Portugal just ran on 100% renewables for six days in a row

[essentialsaltes]

Portugal produced more than enough renewable power to serve all its customers for six straight days, from October 31 to November 6.

“The gas plants were there, waiting to dispatch energy, should it be needed. It was not, because the wind was blowing; it was raining a lot,” said Hugo Costa, who oversees Portugal for EDP Renewables, the renewables arm of the state utility, which was privatized in 2012. “And we were producing with a positive impact to the consumers because the prices have dropped dramatically, almost to zero.”

Portugal’s last coal plants shut down in 2022, leaving (imported) fossil gas as the backstop for on-demand power.

[Gas generation] made up 21% of electricity consumption from January through October

 

[Laodicean60]

I'm curious about your views on nuclear especially thorium plants. I own solar panels but I live in New Mexico where we have an abundance of sun and wind. I was a little disappointed when I found that panels in 2016 were about 30% efficient but I do enjoy single and sometimes double-digit costs that have been averaged throughout the year. Friends of mine have costs of over $300 dollar during the summer.
My concern about the electrification of America is that we are putting the cart before the horse. We have brownouts during the summer because all the A/C units turning on at the same time. The push for electrification will add to the load and brownouts (cars and now furnaces??)will happen more frequently a friend of mine told me that they want to do away with my gas furnace for electricity. I haven't looked into this but I hope not. Also, It takes a lot of fossil fuels to generate electricity I wish they would supplement here with nuclear so those brownouts don't interrupt my video game.
Someday I will be off the grid when technology improves. Peace

 

[essentialsaltes]

I'm curious about your views on nuclear especially thorium plants.

I definitely think nuclear power generation should be part of our energy mix. It doesn't emit greenhouse gases and can supplement renewables (i.e. at night when solar isn't generating). The main problem in the US for nuclear is that we have not solved the problem of nuclear waste storage. I'm no expert, but I think we should move forward with the Yucca Mountain facility to store the waste, because as it stands it is being stored unsafely at the power plants past their capacity.

 

[Laodicean60]

I definitely think nuclear power generation should be part of our energy mix. It doesn't emit greenhouse gases and can supplement renewables (i.e. at night when solar isn't generating). The main problem in the US for nuclear is that we have not solved the problem of nuclear waste storage. I'm no expert, but I think we should move forward with the Yucca Mountain facility to store the waste, because as it stands it is being stored unsafely at the power plants past their capacity.

I hear you, sad that Thorium was discovered during the Manhattan Project but we decided on uranium to make bombs. Thorium is less toxic and more abundant, I shake my head at the decision the government makes. I believe China has built one we are getting behind the power curve. Peace

 

[rambot]

Bur dont you understand. The richest country in the world could never so that!!!

 

[AlexB23]

Portugal produced more than enough renewable power to serve all its customers for six straight days, from October 31 to November 6.

“The gas plants were there, waiting to dispatch energy, should it be needed. It was not, because the wind was blowing; it was raining a lot,” said Hugo Costa, who oversees Portugal for EDP Renewables, the renewables arm of the state utility, which was privatized in 2012. “And we were producing with a positive impact to the consumers because the prices have dropped dramatically, almost to zero.”

Portugal’s last coal plants shut down in 2022, leaving (imported) fossil gas as the backstop for on-demand power.

[Gas generation] made up 21% of electricity consumption from January through October

This is awesome. Anything to get a country off of imported fossil fuels, which typically are sourced from the Middle East or Russia. Also, renewables are more affordable per energy unit compared to coal.

 

[Pommer]

Bur dont you understand. The richest country in the world could never so that!!!

We could, but it’d probably end up in socialism, and we can’t have that!

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Bur dont you understand. The richest country in the world could never so that!!!

Well, it's interesting...

Portugal does have a pretty unique advantage in that regard that many other countries don't have.

