BFP’s Post

This year, the U.S. Energy Information Administration expects hydropower generation to increase 6% and account for 250 billion kWh, based on forecasts in its Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO). EIA said it expects hydropower to increase in nearly every part of the country, with notable increases in the southeast and northwest and Rockies. #renewables #power #energy #wind #offshore #onshore #solar #hydropower #floating #nuclear #geothermal #efficiency #transition #susteinability #circular #economy #esg #clean #decarbonization #electrification #climate #hydrogen #mobility #greensteel #ammonia #transportation #storage #fuelcell #smartgrid #der #powersystem #generation #transmission #distribution #electricity #machines #drives #sensors #iot #education #engineering #innovation #entrepreneurship #creativity #technology #digitalization #cybersecurtity #metering

“New study shows #wind and #hydropower lead in #cleanhydrogen , while #solar lags” “A Nature journal article found the production of #hydrogenfuel with wind, #hydro and #nuclearenergy to meet #emissionlimits , while solar struggled to meet clean standards. However, production with solar is set to dominate in the future.” Yajie Yang - July 4, 2024 “A recent study to quantify the lifecycle emissions of #greenhydrogenproduction and transportation found that not all #greenhydrogen was actually “clean”, based on established guidelines.” “The study assessed cradle-to-production #greenhousegas (#GHG) emissions of green hydrogen facilities, and found that only hydrogen produced through wind, hydro, nuclear energy and excess renewables – when #renewableenergy supply temporarily exceeds demand – had emissions below thresholds.” “These thresholds refer to clean hydrogen’s #emissionsstandards , measured in kilogrammes of #carbondioxideequivalent per kilogramme of hydrogen produced (kg CO2e/kg H2). These are set at 4.0 kg #CO2e /kg H2 for the United States (US), 3.0 kg CO2e/kg H2 for the European Union (EU), and 2.4 kg CO2e/kg H2 for the United Kingdom (UK).” https://lnkd.in/e9PA4a4g Source - original post Read all my posts #MariusPreston

1. Stanford University professor Mark Jacobsen emphatically argues that countries, including many in Africa, can successfully transition to 100% wind and solar energy. 2. However, his affirmation overlooks the critical role of countries manufacturing vital products like cars, iron, steel, and fertilizer. Despite his stance, Jacobsen firmly believes that wind and solar energy can effectively supplant traditional baseload power sources such as nuclear and coal plants. 3. My belief: "None of his ridiculous ideas are true." The land for all the wind and solar is not available in the US or most countries, and you cannot rely on wind and solar to meet electricity demands: that is why nuclear and coal plants run as baseload and then gas turbines to "follow on." His thoughts are ludicrous and highly criticized. 4. Both energy analysts, Mike Conley and Tim Maloney, read Mark Jacobsen's ridiculous paper and concluded it was unrealistic. Wind and solar interconnectedness cannot replace baseload power, and power storage will be needed. 5. Mark Jacobsen's roadmap includes a buildout of wind and solar that would take thirty-five years, requiring 496,000 wind turbines, 18 billion square meters of solar panels, 50,000 or more solar and wind farms, 75 million residential rooftop solar systems, and 2.7 million commercial rooftop systems. 6. If attempted, this would be the largest construction project in world history. The wind turbines alone would require acreage the size of New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and New Hampshire states. The solar panels would require both Maryland and Rhode Island's size. His "roadmap" only uses 1/4 of the recommended acreage that NREL estimates for wind and 1/2 of what they recommend for solar. Vaclav Smil, an energy expert, called Jacobsen's "roadmap" "unbounded science and engineering fiction" [page 243, Vaclav Smil, Power Density, MIT Press, 2016.] Conley and Maloney's summary of Jacobsen's "roadmap": https://loom.ly/YVnXoLM My goal here is to separate fact from fiction. Mark Jacobsen's roadmap is fiction, not fact. Here is a link to some of the ridiculous, improbable renewable energy plans from 2020. https://loom.ly/rGAmwkc His article, published on September 6, 2017, on the ScienceDirect.com website, is titled "100% Clean and Renewable Wind, Water, and Sunlight All-Sector Energy Roadmaps for 139 Countries of the World."

We hear a lot about the growth of energy storage and most people think of batteries but that’s not the only way. I remember when this pumped storage plant was built near Clemson, now just upgraded to serve another 250,000 customers during a routine maintenance cycle. You can’t do this everywhere, but where you can it’s a very efficient way to optimize a grid that has increased amounts of intermittent generation. Now there is an opportunity to double the output of this resource that today only uses 30% of it’s reservoir, “By comparison, it would take about 1,200 acres of battery storage for a similar storage equivalent to a second powerhouse. And because Bad Creek is long-duration storage (12 hours), you’d have to build out those batteries threefold due to their storage capacity of about three to four hours.” Worth noting that this was built long before solar and wind started to introduce greater intermittency to the grid. It was designed to be used for six hours a day during high demand weekdays and then refilled during low demand weekends, mostly with power from the nearby nuclear plant that runs best at a steady rate. Now with solar growing fast and the need to store those peaks the plant is potentially much more valuable.

