California is currently at 27%. They want to get to 50% by 2025. That's well within reach given that Solar and Wind are already the cheapest options in California.

Kevin de Leon wants California to get to 100% by 2045 some PR.

[grumbler]

These bills that set goals for the year 2525 are PR stunts.

Not if man is still alive.

[Ed Anger]

These bills that set goals for the year 2525 are PR stunts.

Not if man is still alive.

[jimmy olsen]

California is currently at 27%. They want to get to 50% by 2025. That's well within reach given that Solar and Wind are already the cheapest options in California.

Kevin de Leon wants California to get to 100% by 2045 some PR.

When I hear "X just wants PR" I hear "it's just talk and won't happen." Is that what you're saying?

The article goes into some depth on how this can be accomplished. Are you just going to dismiss this?

Getting to 100 percent renewable energy may not be simple, but experts say it can be done without significant increases to electricity rates, a concern often raised by fossil fuel supporters.

"Technically and economically, it's pretty straightforward," said Mark Jacobson, a Stanford University engineering professor who has studied the costs and benefits of phasing out fossil fuels.

The falling costs of wind and solar power are the main reason for that. Last year, researchers from the University of Texas at Austin found that wind turbines and big solar farms are already the cheapest sources of new electricity generation across much of the country — and they're still getting cheaper. In California, solar is the least expensive option for much of the state.

"The prices for renewables have come down farther and faster than anyone thought was possible," said Sonia Aggarwal, vice president of Energy Innovation, a San Francisco-based policy research group that supports clean energy development.

Increased reliance on solar and wind farms is expected to create new challenges for California, since they only generate electricity when the sun shines or the wind blows. That's already becoming a problem during the middle of the day, when solar farms sometimes generate more electricity than people can use, and in the evening, when solar farms go offline just as people get home from work.

But experts who have studied the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy say California already has most of the tools it needs to solve those problems.

Those tools could include smarter energy management, such as encouraging homes and businesses to shift their electricity use to times of day when solar panels and wind turbines are active. Some of those shifts could be automated. For instance, Aggarwal said California's 3.5 million commercial and multi-family buildings could install pre-heating and pre-cooling technology, which could be programmed to power up when electricity from solar or wind farms floods the grid. Energy prices that vary throughout the day could encourage those buildings to use electricity when the time is right.

Other tools for getting to 100 percent could include new twists on old technologies, like hydropower plants that are operated so as to complement wind and solar generation, and solar plants that use molten salt or other fluids to store energy for use when the sun goes down. (One such facility, the 110-megawatt Crescent Dunes solar tower, is already operating in Nevada.) California could also incentivize the development of more geothermal plants in the Imperial Valley, which are expensive to build but can generate climate-friendly electricity 24 hours a day.

[Admiral Yi]

When I hear "X just wants PR" I hear "it's just talk and won't happen." Is that what you're saying?

What I'm saying is if it happens, it won't be because of this bill.

[sbr]

When I hear "X just wants PR" I hear "it's just talk and won't happen." Is that what you're saying?

The article goes into some depth on how this can be accomplished. Are you just going to dismiss this?

I was getting ready to call Yi out too, but then I stopped and thought for a minute before I wrote my post.

A legislative bill that creates a goal 8 years out does absolutely nothing other than show what the current legislative body thinks should happen. 

A bill that actually does something to make that happen:  funded subsidies, tax cuts/credits, whatever, etc ... , OK sure that is something to talk about.  A bill that says I think this should happen 8 years from now, but I am not willing to take any direct action to make it happen?  Worthless other than a PR stunt.

[The Minsky Moment]

There's an interim goal for 2025, which is less than 8 years off - very quick if you consider lead times to construct power generation and distribution facilities.  That would require very immediate significant action to meet.  2045 is not that far off either.  Power purchase agreements often contemplate 20 year terms, following a planning and construct time of several years.

[jimmy olsen]

Mono proven ever more wrong

http://www.economist.com/news/business/21717070-carmakers-face-short-term-pain-and-long-term-gain-electric-cars-are-set-arrive-far-more

Electric cars are set to arrive far more speedily than anticipated

Carmakers face short-term pain and long term gain

THE high-pitched whirr of an electric car may not stir the soul like the bellow and growl of an internal combustion engine (ICE). But to compensate, electric motors give even the humblest cars explosive acceleration. Electric cars are similarly set for rapid forward thrust. Improving technology and tightening regulations on emissions from ICEs is about to propel electric vehicles (EVs) from a niche to the mainstream. After more than a century of reliance on fossil fuels, however, the route from petrol power to volts will be a tough one for carmakers to navigate.

The change of gear is recent. One car in a hundred sold today is powered by electricity. The proportion of EVs on the world's roads is still well below 1%. Most forecasters had reckoned that by 2025 that would rise to around 4%. Those estimates are undergoing a big overhaul as carmakers announce huge expansions in their production of EVs. Morgan Stanley, a bank, now says that by 2025 EV sales will hit 7m a year and make up 7% of vehicles on the road. Exane BNP Paribas, another bank, reckons that it could be more like 11% (see chart). But as carmakers plan for ever more battery power, even these figures could quickly seem too low.

Ford's boss is bolder still. In January Mark Fields announced that the "era of the electric vehicle is dawning", and he reckons that the number of models of EVs will exceed pure ICE-powered cars within 15 years. Ford has promised 13 new electrified cars in the next five years. Others are making bigger commitments. Volkswagen, the world's biggest carmaker, said last year that it would begin a product blitz in 2020 and launch 30 new battery-powered models by 2025, when EVs will account for up to a quarter of its sales. Daimler, a German rival, also recently set an ambitious target of up to a fifth of sales by the same date.

