Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
nwdriver,

I agree that some energy can be used as it's available but it still requires some type of storage system. The electric car uses the batteries in the car to store the energy and those batteries are still expensive. I still see the main problem is the difference between summer and winter output. Even in the largest solar plants in the desert where you get very little cloud cover the difference is about twice as much output for the maximum month versus the minimum month. If you generate most of your solar in these areas then it will require additional transmission systems. My system on a monthly basis generated 8 times more in the maximum month than the minimum month. On a daily bases it was 63 times more on the max day versus the minimum day. I would expect that most residential systems will be closer to my output than the large scale plants.

Germany has really pushed solar and wind. Their minimum and maximum outputs for Solar and Wind plus Solar for 2013 were as follows: Monthly solar output was 14.6 times higher in the maximum month versus the minimum month. On a weekly basis it was 33 times higher and on a daily basis it was 100 times higher. Wind helps a lot and the combined output of wind and solar was 2.1 times higher in the maximum month versus the minimum month. On a weekly basis it was 3.95 times and on a daily basis it was 26 times. Currently the the systems for storing electricity are very expensive. Having smart systems will help. I just ordered a timer for charging my NEV at night when my electric rate is lower. This could also be done for my water heater. However, my heating, air conditioning and other appliances are a bit harder to run only when cheap power is available. Even at this time of year I have some days when I use more energy than my solar system produces. During the winter I had some days where my system produced almost nothing.
 
Germany has really pushed solar and wind. Their minimum and maximum outputs for Solar and Wind plus Solar for 2013 were as follows: Monthly solar output was 14.6 times higher in the maximum month versus the minimum month. On a weekly basis it was 33 times higher and on a daily basis it was 100 times higher. Wind helps a lot and the combined output of wind and solar was 2.1 times higher in the maximum month versus the minimum month. On a weekly basis it was 3.95 times and on a daily basis it was 26 times. Currently the the systems for storing electricity are very expensive. Having smart systems will help. I just ordered a timer for charging my NEV at night when my electric rate is lower. This could also be done for my water heater. However, my heating, air conditioning and other appliances are a bit harder to run only when cheap power is available. Even at this time of year I have some days when I use more energy than my solar system produces. During the winter I had some days where my system produced almost nothing.


Germany-2014-Monthly-Solar-and-Wind-Electricity-Generation.jpg


So the ratio of winter/summer production for wind AND solar is 5:8... I'll be generous and say 1:2.... so you would need 2x as much wind/solar to cover all your need for an average curtailment of ~50%... which about doubles the cost. I doubt we'll see solar curtailment before ~2025. By 2020 solar PV will be ~$0.02/kWh... wind should also be ~$0.02 if not less. Even if we curtail ~66% and TRIPLE the cost that's STILL only ~$0.06/kWh vs ~$0.10/kWh for fossil fuels.... I don't know where you're from but where I'm from we call that a win.... where I'm from that's not a 'problem'... that's a solution. :wink:

THE POINT IS: Economies of scale drive the costs down as expansion into smaller and smaller segments of the market drive curtailment up... in the end, shifting to renewables is STILL more cost effective than keeping our fossil fuel addiction into the future.
 
Last edited:
And to supplement nwdiver's point: add in other zero-carbon renewables and you further increase the diversity and robustness of supply. Wave and tidal energy have different production patterns than either wind or solar; geothermal is baseload; run-of-river hydro is seasonal; and traditional hydro can store energy (by deferring production) for months or even years. Of course, individual customers aren't going to be building dams or efficient windmills, which is why the grid is valuable.

Ray, you are fully correct that an individual can't go off-grid economically, but that's not the same economics as being able to take fossil fuels out of the grid.
 
Ray, you are fully correct that an individual can't go off-grid economically, but that's not the same economics as being able to take fossil fuels out of the grid.
Exactly! I couldn't afford to have my own coal mine, oil well or gas well - or even a personal refinery - to keep my household running in the carbon age.

And besides the basic economics, there is still the reality that the change MUST happen, whether we think we can afford it or not. I doubt many people thought the Allies could ramp up armament production the way they did to fight the second world war. We do what we must and find ways to accomplish our goals - especially when the cost of not succeeding is so ridiculously high.
 
