Still waiting for the first brave Green to step forward. Already, three Greens have refused to accept my challenge.
Is it perhaps that they suddenly realized that solar and wind does not actually replace coal, and that fact obviously undermines their entire world view?
If the article is correct this is a possible contender, but it appears to not be operational. Once it is operational, then I would need evidence of the actual electricity output over time to verify that it actually did replace all the electricity previously generated by the coal plant.
I am very skeptical that it will. According to the article: “ The solar farm will have capacity of 35 megawatts and the battery storage system will have capacity of 10 megawatts.” The coal plant outputs 20 megawatts.
The battery has half the output of the existing coal plant. This means the system requires substantial solar output to generate 20MW of electricity. It does not appear that they are even trying to replace the coal plant 24/7/365.
Solar generally runs about 25% capacity factor, so the only time period that it can generate as much power as the coal plant will be on sunny summer days. It will be completely useless during half the year even with the batteries. During that time period, the battery will only be able to discharge once (or optimistically a few times) in six months.
And the 25% is extremely optimistic. Paynesville OH is a terrible place for solar. The region is notorious for overcast and very cold winters. It is not hot enough that AC is going to require lots of air conditioning. This seems like small town is trying to grab federal subsidies.
The specific coal plant in question is clearly described in the article as a peaker, it didn't operate at nameplate capacity full-time. Nature of the economy and political environment is such that I'd expect many more will be operating at a loss but kept around out of institutional inertia until the transitional process is nearly complete. You wanted one example of one solar plant replacing one coal plant; here it is.
Are you going to admit that this comes as a surprise, and re-evaluate whatever other assumptions and derivations treated that impossibility as logically load-bearing? Not necessarily throw everything out, but propagate changes to plans and requirements. Or are you going to move the goalposts?
If you're trekking through the mountains, and some rocky slope is steep enough that a single pebble knocked loose from the top can bounce all the way down it, an avalanche may also be possible there. The pebble alone isn't absolute inarguable proof - only an actual completed avalanche would provide that - but it's certainly *relevant* evidence, cause for caution before setting up your tent directly in that potential avalanche's path. If solar actually can be operated, more profitably than fossil fuel and to reliable local benefit, in Painesville OH, where - as you say - solar conditions are far from ideal, it can likely also be done most everywhere people live.
Calm down. I am not moving the goalposts. The rules clearly state that the coal plant must have been decommisioned within the last 10 years.
In my reply to you, I clearly stated that “it is a possible contender” but it “appears to not be operational.” Given the track record of IRA projects, it may never be operational. When it does become operational, then show me the 24/7/365 electric output of both plants to show that the electrical output of the coal plant has been fully replaced.
For all the reasons that I stated in my previous reply, I am skeptical that this new plant will do that, particularly in the winter.
The fact that this coal plant is a peaker (very unusual for coal) makes it particularly unlikely to win the challenge. Electrical grids cannot choose when to turn on peakers. They must react to supply and demand. I just do not see how they can do that with this new plant repeatedly in the winter. My guess is that they plan to use electricity from other non-solar plants to recharge the battery in the winter. But if I turn out to be wrong, then you are a winner of the challenge.
Given that the new plant is relying on government subsidies, then there is no evidence that the new plant is “more profitable than fossil fuels.” The plant has not even been built, so we have no idea as to its profit margin!
It is likely that a new CCGT power plant would have been much more cost-effective and it could have output far more electricity without the need of government subsidies:
Coal is hated but it’s incredibly useful because it’s almost everywhere, it’s really cheap per BTUs, it’s fairly simple ( on average) to get out of the ground ( vs very tech dependent shale oil/gas), it’s used for steel, and it’s easy to store. That’s why it fueled the industrial revolution and why developing nations are so hungry for it.
Despite the ‘ energy transition,’ global production of coal is at all time highs. In 2022, the world produced more coal than at any point in history.
In terms of reliability, easy of storage is crucial. While natural gas is a wonderful fuel, an important ingredient in fertilizer and its use should be liberated, it does have a downside. Natural gas is difficult to store on site at most power plants. Any disruption with the pipeline system can wipe out power generation in a region. That’s especially true as gas delivers enormous quantities of energy directly to consumers to stay warm in winter. So gas plants are competing ( more or less) with consumers in winter.
Natural gas plants can be set up as dual fuel so you can store diesel/ other on site to ride out pipeline disruptions. However, we’d need to change the grid rules to focus more on grid stability to pull that off.
On a personal note, if possible ( safety and ventilation, etc), dual fuel home generators are a good idea. Natural gas generators are dependent on just in time delivery and price spikes during a bad winter storm. Of particular interest is natural gas/ propane generators for home use. One can easily and safely ( if one follow the appropriate steps) store propane on site. If the power goes out and the gas pipelines stop delivering in a storm, just switch on the propane generator to keep the lights on.
On battery storage as a potential energy source: These are limited by the physical realities of chemistry, mining of the requisite materials, and cost. J.C. McKay details this well in his book (available online) Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air.
