The People Promising Us "Net Zero" Have No Clue About The Energy Storage Problem

cancel2 2022

Canceled
The People Promising Us "Net Zero" Have No Clue About The Energy Storage Problem

.
Myself and many others have tried to explain the enormity of the storage problem to no avail. It's not helped when states like California and New York delight in using megawatts rather than megawatt hours. There are just so many ignorant devious buggers in government.

If you are even a semi-regular reader of this blog, you know about the energy storage problem that is inherent in the effort to eliminate dispatchable fossil fuels from the electricity generation system and replace them with wind and solar. As discussed here many times, other than with nuclear power, the storage problem is the critical issue that must be addressed if there is ever going to be “net zero” electricity generation, let alone a “net zero” economy based on all energy usage having been electrified. For a sample of my prior posts on this subject just in the last few months, go here, here and here.

The problems of trying to provide enough storage to back up a fully wind and solar system without fossil fuels are so huge and so costly that you would think that everyone pushing the “net zero” agenda would be completely focused on these issues. And given that the issues are quite obvious, you would think that such people would be well down the curve with feasibility studies, cost studies, and demonstration projects to make their case on how their plans could be accomplished. Remarkably, that is not the case at all. Instead, if you read about the plans and proposals in various quarters for “net zero” in some short period of years, you quickly realize that the people pushing this agenda have no clue. No clue whatsoever.

Today, I am going to look at discussions of the storage situation coming out of three jurisdictions with ambitious “net zero” plans: California, Australia and New York. First a very brief summary of the problem. It is (or certainly should be) obvious that wind and solar generators have substantial periods when they generate nothing (e.g., calm nights), and other times when they generate far less than users demand. Get out a spreadsheet to do some calculations based on actual historical patterns of usage and generation from wind and solar sources, and you will find that to have a fully wind/solar generation system and make it through a year without a catastrophic failure, you will need approximately a three-times overbuild (based on rated capacity) of the wind/solar system, plus storage for something in the range of 24 - 30 days of average usage. For these purposes “usage” at any given moment is measured in gigawatts, but usage for some period of time is measured in gigawatt hours, not gigawatts. California’s average electricity usage for 2020 was about 31 GW; Australia’s was about 26 GW ; and New York’s was about 18 GW.

Read much more here: https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2022-3-25-aivx0sdredj216gyhhvx186ph4kyzz
 
From the link:

"And how much is in the pipeline?:

There is around 1,000MWh of grid-scale energy storage currently under construction, but the development pipeline of projects is a massive 57GWh.

“A massive” 57 GWH. Really? Has anyone told them that they are going to need more like 56,160 GWH to fulfill their “net zero” fantasies? Like California, they are off by about a factor of 1000. Here is a picture from the article of what a Tesla-type battery installation for a mere 150 MWH looks like. That’s well less than 1/6 of one GWH. "

Por Dios!
 
From the link:

"And how much is in the pipeline?:

There is around 1,000MWh of grid-scale energy storage currently under construction, but the development pipeline of projects is a massive 57GWh.

“A massive” 57 GWH. Really? Has anyone told them that they are going to need more like 56,160 GWH to fulfill their “net zero” fantasies? Like California, they are off by about a factor of 1000. Here is a picture from the article of what a Tesla-type battery installation for a mere 150 MWH looks like. That’s well less than 1/6 of one GWH. "

Por Dios!

They are totally clueless yet nobody seems to want to take them to task over it, batshit crazy is the only way to describe it.
 
They are totally clueless yet nobody seems to want to take them to task over it, batshit crazy is the only way to describe it.

Here is a pumped hydro scheme devised by the late lamented Roger Andrews to store electrical energy in California. Naturally it will never happen as there are just too many eco-loonys and ignorant buggers to stand in its way.

Here is a truly excellent article written by the late Roger Andrews detailing how around 20 TWh can be stored by using the Laguna del Diablo (Lake of the Devil, although it’s usually bone dry) in Baja California as a pumped hydro power station.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...h-physics-than-politics&p=4463843#post4463843
 
Last edited:
Here is a pumped hydro scheme devised by the late lamented Roger Andrews to store electrical energy in California. Naturally it will never happen as there are just too many eco-loonys and ignorant buggers to stand in its way.

Here is a truly excellent article written by the late Roger Andrews detailing how around 20 TWh can be stored by using the Laguna del Diablo (Lake of the Devil, although it’s usually bone dry) in Baja California as a pumped hydro power station.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...h-physics-than-politics&p=4463843#post4463843

I doubt that Mr. Andrews could have completed a Delta to Wye (Star) Conversion.
 
.
Myself and many others have tried to explain the enormity of the storage problem to no avail. It's not helped when states like California and New York delight in using megawatts rather than megawatt hours. There are just so many ignorant devious buggers in government.



Read much more here: https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2022-3-25-aivx0sdredj216gyhhvx186ph4kyzz

Politically, the irony is striking. Trump was excoriated for "not following the science" regarding a new virus, while these idiots are completely ignoring science and mathematics that have been around for centuries. Ol' Gustave Le Bo was right.
 
You'll have to explain that further, no entiendo.

It’s a mathematical technique to simplify the analysis of an electrical network.

First year Electrical Engineering “stuff.”

Years ago, my EE prof said that if you have difficulty understanding a Delta to Wye (Star) Conversion, you should drop out of this university (Vanderbilt).
 
I studied chemistry at university, never got any further than j-notation.

My daughter studied chemistry in her BSES (Exercise Science).

Chemistry is a much more difficult discipline from what I saw of my Chemistry major friends.
 
I think they have a pretty good clue on how to fuck everything up while appearing ignorant when in reality they are purposely malicious.

I wonder.

Most of them appear to be too lazy to check into any subject themselves.

As a result, they rely on "trusted" sources to tell them what their opinions on any matter should be, IMO, and never seem to cross-check those sources' opinions as long as they want to agree with them.

That's illogical.
 
I wonder.

Most of them appear to be too lazy to check into any subject themselves.

As a result, they rely on "trusted" sources to tell them what their opinions on any matter should be, IMO, and never seem to cross-check those sources' opinions as long as they want to agree with them.

That's illogical.

It keeps the "fact-checkers" in business and confirmation bias humming along nicely though.























































:palm: Lord help us all.
 
I doubt that Mr. Andrews could have completed a Delta to Wye (Star) Conversion.

Roger Andrews was an exceedingly clever man and I doubt that he would have been 'phased' by electrical network design. Here is a plan by him for a huge pumped hydro scheme in Scotland.

attachment.php


https://scottishscientist.wordpress...ver-pumped-storage-hydro-scheme-for-scotland/
 

Attachments

  • strathdearn_pumped-storage1.jpg
    strathdearn_pumped-storage1.jpg
    100.6 KB · Views: 6
Back
Top