- cross-posted to:
- leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- cross-posted to:
- leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
You must log in or register to comment.
Well maybe, but only if they owned the infrastructure themselves.
As it stands, the price paid to renewable energy suppliers tracks the amount paid to fossil fuel suppliers.
There’s a reason every farmer wants to fill their fields with solar panels, and it’s got little to do with making electricity cheaper for the end user.
That said, there’s no reason not to do it anyway, at least if we want more than a few more hundred years of humanity. A tough ask in a time where every decision is made based on an election that happens in the next 4 years by people who won’t live another 20.
Nuclear Energy because green energy is really expensive too
Just say it’s better for AI and they’re all for it
Finland has done something like this and the few days of winter where it’s very cold and no wind are kinda rough. There was a day recently where I spent 50 euros on electricity alone. And I have somewhat efficient heating tech like a geothermal heat pump.
Clearly this sub haven’t seen this video from Technology Connections. It breaks it all down for you step by step why the statement is true.
I’m not gonna watch the full hour and a half, but I skimmed through to make sure his message was at least mostly consistent. This guy is talking about renewable energy for cars and vaguely extrapolates that to all energy requirements.
Doing a quick Google search came up with 2.2-5.2 trillion watt-hours as the amount of energy needed if all US vehicles were electric. Currently the US generates ~11 trillion watt-hours per day so this would increase that amount ~20-50%. In this video the guy mentioned a 27 megawatt solar farm (~130-150 MWh/day), but a large coal plant generates 15-24k MWh/day (500-1000 MW instantaneous).
The US currently has ~12.5k utility scale electric power plants, to replace those with solar and switch all cars to electric you would need ~2-2.5 million solar farms the size represented in the video.
The industry standard is that each megawatt a solar farm is rated takes 5-10 acres. For nuclear that value is ~0.8 acres/megawatt and for coal it’s ~0.64 acres/megawatt. While large power plants generate ~500-1000 MW they vary in size dramatically so the actual average is closer to 50 MW per plant. By that math, the current total land for existing plants should be ~400,000 acres but the equivalent if we switched to 100% solar power would be 270-675 million acres of land.
I’m not saying that renewables are bad or that we shouldn’t pursue them, I’m also not arguing that we should all hold on to gas burning cars, but there is not compelling enough evidence that switching to 100% renewable energy would be cheaper.
Okay, so I’ve double-checked all the most important numbers you’ve used. One thing I’ve noticed is that Alec compared the land-use of ethanol and solar power, but our fuel is only 10% ethanol. Even then though that doesn’t explain the whole number you got to.
By that math, the current total land for existing plants should be ~400,000 acres but the equivalent if we switched to 100% solar power would be 270-675 million acres of land.
With 270 million acres, and 1mW for every 10 acres, that’s 27 million mW (648 trillion Wh a day). Far more than what you say is needed for all cars to be electric. At some point you must have swapped to the goal of meeting America’s entire electricity demand with solar. Even then though …
America consumes 25,000tWh of energy per year (about 7Twh per day, or 3Tw). 27 million mW is 27tW.Even with 10 acres per mW, we’d only require about 30 million acres to meet the entire country’s energy with solar (which happens to be exactly the same as the amount of land we spend on ethanol).You should really double-check your math.
EDIT: 30-35 million acres is still correct, but my working is wrong. I made two mistakes that cancel each-other out. See https://aussie.zone/post/29798627/21519669
EDIT: I basically skipped over your 3rd and 4th paragraph, but what is that nonsense math your doing? I didn’t even bother trying to comprehend it because it was so nonsensical, but what in the actual hell were you trying to do there.
Okay, so I’ve double-checked all the most important numbers you’ve used. One thing I’ve noticed is that Alec compared the land-use of ethanol and solar power, but our fuel is only 10% ethanol. Even then though that doesn’t explain the whole number you got to.
