Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
Thu Dec 12, 2013, 06:47 PM Dec 2013

Just How Much Are Solar and Wind Really Contributing?

Just How Much Are Solar and Wind Really Contributing?

It’s the generation that counts.


Earthtechling, Pete Danko
December 9, 2013

It’s inevitable: any article that mentions increases in renewable energy capacity, be it wind or solar, will be met with a smart-aleck comment that renewables don’t operate at capacity and therefore are inferior.

Of course, the fact that renewables are variable producers is taken into account when assessing their value, and, it should be noted, even fossil-fuel plants don’t operate at 100 percent capacity on an annual basis. Still, installed capacity, while important, is of limited value and in the end, it’s generation that counts (along with when the power is generated, but that’s another story).

So, courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Lab’s Renewable Energy Data Book (PDF), here are some charts that show the progress of solar and wind capacity and generation in the United States. First, wind:



Source: National Renewable Energy Lab's 2012 Renewable Energy Data Book

To put the 2012 total generation (140,089 gigawatt-hours) into perspective, that’s 3.4 percent of all the electricity generated in the United States in the year. Doesn’t sound like that much, but a decade ago, it was barely a few tenths of 1 percent.

Now solar:



Source: National Renewable Energy Lab's 2012 Renewable Energy Data Book

The 12,775 gigawatt-hours of solar pumped out in 2012 ...


http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Just-How-Much-Are-Solar-and-Wind-Really-Contributing
28 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Just How Much Are Solar and Wind Really Contributing? (Original Post) kristopher Dec 2013 OP
How much are wind and solar really reducing CO2 emissions? GliderGuider Dec 2013 #1
Good question, but does anyone have the answer? Starboard Tack Dec 2013 #2
If every home had PV and wind GliderGuider Dec 2013 #4
I share your contempt for consumerism. Iterate Dec 2013 #14
+1 kristopher Dec 2013 #17
It may sound odd, but I don't actually feel any contempt for consumerism. GliderGuider Dec 2013 #20
You iterate very well my friend. +100 Starboard Tack Dec 2013 #25
Hmmm, Yuppie me! defacto7 Dec 2013 #26
The Co2 cost to build.................. FogerRox Dec 2013 #23
Sounds good to me. Let's keep building them and consuming less. Starboard Tack Dec 2013 #24
How much are you really reducing CO2 emissions... kristopher Dec 2013 #3
I just did a new CO2 footprint calculation GliderGuider Dec 2013 #5
It isn't your bones that are at issue kristopher Dec 2013 #6
Here's the "right-wing" thing as I see it GliderGuider Dec 2013 #7
That's clever kristopher Dec 2013 #10
Thank you! GliderGuider Dec 2013 #12
Why would he? FBaggins Dec 2013 #13
Certainly I disagreed... kristopher Dec 2013 #16
Emission of CO2 from the Danish power/CHP generation fell by 17.3 per cent in 2012 Iterate Dec 2013 #11
"Less than bad news" is a good way of putting it. GliderGuider Dec 2013 #15
culprits Iterate Dec 2013 #18
In my view there are no culprits GliderGuider Dec 2013 #21
NOT MUCH!!! is the answer PamW Dec 2013 #8
NRG CEO Crane: Power grid will soon be 'last resort' kristopher Dec 2013 #9
Any is better than none madokie Dec 2013 #19
Is it? How? GliderGuider Dec 2013 #22
I would find survival very difficult without renewable energy. Starboard Tack Dec 2013 #27
I don't think that was quite the thrust of madokie's comment, but GliderGuider Dec 2013 #28

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
2. Good question, but does anyone have the answer?
Thu Dec 12, 2013, 08:58 PM
Dec 2013

If every home had PV panels and a wind generator supplying the daily needs, there would be no CO2 emissions. Admittedly, there would be emissions caused by the manufacturing and delivery, but those emissions could be similarly reduced, once an adequate system is installed. These systems last a long time and are virtually maintenance free. My system provides virtually all my energy needs. The technology is improving daily, as is battery/storage technology. We should be much further along, but it's better than nothing.

The problem is not renewables, or even non-renewables. The problem is mindless consumerism and an economic system that both nurtures it and depends on it.