The .02 per Kwh does not include the necessary storage for night and the days you have very low wind and solar output. The winter to summer production by month looks good but you need to provide the energy on a daily basis. Using the 2014 numbers from the ISE the best day for wind and solar was .58Twh on 3/16/14 and the worst day was .022 Twh on 1/21/14. So the maximum was 26 times the minimum. It's interesting to note that the maximum and minimums for 2013 were the same but on different days(.58 on 1/31/13 and .022 on 1/16/13). The total yearly output for solar and wind was about 80 Twh. The 2014 report only had the first 11 months in 2014. In 2013 total for the year was 76.9 Twh. So if you take the yearly and divide it by 365 you get about .22 average output per day by wind and solar. That is 10 times the minimum day. So how do you provide power for that minimum day/days. It's also interesting to note that the installed capacity for 2014 was 21.2 GW for brown coal and it provided 129.3 Twh of electricity for the first 11 months of 2014. The sum of wind and solar was 73.8 GW of capacity and output was 75 Twh.

As far as wave and tidal I don't know of any installed in the US. I know the company I worked for tried to get a permit for wave generation off the coast of California and was turned down because of concern that it would disrupt sea life. By the way I appreciate the civil discussion on this topic. I just want to understand how renewables can economically handle our daily energy requirements.
 
The .02 per Kwh does not include the necessary storage for night and the days you have very low wind and solar output........I just want to understand how renewables can economically handle our daily energy requirements.

Correct.... $0.02/kWh doesn't include the cost of storage but that's only another ~$0.02/kWh when Tesla reaches its goal of ~$100/kWh ($100/kWh / 5k cycles = $0.02/kWh); Keep in mind that these numbers are WORST case... assuming an average curtailment of ~50% AND every kWh produced is stored.... That's obviously not going to be true. More than half of energy produced will be immediately consumed and curtailment will be <50%.

No one is talking about flipping a switch and going 100% renewable overnight; No one is talking about 100% solar + Storage; This is a progressive shift to renewables and costs will fall as technologies expand.

This is a team effort integrating ALL technologies.

- Pumped Storage
- Demand Response
- Solar
- Wind
- Hydro
- Geo Thermal
- Bio Fuels
- Tidal
- High efficiency HVDC transmission lines
- Hydrogen Storage
- Electric Vehicles
- Improved efficiency

It's not like EXTENSIVE studies haven't been done.

There are things we don't currently do that we can EASILY do that don't make sense with energy policy as it exists. Mounting Solar PV panels on walls completely VERTICAL would do great in the winter but with net metering there's no benefit to taking such a hit in annual production to produce more energy in the winter. There are dozens of such examples. With the correct market signals 100% renewables is 110% achievable.

Transmission is going to be the key going forward... China built an 8GW HVDC line for $3M/mile; Stranded production will be a powerful economic incentive to build such projects.
 
Last edited:
If I may suggest, those interested may consider putting that presentation in their Virtual Back Pocket for the next time they need to discuss The Issue with a skeptic (I no longer waste time on hard core deniers).
 
The book "Under a Green Sky" by Peter Ward has been around for a few years and offers some thought provoking ideas on the long term implications of global warming. http://energyskeptic.com/2011/will-global-warming-drive-us-extinct/ Perhaps its conclusions are why Musk is so focused on colonizing Mars.

In a related story I see that the Beauford Sea (north of Alaska and Canada) is already showing rapid acidification http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...test-in-the-world-study-says/article25069372/
 
Last edited:
In a related story I see that the Beauford Sea (north of Alaska and Canada) is already showing rapid acidification http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...test-in-the-world-study-says/article25069372/
By definition doesn't there need to be one sea that is acidifying most rapidly?

Ocean acidification happens when an overabundance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leads to too much of the gas being dissolved into sea water.
What is "too much"?
 
Too much is when everything starts dying. However, by that time it's too late to do anything about it.

We are just about there already, in some areas:

The Impact of Costal Acidification to the Aquaculture Industry

23 February 2015

The aquaculture industry is undergoing a significant change, and one that presents a tough challenge to overcome. In Canada, fisheries along the west coast have been losing millions of pounds worth of stock and revenue due to the rising acidity of the coastal water, writes Georgina Starmer for TheFishSite.com.

The aquaculture industries that are particularly affected are the ones that specialise in farming shellfish such as such as mussels, oysters, scallops, clams, crabs and lobsters, with some having reported losing up to 95 per cent of their stock.
See more at: http://www.thefishsite.com/articles...he-aquaculture-industry/#sthash.usleEsmF.dpuf

See also: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/06/3619987/maine-ocean-acidification-report/ and http://ocean.si.edu/ocean-acidification
 
Sobering article on the emotional distress of climate researchers. How Climate Scientists Feel About Climate Change Deniers - Jason Box Tweet Controversy :crying:

I'm feel'n it... I honestly have a VERY VERY hard time being cordial with colleagues that I KNOW commute to work in a truck... and I KNOW they make >$100k so they really can't use the 'single mom' excuse deniers like to haul out to fight calls for a carbon tax.

It's increasingly blind rage at intentional stupidity and callousness than 'emotional distress'....