Solar WINDOWS (not panels)
AMAZING IOT #8: SOLAR WINDOWS (NOT PANELS!) ST Smarter Together, 16 Mar 16 A handful of startups are heading toward a new window of opportunity: solar powered windows. If you think about all of the windows in the world – Manhattan alone has 10.7 million windows – creating a window that allows businesses to save on energy costs would be breaking into an almost unimaginably huge market.
Solar powered windows sound conceptually like an oxymoron: Solar panels absorb and reflect light while windows let light through. Various startups have proposed different solutions to this issue which, at its heart, is a serious one. The company Solaria, uses thin strips of photovoltaics on already existing glass, making windows appear pin-striped. Another startup called Oxford Photvoltaics uses perovskite – an oxide used for superconductors – in order to capture solar energy. ………. competitor Richard Lunt and his team at Michigan State University created solar panel windows with a new method called Transparent Luminescent Solar Concentrator (TSLC). This method has the photovoltaic strips on the edge of the glass, allowing the window to be more transparent than the other two……..http://smartertogether.telenorconnexion.com/2016/03/amazing-iot-8-solar-windows-not-panels/
Home solar energy is booming in USA
The Surprise New Boom Market for Residential Solar Huffington Post, By Barbara Grady 24 Mar 16 As the price of solar powered electricity keeps falling and rooftop panels pop up in an increasing number of neighborhoods, an interesting thing is shaping up in the market.
Residential solar is no longer for just well-to-do homeowners. Indeed, the growth market in solar is median- and low-income neighborhoods in California and other locales, according to multiple recent reports.
In 2015, a full 65 percent of residential solar getting installed in California was in zip codes with median household incomes of $70,000 or less, while just 6 percent of installations in the state were happening in neighborhoods with median household incomes above $100,000, according to a report from Kevala Analytics.
A surge in solar adoption — as well as a shift in where that adoption is taking place — is driven by economics that make solar the money saving option for electricity rate payers and by policies that offer flexible ways for people to benefit from solar.
In California, Massachusetts, New York, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Maryland and some other places, policies that extend the reach of solar to renters and residents without rooftops are widening the market for individual and community installations alike. Financing mechanisms prevalent in some markets but not in others have also made it possible for people to opt for solar without requiring they have money for big upfront costs.
Federal policies adopted in the last couple of years, such as Property Assessed Clean Energy loan funds, and National Community Solar programs have helped. …..http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greenbiz-group/residential-solars-new-bo_b_9526460.html
US households turning to solar panels. Impact on power industries
Impact of solar panels keeps growing The U.S. power industry is feeling the pressure, with about 1 million households turning to the sun. PORTLAND PRESS HERALD, BY JONATHAN N. CRAWFORD BLOOMBERG.22 Mar 16 Rooftop solar is casting a $2 billion shadow over power generators across the eastern United States.
With more than a million U.S. houses set to have solar panels by the end of next month, grid managers serving the eastern U.S. plan to cut the amount of electricity they buy from conventional plants by about 1,400 megawatts, starting in 2019, according to industry consultant ICF International Inc. That’s enough juice to power about 780,000 households.
The result could be as much as $2 billion in lost revenue for generators that are already reeling from lower demand, tight environmental regulation and depressed prices. Power producers including NRG Energy Inc. warn that the growing reliance on solar may curtail investment in conventional power plants, threatening the reliability of the U.S. electricity system. That’s already happened in Germany, they say, citing plans by EON and RWE to scrap existing or planned plants……..
Under “Energiewende,” a German transition plan designed to lessen fossil fuel use, about 30 percent of the country’s power is now generated by renewables, sending power prices to their lowest levels in more than a decade. That spurred EON’s Uniper unit to seek closure of two gas-fired units in Bavaria, and Essen-based RWE to scrap plans to start up its coal-fired Westfalen-D plant, valued at $1.1 billion…….
This year, for the first time, operators of regional power grids such as PJM Interconnection, which serves more than 61 million customers ranging from Washington to Chicago, and ISO New England Inc., have included solar growth in their estimates for 2019, spurring more national debate on how the nation’s electrical system will be financed and managed moving forward. http://www.pressherald.com/2016/03/19/impact-of-solar-panels-just-keeps-growing/
LARGE-SCALE SOLAR POWER STORAGE CAN BECOME A REALITY
CAN LARGE-SCALE SOLAR POWER STORAGE BECOME A REALITY?, Stanford Engineering, An unexpected finding by a team of engineers could lead to a revolutionary change in how we produce, store and consume energy. By Glen Martin, 16 Feb 16, “……..Now a team led by William Chueh, an assistant professor of materials science and engineering, and Nicholas Melosh, an associate professor in the same department, has made a discovery that could make large-scale solar power storage a reality.