 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
4. If every home had PV and wind
Thu Dec 12, 2013, 10:22 PM
Dec 2013

Last edited Thu Dec 12, 2013, 11:37 PM - Edit history (1)

There would still be the factories that make all our other shit, including the panels and turbines. And "every home" includes one hell of a lot of people who are damned unlikely to have yuppie solar panels on their carefully oriented and shingled roofs, or battery packs in the basement any time soon.

We're not being mindlessly consumerist, we are being mindfully consumerist. It's our our life-program, bequeathed to us by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, evolutionary psychology and the Maximum Power Principle. Every decision we make is carefully calculated to maximize our consumption within the limits of the money and debt available to us. It's how we roll.

Iterate

(3,020 posts)
14. I share your contempt for consumerism.
Fri Dec 13, 2013, 03:12 PM
Dec 2013

But we part ways because I see it as much, much more pervasive in how it's damaged our thinking, our politics, our discourse. Combine it with its kin 'de-skilling' and to me it's been the most damaging idea of my lifetime.

We also part ways on a vision of a way out of this. I'd rather see a 'hard to port, all engines stop' international action. To me, growth has ended and it's time to move sideways. But maybe I'm wrong and such a massive disruption (i.e. halting all production not needed for survival and transition) would cause more carbon than a steady change and building more slowly on what exists now. That part is a valid discussion we could have.

What I don't accept are the residual bits of consumerism that continue to infect the discourse. These aren't your ideas, but I'll just name them now so I'm not typing all fucking night:

The idea that "they won't build it for us", or that those meany greenpeace people stand in our way. Citizens get together and act, consumers wait for the rollout.

The idea of continuing to borrow from the future: by soil depletion, with debt and debt driven growth, with CO2, with nuclear waste, all of the ilk. From that perspective, renewables are a pay now, get a CO2 neutral return later at little or no marginal cost to match the level of a reduced demand. The first sentence is consumerist, the second one isn't.

Consumerism, and not collective action or help, is the source of learned helplessness. It's also the second source, after the workplace, of de-skilling. Two memorable posts on DU from the past: one person who claimed to understand the whole of the EU economy after buying a coffee at the Frankfurt airport, and another after the Fukushima explosion, who said it was just like blowing off the siding from a Lowe's garden shed. I hope those people are never named. I don't want that. But it was funny.

You're right, absolutely right, that anyone who thinks the CO2 solution is a matter of running out and buying a new power plant is crazy. I swear, for a couple of years here, by reading people list technical specs, I wasn't sure if they weren't looking for a new fridge or TV. That is a consumerist vision. But I'm also convinced that is not kristopher's position. It's certainly not mine. More on that below.

What's next, so many. The idea that you often see that endless cheap power and unlimited cheap gasoline should be a goal. That's a tantrum from spoiled children. Pure consumerist fantasy. Citizens know there are limits.

Fuck, I could list a hundred more, but others could list them too. I've got to get to the verb. Thirty years of thinking about it and now I try to fit it into one post.

OK. Support, and then activism, for renewables is derived from the citizen, not the consumer. That's not any one person's conclusion, it comes from the many who have fought the fight. I'm not a fan of simply waiting for market forces, but you can harness them in your favor. The idea of mindful consumerism is almost contemptible. For one thing it shifts the burden and the blame. It's still consumerist thinking. One by one, we're toast. Nobody gives a shit for one refusenik. But 7500 people in Molokai who refuse to pay, or insist on local control, that gets noticed.

So...realizing that consumption is built into the infrastructure, you can collectively change it. That changes the culture. It changes how people interact. Think of moving from cars to trams: a tiny fraction of the CO2, people interact differently, dress differently, different land use, on and on. You won't get that kind of change by waiting for Detroit, or big coal. They have to be fought, and they have to either cooperate or be defeated.

That's enough.

 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
20. It may sound odd, but I don't actually feel any contempt for consumerism.
Fri Dec 13, 2013, 09:47 PM
Dec 2013

I don't indulge in blame, shame or guilt any more - either on my own behalf or directed towards anyone else. I don't think collective human consumerist behavior can be changed by voluntary intervention or self-control. I think it's an expression of our evolutionary heritage colliding with very high levels of available exergy.

I don't think that our rational mind gives us much free will where consumption is concerned. This shows up especially in groups of people where our instincts toward social status and group membership rule our behavior. Collectively we tend to move in the direction of lower consumption only when circumstances require it, not from choice.

