A status report on renewable energy worldwide (Global 2004)

[jpak]

http://www.earthscan.co.uk/news/article/mps/UAN/508/v/3/sp/

Renewable energy has become big business. In 2004, about US$30 billion was invested in renewable energy worldwide, excluding large hydropower (Figure 1). This compares with investment in the entire power generation sector roughly $150 billion.An additional $4–5 billion in new plant equipment was invested in 2004 by the solar PV manufacturing industry, and at least several hundred million dollars was invested by the ethanol industry in new production plants. One survey of 60 of the largest publiclytraded renewable energy companies or divisions of major companies showed a total market capitalization of at least $25 billion in mid-2005.

<snip>

These global capacities reflect staggering growth rates in recent years. The fastest-growing energy technology in the world has been grid-connected solar PV, with total existing capacity increasing from 0.16 GW at the start of 2000 to 1.8 GW by the end of 2004, for a 60% average annual growth rate (Figure 5 – page 32). During the same five-year period, other renewable energy technologies also grew rapidly (annual average) – wind power 28%, biodiesel 25%, solar hot water/heating 17%, off-grid solar PV 17%, geothermal heat capacity 13%, and ethanol 11% (Figure 6 – page 32). Other renewable energy power generation technologies, including biomass, geothermal, and small hydro, are more mature and are growing by more traditional rates of 2%–4% per year.

<more>

[NNadir]

1. Sigh...

Energy and power are still different things.

Here in New Jersey for instance we had lightning bolts firing 3 terawatts yesterday, during a snowstorm, each more than the output of the world's solar cells. However the existence of this power, which afterall lasted for only a flash, said nothing about energy, since energy is the product of power and time.

A lightning bolt has less energy than the world's solar PV capacity since the bolt is operating for microseconds. 1.8 gigawatts of solar power has less energy than 1.8 gigawatts of coal power since the solar station operates for less than 1/3 of the time.

In any case, two gigawatts of solar power isn't much power, if we must talk power instead of energy. The Kashiwazaki-Kariwa unit #7 a single reactor, has a power rating of 1.3 gigawatts or 72% of the worldwide solar (peak, no less) capacity reported here. Nobody feels the need to carry on about it much. It just runs continuously without much breathless commentary. That reactor was built in 40 months and for a hell of a lot less than $30 billion.

[jpak]

2. LOL!!!!

Global grid-connected and off-grid capacity is 4 GW...and it's growing at 60% per year.

...and $30 billion was the total investment in renewable energy world-wide - not just PV.

(reading comprehension)

[phantom power]

3. So, next year there will be 6.4 GW (peak), yes?

[jpak]

4. God Willing - Yes...

But I think the current global pinch in Poly-Si will lower growth for the next 2 years.

After that, it's back to gang-busters....

:)

[skids]

5. If I'm right...

The 60% growth rate refers to year over year production. So 2005 would have (if the trendline was accurate)
added 1.6 * 1.8GWp = 2.88Gwp to the base of 4GWp, for 6.9GWp. Obviously though the trendline is not a simple exponential, because the 2004 1.8Gwp data point is out of line (towards the high side.) There's also the
Si supply bump which may cut down the increase for a year or two as low-Si panel production and solar-grade
Si feedstock production now is the dominant limiting factor.

I think there are detailed 2005 estimates floating out there already, though.

[NNadir]

6. Chimpco.

In the PV case, 60% of 0.06 exajoules. is 0.0036 exajoules.

It ain't anywhere enough. Global climate change is real. It is an on going catastrophe, not a game.

I have detailed many times for the record what the world has gotten for it's $30 billion dollar annual investment in renewable energy: Not much.

If the renewable industry wants to be taken seriously it shouldn't trumpet how much money it takes but how much wealth it creates, ie what it produces. Here is a clue: The production is not just a function of its peak output at noon on a sunny day.

Things that take money and give little back are generally referred to as scams.

World renewable (excluding hydro) energy production in 2003 was 1.1 exajoules:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table17.xls

If that takes 30 billion dollars per year to get that kind of return, it is too damned expensive. We don't have much time left. We must use what resources we actually possess wisely.

[jpak]

7. Biomass and hydro plants operate 24/7

and wind turbines, wave and tidal plants operate at night...

