Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence

[vanesch]

I thought this power thread was kicked of by i.e. how does a national power 'grid' handle millions of E cars in aggregate. It need not be done one car, one home PV rig.
Yes I was mistaken; I was thinking of some kind of simplistic 24 hr day simple physics model, amount of energy reaching the surface, w/ no clouds, etc. Looks like for the southwest US a better annual average can be found here, from NREL:
http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/us_csp_annual_may2004.jpg
8 kWh/m2/day or 333W annual average, tracking collector, and down to
6 kWh/M2/day, 270W a. avg, flat plate tilted collector.
So my prior estimates must increase ~40% to 10M^2 and $10k installed.

How do you get to the $10k installed ? I usually take that the installed power is 6 times the average power (and I used to count $5,- per installed watt, while you use $8,-).

So if you have 50W per square meter (not very far from my estimate 40W per square meter) average, I take it that that is about 300 W installed, and hence costs about $1500,- (at $5,-).

That's even optimistic:http://www.solarbuzz.com/StatsCosts.htm
where we see that a 1 KWp (peak, or installed) costs about $8000 - $12000 for the total installation, bringing us to about $8 - $12 per installed watt.

Now, if you look at the worst case: Germany: a 1 KWp panel produces 860 KWhr per year, which means 860 KW / 365 / 24 = 98 Watt or only one tenth of the installed power. In California, that's better, and we find a factor of about 5 between installed and average.

Now, in this whole discussion, we've only been talking about the daily commute transport. But a big chunk of transport is long distance freight with trucks...

 

[wildman]

Now, in this whole discussion, we've only been talking about the daily commute transport. But a big chunk of transport is long distance freight with trucks...

That can be done with overhead electric trains with the electricity supplied by nuclear power. France does that.

 

[wildman]

? By far humanity doesn't use the energy the sun provides ! Total electricity consumption is about 1.6 TW (that number is a few years old, it might be a bit more now), and total energy consumption (everything) is about 20 TW. Earth receives about 174 PW from the sun http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy

So Earth receives about 9 000 times more solar energy than humanity consumes.

That is what I love about this forum. So many of the members know so much...

 

[vanesch]

That can be done with overhead electric trains with the electricity supplied by nuclear power. France does that.

Actually, it isn't such a big success: http://www.insee.fr/fr/themes/tableau.asp?reg_id=0&id=259

(insee is the French official statistics agency)

About 11-12% uses trains. About 80% uses trucks. There are a lotof logistic problems with transport of goods by train: the begin and end of the travel (supermarkets don't all have their own railwaystation!), the overloading, the timing, ...
I've read a book on the subject that indicates that trucks are so much more flexible than trains, that it are only very select industrial sectors that can really think to use mainly trains as their logistic transport.

 

[wildman]

Actually, it isn't such a big success: http://www.insee.fr/fr/themes/tableau.asp?reg_id=0&id=259

(insee is the French official statistics agency)

About 11-12% uses trains. About 80% uses trucks. There are a lotof logistic problems with transport of goods by train: the begin and end of the travel (supermarkets don't all have their own railwaystation!), the overloading, the timing, ...
I've read a book on the subject that indicates that trucks are so much more flexible than trains, that it are only very select industrial sectors that can really think to use mainly trains as their logistic transport.

I was thinking of the train technology, not how well they apply it to freight. France has been long known to be very efficient in moving people by train and not freight.

It seems though that is a problem that can be solved by technology. If each item was tracked (a la Federal Express) by computer from the moment it was loaded on a train to the moment it was off loaded onto a truck, the problems with timing me thinks could be solved for all but the most sensitive perishables.

 

[mheslep]

...Now, in this whole discussion, we've only been talking about the daily commute transport. But a big chunk of transport is long distance freight with trucks...

Yes, though switching commute driving alone from oil to battery - solar would would reduce oil needs enough to eliminate US imports (~65%)

 

[LowlyPion]

Maybe dealing with the other side of the supply demand problem - namely lowering demand would be a more fruitful course of action?

With the human load on the planet looking like it will increase close to 50% by mid-century unchecked, not to mention the signs of anthropogenic climate changes already apparently being recorded, maybe the signs are there for humankind to consider going on a diet?