This behavior is inherent in all living organisms to some degree, but is most visible with humans because of our ability to alter the environment to make increasing consumption possible. This has been the driving force behind the human experience on this planet since we domesticated fire, well before the other signpost of agriculture came on the scene.

We (all 7 billion of us) have a cherished cultural belief that we are in control of our behavior, so anything negative that happens is somebody's "fault". That is a deeply mistaken view of the human organism. It seems to arise from the natural desire of our limited consciousness to believe that it is omnipotent. All the concepts you talk about - citizens vs. consumers, de-skilling, "fighting the fight" - arise from this fundamental mistake. A mistake that is nobody's fault by the way. It's just a natural error we make because we haven't learned to lift the hood of the human engine compartment and look at what's really going on inside.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
3. How much are you really reducing CO2 emissions...
Thu Dec 12, 2013, 09:10 PM
Dec 2013

...by so bravely bloviating on behalf of the status quo from the rear.

They could have just as easily written

It’s inevitable: any article that mentions increases in renewable energy capacity, be it wind or solar, will be met with a smart-aleck comment that renewables are not significantly reducing CO2 emissions so they aren't worth the effort.


There are no shortage of right wing memes intentionally designed to preserve the status quo.
 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
5. I just did a new CO2 footprint calculation
Thu Dec 12, 2013, 11:18 PM
Dec 2013

Over the last decade I have reduced my CO2 footprint by 75%, from 17.8 to 4.5 tonnes per year. Canada's average is 16, so I'm perfectly happy with what I've done.

Given my Political Compass score of (-9.8, -9.5) that has been stable since 2006, I'm pretty sure there isn't a right wing bone in my body.

You just don't like people who express skepticism about the power of renewables. Because you can't directly refute what I'm saying, you have to resort to the smear.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
6. It isn't your bones that are at issue
Fri Dec 13, 2013, 12:06 AM
Dec 2013

It is the constant attacks on renewable energy sources that are straight out of the rightwing play book.

When you ACT like someone on the right - and constantly slamming renewable is an act as solidly right wing as an anti-tax rant - then you are going to have to accept the fallout that goes along with the act.

As far as not being willing or able to "refute" what you're saying, that simply isn't true. The only basis for your claim are an unending series of graphs based on the invalid assumption that what has happened in the past is destined to be the future in spite of the fact that policy actions are irrefutably proven to be completely capable of changing the trends you manufacture for your graphs.

You don't have to listen to the facts, but I'm not about to grant you the benefit of the doubt when you push these rightwing memes using that as a foundation. It would be no different than someone saying, hey, I don't believe in climate change because I can cherry pick a bunch of crap data and make a graph that shows it isn't happening.

 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
7. Here's the "right-wing" thing as I see it
Fri Dec 13, 2013, 08:18 AM
Dec 2013

The right wing is fundamentally aligned with the corporate global power structure. One of the backbones of that power structure is the fossil fuel industry. The power structure influences - directly or indirectly - most politicians of importance throughout the world. In an environment like this, the legislative suppression of fossil fuel use will not happen. The power structure is interested in ensuring that fossil fuel interests continue to be served. That means they will not permit serious carbon pricing, for instance - something that IMO is essential if FF consumption is to be forced down rapidly and soon.

When I say that renewable power will remain an addition to fossil fuels for the next two or three decades rather than displacing them, this is the reason I can say that. The global corporate power structure will not voluntarily make itself weaker, and they influence enough politicians (even entire national governments) to secure the right to keep selling increasing amounts of fossil fuel. That means defeating carbon taxes, hampering renewable power if they can, and defeating governments that start to sound too serious about carbon reduction.

No matter how much renewable power enters the picture, it will not result in the depression of FF consumption on a global basis within the next 20 years. That's because there is such entrenched and powerful resistance to any legislation that would actually reduce the use of carbon. And legislation like that is what we would need if the growth of CO2 emissions were to be reversed within the next critical two decades.

We're not going to get a suppression of carbon consumption because corporate interests don't want it. Far from repeating some right-wing meme, I'm saying that renewable power isn't going to ride to the rescue because the (right-wing) global corporate oligarchy does not want to see fossil fuel consumption curbed.