As I said in my post, this guy is talking about fuel for cars, not the entire power usage
With 270 million acres, and 1mW for every 10 acres, that’s 27 million mW (648 trillion Wh a day). Far more than what you say is needed for all cars to be electric
I basically skipped over your 3rd and 4th paragraph
That is literally what I said in paragraph 3 “The US currently has ~12.5k utility scale electric power plants, to replace those with solar and switch all cars to electric you would need ~2-2.5 million solar farms the size represented in the video.”
America consumes 25,000tWh of energy per year (about 7Twh per day)
My research said the US produces 11 trillion Wh per day and said that if all US vehicles were electric it would require 2.2-5.5 trillion Wh more per day. Looking at consumption is important, but looking at production is more accurate. Some electricity is sold or wasted, but that’s to ensure demand is met when the grid sees a spike in usage.
27 million mW (648 trillion Wh a day)
You must have skipped paragraph 2 as well. A 27 MW solar plant is rated as such because that is the maximum instantaneous power outout, but most places only have ~16 hours of sunlight and won’t be running at 27 MW for all 16 hours. As such a 27 MW solar farm will only make ~130-150 MWh/day.
Okay, lets redo the math with your new numbers.
- 11TWh (+6TWh) per day production.
- Average of 1/5 of maximum output (27MW * 24 = 648 MWh per day. 648 / 130 = factor of 5).
- 1 MW per 10 acres of solar power (It’s 27MW on 120 acres at the DePue site)
- 270-675 million acres.
Now lets get all the units into average MW
- 700,000MW needed (17TWh per day = 0.7 TW average)
- 0.02MW per acre. (1MW / 10 / 5 = 0.02MW average)
That means 35 million acres. Now I’m going to post this immediately before double-checking my math previous maths, because this number should be about 10 times higher than my previous answer based on the numbers you’ve given me. Did I overestimate the land required in my first reply?
EDIT: Found my problem.
America consumes 25,000tWh of energy per year (about 7TWh per day, or 3TW)
7TWh per day is not 3TW, it’s 0.3TW.
I worked the problem a different way, first of all I evaluated both ends of both spectrum (2.2-5.2 trillion for adding cars to get the number of solar farms needed and 5-10 acres per MW rating, this is how I built my range). I believe I have an error in the number of solar farms needed (2-2.5 million farms in my original post), but I have not been able to replicate my math that got me the error. I made this post in sections and at some point realized that 27 MW doesn’t make 648 MWh, but I might have missed switching it out somewhere to get the math I got.
Rerunning the math I took the amount produced and needed (~17 trillion Wh) and divided it by the production for one 27 MW site (150 MWh) to get the number of plants and then multiplied that by 27x10.
17x10^12 / 150x10^6 x 27 x 10 = 30,600,000 or 30.6 million acres.
All that aside we are still talking about 75x more land usage before we talk about time zones, day night cycles, distribution of the panels, etc. The big counterpoint that people seem to have is batteries, but we already use batteries and the amount more we would need to provide 24 hour coverage with just solar would be astonishing.
Market forces push business decisions, the only way solar power would be cheaper for the consumer is if it was also cheaper for the business. If solar was realistically cheaper then power production facilities then corporations would be switching to it and probably not drop our end costs because that would just be extra profit. Whether it’s a lack of battery capability, unattainable capital costs, lack of reliability, or something else at play, solar power would not be cheaper for the end user or else corporations would be switching to it.
EDIT: Good work on your math.
stop using chat gpt to argue
As per the video, 30 million acres of land is used to grow ethanol that is mixed into petrol. We could replace every car in the country with electric, and power our entire electricity grid with solar power, with that land. Solar farms are less destructive to the land than corn farming so even if replacing all that farmland with solar panels only provided enough power for electric cars, it would still be a positive in terms of land use.
75x land use is as compared only to power-plants. If I go swimming tomorrow I’ve 999999x’d my shark attack risk. And as a share of America it’s only 1-2% of the total area of the United States (to power the entire country) and can replace all the corn ethanol crops to a net environmental benefit.
As for batteries, they are recyclable (as the video goes into). They do add to the cost of renewables but not so much that they cancel out having to constantly mine coal and set it on fire to never be used again. There are wind turbines which even out the duck curve, but in this thought experiment the entire country is going solar powered only.