The breakthrough is based on the fact that ordinary metal oxides, such as rust, can be fashioned into solar cells capable of splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen.
So far it has been impractical to use water-splitting as a way to store the sun’s energy. One reason is cost-efficiency. Silicon-based solar cells, such as those used in rooftop solar arrays, are good at converting visible and ultraviolet light into electricity. But silicon cells waste the infrared light, which bears heat, beating down on them.”Standard cells utilize a relatively small portion of the spectrum, and the rest is lost as heat,” Chueh said.Until the recent Stanford experiments, it was believed that metal oxides also became less efficient as they became hotter. And since they were less efficient than silicon to start with, that made them less interesting as a water-splitting technology.The Stanford experiments change that misconception…………Discovering that heating up metal oxides produces more energy means that relatively simple engineering could be applied to heat these solar cells to enhance their efficiency.”You don’t have to add energy from an outside source,” said graduate student and team member Andrey Poletayev. “You can do it for free by concentrating solar radiation, either through a magnifying lens or parabolic mirrors.”Chueh believes that this discovery will refocus attention on developing metal oxides as cost-effective alternatives to silicon solar cells. Quite apart from their potential use in a day-to-night energy storage scenario, he envisions that pure hydrogen gas produced by water-splitting could be used to power vehicles or other machines directly and without pollution.”We can store these gases, we can transport them through pipelines, and when we burn them we don’t release any extra carbon,” said Chueh. “It’s a carbon-neutral energy cycle.”This research was supported by Stanford’s Global Climate and Energy Project and by the National Science Foundation. https://engineering.stanford.edu/news/can-large-scale-solar-power-storage-become-reality
Scotland’s floating wind farm will ‘store’ power
World’s first floating wind farm to ‘store’ power http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/21/world-first-floating-wind-farm-to-store-power.html Anmar Frangoul Monday, 21 Mar 2016 Statoil is to install a lithium battery based storage system at the world’s first floating wind farm off the coast of Scotland.The new system, called Batwind, is to be developed in co-operation with universities and suppliers from Scotland after a deal was signed last week between Statoil, the Scottish Government, the Offshore Renewable Energy (ORE) Catapult and Scottish Enterprise, according to a statement released on Monday.
“By developing innovative battery storage solutions, we can improve the value of wind energy for both Statoil and customers,” Stephen Bull, Statoil’s senior vice president for offshore wind, said. The system is to be installed at the end of 2018, Statoil said, and will have the battery capacity of “more than 2 million iPhones.”
Because renewable sources of energy, such as the sun and wind, do not promise a constant stream of power, storage is seen as vital in the transition to a low-carbon, renewable future. A recent report from the Carbon Trust found that energy storage has the potential to save £2.4 billion ($3.46 billion) a year by 2030.
The storage system from Statoil will be piloted at Hywind Scotland, an offshore “wind park” with five floating turbines. The park is currently being built, with electricity production set to commence at the end of 2017. Statoil say that the wind farm will be able to power roughly 20,000 homes.
“This will help maximize the renewable generation of the Hywind offshore wind farm, whilst informing the case for energy storage and demonstrating the technology’s ability to support renewables in Scotland and internationally,” Fergus Ewing, Scotland’s energy minister, said.
Renewable energy beating nuclear power in India
Cheaper renewable energy has soared past nuclear power, Business Standard 18 Mar 16, Renewable energy in India has overtaken nuclear power as the country seeks carbon-free sources of energy to balance its reliance on coal. Such energy generation in India is higher than its nuclear power generation and is growing at a much faster pace because it is cheaper and quicker to install. The cost of renewable energy is now lower than the cost of nuclear power and does not come with attendant risks, such as this week’s radioactive fuel leak in Gujarat.
Renewable-energy generation in India was 61.8 billion units, versus 36.1 billion units of nuclear-power generation during the financial year (FY) 2014-15. Renewable energy accounted for 5.6 percent of electricity generated in India, against 3.2 percent for nuclear power.