Solar thermal systems also store hot water for nighttime use.

20 states now have Renewable Portfolio Standards and will produce 20% or more of their electricity from *new* renewable sources between 2015 and 2020.

...and there are NO states with Nuclear Portfolio Standards...lol...

:)

[NNadir]

8. Wind turbines operate 24/7?

This is news.

I am also glad to learn that everyone can easily buy a huge perfectly insulated tank of water. I'll bet it will be a standard feature in every 600 square foot apartment in Camden New Jersey.

I am also pleased to see that the entire renewable industry still consists of promises for 10 to 15 years in the future. I note that unlike the same promises made 20 years ago the percentages promised have fallen. It used to be that the solar/renewable promise for 10-20 years in the future used to be close to 100% of US energy, but now it's fallen to "20% or more."

Dangerous fossil fuels now produce about 70-80% of world energy. The quantity is still measured in exajoules, 430 of 'em right now.

Combined wind, solar, and geothermal has yet to produce a single exajoule in the United States. I suspect that almost all of the energy that has been produced has been reinvested in breathless marketing of renewable energy.

Biomass has produced an exajoule or two, especially when one includes municipal trash burning with it but the global climate change droughts have not fully kicked in. They didn't grow much corn in Northern Illinois last year, and fires swept across the dessicated plains of North Texas and Oklahoma for much of the winter.

We do have some statistics on wood burning, minus the external cost, as unusual, which is pretty high. In 2004, in the United States, wood burning for all purposes provided 29,001 trillion kilowatt-hours of electricity from 1547 trillion BTU's of primary energy:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/wood/wood.html

(Note the mixed energy units. These figures translate into exajoules as follows: Electricity, 0.1044 exajoules, thermal, 1.6 exajoules)

This would seem to represent that wood burning only gives a thermal efficiency of 6% but I think the distinction is obviated by the fact that most of this wood energy was used in "manufacturing." Probably it represented process heat in the paper industry, but I don't know as it isn't explained.

So the interesting claim that "biomass is available at night" really means that biomass now provides about 1% of US energy at night, assuming that paper mills or related forestry manufacturing plants operate 24/7.

In the context of the crisis at hand, this note about the availability of biomass at night is in my opinion misleading, since it diminishes rather enhances realism.

Because global climate change is a serious matter, of serious import to humanity and all living things, I feel it is my duty as a citizen of the world to identify wishful thinking wherever it exists.

[jpak]

9. again - reading comprehension

Wind turbines can operate at night - and often do.

and everyone can easily buy an insulated tank for their solar hot water heaters - they come with the system.

Wood fired power plants have a thermal efficiency of >30% - not 6%.

New wood- and pellet-stoves are extremely efficient.

and the US adds - not subtracts - thousands of MW of new biomass, solar and wind capacity each year.

radiation Cheney nuclear LOL

:)

[NNadir]

10. Again, "MW" is not a unit of energy. And again, the wind does not blow

24/7. Wind energy that is not available on demand must be stored. Since wind power is not available on demand it is not a competitor for nuclear power or any form of baseload power.

Since we are discussing reading comprehension, I am merely noting in my previous post (Cheney. Buckshot.) that most of the wood energy does not go to electricity generation. In any case the number is still tiny in the significant energy unit of exajoules. Six percent of the energy ends up as electricity. The rest goes somewhere else. If these numbers are confusing to some, many people can comprehend them.

I am pleased to know that "everyone" can buy a solar thermal hot water heater. One wonders why "everyone" hasn't. I suppose that the claim is once again, to obviate it, that the only people who count are rich people in single family homes, the apotheosis of the Repuke definition of "everyone." People who do not have single family homes with room for a solar cell are clearly not part of "everyone."

I note that the renewable energy figures are still available here, and that I had nothing to do with creating them:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/trends/table1.html

The values therein can be comprehended by anyone who can comprehend numbers.

LOL. Cheney. Charles. Sam. Wyly. Bush. Pioneer. Green. Mountain. Fraud.

[jpak]

11. Fraud??

You mean the Super Secret Molten Salt Breeder Reactor that will make "someone" fabulously rich????

:rofl:

Why has everyone not purchased a solar hot water system????