 

[vanesch]

Yes, though switching commute driving alone from oil to battery - solar would would reduce oil needs enough to eliminate US imports (~65%)

You are telling me that commute is the main use of oil in the US ? And hence the main use of petrol in the transport sector ?

http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/petroleumproductsconsumption.html

You seem to be right: about half of oil is used for car gas, not for diesel. Now, I'm not sure that's mainly used for commuting and not for long distance driving, but hell, it might be true.

That said, solar is maybe not the most optimal technology. If we take $15.000,- per car then for 60 million cars, we'd need 1000 billion $. Each car needed an average 500 W production, so we need 30 GW electric. Now, we would still have to accept that certain cloudy days, the car is not charged up, and you won't go on your trip. But let's say that you have a lot of batteries that you can charge on extra solar days (we didn't calculate their price).
That's 30 billion per GW electric. Mmm. My favorite, nuclear, does it for 10-15 times less the money and you don't need all the batteries. Even wind does better, at about 2-3 times less the price. You put up your local wind turbine, charging the cars of the whole town. A 5 MW turbine (installed power) costs about $15 million, and can deliver say, 1 to 1.5 MW effective, so can charge about 2000-3000 cars (500 W effective needed). So that comes down to $ 5000 - $ 7500,- per car.

 

[OmCheeto]

First of all, I thought it was a stand-alone personal installation one was talking about, to charge one's own car. But when you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar_land_area.png
which is the year-average solar power received per square meter, you see that your 500 W is optimistic!

I knew I'd seen that bug stained image in the past. Thankfully, Matthias's name is in the lower right hand corner.

Mr. Loster is one of those delusional liars who believes all of humanities energy needs could be satisfied by 8 solar farms strategically placed in deserts.
http://www.ez2c.de/ml/solar_land_area/index.html

Bah!

Ok. Seriously, I think a better book to read would be the one Astronuc's friend wrote:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=210033"

Being brainwashed into thinking putting clothes on the line, rather than throwing them in the dryer, might do us some good.

 

[vanesch]

I knew I'd seen that bug stained image in the past. Thankfully, Matthias's name is in the lower right hand corner.

Mr. Loster is one of those delusional liars who believes all of humanities energy needs could be satisfied by 8 solar farms strategically placed in deserts.
http://www.ez2c.de/ml/solar_land_area/index.html

Bah!

Well, the arithmetic is correct I'd say. I knew this drawing (but not the author and its site), and I thought it was just for people to get an idea of the relative amounts of energy used by man, and "available" by the sun. Then there's the slight problem of transport, storage, conversion and all that. If that drawing is a plan for energy provision, it is of course utterly naive. If it is to get people have an idea how much energy people consume, and how much of this is represented by solar energy, then it is OK to me.

 

[OmCheeto]

Well, the arithmetic is correct I'd say. I knew this drawing (but not the author and its site), and I thought it was just for people to get an idea of the relative amounts of energy used by man, and "available" by the sun. Then there's the slight problem of transport, storage, conversion and all that. If that drawing is a plan for energy provision, it is of course utterly naive. If it is to get people have an idea how much energy people consume, and how much of this is represented by solar energy, then it is OK to me.

I think the following statement negates his naivety;

although the particular scenario shown is suboptimal for many political and technical reasons.

I mean really. It's a picture and one paragraphs worth of information.
I looked at it as more of a planetary homework problem.

And judging him by his homepage, I'd accuse him of being a minimalist.
http://www.ez2c.de/ml/index.html

Not necessarily a bad thing, in a world full of long winded people.

 

[mheslep]

You are telling me that commute is the main use of oil in the US ? And hence the main use of petrol in the transport sector ?

http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/petroleumproductsconsumption.html

You seem to be right: about half of oil is used for car gas, not for diesel. Now, I'm not sure that's mainly used for commuting and not for long distance driving, but hell, it might be true.