Renewable energy has been growing at a faster pace than nuclear power over two years. During 2013-14 and 2014-15, renewable energy grew at 11.7 percent and 16.2 percent, respectively, while nuclear-power growth has been almost flat over the same period.
If the 2022 solar target is met, it will become India’s second largest energy source. The bulk of India’s renewable energy comes from wind, but solar energy is growing faster with installed capacity reaching 5,775 mega watts (MW) in February 2016. The national solar mission has set a target of 100,000 MW of solar power by 2022. If this target is met, renewable energy will become the second largest source of power for India after coal, and ahead of hydropower, natural gas and nuclear energy…….http://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/cheaper-renewable-energy-has-soared-past-nuclear-power-special-to-ians-116031800578_1.html
Hinkley nuclear- the wrong energy path for UK: five much better alternatives
“Hinkley is a deal that has nothing to do with market reality. Nothing to do with affordability, let alone with the ‘hard-working families’ that [energy secretary] Amber Rudd keeps bleating on about. And nothing to do with addressing our climate change responsibilities.
“By contrast, it’s got everything to do with political leaders in three nations – the UK, France and China – all of which ‘need’ Hinkley Point to happen for grubby geopolitical interests of their own.”
Five ways to power the UK that are far better than Hinkley Point http://www.theguardian.com/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2016/mar/18/five-ways-to-power-the-uk-that-are-far-better-than-hinkley-point
These alternatives to the troubled planned nuclear plant will be faster to build and cheaper for energy consumers, say experts, Guardian, Damian Carrington The planned £18bn nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point in Somerset are derided by critics as “one of the worst deals ever” for Britain, but defended as crucial to the UK’s energy policy by the government.
Recent resignations and financial warnings have knocked confidence in the Hinkley C deal, raising the question of whether clean energy alternatives could plug the gap. The fast-changing economics of the energy world, with renewables and other clean technologies falling in cost, indicate they can. The alternatives also look faster to build – it would take a decade to get Hinkley into operation – and cheaper for consumers, who ultimately foot the bills.
Energy policy expert Jonathan Gaventa, from the thinktank E3G, has come up with five better ways of powering the nation:
Energy efficiency
Electricity demand is already falling. The Somerset site for Hinkley C was approved in 2010 but since then UK demand has already fallen by more than the plant will produce, about 25TWh a year or 7% of today’s demand. Due to repeated delays, Hinkley C is unlikely to produce electricity much before 2030, by which time six Hinkleys’ worth of electricity could have been cut from the national demand, according to a McKinsey report for the government.
Wind turbines
Wind power generation equivalent to one Hinkley has been connected to the national grid since 2010. Onshore wind power, having dropped 20% in cost over the last five years, is much cheaper than the heavily subsidised price Hinkley is guaranteed for over 35 years. The costs of offshore wind are also falling and likely to be below Hinkley well before 2030.
Solar power
Electricity from solar power is now also cheaper than Hinkley, having fallen by half in the last five years. From almost no solar panels in the UK, a third of a Hinkley has been added since 2010. Half of that was delivered in just 18 months, according to government statistics. [excellent graph]
Cost of silicon photovoltaic solar cells,
Interconnectors
Another third of a Hinkley has been added to the UK grid since 2010 by new cables to other European countries, where electricity is currently cheaper. New interconnectors to Norway, Denmark and France could be laid by 2025, adding another two or three Hinkleys to the grid, according to a report for the UK’s National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) in February.
Storage and flexibility
Another NIC report for the government found that four Hinkleys’ worth of electricity could be saved by 2030 by increasing the ability to store electricity, inlarge batteries for example, and making the grid smarter. This would also save bill payers £8bn a year.
“It is clear that a combination of efficiency, renewables, interconnection and flexibility would be more than enough to fill the gap if Hinkley C is withdrawn – and could do so more quickly, more reliably and more cheaply,” says Gaventa.
“It is clear that a combination of efficiency, renewables, interconnection and flexibility would be more than enough to fill the gap if Hinkley C is withdrawn – and could do so more quickly, more reliably and more cheaply,” says Gaventa.
