No Amount Of Incremental Wind And Solar Power Can Ever Provide Energy Independence

BartenderElite said:
That's not a refutation. That poster was only presenting a counter-argument.

And the OP title IS wrong. We're still in the early stages of technology on renewables. Way too early to make definitive pronouncements.
Click to expand...

What counter argument? Complete and useless babble? You know better.
 
BartenderElite said:
That's not a refutation. That poster was only presenting a counter-argument.

And the OP title IS wrong. We're still in the early stages of technology on renewables. Way too early to make definitive pronouncements.
Click to expand...

A counter-argument without no substance, why do fools think they need to be listened to when it's clear they haven't a clue?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
That depends on the circuit itself. The general concept is that capacitors don't stay charged when you remove the power. That is, they are not equivalent to batteries as Danielpos stated.
Click to expand...

Capacitors DO stay charged when you remove the power. That is actually the point of them.
So do batteries.

BOTH leak that charge away over time.

A battery is better at holding a charge for longer periods of time (it's leakage is less and it's capacity is more).

Using a capacitor to charge a battery is ridiculous. The idiot doesn't realize you can't create energy out of nothing.
 
BartenderElite said:
That's not a refutation. That poster was only presenting a counter-argument.

And the OP title IS wrong. We're still in the early stages of technology on renewables. Way too early to make definitive pronouncements.
Click to expand...

Nordberg was NOT presenting ANY argument. Cutting and pasting is not making an argument. It is stealing an argument from someone else.
Further, the argument he stole is wrong.

* oil is renewable energy.
* natural gas is renewable energy.

Solar is the most expensive method of generating electricity. It does not work at night either.
Wind is the 2nd most expensive method of generating electricity. It does not work during icing conditions or poor wind conditions either.

Both oil and natural gas to generate electricity is MUCH cheaper.

YOU don't get to manipulate energy markets. Government manipulating energy markets is fascism. You are arguing for fascism and so is Nordberg.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
That depends on the circuit itself. The general concept is that capacitors don't stay charged when you remove the power. That is, they are not equivalent to batteries as Danielpos stated.
Click to expand...

There have been significant advances in supercapacitor technology especially using graphene. Watch this space is my advice.




Introduction
Supercapacitors, also called Ultracapacitors, double-layer capacitors, or electrochemical capacitors, are a type of energy storage system attracting many experts in recent years. In simple terms, they can be imagined as a cross between an ordinary capacitor and a battery; still, they are different from both.

Before we get into the nuances of whether Supercapacitors can make a difference on their own in terms of how energy can be stored in the future, it’s worth knowing more about how they work and how they are different from a lithium-ion battery.

Supercapacitors and batteries, they are both storage methods. If we look at lithium-ion batteries, they rely entirely on chemical reactions. They consist of a positive and negative side, technically called an anode and a cathode. These two sides are submerged in a liquid electrolyte and separated by a micro-perforated separator, allowing only ions to pass through. During batteries’ charging and discharging, the ions tend to flow back-and-forth between the anode and cathode. While this ion transfer process occurs, the battery gets heated up, expands, and then contracts. These reactions gradually degrade a battery, resulting in a reduced lifespan of batteries. However, a significant advantage of battery technology is that it has a very high specific energy or energy density to store energy for its use later.

But Supercapacitors are different; they don’t rely on a chemical play to function. Instead, they store potential energy electrostatically within them. Supercapacitors use dielectric or insulator between their plates to separate the collection of positive (+ve) and negative (-ve) charges building on each side’s plates. It is this separation that allows the device to store energy and quickly release it. It basically captures static electricity for future use. The most significant advantage of this is that a 3V capacitor now will still be a 3V capacitor in 15-20 years. In contrast, on the other hand, a battery may lose voltage capacity over time and repeated usage.