Could it be that mo-rans have told the American public over the last 30 years that "solar is liberal and can't work"????

They cost less than $5K (before any rebate) and payback times are <<10 years.

Denmark and Canada have programs to produce hydrogen from wind power that will be used in gas turbines (to produce juice on those not-so-windy days).

Norway is producing on-demand electricity with a combined wind/hydrogen system TODAY.

So yes, wind can (and will) compete with stupid nucular for "base load" demand...

:)

[NNadir]

12. I think you should go to use the editor for your Freudian slip.

"Noway is producing on-demand electricity with a combined wind/hydrogen system TODAY."

This makes my day.

Here let me join you in a serious energy discussion using serious analysis: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

And now let's return to joking:

Oh, yeah, and the unit of significant energy is still the exajoule. I would love to see all that renewable Canadian hydrogen in exajoules. Let me guess. Capacity is expected in 2066?

I have driven for hours in Norway without seeing a single windmill.

Funny bit too, about how they stamp "liberal" on solar thermal units to keep people from buying them. I love it, man! I love it!

I'll be sure to take a trip down to the most dire parts of Camden, New Jersey to announce the happy news to the slum dwellers about how solar thermal systems "only" cost $5000. They'll probably mob some suburban Home Depot when they hear that news.

Curiouser and curiouser.

[jpak]

13. Curious - US utilities can't afford new nuclear power plants

without $12 billion in Cheney/GOP subsidies - are they going to sell slum dwellers new nucular electricity at reduced prices????

Nope.

:)

[NNadir]

14. The busbar price of nuclear energy is pretty well known.

Yes, they have nuclear electricity in Camden.

Let us assume that a $12 billion dollar subsidy for two forms of energy existed. (I really don't buy it, but I don't give a fuck, since I clearly support all subsidies for the amelioration of the global climate change crisis.)

Let's do some numbers: The US is going to build 13 new nuclear power plants and the capacity will be 17,000 MW.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.htm

At 90% capacity loading, this represents about 0.48 exajoules of electrical energy and roughly 1.5 exajoules per year of primary energy if the thermal efficiency of the plants is 33%.

Let's ignore the fact that the solar industry already is incapable of increasing it's already tiny capacity in exajoules, and look at the latest solar buzz price:

As of this writing the cost of solar electricity is 21.44 per kilowatt-hour or roughly twice the retail price of electricity in Camden where people who are not considered part of "everyone" live. www.solarbuzz.com

Using arithmetic, we see that $12 billion dollars would buy 56 billion kilowatt-hours of solar electricity and this ignores the need for any batteries. This can easily be converted to 0.2 exajoules.

Thus if one were to pay 12 billion dollars in subsidies, ignoring the cost of batteries, one would get more 2.4 times as much energy for the nuclear investment.

Note that I am using figures I really don't buy, specifically the $12 billion figure. In any case, I am on record as favoring 100 billion dollar (or more) subsidies for nuclear power in any case, since it is money wisely spent.

It is well known that the external cost of nuclear energy is much lower, including CO₂ emissions, than the external cost of solar PV energy. Therefore one would not only save in absolute energy terms, but in emissions of global climate change gases.

Here is a list of new nuclear power plants that came on line in 2005:

Higashidori 1 - TOHOKU (1067 MW(e) BWR, Japan) began commercial operation on 8 December
Kalinin 3 (950 MW(e) PWR-WWER, Russia) began commercial operation on 8 November
Khmelnitski 2 (950 MW(e), PWR-WWER, Ukraine) began commercial operation on 7 September
Shika 2 (1304 MW(e), ABWR, Japan) was connected to the grid on 4 July
Tarapur 4 (490 MW(e), PHWR, India) was connected to the grid on 4 June
Higashidori 1 - TOHOKU (1067 MW(e) BWR, Japan) was connected to the grid on 9 March
Hamaoka 5 (1325 MW(e), ABWR, Japan) began commercial operation on 18 January
Ulchin 6 (960 MW(e), PWR, South Korea) was connected to the grid on 7 January

Here is a list of the plants that came on line in 2004:

Qinshan 2-2, 610 MW(e), PWR, China, (March)
Hamaoka 5, 1325 MW(e), ABWR, Japan, (April)
Khmelnitski 2, 950 MW(e), PWR (WWER), Ukraine, (August)
Rovno 4, 950 MW(e), PWR (WWER), Ukraine, (October)
Kalinin 3, 950 MW(e) PWR (WWER), Russia, (December)

Pickering 1 (515 MWe) was reconnected in Canada to the grid after refurbishment on Sept. 26 2005. Bruce 3 (790MWe) was reconnected to the grid in Canada in January of 2004.