So why isn’t Hinkley dead already? Many energy policy experts are baffled. But veteran green campaigner Jonathan Porritt, who chaired the UK’s sustainable development commission for a decade, thinks he knows: “Hinkley is a deal that has nothing to do with market reality. Nothing to do with affordability, let alone with the ‘hard-working families’ that [energy secretary] Amber Rudd keeps bleating on about. And nothing to do with addressing our climate change responsibilities.
“By contrast, it’s got everything to do with political leaders in three nations – the UK, France and China – all of which ‘need’ Hinkley Point to happen for grubby geopolitical interests of their own.”
Electric vehicles not green if they’re fuelled by nuclear power
Disadvantages lurk in push for nuclear power http://www.thestar.com/autos/2016/03/18/disadvantages-lurk-in-push-for-nuclear-power.html
Electric cars are only as eco-friendly as the fuel powering our electricity grid, By: Peter Gorrie the Star, Mar 18 2016 I’ve recently focused on electric vehicles, especially Ontario’s steps to promote them with more charging stations and bigger incentives. The tone generally has been that the moves are positive, helping to pave the way for greater use of electric vehicles as part of a greener, more sustainable future.
But EVs are only as green as the electricity that powers them. If it comes from coal-burning generating stations, they can be responsible for more toxic and greenhouse-gas emissions than internal combustion engines.With stations fuelled by oil or natural gas, it might be a wash. Things are supposed to improve as you travel along the scale from nuclear power to hydro, and then, in the best case, wind, solar and other renewable sources. Ontario claims to be on the greenest end of the spectrum, since most of our electricity comes from hydro and nuclear generation, and we no longer burn coal.
Not so fast.
A few weeks ago, Premier Kathleen Wynne, in an unsuccessful bid to boost the Liberal candidate in the Whitby-Oshawa byelection, announced a $13 billion refurbishment of the Darlington nuclear generating station.
A similar amount is to be spent on the Bruce Nuclear station near Kincardine on the shores of Lake Huron.
What’s wrong with this?
- Nuclear power is far from pollution-free. It creates toxic greenhouse-gas emissions as uranium is mined, shipped and processed, and the plants are built, operated and dismantled.
- It raises safety issues, particularly from radiation releases. That danger is acknowledged by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, which now requires that potassium iodide pills — to reduce the threat of thyroid cancer after radiation exposure — be distributed to everyone within 10 km of nuclear plants, and available to anyone within 50 km.
- Despite decades of expensive research, there’s still no consensus on how and where to store the most radioactive waste from these facilities.
- The plan to store low- and medium-level waste at the Bruce site is raising concern all around the Great Lakes.
- The $26 billion estimate for the two Ontario refurbishments is a lot of cash. Worse, the actual total will likely be far higher, given the history and apparent inevitability of cost overruns. Construction and refits at Darlington and Bruce have ranged from 50 to 350 per cent over budget. Even taking inflation into account, the overruns are substantial.
All this makes nuclear power dangerous, uncertain and very expensive.
Many reports suggest alternatives — including conservation, hydro, and renewables such as wind, solar and biofuels — could ensure we have the electricity we need, at far less cost and risk. They say EVs, with their ability to store electricity and level fluctuations in supply and demand, could be part of a solution.
It’s at least worth an objective, open look. But pouring so much into nuclear power kills the chance to even consider other options. Sadly, while renewables spark growth and jobs elsewhere, that’s the route we’re on. We need to stop and examine all the choices
Which brings us back to EVs. They can only be considered truly green if they’re fuelled by the greenest-possible power sources, which is what we should demand.
Singapore cutting emissions by tapping the sun
MAR 18, 2016 Singapore plans to curb its greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and is moving to meet the target by tapping more of the sun’s energy.
Solar power usage here has gone up almost 30-fold since 2009, statistics from the Energy Market Authority (EMA) show.
Total installed solar photovoltaic capacity rose from 1.5MW in 2009 to 43.8MW at the end of last year. “This is the equivalent of powering around 14,000 four-room HDB flats for a year,” an EMA spokesman said. There are now 886 solar installations here, most of which are for non-residential use, for instance, at the Singapore Sports Hub…….http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/cutting-emissions-by-tapping-the-sun
Renewable energy effective in stalling greenhouse gas emissions – International Energy Agency (IEA)
Surge in renewable energy stalls world greenhouse gas emissions
Falling coal use in China and the US and a shift towards renewable energy globally saw energy emissions level for the second year running, says IEA, Guardian, John Vidal, 17 Mar 16, Falling coal use in China and the US and a worldwide shift towards renewable energy have kept greenhouse gas emissions level for a second year running, one of the world’s leading energy analysts has said.