If you look at the Solar Atlas map for Europe

Portugal is one of the only countries in Europe that has pretty solid coverage for peak Solar energy generation (apart from Spain)

They're in a great spot for tidal power

And they're also in a great spot for Wind power...given their topography and proximity to the ocean, Wind power alone can satisfy almost 30% of their energy needs.


They also have the advantage of having a climate as such, where their energy needs for both heating and cooling (which is the lion's share of home energy consumption) are much lower. Their average temperatures are 75 degrees F in the summer, and 50 degrees F in the winter. Their temps are such that 86% of households there don't need air conditioning. And there's actually a surprising percentage of homes there (77%) that don't have/need central heating either.

So Portugal really is one of the countries where "the renewable stars are all aligned", so to speak.

That's not to say that the US shouldn't try to supplement with some renewables where feasible, but I think the "See, Portugal did it, that means the US could if they wanted to" is ignoring a lot.

If Portugal were a land-locked countries with a different terrain/elevation, and had the same type of summer/winter temp swings of a place like northern US, I suspect their experiment would've likely come up short and they'd have needed to rely on nuclear to fill in some pretty big gaps.

 

[rambot]

Well, it's interesting...

Portugal does have a pretty unique advantage in that regard that many other countries don't have.

If you look at the Solar Atlas map for Europe
View attachment 339450

Portugal is one of the only countries in Europe that has pretty solid coverage for peak Solar energy generation (apart from Spain)

They're in a great spot for tidal power
View attachment 339451

And they're also in a great spot for Wind power...given their topography and proximity to the ocean, Wind power alone can satisfy almost 30% of their energy needs.


They also have the advantage of having a climate as such, where their energy needs for both heating and cooling (which is the lion's share of home energy consumption) are much lower. Their average temperatures are 75 degrees F in the summer, and 50 degrees F in the winter. Their temps are such that 86% of households there don't need air conditioning. And there's actually a surprising percentage of homes there (77%) that don't have/need central heating either.

So Portugal really is one of the countries where "the renewable stars are all aligned", so to speak.

That's not to say that the US shouldn't try to supplement with some renewables where feasible, but I think the "See, Portugal did it, that means the US could if they wanted to" is ignoring a lot.

If Portugal were a land-locked countries with a different terrain/elevation, and had the same type of summer/winter temp swings of a place like northern US, I suspect their experiment would've likely come up short and they'd have needed to rely on nuclear to fill in some pretty big gaps.

The only challenge that the US really has over Portugal is the sheer volume you'd need to produce I would grant that. But the us is expontially larger in size with just as much opportunity to set up green energy.

So yes its easier for Portugal just it's not impossible for the us either. Thanks for the interesting stats though.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The only challenge that the US really has over Portugal is the sheer volume you'd need to produce I would grant that. But the us is expontially larger in size with just as much opportunity to set up green energy.

So yes its easier for Portugal just it's not impossible for the us either. Thanks for the interesting stats though.

The volume needed is one aspect, the logistics are going to be trickier as far as harnessing and getting it from one place to another.

Since the entirety of Portugal is sort of in that "sweet spot" for all 3, you can basically just set up tidal up and down the entire coastal side, and set up solar farms and wind turbines wherever there's a spot to put them.

We're in a bit of a tricky spot where we have different places that could be suitable for one of the methods individually, but not the others. (and some areas aren't good candidates for any of them and would have to rely on other states for the generation)

And for some of those areas that would be great for one of them, the rub is that the land is already in use and needed for other things. For instance, the middle part of the country that would great for large-scale Wind power generation:

...happens to be in the area where most of the country's farm land is

Point of reference, you need 60 acres of land per megawatt produced.


So while technically not impossible, as you said, it's going to involve a lot of planning and consideration for a lot of moving parts, and I think some of the previously stated ambitions of "we have a plan to do it by 2035 or 2050" that some have asserted are a tad overly-ambitious.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The volume needed is one aspect, the logistics are going to be trickier as far as harnessing and getting it from one place to another.