None of these plants broke the bank in the countries where they now operate.

Dick Cheney. LOL. Buckshot. Sam. Charles. Wyly.

In 2004 the following nuclear plants were shuttered for good:

Chapelcross A, B, C, D units, 50 MW(e)/each, GCR, UK, (June)
Ignalina 1, 1185 MW(e), RBMK, Lithuania, (December), a total capacity roughly about the size of Hamaoka 5.

In 2005 the following nuclear plants were shut for good:

Barsebäck 2 (600 MW(e), BWR, Sweden) was shut-down on 31 May
Obrigheim (340 MW(e), PWR, Germany) was shut-down on 11 May, a total capacity about equal to Ulchin 6.

I used to hear all the time about how nuclear power was dying. The numbers belie this claim.

Dick Cheney. LOL. Buckshot. Heart attack. Quail. Radioactive. Yucca Mountain.

The nuclear power plants that came on line in 2005 alone at 90% capacity loading will provide about 0.65 exajoules per year of electrical energy, and about 2 exajoules of primary energy. I note that this 0.65 exajoules of new nuclear capacity is 10 times as large as the entire output of the solar (PV and thermal combined) industry in the United States in 2004.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/trends/table1.html

Dick Cheney may not be too good at flushing bird shit, but I am.

[jpak]

15. LOL!!!!!

None of those "13" reactors have been ordered.

They're working their way through the licensing process (at taxpayers expense).

They were ALL announced after the passage of the GOP/Cheney nuke/oil/gas/coal giveaway bill.

They are competing for 6 GW of GOP subsidies....

*including*

$6 billion in production credits for the first 6 plants (1.8 cents per kWh - more than wind @ 1.5 cents per kWh...

and

$2 billion in direct payments if the NRC delays construction...

and

Billions in loan guarantees (principal and interest) for up to 80% of construction costs.

The 7 losers will fold.

...and the cost of these new plants does not include the costs of spent fuel disposal or decommissioning...

Pay no attention to that GOP Energy Bill behind the curtain...

:rofl:

[NNadir]

16. Thank you for your fiat declarations obviating your position.

There's the usual "ifs" here.

It reminds me of those "ifs" that always go with the renewable calculations, which still, unfortunately register in exajoules produced.

I really don't think wind power costs 1.8 cents/kw-hr, but I duly note that when many people don't understand numbers, they make them up.

(I also note that a loan guarantee is not the same as a subsidy, but hey, many parents have found out otherwise. In any case I have listed 1.5 exajoules of primary energy that came on line successfully in 5 countries, Japan, Russia, Ukraine, South Korea and India, that had nothing to do with the energy bill, even though all these countries are ruled by Dick Cheney at the point of a shotgun.

GOP. Energy bill. Cheney. www.fallacyfiles.org

Buckshot.

Basically the entire world doesn't give a fuck about the discredited antinuclear movement. Global climate change is a serious matter and everybody knows it is a matter not best left to children although it is a matter that must be addressed for children.

And now, to avoid fiats, let's look further at the wonderful claims of wind energy and its cost, noting that it produced about 0.1 exajoules of US energy in 2004.

Here is a fellow who actually owns a system, has all kinds of pictures and technical remarks and agitates for it, producing his electric bill among other things. He writes:

Everyone wants to know, "What's the payback period" as if they expect that such a large investment must pay for itself in a couple of years or it's not worth it. What they fail to consider is that a privately owned wind turbine is about the ONLY thing they'll ever buy that pays ANYTHING back. But . . . for those who insist, and are actually serious about making money with a non-commercial turbine, here's the deal. Hot water is typically 25-30% of an average home's electricity use. Hook up a 1-2 kW turbine to a low voltage heater and put it where the sun don't shine . . inside your hot water tank. Whenever the wind blows you'll create heat that will offset or eliminate the utility grade energy used for your domestic hot water. Now the trick is, how do you do that when the system costs $10-15,000? All the other components used in a wind system, like batteries, inverters, charge controllers make a $3,000 turbine very expensive to connect.

