Fester,
> I am trying to make economic sense of renewable energy, but there is none to be made.
It looks to me like you're doing the opposite: trying NOT to make economic sense of renewable energy because you want to believe there is none to be made.

>Considering capacity factor alone it makes no sense,
Considering capacity factor alone makes no sense! Consider a wind turbine: f it has a high capacity generator (to take advantage of stronger winds when they blow) that gives it a lower capacity factor, but doesn't make it less useful.

>and the European energy link I gave would suggest that a real world capacity factor for wind/solar is about 11%
I can't see how you got that figure. Would you care to explain?

>The other thing about capacity factor is that for conventional power generation, the
>downtime is predictable, whereas for renewables it is random.
Not really - weather forecasting means it's far from random for renewables, whereas coal fired power stations often fail at random times.

Obviously there are issues relating to the lack of dispatchability from wind and solar power, but these are not insurmountable obstacles; they're technical challenges which can be (and are being) overcome.

>consider which factory might be more profitable: A factory running 24/7 on cheap
>predictable energy, or a factory running intermittently on expensive renewable power?
LOOK AT HOW YOUR SPIN IS FEEDING YOUR OWN DELUSIONS! You assume the baseload energy to be cheap despite the expense of its fuel, and you assume the renewable power to be expensive despite it costing almost nothing to operate!

Meanwhile back in reality, not all factories are equal: some are more labour intensive, some are more capital intensive, and others are more energy intensive. And the more energy intensive a factory is, the more it has to gain by only running on cheap (renewable) energy rather than running continuously.
(TBC)

Fester (Continued)

Despite checking urbandictionary, I don't really understand your Captain Underpants reference. But the Eurasian electricity supergrid already stretches from Ireland to Singapore (via Britain, Europe, Russia, China, Laos, Thailand and Malaysia) and there are many plans to extend it and to increase capacity (some being part of China's Belt and Road Initiative, some unrelated). A trillion dollars invested in something that serves billions of people shouldn't be too surprising.

Cheap renewables is a con and you have been sucked in by it Aiden. Don't feel bad about it. Con artists are clever. They tell stories that you want to see truth in. I look for working examples as it is a good way to expose con artists.

11%? Yes, that is a real figure. Nuclear power in Europe generates as much power as renewables in Europe. Wind and solar have a bit over eight times the generating capacity of nuclear in Europe. Given nuclear has a capacity of around 90%, that would give wind and solar a capacity factor of around 11%. That might be why nuclear power is a third the cost of renewables in Europe, yet you claim it to be more expensive Aidan. What is more, renewable energy requires large amounts of CO2 generating gas fired power to make it reliable.

I guess you can make up any fantastic story you like to make the renewable fantasy work, be it giant batteries or a spaghetti network of undersea power cables, but are there working examples to back up the story? Still based in fantasy, hence a job for Captain Underpants. Maybe International Rescue could delve into the undersea power cable business? Climate change is claimed to be a global emergency after all.

" the Eurasian electricity supergrid already stretches from Ireland to Singapore (via Britain, Europe, Russia, China, Laos, Thailand and Malaysia) "

Um, more fantasy I'm afraid. The idea was floated around the time of Desertec, the renewable energy farce that would provide Europe with abundant cheap green energy and turn Northern Africa into an oasis. Needless to say it failed on all counts.

And let's not forget hydrogen, the latest chapter in the renewable energy fantasy. Fortunately a number of scientists have spoken out against this lunacy. e.g.

https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/-expensive-greenwash-first-international-hydrogen-based-tender-launched-to-import-green-or-blue-ammonia-to-japan/2-1-1172692

How ironic that the most viable low carbon power generating technology is supported by long range forecast/modelling skeptics, yet psychotically opposed by those screaming hysterically about the coming climate Armageddon.

Fester,
Declaring something to be fantasy does not make it so. Which part of the Eurasian supergrid do you think doesn't exist?

I'm well aware the centrally planned high capacity supergrid proposals haven't come to fruition (though IMO BRI will change this). But what you don't seem to have grasped is that it's in countries' interests to link their electricity grids up with those of their neighbours so they can trade. And many decided to do so, thus a supergrid formed almost spontaneously. And it doesn't involve "a spaghetti network of undersea power cables". Most of the supergrid's over land, and where there are undersea cables hey generally don't cross (though I'm aware of an exception in the North Sea).

Renewable energy activists have long regarded blue hydrogen as a con. However it's arguably desirable in the short term to get the hydrogen industry up and running, and will probably cease production within a decade for economic reasons as green hydrogen takes over. BTW it's easy to convert ammonia back to hydrogen, which burns cleanly.

You appear to have slept through the cost reductions in the cost of renewable energy over the last decade. But regardless, you need to know how markets work: even if renewable energy were as hopelessly uneconomic as it was back in the 20th century, you wouldn't have expensive power going to waste. When there's a surplus of power, the wholesale price falls - it would have to drop to zero before the turbine's owners decided to waste the power rather than sell it.

Your 11% figure's very dodgy - the figure I've seen for European wind power is 26%, with newer installations having a higher capacity. And where did you get the idea that "Wind and solar have a bit over eight times the generating capacity of nuclear in Europe"? AIUI it's more like three times. And the reason nuclear power is so cheap in Europe is because of when it was built - the cost was inflated away in the 1970s. Unfortunately they're unable to build new nuclear power stations anywhere near that cheap.

You think putting you power supply at the beck and call of a foreign power a good idea Aidan? It's worked well for Europe relying on Russian gas hasn't it? And no, it doesn't exist, not even for Europe. Note the words "possible future" in the following quote:

"The European super grid is a possible future super grid that would ultimately interconnect the various European countries and the regions around Europe's borders – including North Africa, Kazakhstan, and Turkey – with a high-voltage direct current (HVDC) power grid."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_super_grid

"BTW it's easy to convert ammonia back to hydrogen, which burns cleanly."

Yes you can Aidan, but considering you are getting less than 15% energy efficiency using ammonia for the application I linked, converting the ammonia back to hydrogen would make the process even more abysmal.

"And where did you get the idea that "Wind and solar have a bit over eight times the generating capacity of nuclear in Europe"?"

Yes, you are right Aidan. A bit over three times I think. Wind and solar combined have a capacity factor of less than 30%, but given you need gas fired power on standby to make it reliable you can effectively halve that figure. What is pertinent is that wind/solar is currently three times the cost of nuclear and is far less reliable. Nor is wind/solar maintenance free.