Preliminary data for 2015 from the International Energy Agency (IEA) showed that carbon dioxide emissions from the energy sector have levelled off at 32.1bn tonnes even as the global economy grew over 3% .
Electricity generated by renewable sources played a critical role, having accounted for around 90% of new electricity generation in 2015. Wind power produced more than half of all new electricity generation, said the IEA.
The figures are significant because they prove to traditionally sceptical treasuries that it is possible to grow economies without increasing climate emissions.
“The new figures confirm last year’s surprising but welcome news: we now have seen two straight years of greenhouse gas emissions decoupling from economic growth. Coming just a few months after the landmark COP21 agreement in Paris, this is yet another boost to the global fight against climate changem” said IEA director, Fatih Birol.
The two largest emitters, China and the US, both reduced energy-related emmisions in 2015. In China, they declined 1.5%, as coal use dropped for the second year running and in the US they declined 2%, as a large switch from coal to natural gas use in electricity generation took place.
However, these declines were offset by increasing emissions in most other Asian developing economies and the Middle East, said the IEA…….
A seperate report by the European Environment agency (EEA) shows that the EU-wide share of renewable energy has increased from 14.3% in 2012 to 15% in 2013. This allowed the EU to cut its demand for fossil fuels by 110m tonnes of oil equivalent in 2013. This, said the EEA, is the equivalent of a gross reduction of CO2 emissions of 362m tonnes in 2013. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/16/surge-in-renewable-energy-stalls-world-greenhouse-gas-emissions
India’s massive bet on solar power is paying off
India’s big move into solar is already paying off CNN Money by Huizhong Wu @CNNTech March 7, 2016: India’s massive bet on solar power is paying off far earlier than anticipated.
The price of solar power has plummeted in recent months to levels rivaling that of coal, positioning the renewable source as a viable mainstream option in a country where 300 million people live without electricity.
And that could turn out to be a conservative forecast. At a recent government auction, the winning bidder offered to sell electricity generated by a project in sunny Rajasthan for 4.34 rupees (6 cents) per kilowatt hour, roughly the same price as some recent coal projects.
“Solar is very competitive,” said Vinay Rustagi of renewable energy consultancy Bridge to India. “It’s a huge relief for countries like India which want to get more and more solar power.”
Prime Minister Narendra Modi has made access to electricity a top priority, and has set the goal of making 24-hour power available to all 1.3 billion Indians. Currently, even India’s biggest cities suffer from frequent power outages…..http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/07/technology/india-solar-energy-coal/index.html
Climate action a winner for USA with clean energy and transport policies
Clean energy is win-win for the US, Climate News Network, March 13, 2016, by Tim Radford Simply implementing its Paris climate conference commitments on reducing greenhouse gas emissions could save the US billions of dollars – and save hundreds of thousands of lives.
LONDON, 13 March, 2015 − Scientists have worked out how the US could save as many as 300,000 lives by 2030, and get a tenfold return on its investments at the same time.
It’s simple. All the nation has to do is what it promised to do at the Paris climate conference last December − launch clean energy and transport policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by two-thirds or more, and pursue the international goal of keeping global warming to below 2°C.
Drew Shindell, professor of climate sciences at Duke University, North Carolina, and colleagues report in Nature Climate Change that the climate policies agreed by 195 nations at the latest UN summit on climate change deliver a winning scenario for the most powerful nation on Earth.
If the US pursued the switch to electric cars and renewable energy, hundreds of thousands of premature deaths could be prevented − not just by containing global warming and limiting the extent of climate change, but by the consequent reduction in soot, aerosols and ozone, all of which are pollutants with consequences for health.
Implementation costs
And although such policies would cost considerable sums to implement, the money saved in the long run would exceed expenditure by between fivefold and tenfold. Even in the short term, benefits of up to $250 billion a year are likely to exceed implementation costs.
“Achieving the benefits, however, would require both larger and broader emissions reductions than those in current legislation or regulations,” the scientists warn………..
The clean energy policies would prevent 175,000 premature deaths by 2030, with 22,000 fewer annually thereafter. Clean transport policies could prevent 120,000 premature deaths by the same year, and about 14,000 annually thereafter.