Fundamentally, today’s “greens” are against human flourishing and view all human impacts on nature as negative. The truth is, everywhere humans have prospered, the environment is its most protected. Human flourishing lets the environment be protected. Whereas without our influence, the world is simply survival of the fittest and dog eat dog. The world is a naturally dangerous place, and we are the only species on the planet with the ability to make it safer.
Final points on “green” energy is that it isn’t “green” - it has huge environmental impacts involved in its production, use, and disposal - and it isn’t reliable energy! Solar and wind operate only intermittently and require reliable power backup.
I agree with most of this, and I will check out the book you mentioned above.
In fairness, I think that there are many people who support the Green energy agenda and also support human flourishing. They do not realize, however, that most Green activists do not. And those Green activists are very happy to keep regular voters confused.
The goal should be to educate regular people on the conflicting goals so they stop supporting the Green energy agenda. Hopefully, this post will play a small role in doing that.
Because solar cannot replace natural gas plants for the same reasons that solar cannot replace coal. The primary constraint is geography, which technological innovation is very unlikely to overcome.
I do support utility-scale solar in geographies where solar radiance is high and there is high electrical demand during the day (typically due to air conditioners). This realistically only works during the day-time for about 6 months out of the year, though. And the vast majority of the planet does not fit these criteria.
I do not know what "some dirt-cheap chemical processing hardware designed to be tolerant of intermittency in the power supply" means...
I think you must have misread. Finland is the one place (with significant human population) which I'm claiming probably won't ever be majority solar powered.
Apologies. Yes, I misrepresented your option. I should have said:
Get back to me when the majority of nations other than Finland (and nations resembling Finland) have their entire energy system (not just electricity) is running on solar.
Still waiting for the first brave Green to step forward. Already, three Greens have refused to accept my challenge.
Is it perhaps that they suddenly realized that solar and wind does not actually replace coal, and that fact obviously undermines their entire world view?
How about this one? https://insideclimatenews.org/news/25072024/inside-clean-energy-ohio-solar-farm-battery-storage/
If the article is correct this is a possible contender, but it appears to not be operational. Once it is operational, then I would need evidence of the actual electricity output over time to verify that it actually did replace all the electricity previously generated by the coal plant.
I am very skeptical that it will. According to the article: “ The solar farm will have capacity of 35 megawatts and the battery storage system will have capacity of 10 megawatts.” The coal plant outputs 20 megawatts.
The battery has half the output of the existing coal plant. This means the system requires substantial solar output to generate 20MW of electricity. It does not appear that they are even trying to replace the coal plant 24/7/365.
Solar generally runs about 25% capacity factor, so the only time period that it can generate as much power as the coal plant will be on sunny summer days. It will be completely useless during half the year even with the batteries. During that time period, the battery will only be able to discharge once (or optimistically a few times) in six months.
And the 25% is extremely optimistic. Paynesville OH is a terrible place for solar. The region is notorious for overcast and very cold winters. It is not hot enough that AC is going to require lots of air conditioning. This seems like small town is trying to grab federal subsidies.
https://weatherspark.com/y/18199/Average-Weather-in-Painesville-Ohio-United-States-Year-Round
And if this is the best evidence, it is not very impressive. Its capacity is 47 MW. A typical large coal plant is 20 times that size.
The specific coal plant in question is clearly described in the article as a peaker, it didn't operate at nameplate capacity full-time. Nature of the economy and political environment is such that I'd expect many more will be operating at a loss but kept around out of institutional inertia until the transitional process is nearly complete. You wanted one example of one solar plant replacing one coal plant; here it is.
Are you going to admit that this comes as a surprise, and re-evaluate whatever other assumptions and derivations treated that impossibility as logically load-bearing? Not necessarily throw everything out, but propagate changes to plans and requirements. Or are you going to move the goalposts?
If you're trekking through the mountains, and some rocky slope is steep enough that a single pebble knocked loose from the top can bounce all the way down it, an avalanche may also be possible there. The pebble alone isn't absolute inarguable proof - only an actual completed avalanche would provide that - but it's certainly *relevant* evidence, cause for caution before setting up your tent directly in that potential avalanche's path. If solar actually can be operated, more profitably than fossil fuel and to reliable local benefit, in Painesville OH, where - as you say - solar conditions are far from ideal, it can likely also be done most everywhere people live.
Calm down. I am not moving the goalposts. The rules clearly state that the coal plant must have been decommisioned within the last 10 years.
In my reply to you, I clearly stated that “it is a possible contender” but it “appears to not be operational.” Given the track record of IRA projects, it may never be operational. When it does become operational, then show me the 24/7/365 electric output of both plants to show that the electrical output of the coal plant has been fully replaced.
For all the reasons that I stated in my previous reply, I am skeptical that this new plant will do that, particularly in the winter.