Also, unlike a battery, they have a higher power throughput, which implies it can charge and discharge in a fraction of the time. Still, they have a very low specific energy as compared to batteries. Supercapacitors are best suited for very small bursts of power.

The whole concept of a “Supercapacitor” is not a new thing at all. The first Supercapacitor was created by GE (General Electric) in the year 1957. Standard Oil, accidentally in 1966, discovered the double-layer capacitor when working on fuel cells. Still, it wasn’t until the late 1970’s that the Japanese company, NEC, began commercially offering the first “Supercapacitor” for computer memory backup.

We’re at a point wherein applications of Supercapacitors are at the beginning of exploration. In general, Supercapacitors have been found to have the biggest potential for application in hybrid-transportation (hinting from the Tesla – Maxwell acquisition).

Peugeot-Citroen, Toyota, Mazda, and even Lamborghini have all released models of vehicles that use some combination of Supercapacitors and conventional Li-Ion batteries. Cars like Toyota’s Hybrid-R concept and Lamborghini’s high powered Sian are using Supercapacitors for a precise role. For example, they have used it in power-regeneration systems during the deceleration of a car. In simple words, when cars are slowing down, energy generated from this action is stored by onboard Supercapacitors and is later used for acceleration. Results in saving batteries for less strenuous actions than acceleration and deceleration. It takes advantage of a Supercapacitors’ superior power throughput.

Interestingly, Elon Musk had recently stated that Tesla’s acquisition of Maxwell would have a significant impact on batteries. It was concerning an announcement from Tesla regarding their acquisition of the San Diego-based Ultracapacitor and battery company Maxwell for over $200 million. It wasn’t clear if it was for the company’s main business, Supercapacitors, or its latest battery technology IP, like a new dry electrode technology for battery cells.

A fantastic example can be seen in Switzerland on how effective Supercapacitors are. A fleet of buses is exposed to charging stations at various stops along their daily commutation route. Just 15 seconds can top the energy-charge off, and only a few minutes would suffice for a full charge. With frequent top-offs, it makes up for the lack of energy density and storage. And because Supercapacitors draw a lower current for a few minutes at a time, this puts less stress on the grid.

Why Supercapacitors are gaining a lot of interest, and how does it compare with Lithium-Ion Batteries, for example?
The answer to this question can depend a lot on the applications they can be used for. There are indeed a few clear advantages and disadvantages of each technology. As mentioned earlier, batteries have a much higher energy density than Supercapacitors.

It means that batteries are more suited for higher energy density applications, for example, an application where a device needs to run for long periods on a single charge. On the other hand, Supercapacitors have a much higher power density than batteries. It makes them ideal for high-drain applications like powering an electric vehicle. Please refer to the below exhibit for a comparative view.

Supercapacitors also have a much longer lifespan than batteries. A regular battery can handle around 2000-3000 charge and discharge cycles, while Ultracapacitors can usually sustain more than 1,000,000. It can represent considerable savings in materials and costs.

The excitement certainly does seem well deserved. Supercapacitors can recharge within seconds, and unlike batteries that rely on internal chemical reactions and hence wear out soon, Supercapacitors do not degrade over time. A 2.7 volt Supercapacitor today will be a 2.7 volt Supercapacitor in 15 years. In comparison, all current battery designs suffer gradual performance loss, which means your 12 volt battery today might be an 11.4 volt battery in just three years.

There might still be some common confusion in terms of power-storage. Exhibit 6 shown below can clarify how these two technologies compare on power density and energy density characteristics, including some other energy storage forms.

While a Supercapacitor with the same weight as a battery can hold more power, its Watts / Kg (Power Density) is up to 10 times better than lithium-ion batteries. However, Supercapacitors’ inability to slowly discharge implies its Watt-hours / Kg (Energy Density) is a fraction of what a Lithium-ion battery offers.

Exciting times ahead for Supercapacitors in the future – Keep an eye!
With the above comparisons and all the examples of Supercapacitors’ various applications under exploration by numerous OEMs, there doesn’t seem to be any mass movement towards replacing batteries with Supercapacitors. So, why is all this excitement?