Since the entirety of Portugal is sort of in that "sweet spot" for all 3, you can basically just set up tidal up and down the entire coastal side, and set up solar farms and wind turbines wherever there's a spot to put them.

Portugal is at the same latitude as Illinois or Utah. Modulo cloud cover, the sun coverage is the same.

We're in a bit of a tricky spot where we have different places that could be suitable for one of the methods individually, but not the others. (and some areas aren't good candidates for any of them and would have to rely on other states for the generation)

That's what transmission lines are for. We clearly need a more robust network.

And for some of those areas that would be great for one of them, the rub is that the land is already in use and needed for other things. For instance, the middle part of the country that would great for large-scale Wind power generation:
View attachment 339453

...happens to be in the area where most of the country's farm land is
View attachment 339452

Point of reference, you need 60 acres of land per megawatt produced.


So while technically not impossible, as you said, it's going to involve a lot of planning and consideration for a lot of moving parts, and I think some of the previously stated ambitions of "we have a plan to do it by 2035 or 2050" that some have asserted are a tad overly-ambitious.

That big stack of dark green states from Texas to ND are covered mostly by ranch lands rather than plowed fields. A turbine shaft and a little ground equipment inside a chain link fence in a pasture is no bother to the cattle.

Those regions are already (at least of 7 years ago) wind energy generators

(from Wind turbines provide 8% of U.S. generating capacity, more than any other renewable source )

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Portugal is at the same latitude as Illinois or Utah. Modulo cloud cover, the sun coverage is the same.

Sure, that covers solar... Portugal is in the sweet spot for all 3 (unlike Illinois and Idaho)

That's what transmission lines are for. We clearly need a more robust network.

On that, we'd agree...but the whole tone of my post was "Just because Portugal did it, that doesn't mean it would be the same difficulty level for all countries" because the vibe I got was that people were nonchalantly saying "well, if Portugal can do it, why can't we?" while ignoring a lot of variables.

That big stack of dark green states from Texas to ND are covered mostly by ranch lands rather than plowed fields. A turbine shaft and a little ground equipment inside a chain link fence in a pasture is no bother to the cattle.

Those regions are already (at least of 7 years ago) wind energy generators

Oh, I'm not disputing that could/should leverage renewables more than we currently do...


But the main point I had before focused on how Portugal has lower energy needs than we do.

Per my previous post,
Their average temperatures are 75 degrees F in the summer, and 50 degrees F in the winter. Their temps are such that 86% of households there don't need air conditioning. And there's actually a surprising percentage of homes there (77%) that don't have/need central heating either.

That's kind of a big deal if we're trying to do an apples to apples comparison.

I had to go out and double check those numbers because they seemed absurdly high to me and I thought it may have been a typo...but from that I can tell, those were legit.

If US was in a situation where 86% of homes didn't need air conditioning, and 77% didn't need central heating, we'd probably be able to go 100% renewable for 6 days like they did. We just don't have that same geographic luxury of "mild climate throughout the country all year long". We literally have a country large enough that people in the north part have to run heat because they're having a blizzard, while in the southern part, people are running A/C because it's 84 and humid.

 

[Say it aint so]

Fantastic. Been there a couple times recently. Seriously looking at buying a second home on Portugal.

 

[rambot]

The volume needed is one aspect, the logistics are going to be trickier as far as harnessing and getting it from one place to another.

Since the entirety of Portugal is sort of in that "sweet spot" for all 3, you can basically just set up tidal up and down the entire coastal side, and set up solar farms and wind turbines wherever there's a spot to put them.

We're in a bit of a tricky spot where we have different places that could be suitable for one of the methods individually, but not the others. (and some areas aren't good candidates for any of them and would have to rely on other states for the generation)

And for some of those areas that would be great for one of them, the rub is that the land is already in use and needed for other things. For instance, the middle part of the country that would great for large-scale Wind power generation:
View attachment 339453

...happens to be in the area where most of the country's farm land is
View attachment 339452

Point of reference, you need 60 acres of land per megawatt produced.