As for why business leaders aren’t investing in renewables, I need to make an important distinction. Renewables aren’t the “cheapest form of power generation”, they are the “cheapest form of new power generation”. It is cheaper to keep running existing gas-fired and nuclear power stations until they reach EOL than it is to tear them down prematurely and replace them with solar. A large number of power stations are rapidly reaching EOL and it’s very important that we don’t build any more coal-fired power plants right now (due to an explicit government policy of burning more coal, perhaps). Each one we build will last 50-100 years and be cheaper to keep running than replace with renewables.
30 million acres of land is used to grow ethanol that is mixed into petrol
The majority of ethanol based crop production comes from growing corn in the Midwest, specifically Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, and Indiana. Ranked by population density that’s:
- Nebraska #43
- Kansas #41
- Iowa #36
- Missouri #28
- Indiana #17
- Illinois # 12
By percentage of the US population that’s
- Nebraska @ 0.5%
- Kansas @ 0.8%
- Iowa @ 0.9%
- Missouri @ 1.8%
- Indiana @ 2%
- Illinois @ 3.7%
There are practical reasons why we typically try to generate power close to where it will be used. Yes, theoretically you can realistically supply power up to 3000 miles away, but most power plants only provide power to around 500 miles away. Yes we could cover the Corn Belt with solar panels and then wire it to the coasts, but doing so has it’s own risks and drawbacks. Ethanol agriculture makes sense where it is because the population density is so low and both corn and ethanol can be shipped with relatively low loss.
As for batteries, they are recyclable (as the video goes into). They do add to the cost of renewables but not so much that they cancel out having to constantly mine coal and set it on fire to never be used again
I’m not arguing that they aren’t recyclable but rather they aren’t accessible at the volume needed. A quick google search said that current utility scale battery storage exceeds 26 GW (10^9), but only represents 2% of total generating capacity. To provide power for approximately half the day, based on our previous math, we would need need ~7x10^11 W.
Just so my math is clear from the beginning, 17x10^12 W / 2 (half the day) / 12 (hours per half day) = 7x10^11 W of battery which is 27 times more than we currently have.
Renewables aren’t the “cheapest form of power generation”, they are the “cheapest form of new power generation”. It is cheaper to keep running existing gas-fired and nuclear power stations until they reach EOL than it is to tear them down prematurely and replace them with solar. A large number of power stations are rapidly reaching EOL and it’s very important that we don’t build any more coal-fired power plants right now
I think this is a fair and nuanced point. In my opinion the solution is not one singular option, such as 100% solar, but a mix of options which might include some percentage of non-renewable energy. I think reduction of non-renewable should be the goal, but switching 100% to renewable does not seem feasible to me.
Or …. The extra electricity needed for EVs is zero or maybe even negative. Except for batteries, power is not dispatchable. Power plants can’t react to the amount of power needed at any time and they get inefficient trying. If we had a way to charge when supply is greater than demand, we can not only make use of previously wasted power but even make power plants more efficient by giving them steadier demand
The extra electricity needed for EVs is zero or maybe even negative
That’s unlikely to be the case, the US already does use batteries in power production and the amount more we would need to switch all US power to solar would be astonishingly high.
Power plants can’t react to the amount of power needed at any time and they get inefficient trying
They can’t react in the minute by minute basis, but they do react to usage. Most coal fired plants only operate at about 50% capacity most of the time and bring on reactors to match the predicted power usage curve. When building a power curve profile the power company typically takes into account constant power as a baseline (solar and hydro being always on during the hours it is active and the power output of a given number of reactors is relatively set). Power is then supplemented with smaller generation sites which might use natural gas or even petroleum products. The smaller sites are far less efficient and make less power, but the name of the game when making power is making sure you always have enough for demand.