US Oil for transportation, yr 2007: 69% and rising as oil is no longer preferred for E power generation. http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/diagram2.html
Transportation breakdown, yr 2002: light duty vehicles 61%, commercial light trucks 2.2%, 14.3% heavy trucks, 10% airplanes.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo04/pdf/appa.pdf , table A7
Both gas and diesel can use plug-in technology, indeed electric/diesel should be preferred for efficiency reasons over gasoline/electric. I believe plug-in charged over night by solar (cheap enough solar) makes sense for all ground transportation, it is just that it can't support but a fraction of the longer hauls. I can't readily find a commuting usage; I can only say anecdotally that easily 3/4 of my yearly mileage is short trips. So, guestimate percentage of Oil use replaceable by solar charged vehicle batteries: .69 transportation x ~.64 gnd transport x 2/3 short distance = ~30% or only half of imported US oil; not quite there w/ plug-in cars alone.

That said, solar is maybe not the most optimal technology. If we take $15.000,- per car then for 60 million cars, we'd need 1000 billion $.

Price might be a little high, but ok, $1T, once every ~30years array lifetime. Note that also saves ~500 US gal fuel/year x $4.20/gal x 60 million cars= $126B / year, every year, regardless of the electric source.

Each car needed an average 500 W production, so we need 30 GW electric. Now, we would still have to accept that certain cloudy days, the car is not charged up, and you won't go on your trip.

Why? We're not on the moon, we're still connected to a 1000 GW national grid (US) + Canada, that's larger than local cloud coverage.

But let's say that you have a lot of batteries that you can charge on extra solar days (we didn't calculate their price).
That's 30 billion per GW electric. Mmm. My favorite, nuclear, does it for 10-15 times less the money and you don't need all the batteries.

Well I hope nuclear can be done cheaply, but we will see when the final tab comes in for the Finnish project. US planned projects are presenting very high budgets. In any case we're changing scales here. I don't believe you're accounting for transmission construction in that comparison, which is zero for the local roof top array. Also, at larger scales like Nellis AFB, solar enjoys better cost of scale just like most anything else.

Even wind does better, at about 2-3 times less the price. You put up your local wind turbine, charging the cars of the whole town. A 5 MW turbine (installed power) costs about $15 million, and can deliver say, 1 to 1.5 MW effective, so can charge about 2000-3000 cars (500 W effective needed). So that comes down to $ 5000 - $ 7500,- per car.

Nice idea. Interesting power scale point, Id like to look around to try and find an existing 5MW solar project (recent) to compare, though no doubt solar is still a bit more expensive.

 

[mheslep]

Denmark finding transmission a hard problem for wind as well

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/03/11/thar-she-blows-dongs-wind-woes/?mod=WSJBlog

March 11, 2008, 3:00 pm
Thar She Blows: DONG’s Wind Woes
Posted by Dana Mattioli

Leila Abboud reports:

When a hard wind blows across Denmark’s green plains, Anders Eldrup, chief executive of the power company DONG, shudders. Not because of the bone-chilling cold, but because his company’s power grid is under enormous strain.

On windy days, some 30-50% of the electricity flowing into the grid comes from wind turbines that dot the countryside. At less windy times, turbines spin more slowly and send much less electricity through the grid. The grid infrastructure wasn’t designed for such fluctuations. What’s more, windy days bring in more electricity than DONG can profitably sell.

It’s a problem of success. A decade of Denmark’s generous subsidies to wind power producers has produced striking results: Some 16% of the country’s total electricity needs come from wind. Denmark’s government wants to be getting 30% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2025. “It’s an increasingly difficult challenge for us,” said Mr. Eldrup in an interview on the sidelines of an ongoing Carbon Market Insights conference taking place this week in Copenhagen.

 

[vanesch]

I believe plug-in charged over night by solar (cheap enough solar) makes sense for all ground transportation

Now re-read your phrase

Price might be a little high, but ok, $1T, once every ~30years array lifetime. Note that also saves ~500 US gal fuel/year x $4.20/gal x 60 million cars= $126B / year, every year, regardless of the electric source.Why? We're not on the moon, we're still connected to a 1000 GW national grid (US) + Canada, that's larger than local cloud coverage.

The point is that if it is just to tap 30 GW from the grid, we might just as well use the most cost-effective technology to provide it. As we've seen, solar is of the order of 30 billion $ per GW. Wind is of the order of 15 billion $ per GW.

Well I hope nuclear can be done cheaply, but we will see when the final tab comes in for the Finnish project. US planned projects are presenting very high budgets. In any case we're changing scales here. I don't believe you're accounting for transmission construction in that comparison, which is zero for the local roof top array. Also, at larger scales like Nellis AFB, solar enjoys better cost of scale just like most anything else.