Look at Australia.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
10. That's clever
Fri Dec 13, 2013, 12:45 PM
Dec 2013

Criticize the right-wing by saying they will be successful in order to justify using bogus analysis to for spreading right-wing memes.

Brilliant.

FBaggins

(26,696 posts)
13. Why would he?
Fri Dec 13, 2013, 03:09 PM
Dec 2013

The purpose of dismissing something by labeling it as "right wing" is so that you don't have to deal with the substance.

Ironically... it's a common tactic of the right wing (except they use "communist" or "far left" etc.)

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
16. Certainly I disagreed...
Fri Dec 13, 2013, 03:23 PM
Dec 2013

Posts 1,3 and 5 are all consistent with right wing themes used to attack renewable energy. That you "greenwash" your use of those themes makes them no less a part of the right's noise machine.

Iterate

(3,020 posts)
11. Emission of CO2 from the Danish power/CHP generation fell by 17.3 per cent in 2012
Fri Dec 13, 2013, 01:16 PM
Dec 2013

Part of that was from an increase in Norwegian hydro import, but then that's the whole point of both geographic and renewable source distribution.

And you'll get no evangelism from me. In fact, evangel once meant simply 'messenger' and the damned Christians ruined it by making it an ism. Plus the deniers have wrecked the good old word 'skeptic', so now I'm in a pissy mood.

It follows then that I wouldn't call the Danish drop good news. I'd call it less than bad news and settle for that at the moment.

http://energinet.dk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Engelske%20dokumenter/Klimaogmiljo/Environmental%20report%20for%20Danish%20electricity%20and%20CHP%20-%20summary%20of%20the%20status%20year%202012.pdf


Figure 2 Fuel consumption in Denmark

 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
15. "Less than bad news" is a good way of putting it.
Fri Dec 13, 2013, 03:13 PM
Dec 2013

The world as a whole is going in the other direction.



The world's fuel consumption is 50% higher today than in 1990. Unfortunately it needs to be declining by ~5% a year at this point.

Denmark is an utterly inconsequential energy consumer on the world stage. They are responsible for just 0.1% of the world's fuel consumption.

Iterate

(3,020 posts)
18. culprits
Fri Dec 13, 2013, 05:37 PM
Dec 2013

ok, cool. I knew we'd end up here someday. You have the timezone advantage though.

Fuel use and CO2 emissions are not global. Each and every molecule is used and generated in one place at one time. When you globalize data, it masks the culprits and robs us of the chance to understand the dynamics of what is really happening. The effect is global, obviously, but not its source.

We both know the numbers, so I'll save some web carbon by sticking with English and links when I can.

In the top 20 CO2 emitters/fuel users you have just three who matter -US, Canada, Australia. The rest have small populations or will fall into line. That would be those from ~13-45 Mtons of CO2 per capita.

The next tier is the EU-27, South Korea, Japan, South Africa, Taiwan, maybe Russia -those who are significantly above the current world average. CO2 ~5 to ~12 Mtons. This group is at about half per capita of the top tier.

The third tier is just China. A category unto themselves. 5.7 Mtons

If you deal with these top tiers, the bottom half of global use can be set aside, at least for a while. Focus on helping them with health and population stability. Or like with Cuba, they can chart their own paths. But that's not where the carbon is.

Now within the top two tiers, the urban poor and sharecroppers from the Mississippi delta are not the ones causing the CO2 problem.
And here's urban living:
...which is not online anymore. Sorry. I still have the relevant quote and will post it without being able to completely stand by it:
"If one person member of an average household ceases driving to work and takes mass transit instead, the CO2 generated by that household will drop by 30 percent. "

Here's the US state data:
http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/analysis/pdf/stateanalysis.pdf

In that data, the states which have the highest extractive industry are off the fucking charts -Wyoming, ND, W. Virginia, and others. Extractive industry is obviously driving the use in Canada and Australia too. In the Midwest it's Ag. But it's commuter traffic too.

Here's the last detail to my point. I think might be the best paper ever posted here, or not, but it's pretty damned good:
Big environmental footprints: 21 percent of homes account for 50 percent of greenhouse gas emissions
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112747906

direct: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es304084p

It's a study from Switzerland showing that the 50% of GHG comes from suburban/exurban commuters with large(by Swiss standards) homes. Just by the demographics there, that conclusion from that paper is more or less applicable to every country in the top two tiers, and especially the US, Canada, and Australia.