So while technically not impossible, as you said, it's going to involve a lot of planning and consideration for a lot of moving parts, and I think some of the previously stated ambitions of "we have a plan to do it by 2035 or 2050" that some have asserted are a tad overly-ambitious.

First off though, you don't need "the whole acre". There are plenty of wind farms in southern alberta and, believe it or not, farmers grow plants...AROUND the windmills.

These are a bit smaller than those mega windmills to be sure but it illustrates my point.

Also not sure how you got to your number...because this site says: How Much Land Is Needed for Wind Turbines?

That is, a 2-megawatt wind turbine would require 1.5 acres of land.

So that is, to be clear the ACTUAL footprint (concrete pad, road, power station)

I am quite curious where you got your "60 acres" number from....

 

[Desk trauma]

the waste, because as it stands it is being stored unsafely at the power plants past their capacity.

Having worked at multiple such plants, that is not in any way accurate. The spent fuel rods once cooled are stored in dry casks that are built to withstand train impacts (not hyperbole that was part of the design process) in heavily monitored yards with 24/7 heavily armed security behind multiple razor wide fence lines. As much as the anti-nuclear scaremongering would have us believe it's thrown in the back 40 and forgotten about, that's how coal ash not nuclear waste is handled, high level nuclear waste is about the most closely monitored and regulated substance in the country.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I am quite curious where you got your "60 acres" number from....

https://www.landmarkdividend.com/wind-turbine-lease-rates-2/#:~:text=Quantity%20of%20Land%20Available,turbines%20and%20other%20supporting%20infrastructure.

This one also delves into it and provides a similar figure

How Many Wind Turbines Can Fit On One Acre? - Today's Homeowner

Wind farms are spread out over large tracts of land, but what exactly determines how many turbines can fit in a given area?

todayshomeowner.com

Sounds like the reason they need to be spaced out so much is to prevent wind obstructions and interference with other turbines

 

[essentialsaltes]

Having worked at multiple such plants, that is not in any way accurate.

Perhaps "stored safely but 'temporarily' but with no permanent solution in sight."

 

[Desk trauma]

Perhaps "stored safely but 'temporarily' but with no permanent solution in sight."

That would be accurate. I would add that it's also not urgent or impeding anything as the dry casks for 30+ years worth of operation take up an area not much larger than a foot ball field.

 

[Hans Blaster]

https://www.landmarkdividend.com/wind-turbine-lease-rates-2/#:~:text=Quantity%20of%20Land%20Available,turbines%20and%20other%20supporting%20infrastructure.

This one also delves into it and provides a similar figure

How Many Wind Turbines Can Fit On One Acre? - Today's Homeowner

Wind farms are spread out over large tracts of land, but what exactly determines how many turbines can fit in a given area?

todayshomeowner.com

Sounds like the reason they need to be spaced out so much is to prevent wind obstructions and interference with other turbines

This is the difference between the density of wind turbines on the landscape (how many can fit in 1 square mile =~ 10 and be effective) and the amount of that land actually used exclusively for the turbine. I've seen many a wind farm in farm land and the typical individual turbine only knocks a chuck of land out of production about the size of a suburban yard or a local electrical substation.

 

[rambot]

https://www.landmarkdividend.com/wind-turbine-lease-rates-2/#:~:text=Quantity%20of%20Land%20Available,turbines%20and%20other%20supporting%20infrastructure.

This one also delves into it and provides a similar figure

How Many Wind Turbines Can Fit On One Acre? - Today's Homeowner

Wind farms are spread out over large tracts of land, but what exactly determines how many turbines can fit in a given area?

todayshomeowner.com

Sounds like the reason they need to be spaced out so much is to prevent wind obstructions and interference with other turbines

Regardless of how spaced out they will need to be (let's all agree the US heartland does not have a problem with space), the footprint (ie...the amount of land actually affected and removed from agriculture would be much smaller).