Enhanced geothermal takes ~2 y for construction & exists. Logical for a company wanting an off-grid data center to go this route than vaporware SMR nuclear that doesn't exist as a prototype or commercially & isn't permitted, and would take >10 y for all three with dangers U.S. approves 2 GW enhanced geothermal plant in Utah https://lnkd.in/gUmCrwWA Fervo Energy

#renewables #data-#centres #AI #oilandgasknowledge #energystorage "How big could Enhanced #Geothermal Systems get? Big enough. Though DOE analyses suggest only around 40GW of conventional geothermal resource exist in America, new techniques expand the theoretical potential to a whopping 5,500GW across much of the country, with strong potential in over half of states. The heat is definitely on." https://lnkd.in/gWSxiyYK

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝘂𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗕𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗮𝗱 𝗣𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗚𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻? The most obvious resource for baseload power generation is natural gas power plants. Some might argue that even before coal plants started to retire, regulated utilities would run their natural gas plants as baseload since there are no arbitrage opportunities when wholesale power can be pulled on anytime for a low cost. For this post, I will focus on alternative resources that might eventually replace coal, but not as soon as most Integrated Resource Plans (IRPs) suggest. It's essential to be skeptical of IRPs, as they often rely on wild guesses. It's almost impossible to predict how each market will provide reliable power with intermittent resources. 𝗔𝗹𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗪𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗣𝗮𝗶𝗿 𝗕𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗡𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗚𝗮𝘀 1️⃣ 𝗔𝗱𝘃𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝗡𝘂𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 Advanced nuclear power is highly reliable, offering a consistent power supply that could support baseload demands. However, regulatory hurdles and lengthy approval processes make it unlikely to come into the mix sooner rather than later. 2️⃣ 𝗟𝗼𝗻𝗴-𝗗𝘂𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗦𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗲 Long-duration storage has the potential to control services outside of just energy, such as ancillary services, making it a top resource. However, ongoing technological advancements mean that short-term storage remains the dominant solution in many markets today. 3️⃣ 𝗚𝗲𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹 Geothermal energy is highly promising but geographically constrained. Potential sites for geothermal plants are limited to certain areas of the U.S. map. This constraint, along with a lack of experts in the field compared to other alternatives, acts as a significant bottleneck. 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗮 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗟𝗼𝗮𝗱 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗳𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝗖𝗮𝗻 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗕𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗮𝗱 When utilities see high-load industrial customers pulling power from their systems, it becomes predictable for them to keep their baseload profile flat. However, as more capital is spent on the energy transition, the rate base will continue to grow, and the cost per MWh does not seem to be decreasing, despite what utilities' IRPs might suggest. We've reached an impasse where certain industrial customers in regulated states are paying over $105 per MWh, and in the next rate case, the cost is expected to increase by another 15%. This will likely lead customers to opt for their own behind-the-meter power generation, reducing baseload needs and shifting rate base costs onto residential customers, who are also nearing their own impasse of considering self-generation options. As we navigate these challenges, it's crucial to remain skeptical of IRPs and consider all potential solutions for a reliable and sustainable future in power generation. ❓ 𝗪𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝘅𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗮𝗱𝗲?

1. Stanford University professor Mark Jacobsen emphatically argues that countries, including many in Africa, can successfully transition to 100% wind and solar energy. 2. However, his affirmation overlooks the critical role of countries manufacturing vital products like cars, iron, steel, and fertilizer. Despite his stance, Jacobsen firmly believes that wind and solar energy can effectively supplant traditional baseload power sources such as nuclear and coal plants. 3. My belief: "None of his ridiculous ideas are true." The land for all the wind and solar is not available in the US or most countries, and you cannot rely on wind and solar to meet electricity demands: that is why nuclear and coal plants run as baseload and then gas turbines to "follow on." His thoughts are ludicrous and highly criticized. 4. Both energy analysts, Mike Conley and Tim Maloney, read Mark Jacobsen's ridiculous paper and concluded it was unrealistic. Wind and solar interconnectedness cannot replace baseload power, and power storage will be needed. 5. Mark Jacobsen's roadmap includes a buildout of wind and solar that would take thirty-five years, requiring 496,000 wind turbines, 18 billion square meters of solar panels, 50,000 or more solar and wind farms, 75 million residential rooftop solar systems, and 2.7 million commercial rooftop systems. 6. If attempted, this would be the largest construction project in world history. The wind turbines alone would require acreage the size of New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and New Hampshire states. The solar panels would require both Maryland and Rhode Island's size. His "roadmap" only uses 1/4 of the recommended acreage that NREL estimates for wind and 1/2 of what they recommend for solar. Vaclav Smil, an energy expert, called Jacobsen's "roadmap" "unbounded science and engineering fiction" [page 243, Vaclav Smil, Power Density, MIT Press, 2016.] Conley and Maloney's summary of Jacobsen's "roadmap": https://loom.ly/YVnXoLM My goal here is to separate fact from fiction. Mark Jacobsen's roadmap is fiction, not fact. Here is a link to some of the ridiculous, improbable renewable energy plans from 2020. https://loom.ly/rGAmwkc His article, published on September 6, 2017, on the ScienceDirect.com website, is titled "100% Clean and Renewable Wind, Water, and Sunlight All-Sector Energy Roadmaps for 139 Countries of the World."

Good read on energy storage. How to revive old hydro.