That system cost, amortized over 10-15 years means the cost of power is still 15 cents per kilowatt. Actually, that IS the cost of energy today, especially if you only use 3-400kWhrs per month. Below are my actual utility charges for the past 3 months. During Nov we did not use the turbine much. I was experimenting with new controllers, so 677kWhrs is typical of a newer energy efficient house that does not use electricity for domestic hot water or heating. Notice the cost per kWhr is very sensitive to amount used below about 700 kWhrs/month. When we had the turbine running for most of December we used less energy, paid less in dollars but the cost per kWhr was almost doubled (23 cents/kWhr). In January, when we used more energy the cost/kWhr was still almost 15cents. You can appreciate now, that the ability to do the "Return on Investment" math on wind turbines is not very simple. You're an energy producer, but the energy you produce has no "cost" to create yet has a highly volatile value.

None of these costs, of course, include the cost of a power plant that runs his home when the wind isn't blowing or when he's tinkering with his heaters. Fraudulent renewable energy calculations are more notable for what they overlook than for what they reveal.

http://www.truenorthpower.com/freewindnews0402.html

Somehow he produces a headline that says wind power costs 4 cents/kw-hr. I just scanned the article, like I scan all such hobbyist claims and have no interest in looking further, since the main point is his electric hot water heater, I think. The matter of energy for most of the world is not a distraction for hobbyist killing time of course. Our lives are at risk.

I only note that there doesn't seem many places to put $10,000 worth of wind power equipment in the slums of Camden, New Jersey.

[jpak]

17. LOL!!!!!

Please post the nuclear related items in ChimpCo's Nucular Give-away Bill and tell us these *multi-billion dollar subsidies* don't exist.

Billions for a "mature" energy technology - lol...

Cheney nucular Cheney nucular Cheney nucular Cheney nucular Cheney nucular Cheney nucular Cheney nucular Cheney nucular Cheney nucular

my new mantra...

:)

[NNadir]

18. I have made my position clear and also pointed out the logical fallacy.

I produce plenty of results and feel no compulsion of a particular type to satisfy concerns that are of no interest to me.

My arguments have sufficient force and are now accepted worldwide: New Nuclear reactors are planned in 25 countries and will have a combined capacity (90% capacity loading) of 4.5 exajoules of electrical energy and roughly 14 exajoules of primary energy. This will basically be added to the system that now produces over 9 exajoules of electrical energy and 27 exajoules of primary energy.

I expect this number of reactors being constructed, on order, and proposed to rise significantly in the next several years. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.htm My goal is for 1000 to 2000 reactors in the next 3 decades. I think it can be done. The latter number is a scale up only by a factor of between 4 and 5. I note larger growth is conceivable. (The number of 1300 MWe to produce 500 exajoules of primary energy wold be about 4,000 or a scale up by a factor of 9.)

Of the 6 International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC scenarios) for CO₂ stabilization at 550 ppm, 5 of them see growth of nuclear power by 2050. Three of them see nuclear power providing 43 exajoules of electricity or around 130 exajoules of primary energy by 2050, more than the current output of the entire United States.



I think they are underestimating how rapidly nuclear capacity will grow if humanity is to survive global climate change (not a sure bet).

It is interesting to note that this 27 exajoules of primary energy now produced by nuclear power matches the entire consumption of energy in the continent of South America and Central America:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tablef1.xls

(1 exajoule = 1.055 quads)

The new reactors will increase nuclear production enough to represent the energy production of 70% of the mideast. That is formidable.

I don't want to beat renewable energy on the score that it is better at making promises than it is at delivering. One hopes it can deliver someday. For once, I would love to see renewable advocates pointing to their success in significant (exajoule) quantities. I believe that if we prove able to save ourselves from the bulk effects of climate change every little bit helps and some renewable technologies do have real promise, wind in particular. One hopes that the renewable industry will finally get its act together, though history doesn't suggest too much optimism is appropriate. Anything that gets us away from fossil fuels should be used.

This likely a fatal emergency.