The fact that this coal plant is a peaker (very unusual for coal) makes it particularly unlikely to win the challenge. Electrical grids cannot choose when to turn on peakers. They must react to supply and demand. I just do not see how they can do that with this new plant repeatedly in the winter. My guess is that they plan to use electricity from other non-solar plants to recharge the battery in the winter. But if I turn out to be wrong, then you are a winner of the challenge.
Given that the new plant is relying on government subsidies, then there is no evidence that the new plant is “more profitable than fossil fuels.” The plant has not even been built, so we have no idea as to its profit margin!
It is likely that a new CCGT power plant would have been much more cost-effective and it could have output far more electricity without the need of government subsidies:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/the-wonders-of-ccgt
Coal is hated but it’s incredibly useful because it’s almost everywhere, it’s really cheap per BTUs, it’s fairly simple ( on average) to get out of the ground ( vs very tech dependent shale oil/gas), it’s used for steel, and it’s easy to store. That’s why it fueled the industrial revolution and why developing nations are so hungry for it.
Despite the ‘ energy transition,’ global production of coal is at all time highs. In 2022, the world produced more coal than at any point in history.
In terms of reliability, easy of storage is crucial. While natural gas is a wonderful fuel, an important ingredient in fertilizer and its use should be liberated, it does have a downside. Natural gas is difficult to store on site at most power plants. Any disruption with the pipeline system can wipe out power generation in a region. That’s especially true as gas delivers enormous quantities of energy directly to consumers to stay warm in winter. So gas plants are competing ( more or less) with consumers in winter.
Natural gas plants can be set up as dual fuel so you can store diesel/ other on site to ride out pipeline disruptions. However, we’d need to change the grid rules to focus more on grid stability to pull that off.
On a personal note, if possible ( safety and ventilation, etc), dual fuel home generators are a good idea. Natural gas generators are dependent on just in time delivery and price spikes during a bad winter storm. Of particular interest is natural gas/ propane generators for home use. One can easily and safely ( if one follow the appropriate steps) store propane on site. If the power goes out and the gas pipelines stop delivering in a storm, just switch on the propane generator to keep the lights on.
On battery storage as a potential energy source: These are limited by the physical realities of chemistry, mining of the requisite materials, and cost. J.C. McKay details this well in his book (available online) Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air.
Fundamentally, today’s “greens” are against human flourishing and view all human impacts on nature as negative. The truth is, everywhere humans have prospered, the environment is its most protected. Human flourishing lets the environment be protected. Whereas without our influence, the world is simply survival of the fittest and dog eat dog. The world is a naturally dangerous place, and we are the only species on the planet with the ability to make it safer.
Final points on “green” energy is that it isn’t “green” - it has huge environmental impacts involved in its production, use, and disposal - and it isn’t reliable energy! Solar and wind operate only intermittently and require reliable power backup.
Thanks for the comment.
I agree with most of this, and I will check out the book you mentioned above.
In fairness, I think that there are many people who support the Green energy agenda and also support human flourishing. They do not realize, however, that most Green activists do not. And those Green activists are very happy to keep regular voters confused.
The goal should be to educate regular people on the conflicting goals so they stop supporting the Green energy agenda. Hopefully, this post will play a small role in doing that.
How about replacing coal with natural gas, then using solar - plus some dirt-cheap chemical processing hardware designed to be tolerant of intermittency in the power supply - to replace fracking wells? https://terraformindustries.wordpress.com/2023/01/09/terraform-industries-whitepaper-2-0/
Because solar cannot replace natural gas plants for the same reasons that solar cannot replace coal. The primary constraint is geography, which technological innovation is very unlikely to overcome.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/16-reasons-why-greens-should-love
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/can-increased-windsolar-retire-us
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/can-increased-windsolar-retire-asian
I do support utility-scale solar in geographies where solar radiance is high and there is high electrical demand during the day (typically due to air conditioners). This realistically only works during the day-time for about 6 months out of the year, though. And the vast majority of the planet does not fit these criteria.
I do not know what "some dirt-cheap chemical processing hardware designed to be tolerant of intermittency in the power supply" means...
> The primary constraint is geography, which technological innovation is very unlikely to overcome.
Difference between the best and worst sunlight is a factor of 3. There's room for solar PV to keep getting cheaper by a factor of 10 or more, and at current rates that won't take long. https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2023/10/11/radical-energy-abundance/
Thus, if it's viable anywhere now, it's viable everywhere but Finland in a few more years.
> I do not know what "some dirt-cheap chemical processing hardware designed to be tolerant of intermittency in the power supply" means...
It's explained behind that "terraform industries whitepaper 2.0" link.
Your entire argument is based on optimistic predictions of the future, which may or may not happen.
Get back to me when Finland's entire energy system (not just electricity) is running on solar.
I think you must have misread. Finland is the one place (with significant human population) which I'm claiming probably won't ever be majority solar powered.
Apologies. Yes, I misrepresented your option. I should have said:
Get back to me when the majority of nations other than Finland (and nations resembling Finland) have their entire energy system (not just electricity) is running on solar.