Let’s say it’s peak day, 25 solar farms are making 675 MW right now, each coal plant reactor can make 500 MW and the demand right now is 1250 MW. You start up your natural gas turbine plant to make up the difference during peak day, but as the sun goes down you start up reactor 2 and 3. As reactor 2 and 3 get going the power usage goes up to 1600 as people come home and the solar farms stop generating power so you continue using your turbine plant but also start drawing from your batteries. Once reactor 2 and 3 are up and running you might stop using your turbine and keep drawing from your batteries, but when people go to sleep the power usage drops to 700 MW. Now power usage has dropped but you keep the reactors going for a while or begin to shut them down (they will still make some power as they shutdown) to recharge the batteries.
All these numbers are hypothetical, but it’s a description of how the process works.
Your maths is wrong.
Here is a video that corrects and explains why Solar is, even in the northern climate, far more economical then your incorrect calculations show
You literally just reshared the same video the guy I’m responding to shared in the post I am responding to. Obviously you didn’t read anything.
Ironic
- The video:
- The video literally goes over the numbers in worst case scenario for solar and still comes out ahead, while also going through a bunch of mistakes that people make and deconstructing the gotchas along the way.
- Your comment:
- Saying you weren’t going to watch the full video
- Skimmed some of it and took some numbers and made mistakes
- Someone else:
- Links to the video you skipped that would have gone through your mistakes before you commented.
- Your response:
- This is the same video
YES! It already goes over the mistakes you were making.
On a side note, this was probably the best video I’ve seen in the last 12 months.
I thought it would be a nice and nerdy breakdown of solar panels, but the more I watched the better it got.
For those who did watch it: wow what a whiplash!
Yeah, the video is 1.5 hours long. I don’t care how good you found it to be, I’m just not going to watch that long of a video, you need to convey what is important in the video through written dialogue or else you may as well not use it. While I did make a mistake in my math my fundamental point is still true, the video’s point was entirely based on scaling renewable power usage for cars to all power usage and the math just doesn’t provide a sound basis for it.
I’m just not going to watch
I think the best move would be to remove soft costs and artificial barriers to supply across the board, whether it’s green energy or fossil fuels. The government shouldn’t be in the business of picking winners and losers, since that’s the source of much of the lobbying and corruption we see. Ideally, we’d rely on a system of profit and loss to signal the best use of resources, rather than having outside interference distort those signals and create bubbles.
Shit sun power won’t make my yacht go burr.
No need, use a sail
That’s just solar with extra steps!
Where I live in Scotland about 73% of electricity generated come from renewables (mostly wind and hydro). I’m hugely in favour of this, but the bills keep rising.
I firmly believe the utility companies should be nationalised. I’m not against capitalism per se, but the current setup is a racket.
You know why right?
The grid is constraint and because of this it makes prices really high where the congestion is. Now the logical thing is to allow a different price where there is free energy like in Scotland verse where it is constraint.
But! The issue is where it is constraint and that’s south east England. And as everyone in the country knows no one gets anything in the UK unless south east England has more of it for less.
So higher prices in SE England is not going to happen. If it was the other way around I’m certain the government would say fuck the Scots they should have more wind power if they wanted cheap electricity.
Water is essential to living.
Electricity is mostly essential.
Why these two utilities are privately owned is beyond me.To pay dividends to shareholders whilst you let the utility degrade to the point where the government steps in to bail you out anyway. Perfect investment.
I really should have started a monopoly, that is 0 risk 100% reward. I mean just take the money from the government, give myself a huge bonus, and then when there is no infrastructure upgrades done, say whoops, its too expensive, get more money from the government, rinse and repeat!
If the state of the Scottish energy grid is comparable to mainland Europe, then the prices go up due to increasing cost of infrastructure.
Renewables are a lot cheaper per kWh, but require a substantialy higher up front cost in infrastructure due to their decentralized nature.
Before renewables, the electricity only ever flowed in one direction, from the power plant down to the consumers. A few centralised main powerlines could deliver most of that.
With the increase in renewables that suddenly isn’t true anymore. Smal villages often are net positive, we’ve reached a point where even the medium voltage grid of entire regions is net positiv and the energy has to be transported somewhere else, sometimes even outside the country.