The surge has two explanations: the rising cost of complying with emissions regulations and the falling cost of batteries. Pure EVs, which send no carbon dioxide directly into the atmosphere, and hybrids, which produce far less than conventional engines, are a way to meet Europe's emissions targets—albeit an expensive one. But the gains from cheaper methods such as turbocharging smaller engines, stop-start technology and weight reductions will no longer be enough, since a tougher testing regime, to be introduced in the wake of VW's diesel-cheating scandal, will make those targets still harder to reach.

The hefty cost of preventing nitrogen oxide spewing from diesel engines, which emit far less carbon dioxide than the petrol equivalent, may see them disappear by 2025. Further development of ICEs could be enough to meet the 2021 targets. Carmakers also need to be prepared to hit the next ones, says Andrew Bergbaum of AlixPartners, a consulting firm. These, yet to be finalised in the EU for carbon dioxide, may be as low as 68g/km by 2025 compared with 130g/km today.

Regulations are favourable outside Europe, too. In China more than 400,000 pure EVs were sold last year, making it the world's biggest market. The government, keen to clear the air of choking exhaust fumes, has plans for a quota that could insist that 8% of sales are EVs or hybrids by 2018. And even if Donald Trump relaxes American emissions standards, this will not hold back electrification. California, which accounts for one in eight cars sold in America, is allowed to set tougher environmental standards than the national ones. It, and seven of the other states that have adopted its emissions rules, have a target of 3.3m EVs on their roads by 2025.

Moving right along

Technology will have as much impact as politics. Vehicles that carmakers are forced to produce for the sake of the environment will become ones that buyers want for the sake of their wallets. EVs were once generally a second car for richer, environmentally minded drivers, prepared to pay a big premium for a vehicle with a battery that took an age to charge and had a limited range.

The falling cost of batteries will make the cost of owning and running an EV the same as that of a traditionally powered car in Europe by the early 2020s, even without the hefty government subsidies that many rich countries use to sweeten the deal (see article). Better batteries should also conquer "range anxiety"—most pure EVs now run out of juice after around 100 miles (161km). If battery costs continue to tumble and performance improves at the current rate, the price of a car with a range of 300 miles could hit $30,000 by the early 2020s, according to Exane BNP Paribas. Slicker technology will also mean charging in minutes, not hours.

The lack of charging infrastructure still deters buyers, but signs of growth are encouraging. In most rich countries governments, carmakers and private companies are putting up the necessary cash. In America the number of charging points grew by more than a quarter to almost 40,000 in 2016. Even Shell and Total, are planning to put chargers on the forecourts of their petrol stations across Europe.

But EVs are not yet a profitable business for carmakers precisely because of their batteries. Chevrolet's Bolt, on sale late last year, costs under $30,000 with subsidies and travels 238 miles between charges. But each sale will reportedly set General Motors back $9,000. Tesla's rival, the Model 3, is set to go on sale later this year; the firm has yet to make an annual profit. Even Renault-Nissan, the world's biggest EV manufacturer, loses money on electric models.

Research and development also costs a fortune. Daimler says it will spend €10bn by 2025 on just ten battery-powered models. Restructuring is also expensive. For a century carmakers have built factories, employed workers and developed a supply chain around the ICE. In one scenario Morgan Stanley reckons that VW's entire car business could make a loss between 2025 and 2028 as it transforms itself.

Some carmakers are better placed than others for the transition. Profitable premium brands such as Daimler and BMW have the resources to invest and can be confident that their richer customers will be the first to switch to more expensive EVs. Mass-market carmakers have a trickier task, according to Patrick Hummel of UBS, a bank. Despite falling costs, a cheap EV for the mass market is still a distance away. The likes of Fiat Chrysler (whose chairman, John Elkann, sits on the board of The Economist's parent company) or PSA Group, which makes Peugeots and Citroëns, have barely begun changing. But these carmakers, already operating with wafer-thin profit margins, must still invest heavily in anticipation of that moment.

EVs may eventually make more money than ICE cars as battery costs fall further. They are competitive in other ways too: EVs are simpler mechanically, and require less equipment and fewer workers to assemble them. But carmakers first face a transition that will hit cashflow and profits. Getting ready for an electric race will be painful, but missing it altogether would be disastrous.

[jimmy olsen]

In potentially amazing news, Harvard made some metalic hydrogen.

https://m.phys.org/news/2017-01-metallic-hydrogen-theory-reality.html

However they since fucked it up
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/metallic-hydrogen-disappears-technology-revolutions-superconductor-faster-computers-super-efficient-a7593481.html

If they can make it work, room temperature super conductors here we come.

[The Brain]

That would revolutionize train travel and/or music.

[Admiral Yi]

There's an interim goal for 2025, which is less than 8 years off - very quick if you consider lead times to construct power generation and distribution facilities.  That would require very immediate significant action to meet.  2045 is not that far off either.  Power purchase agreements often contemplate 20 year terms, following a planning and construct time of several years.

You're implying a relationship between proposed bill and new capacity construction which is not warranted given the information contained in the article.

[jimmy olsen]

That would revolutionize train travel and/or music.

Music? 

[Eddie Teach]

That would revolutionize train travel and/or music.

Music? 

Super conductors.

[jimmy olsen]

That would revolutionize train travel and/or music.

Music? 

Super conductors.

Oh my God.

[viper37]

anyone has recent info on these new bladeless wind turbines?
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/537721/bladeless-wind-turbines-may-offer-more-form-than-function/

I saw a small article in a construction magazine and it got me intrigued.

There is this manufacturer, but I'm searching for less bias info:
http://www.vortexbladeless.com/h2020.php