The EPR is a new generation of power plants, so it is normal that the first few ones will be more expensive than a series of it. It is also a luxury kind of reactor: double confinement, core catcher, many many extra safety systems etc...

Up to now, the price ticket was about $1.5 - $2,- per nuclear electric watt, but price has gone up, to about $3,- to even $5,- per nuclear electric watt. That's probably due to higher material costs, but mainly, higher safety requirements (and hence more safety systems and all that).

Nice idea. Interesting power scale point, Id like to look around to try and find an existing 5MW solar project (recent) to compare, though no doubt solar is still a bit more expensive.

The point is, if you are just going to tap the recharging power from the grid, better use the best technology available to feed that grid.

 

[mheslep]

Now re-read your phrase

Not the best wording. The idea of course with any solar - plug-in vehicle scheme is that the solar would charge some energy storage gimick during the day - either on the spot batteries or a feed to the grid which stores energy and then gives it up again at night for charging the vehicles.

The point is that if it is just to tap 30 GW from the grid, we might just as well use the most cost-effective technology to provide it. As we've seen, solar is of the order of 30 billion $ per GW. Wind is of the order of 15 billion $ per GW.

The EPR is a new generation of power plants, so it is normal that the first few ones will be more expensive than a series of it. It is also a luxury kind of reactor: double confinement, core catcher, many many extra safety systems etc...

Up to now, the price ticket was about $1.5 - $2,- per nuclear electric watt, but price has gone up, to about $3,- to even $5,- per nuclear electric watt. That's probably due to higher material costs, but mainly, higher safety requirements (and hence more safety systems and all that).

The point is, if you are just going to tap the recharging power from the grid, better use the best technology available to feed that grid.

No argument that the most economic, environmentally compatible power source should be used, though I think you may be pricing solar a bit high here and rationalizing away nuclear costs. My first motivation was to show that a national fleet of plug-in cars is doable with technology that is available now, that it is economic even with solar on the back roof, and that step alone could displace a large chunk of oil consumption. If other sources like nuclear can do it better, great.

BTW, today's WSJ has a very good in depth supplement section on Nuclear: for and against.

 

[mheslep]

Some more detailed cost information on solar.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121432258309100153.html?mod=2_1586_leftbox

Shedding Light on Solar
Why is it so expensive? What subsidies are available? And answers to other questions for the perplexed.
By YULIYA CHERNOVA
June 30, 2008

Q: Let's start with the basics: How much will it cost to put a solar panel on my home?

A: The average cost of a rooftop solar system, also known as a photovoltaic, or PV, system, is roughly $8.25 per watt installed, based on companies' listed selling prices and conversations with industry executives and analysts.

Q: Where does all that money go?

A: The solar panel itself usually constitutes less than half of the total price of installing a residential system. Distributors, installers and manufacturers of components needed to attach the panel to the roof and to connect it to the electricity grid account for the rest. This may be more than you want to know, but the $8.25-per-watt cost breaks down roughly as follows: $1.50 for polysilicon, 75 cents to create wafers from the polysilicon, 75 cents to create solar cells from wafers and another 75 cents to complete the solar panel. Installation costs consist of 50 cents for inverters that convert the current of the solar modules to the alternating current used by the home's appliances, 75 cents for racks, wires and other installation equipment, $1.25 for labor and $2 for installers' overhead.

There are ample opportunities for reducing costs at larger scale here

A benchmark for polysilicon efficiency:

There are higher-efficiency panels on the market designed to extract more power from the same surface area. Some of the most efficient panels in production, from Sunnyvale, Calif.-based SunPower Corp., can yield about 220 watts of power from one square meter when 1,000 watts of sunlight is shone on it, up from 140 watts to 150 watts for the average panel five years ago.

Then there's the thin film approach:

A much cheaper alternative already exists: solar panels made of various nonsilicon semiconductor materials that are typically spread on a sheet of glass or stainless steel. These so-called thin-film panels are easier to make, so it doesn't cost as much to produce them. First Solar Inc. of Phoenix makes thin-film solar panels for about $1.25 per watt, which is about two times less than the average cost of making a polysilicon panel.