All this requires substantially more powerlines (or at least thicker ones, so still new cables). But more importantly, devices to measure the current load of the grid at all times and modernized equipment that can remotely be operated to respond to variing load.
Not to say that we should stop building renewables. All this infrastructure will be needed eventually eather way, but at least in the short term, investments will be needed regardless.
Also the ‘price cap’ in the UK mainly just guarantees a minimum percentage profit added on top of what is otherwise a bunch of assumptions largely provided by the energy companies.
Then some how their costs almost always come in under the assumed numbers increasing their profit further, they don’t need to innovate cos their money is guaranteed.
Also the profit percentage added went up recently, because…
Public necessaries like energy, water, public transport etc should never have been handed over to companies to begin with in my opinion.
Yeah honestly even if we were at 100% renewables, the price has been set and people are used to it now. No company is going to voluntarily start discounting unless more competition enters the market to start a price war. So far most of the energy “competition” has gone bust.
Didn’t you hear? That’s the problem! The prices must always go up. For the quarterly growth!
Energy is cheaper where the government has a public alternative. That goes for all utilities and services.
Technology Connections has a video on it…
But i doubt bills would go down; it’s just that line would go up.Anything cheaper for the consumer means less profit, which means less money for bribes, which means the GOP is against it
Government should be for the people not for the corporations
In many cities in America, private companies threaten cities demanding that they get paid to expand, or else they’ll leave.
Comcast demanded they get city investments to expand wifi to more of the city and even promised free wifi to public places. And after millions of city dollars given, they said, “nevermind”.
How do you want them to be for the people and not for corporations if you want them to subsidize an industry? At the end of the day that will be paid to corporations, and you are giving corporations more incentive to get into your congressperson’s office to help them figure out how to divide it up. Why would you want more cash exchanged between them and more face time between them? Bad idea if you want corporations out of politics.
More money for [industry x] literally means the government working for some corporations. Doesn’t matter what industry x is.
But your not thinking of the poor poor oil execs whom won’t get their return on their
bribeinvenstment made to their super PAC.Super PACs are so 2012. In 2024 SCOTUS ruled that officials are allowed to accept “gratuities” so long as they don’t directly say it’s a bribe.
Unless it’s for the President. Then they can just say it’s a bribe.
I forgot about those rulings. This SCOTUS is really set to mess up a lot in the coming decades. Hopefully, it can be reigned sooner rather than later
It should be but here we are.
[ cries into green but super expensive Romanian electric bill ]
Presumably Romanian electricity is expensive because non-Russian gas is expensive.
Here’s the breakdown of Romanian Energy:
They still have a long way to go to be considered green.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Romania#/media/File:Energy-consumption-by-source-Romania.png
Oh, I shouldn’t have just blindly accepted their premise. Their electricity bill has basically no green in the first place.
I was about to say, the economics of this post don’t really add up. And sadly, we have a living example behind your computer screen.
That doesn’t change the way lemmy works. “Someone said something supportive of the thing we like. So it must be true.” Too bad economics doesn’t work that way.
If you want things to be cheap, you pit fossil fuel against green energy in real competition. Then they are both forced to get as cheap as possible at every layer of their supply chains if they want their respective supply chains to continue. That’s what kills profit and greed because they have to give up short-term greed for a shot at long-term survival. When you give either or both a government crutch, the executives involved try to reap as much cash out of that crutch now while the crutch exists.
Whether you give a crutch to either fossil fuel or green energy, at the end of the day you are giving it to an executive. He’s going to take advantage of it and not give you what you want every time.
Do you guys remember the incentives for rural internet rollout? Now they are paying premium cost for crapy internet, which the government already paid to exist. It doesn’t matter how much you agree with the thing you want money to go to, you aren’t going to get a good outcome.
LOL son, that is not how this works at all. It wasn’t true when Reagan made the same argument. It wasn’t true when W Bush made the same argument, and it’s not true now.
HINT: You’re trying to fuck with a global price market by changing things at a local level. It’s like trying to fart south to push a hurricane off the coast.
At this point we should call it embezzlement instead of investment