Supercapacitors are superior to traditional capacitors due to their ability to store and release energy; however, they haven’t been able to replace the function of conventional Lithium-Ion batteries. It’s mainly because Lithium-ion batteries pack a punch that Supercapacitors can’t, in the form of specific energy or energy density (Lithium-ion ~250Wh/kg vs. Supercaps ~20 Watt-hour/kg).

Based on recent research in Supercapacitors, a breakthrough could be achieved from Graphene-based Supercapacitors, leading to significant advances in Supercapacitors. A study at the Queensland University of Technology and Rice University resulted in two papers published in the Journal of Nanotechnology and Power Sources. Researchers at these universities proposed a solution consisting of two Graphene layers, with an electrolyte layer between them. This resulting film is strong, thin, and can release large amounts of energy in a short time. These factors are a given-it is a Supercapacitor after all. This study makes this study unique and interesting because the researchers suggest that the new, thinner Supercapacitors could replace bulkier batteries in future electric vehicles.

https://www.futurebridge.com/indust...lternative-to-lithium-ion-battery-technology/
 
Last edited:
Capacitors and batteries are not needed AT ALL with conventional generation methods that meet demand as it is made. It is only with horribly inefficient and unpredictable systems like wind and solar that such stupidities are necessary. It doesn't matter what progress is made on storage, it is an unnecessary additional cost that occurs because the means of generation are horribly inefficient and unpredictable.
 
Primavera said:
.
There are so many imbeciles on here when it comes to energy matters. Moonshi'ite, Madwitch and Nutberg receive special mention but there are many more. None of this is that complex but it appears to be way above their paygrade.


Here’s the single most important function of this blog: Saying the things that are patently obvious but that just can’t be said these days in polite society. Yes, it’s The Emperor’s New Clothes every day here at Manhattan Contrarian.

With war raging in Ukraine following Russia’s invasion, there is a renewed concern in many quarters for “energy independence.” Until recently, the sophisticated countries of Europe had thought the whole idea to be passé. They built large numbers of wind turbines and solar arrays, while simultaneously banning fracking for natural gas and shuttering electricity plants that used coal and even those that used no-carbon nuclear. Suddenly, at the very worst possible time, they found themselves completely dependent on Russian gas for heat and reliable electricity. In the U.S. it’s not nearly so bad (yet), but the combination of the Ukraine invasion with the Biden administration’s resumption of Obama’s war on fossil fuels has also left the U.S. vulnerable to an oil and gas price spike on world markets, whose supply side has been artificially reduced by government hostility to production of fossil fuels.

So what’s the answer? If you are a member in good standing in American media/academia/environmentalist/Democratic Party society, the answer is obvious: Just build more wind turbines and solar arrays until you have enough. These facilities will count as “domestic” electricity generation, and therefore will quickly lead to “energy independence.” What could be easier?

So permit me to say the blindingly obvious: No amount of incremental wind and solar power can ever provide energy independence. Electricity gets consumed the instant it is generated. Electricity is consumed all the time, and therefore must be generated all the time. Indeed, some of the peak times for electricity consumption occur on winter evenings, when the sun has set, temperatures are very cold, the wind is often completely calm, and the need for energy for light, heat, cooking and more are high. During such times, a combined wind and solar generation system produces zero power. It doesn’t matter if you build a thousand wind turbines and solar panels, or a million, or a billion or a trillion. The output will still be zero.

And calm winter nights are just the most intense piece of the problem. A fully wind/solar generation system, with seemingly plenty of “capacity” to meet peak electricity demand, will also regularly and dramatically underproduce at random critical times throughout a year: for example, on heavily overcast and cold winter days; or on calm and hot summer evenings, when the sun has just set and air conditioning demand is high.

