Also also. With #Trump coming up, is the dependency on US LNG sustainable? The move to #Renewables and storage capacities for electricity can not come soon enough, IMHO.
« Transformers had long been readily available within six to eight months when manufacturers suffered from a glut for years, but demand in the $48bn market has suddenly rocketed. Its size is expected to reach $67bn by 2030, according to estimates by consultancy Rystad Energy.
Utilities wanting to buy the key piece of electrical infrastructure would now have to wait three to four years if they have not reserved one already, said Schierenbeck, formerly CEO of German energy company Uniper.
The supply chain bottleneck is another pinch point for power systems struggling with surging growth in electricity generation and ageing infrastructure.
In particular, the expanding share of renewables in the electricity mix in some markets requires more transmission equipment because they are often located far from users and produce power from more dispersed sources than traditional electricity plants.
That has created an urgent need to upgrade the grid to tackle huge waiting lists for new projects to connect to networks, as regulators struggle to cope with the major power system overhaul that decarbonising requires. »
Oh look - the UCP is looking to expand its de facto ban on renewables.
I had a discussion with an economist about the UCP's approach here over on X a month or two back. He tried to argue that it was "good policy" because it went after end of life recycling issues.
I said it was part of a de facto ban, and here we are with that being expanded.
I don't think that it is possible to neatly separate the home user market for electricity from an industry market one. The more #renewables you connect with the grid, the more traditional power plants you need to avoid net fluctuations. That is: All home users with their IMO naïve idea of "selling back to the grid" ignore that their fantasies presuppose the full-fledged operation and round-the-clock availibility of what they want to abolish: Traditional powerplants (coal, gas, nuclear) in massive sizes, ready to step in any minute. There is, again IMO, no way that renewables can be used meaningfully on a private home-owner basis. Whih is one of the reasons why I think #peakrenewables is far more realistic than some "green electricity" future.
For my story for @thejapantimes I explore how Tokyo is balancing with the social cost and geopolitical risks as it, cautiously, moves forward on its #cleanenergy transition
On Wed: German Foreign Office posted on X mocking #TFG.
TFG criticized Harris’s clean energy approaches -cited Germany.
“Germany tried that & within 1 year -back to building normal energy plants. We’re not ready for it -can’t sacrifice our country for the sake of bad vision” -TFG.
Partly so, in my opinion. I concur with the assessment that dezentralised energy storage capacities will – over a long strech of time – mostly benefit the military and its increasingly electricty-intensive equipment (drones, flight control, interception, AI managed swarms, etc.).
But that does not pertain to volatile #renewables like wind and sun whose effectiveness and suitability far more depend on grid structures, base loads of consumption and conventinal production, electricity markets, network costs, etc. That's one of the reasons, BTW, why I speak of #peakrenewables: They can positively contribute up to 30% in the overall electricity production, marketing, transfer, and consumption – beyond that it mainly increases costs and creates negative price offsets. And storage even for such minor for such capacities is not on the horizon. Hydrogen production on site of renewables is laughable (10% effectivness) and hydrogen powered plants are, well, not in sight.
Thus I think the current Tesla "Megapack" battery units (3.9 Mw/h storage per unit) is currently the best solution not for private, municipal, or commercial solutions but for military.
[Sidenote: And given the demand for batteries, I find it plausible that the vast lithium reserves in the Donbas region provided one of the main reasons for Putin to invade Ukraine.]
#Russia today attacked Kyiv Hydro Power Plant in #Ukraine with rockets and I can’t pass this opportunity to demonstrate another popular media bias related to electricity generation.
Kyiv HPP reservoir is almost 1,000 km2 and the dam is 12 m high with a capacity of 1,500 m3/s. The potential energy of this mass of water is 1.5 GJ, or - if one likes comparisons to nuclear weapons - roughly half a kiloton of TNT per second. In terms of energy released, it’s like a small tactical nuclear weapon exploding every second for days, until all water escapes.
While everyone is getting excited about a hypothetical #nuclear meltdown in Zaporizhzhia or Kursk, the risks of #renewables have already materialised - the Russian destruction of the Novaya Kakhovka hydroelectric plant resulted in the deaths of hundreds of people and the contamination of thousands of km2 of land and the Black Sea. The Russians have already attacked hydropower plants in Dnipro and now Kyiv, and have successfully stopped power generation (but not destroyed the dams themselves). Historically, the biggest energy-related disaster is also not any Chernobyls or Fukushimas, but also hydroelectric plants - the destruction of the Banquiao dam chain in China in 1975, which killed between 50’000 and 200’000 people.
The story of the Russian invasion of Ukraine shows that renewable energy - and hydropower is one of the key renewables because it’s dispatchable - is a source of risks not just hypothetical, like NPPs, but real.
Please do not take what I wrote above about kilotons as an attack on renewables itself, just me poking the media bias and a polite reminder that any source of energy is a potential threat. A sound analysis of the risks associated with these sources involves a quantitative comparison of these risks converted into kWh of energy produced based on facts, not mythology wholesale manufactured by Greenpeace & friends.