Calculations like these are based on a wide range of assumptions, and so are the potential rewards. Near-term national benefits could be anything from $140 billion a year to $1,050bn by 2030, but the Duke scientists settle on a likely figure of $250bn. Altogether, by 2030, the US would have saved $1,200bn under their proposals.
But if other countries do the same thing, the benefits would begin to multiply with the decades. Those benefits, the scientists say, would roughly quintuple, and could be 10 times larger than implementation costs.
“The US has pledged to markedly reduce emissions that cause warming, but has left many details to be determined later,” the scientists say − which is why they constructed their own emissions scenarios………
The proposals sound like a win-win offer. But the Duke scientists are aware of the problems. Their suggestions go twice as far as policies yet to be implemented in the US Clean Power Plan, and the costs of implementation would not be fairly spread.
They end on a note of realism: “Most benefits would accrue to society at large, whereas businesses that could face economic losses would not directly benefit from decreased emissions.
“These misaligned economic incentives between the welfare of individual companies and that of society at large create substantial implementation barriers.” − Climate News Network http://climatenewsnetwork.net/clean-energy-is-win-win-for-the-us/
Mark Diesendorf debunks the nuclear “baseload” myth: renewable energy can do it better!
Dispelling the nuclear ‘baseload’ myth: nothing renewables can’t do better! Ecologist 10th March 2016 The main claim used to justify nuclear is that it’s the only low carbon power source that can supply ‘reliable, baseload electricity’, writes Mark Diesendorf – unlike wind and solar. But not only can renewables supply baseload power, they can do something far more valuable: supply power flexibly according to demand. Now nuclear power really is redundant.We have all heard the claim. We need nuclear power because, along with big hydropower, it’s the only low carbon generation technology that can supply ‘reliable baseload power’ on a large scale……
Underlying this claim are three key assumptions. First, that baseload power is actually a good and necessary thing. In fact, what it really means is too much power when you don’t want it, and not enough when you do. What we need is flexible power (and flexible demand too) so that supply and demand can be matched instant by instant.
The second assumption is that nuclear power is a reliable baseload supplier. In fact it’s no such thing. All nuclear power stations are subject to tripping out for safety reasons or technical faults. That means that a 3.2GW nuclear power station has to be matched by 3.2GW of expensive ‘spinning reserve’ that can be called in at a moments notice.
The third is that the only way to supply baseload power is from baseload power stations, such as nuclear, coal and gas, designed to run flat-out all the time whether their power is actually needed or not. That’s wrong too.
Practical experience and computer simulations show it can be done………
The assumption that baseload power stations are necessary to provide a reliable supply of grid electricity has been disproven by both practical experience in electricity grids with high contributions from renewable energy, and by hourly computer simulations.
In 2014 the state of South Australia had 39% of annual electricity consumption from renewable energy (33% wind + 6% solar) and, as a result, the state’s base-load coal-fired power stations are being shut down as redundant. For several periods the whole state system has operated reliably on a combination of renewables and gas with only small imports from the neighbouring state of Victoria.
The north German states of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Schleswig-Holstein are already operating on 100% net renewable energy, mostly wind. The ‘net’ indicates trading with each other and their neighbours. They do not rely on baseload power stations.
A host of studies agree: baseload power stations are not needed…..
For countries that are completely isolated (e.g. Australia) or almost isolated (e.g. the USA) from their neighbours, hourly computer simulations of the operation of the electricity supply-demand system, based on commercially available renewable energy sources scaled up to 80-100% annual contributions, confirm the practical experience.
In the USA a major computer simulation by a large team of scientists and engineers found that 80-90% renewable electricity is technically feasible and reliable (They didn’t examine 100%.) The 2012 report, Renewable Electricity Futures Study. Vol.1. Technical report TP-6A20-A52409-1 was published by the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). The simulation balances supply and demand each hour.
The report finds that “renewable electricity generation from technologies that are commercially available today, in combination with a more flexible electric system, is more than adequate to supply 80% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2050 while meeting electricity demand on an hourly basis in every region of the United States.”