And thus it is time for a roundup of recent calls for massive building of wind and solar facilities in order to achieve energy independence.

From UK think tank Carbon Tracker, March 2: “It makes no sense to lock countries into fossil fuel dependent power grids over the medium term, . . . . Instead, Europe could rapidly reduce its reliance on Russian gas (and fossil fuels more broadly) by accelerating the implementation of . . . investments in renewable energy technologies as well as focusing on energy efficiency measures.”

From Sammy Roth at the LA Times, February 26: “[D]oubling down on oil and natural gas isn’t the answer [to dependence on Russia], some security experts say — and neither is energy independence. The war in Europe adds to the urgency of transitioning to clean energy sources such as solar and wind power that are harder for bad actors such as Russia to disrupt, those experts say.” (The article primarily relies on an “expert” named Erin Sikorsky of the Center for Climate and Security.)

From MarketWatch, February 26: “As grim as the reality of a conflict in Ukraine may be, economically, it may serve as a major catalyst for Europe’s decarbonization efforts, forcing governments to invest in earnest in greater zero-emissions renewable energy sources and the electrification of cars and homes. Doing so could secure energy independence from a Vladimir Putin-led Russia that’s proving to be a greater security threat by the day, say green-energy proponents and other global market-watchers.”

From Energy Monitor, March 7, reporting on statements from two think tanks called Ember and E3G: “Policies to further accelerate the roll-out of solar and wind power, and therefore reduce Europe’s reliance on Russian gas, will not have any impact in the immediate term. ‘But renewables growth can be much higher than planned from 2024–25 onwards, provided the policy framework is put in place right now,’ says Moore [of Ember]. . . . In a briefing whose release coincided with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the think tank E3G also advocates a ‘fast expansion of renewable energy and interconnections for the power sector”, which aims at “reducing structural gas dependence for system balancing.’”

From Scientific American, March 9, reporting on a statement from Frans Timmerman, chief “climate” official of the European Union: “The [EU’s] plan lends support to a package of legislation that aims to cut Europe’s greenhouse gas emissions 55 percent by 2030, and it would also ease European concerns over its energy security, said E.U. climate chief Frans Timmermans. ‘Renewables give us the freedom to choose an energy source that is clean, cheap, reliable and ours,’ he told reporters yesterday.”

There is essentially an infinite supply of such completely ignorant statements out there on the internet if you choose to spend some time collecting them. The quoted statements and dozens or hundreds more of same just blithely assume, or assert without basis, that sufficient numbers of wind turbines and solar panels can liberate us from fossil fuels, without ever mentioning or discussing the issue of energy storage.

Continuing with what is completely obvious but unmentionable in polite society: Since combined wind and solar power facilities regularly produce no power at all when it is most needed, a wind and solar generation system will either be (1) dependent on fossil fuel backup, or (2) dependent on storage for backup, or (3) both. If it is taken as given that the whole idea is to move away from fossil fuel backup, then everything comes down to storage. A fossil-fuel-free system based on wind and solar generation is completely useless without sufficient storage to cover all times of insufficient simultaneous generation.

To propose energy independence based on wind and solar without fossil fuels, you must, repeat must, address storage. How much is needed? How much would that cost? What loss of energy will be incurred on the turnaround between charge and discharge? Is the cost feasible? How long must the energy be stored between generation and consumption? Do batteries or other storage devices exist that can store energy for such a period without most or all of it draining away? Has there ever been a demonstration of the feasibility of a fossil-fuel-free system based only on wind, solar and storage?

Try to find any mention of these issues in any of the pieces linked above, or in any of the many others you might find advocating more wind and solar facilities as the solution to dependence of Russian gas supplies. As to the feasibility and cost of a wind/solar generation system without fossil fuel backup, consider prior Manhattan Contrarian posts from February 1 here, and January 22 here.

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com...ar-power-can-ever-provide-energy-independence
Click to expand...

.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top