To get to the verb, your global problem just became identifiable. It's extractive industry, and especially that in support of excess consumption. It's the large suburban/exurban home. It's the commute. It's in the purchases. But it's not in the whole population of those nations, it's in the 20%. Or the 40% as the case may be.

So any solution has to be found in getting that top tier only to cut consumption/CO2 in half, and then half again. It's in getting the second tier to cut by half.

I know that's not enough for the long now. It might, however, buy time (if wasn't already too late in 1950). But it's identifiable, and it's possible. Huge, but not so dismally overwhelming. And small places with cohesive communities will show results first.

OK, your turn. Sleeeep for me.

 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
21. In my view there are no culprits
Fri Dec 13, 2013, 09:57 PM
Dec 2013

Last edited Fri Dec 13, 2013, 11:08 PM - Edit history (1)

There are simply actors at different essential levels of the dissipative hierarchies of human societies. Very, very few people (in any modernish country) actually want to reduce their consumption if they don't have to. We spend most or all of our money in order to maximize our physical or social power for our own benefit. Any money that may be left over gets is put in banks where it is promptly used by those who have an opportunity to produce more power for their own purposes.

The urban poor are just as beholden to the carbon system for their survival as the CEO of Exxon. We comfort ourselves by concentrating on the details. That allows us to ignore the big picture - the one that shows us the real face of the boogeyman, who just happens to look a lot like us.

PamW

(1,825 posts)
8. NOT MUCH!!! is the answer
Fri Dec 13, 2013, 11:31 AM
Dec 2013

especially when it comes to electricity provided by solar power.

kristopher provided us with the LLNL energy chart in this post in another thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112758716#post2

Of the 0.235 units of solar power, the bulk goes to residential heating. The chart shows that the solar contribution to electricity is 0.0408 units, out of a total electric power use of 38.1 units.

Do the math; solar contributes 0.0408 / 38.1 = 0.00107 = 0.1%

The contribution of solar to electric demand is ABSOLUTELY TRIVIAL; it is PALTRY.

The problem is the people that are enamored by percentage change, when the value itself is near zero.

It's easy to have a large percentage change, when the previous value is near zero. ANY change to a value that was truly zero would be INFINITE in percentage change.

But it isn't percentage change that lights people's homes.

The only use for the percentage change is to stoke the "greenie wet dreams" of the mathematically inarticulate.

These graphs show NOTHING about the limits of the technology dictated by the Laws of Physics.

In fact, the purveyors of these "greenie wet dream" numbers don't know the Laws of Physics; and have shunned even attempting to study them.

Mother Nature will stand in their way. Again, as I always say:

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
9. NRG CEO Crane: Power grid will soon be 'last resort'
Fri Dec 13, 2013, 12:28 PM
Dec 2013

Remember that if you are a DUEE regular reader, you heard years ago that we were on this trajectory.

NRG CEO: Power grid will soon be 'last resort'

By Ethan Howland Dec. 11, 2013 |

Dive Brief:
- In a few years, most power will come from distributed sources and the centralized power grid will become a "last resort," according to David Crane, NRG Energy's president and CEO.

- Utility power sales have entered an “inexorable decline,” the "massive excess capacity" needed to meet peak demand "will become unnecessary" and the need for new power plants and transmission infrastructure "will be eliminated," Crane posits.

- Crane says three trends will lead consumers to stop buying power from utilities: cheap rooftop solar, automated conservation and extreme weather.

- But Crane sees a possible compromise between utilities and their customers on solar. Utilities should buy back excess supply that coincides with peak use, instead of offering average power supply costs, Crane said. Solar customers should pay for grid use at night or on cloudy days.



http://www.utilitydive.com/news/nrg-ceo-power-grid-will-soon-be-last-resort/204998/

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
27. I would find survival very difficult without renewable energy.
Sat Dec 14, 2013, 01:05 AM
Dec 2013

If I had no solar or wind I would not be able to move my boat, heat food or water, generate enough electricity to power a computer in order to respond to your post, refrigerate food, desalinate seawater, charge my batteries, listen to a radio and many other things.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Just How Much Are Solar a...