Two more contributions about not being able to electrify everything using only wind, solar and batteries – Raised by that?
My post on friday highlights the work of Ken Gregory, who has attempted to quantify the costs of fully electrifying the US energy system using only wind, solar, and batteries. My post has been circulated among my distinguished colleagues in CO2 Alliance, two of whom then provided me with links to their own work on closely related topics.
The two parts are: (1) “How many square kilometers of solar panels in Spain and how many backup batteries are needed to power Germany” by Lars Schernikau and William Smith, posted 30 January 2021 (revised 23 April 2021) at SSRN; and 2) “On the ability to generate electricity from wind and solar to power modern civilization,” by Wallace Manheimer, published October 7, 2021 in the Journal of Energy Evaluation and Research.
Both sections look at the various cost and technical issues involved in trying to develop an all-in-one solar/battery or wind/solar/battery system to provide energy. for the modern economy; and both quickly concluded for various reasons that such a project was completely unfeasible and would inevitably fail. However, both the US and Europe are moving towards implementing such plans, without any detailed feasibility studies or estimates, let alone a small-scale demonstration project to prove it. prove that this can work.
Schernikau and Smith consider a case of just trying to power Germany using solar energy generated in Spain (Spain has the best conditions in Europe for solar power generation). God). Conclude:
It seems that low solar density, high raw material input and low energy – Return on Energy Invested (eROeI) as well as large storage requirements make today’s solar technology become an economic and environmental choice to replace conventional power on a large scale.
S&S is primarily focused on the incredible material requirements that need to be met for this battery/solar project. First, for the solar panels:
To meet Germany’s electricity demand (or more than 15% of the EU’s electricity demand) from solar photovoltaic panels located in Spain alone, about 7% of Spain would have to be covered by panels. the sun (~35,000 km2). . . . To keep the Germany-only Solar Park running, the PV panels will need to be replaced every 15 years, i.e. the annual silicon requirement for panels approaching 10% of full production capacity. current demand (~135% for one-time setup). The silver requirement for modern PV panels powering Germany would represent 30% of global silver production annually (~450% for a one-time setup). For the EU, essentially the entire annual global production of silicon and three times the annual global silver production would only be required for replacement.
And then there’s the question of battery storage requirements. S&S doesn’t do hourly spreadsheets like Gregory to make capacity requirements, but assumes a 14-day storage demand based on the likelihood of 14 consecutive cloudy days in Spain. (Hourly analysis by Gregory and Roger Andrews would show that due to the seasonality of solar generation, 30 days of storage would be more realistic.). But even with the 14-day assumption, S&S still got these amazing results:
Producing enough storage capacity from batteries using today’s leading technology would require a full production of 900 Tesla Gigafactories at full capacity in one year, not to mention the battery replacement every 20 years. . . . The 14-day battery storage solution for Germany will exceed 2020 global battery production by 4 to 5 times. To produce the batteries needed for Germany alone (or more than 15% of the EU’s electricity needs) would require the extraction, transport and processing of 0.4-0.8 billion tons of the material per year (7 to 13 billion tons for the EU). once set up), and 6x for Europe. . . . Global 2020 production of lithium, graphite, cobalt or nickel anodes is not nearly enough to make batteries for Germany alone.
Manheimer’s section is more general in discussing capacity and storage issues, but then focuses specifically on dealing with large wind and solar facilities at the end of life. Their usefulness:
Let’s take a look at solar panels first. These panels last about 25 years, so the 250,000 tons we have to recycle this year is just a small number compared to the cataclysma that hits us in 2050, when we will have a total of 78 million tons for processing. These are not suitable for landfills, as they contain toxic and hazardous materials such as lead and cadmium, which can leach into the soil. However, recycling is very expensive. The cost of recycled materials is significantly higher than the cost of raw materials.
For wind turbines, blades and towers pose separate problems:
Since the blades are fiberglass and only last about 10 years, we have had considerable experience here. These blades are very large, and very expensive to transport and handle. . . . Difficulty in handling the blades compared to handling the towers, which lasted ~25 years. . . . [T]Mr. Washington Times estimates that a [realistic] estimated cost is $500,000 [per turbine].
Go ahead and look at the plans being put forward today by the likes of California, New York, Germany or the UK and see how they tackle any of these.
Related