Similar results have been obtained from hourly simulation modeling of the Australian National Electricity Market with 100% renewable energy (published by Ben Elliston, Iain MacGill and I in 2013 and 2014) based on commercially available technologies and real data on electricity demand, wind and solar energy. There are no baseload power stations in the Australian model and only a relatively small amount of storage. Recent simulations, which have yet to be published, span eight years of hourly data.
These, together with studies from Europe, find that baseload power stations are unnecessary to meet standard reliability criteria for the whole supply-demand system, such as loss-of-load probability or annual energy shortfall.
Furthermore, they find that reliability can be maintained even when variable renewable energy sources, wind and solar PV, provide major contributions to annual electricity generation, up to 70% in Australia. How is this possible?
Fluctuations balanced by flexible power stations………
in all the flexible, renewables-based approaches set out above, conventional baseload power stations are unnecessary. In the words of former Australian Greens’ Senator Christine Milne: “We are now in the midst of a fight between the past and the future”.
The refutation of the baseload fairy tale and other myths falsely denigrating renewable energy are a key part of that struggle.
Dr Mark Diesendorf is Associate Professor of Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies at UNSW Australia. Previously, at various times, he was a Principal Research Scientist in CSIRO, Professor of Environmental Science and Founding Director of the Institute for Sustainable Futures at University of Technology Sydney, and Director of Sustainability Centre Pty Ltd.
Books: Sustainable Energy Solutions for Climate Change and Climate Action: A campaign manual for greenhouse solutions. http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2987376/dispelling_the_nuclear_baseload_myth_nothing_renewables_cant_do_better.html
The very rapid pace of solar energy growth in USA
The US Solar Market Is Growing Ridiculously Fast http://www.motherjones.com/blue-
marble/2016/03/us-solar-market-growing-ridiculously-fast By Tim McDonnell Mar. 9,At the end of 2015, the solar industry experienced something of a Christmas miraclewhen Congress unexpectedly extended a package of vital tax credits for renewable energy that were set to expire. Overnight, 2016 went from looking like it was certain to be a bust to looking like one of the biggest growth years on record.
New analysis from the energy market research firm GTM paints a picture of the awesome year solar installers in the United States have ahead of them. GTM predicts solar installations to jump 119 percent in 2016, adding 16 gigawatts of new solar by year’s end. (For reference, in 2011 there were only 10 gigawatts of solar installed total across the country.) Most of that is utility-scale solar farms, with the remainder coming from rooftop panels on homes and businesses.
This clean energy boost isn’t just a boon for the industry; as a result of the tax credit extension, greenhouse gas savings from solar and wind installations could add up by 2030 to the equivalent of taking every car in the country off the road for two years, a recent study found.
Wind power prices dropping below nuke re-build costs in Ontario.
Ontario Clean air Alliance 10 Mar Angela Bischoff, 11 Mar 16 Today Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) announced that it has signed five contracts with private sector companies for wind power at costs ranging from 6.45 to 10.55 cents per kWh.
According to Ontario Power Generation (OPG), the cost of electricity from a re-built Darlington Nuclear Station will be 7 to 8 cents per kWh. However, every nuclear project in Ontario’s history has gone massively over budget – on average by 2.5 times. If history repeats itself, the cost of electricity from re-built Darlington reactors will be 15 cents per kWh . That would make even solar power acquired through the new Large Renewable Procurement (LRP) process competitive with nuclear.
And, of course, solar and wind companies are on the hook for any cost overruns on their projects, unlike OPG which expects provincial electricity ratepayers and taxpayers to still pick up the tab for its inevitable cost overruns.
Also, renewable energy costs are projected to continue to fall rapidly so by the time the IESO undertakes its next LRP round a year from now, we will likely see even greater savings over costly and slow nuclear re-build projects. In fact, what the current LRP round has told us is that the Ontario government should be steering toward the off ramps for nuclear re-build projects as quickly as possible given the astonishing – and continuing — decline in green energy prices.
If we are smart, we will combine energy efficiency and water power imports from Quebec with made-in-Ontario renewable energy to build a much more cost effective, responsive and responsible electricity system for Ontario.
1 This Month
Watch the 2026 Doomsday Clock unveiling live here on January 27 at 10 a.m. EST
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com/
29 Jan. Thursday 7-8 p.m. Webinar – World’s Largest Nuclear Station in Port Hope, ON?
31st January – Challenging the War Machine – a DECLASSIFIED UK SUMMIT
Website of the Week
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- January 2026 (277)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 