The problem with thin film is that it captures less of the sun's energy per square meter than polysilicon, so it takes a larger panel to generate the same amount of energy. As a result, thin-film panels usually are too large to fit on residential rooftops and are used more often in power-plant applications.

Future cost predictions:

Q: When will we see a significant drop in solar costs?

A: Many module makers predict their selling prices will decline 10% to 20% next year, mostly because of the rush of new polysilicon supply that is expected to be produced. "We're in the process of a dramatic readjustment of system prices in the next couple of years," said Julie Blunden, vice president of public policy at SunPower.

David Chen, head of clean technology investment banking at Morgan Stanley in California, predicts the industry will reach grid parity -- the point at which the cost of solar energy is competitive with conventional grid-supplied electricity without subsidies -- by 2012, "which will open up the floodgates for vendors that can price competitively."

 

[vanesch]

BTW, today's WSJ has a very good in depth supplement section on Nuclear: for and against.

I saw it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121432182593500119.html?mod=2_1586_topbox

The problem with the way the article is written is that you get first the answers, and then the problems to which these were the answers. However, the "yes" part is pretty accurate concerning its claims, while the "no" part is much more "speculative". In fact, I think I recognize in the "no" part, Helen Caldicott's book!

Let's look at the "no" arguments:

exorbitant costs, the risks of an accident or terrorist attack, the threat of proliferation and the challenge of disposing of nuclear waste

Subsidies:

The cost issue alone will mean that few if any new nuclear power stations will get built in the next few years, at least in the U.S., and any that do will require expensive taxpayer subsidies. Instead of subsidizing the development of new plants that have all these other problems, the U.S. would be better off investing in other ways to meet growing energy demands and reduce carbon-dioxide emissions.

One seems to think that it would be sufficient to throw a few billions of $ to a problem to get it solved. It isn't said HOW this is going to be done.

Cost:

While no one knows what a new reactor will cost until one gets built, estimates for new construction continue to rise. Building a new plant could cost as much as $6,000 a kilowatt of generating capacity, up from estimates of about $4,000 a kilowatt just a year ago. FPL Group, of Juno Beach, Fla., estimates that two new reactors planned for southeast Florida would cost between $6 billion and $9 billion each.

Well, let's show another system, solar or wind or whatever, that generates the same power for that price. Power when we want it, that is. Not when it is available.

More important, though, there are less-costly ways of weaning ourselves off these carbon-emitting energy sources. Even if a high price of carbon makes nuclear economic, the costs of renewable energy such as wind and solar power are cheaper, and getting cheaper all the time. By contrast, nuclear is more expensive, and getting more expensive all the time.

Show me.

Storage of electricity:

And yes, it's true that wind and solar suffer from the problem of not being available 24 hours a day. But new technology is already beginning to solve that problem. And we'd be better off -- from both an economic and safety standpoint -- if we used natural gas to fill in the gaps, rather than nuclear.

Ah ? Show me. What technology ? Fuel cells ? Batteries ? Superconductors ? Anti-matter ? Price ?
In the end, we're going to use GAS. That's not a fossil fuel emitting CO2, right ?

Part of the reason for the rising cost estimates is the small number of vendors able to supply critical reactor components, as well as a shortage of engineering and construction skills in the nuclear industry. Perhaps the biggest bottleneck is in the huge reactor vessels that contain a plant's radioactive core. Only one plant in the world is capable of forging the huge vessels in a single piece, and it can produce only a handful of the forgings a year. Though the plant intends to expand capacity in the next couple of years, and China has said it plans to begin making the forgings, this key component is expected to limit development for many years.

Now, the question is: is the solar power industry, or the wind industry capable of putting down much more than "a handful of 1 GWe plants a year", and if they do that, don't you think that there will also be a price increase due to increased demand ? Is that capacity there right now, or should we also have to wait for many years before this capacity is reached ?

What is interesting, is this:

The important thing to remember about safety is this: The entire nuclear power industry is vulnerable to the safety standards of its worst performers, because an accident anywhere in the world would stoke another antinuclear backlash among the public and investors.

It is probably true, but it is silly. Using Chernobyl to point to the danger of western power plants was irrational. Pointing to TMI is irrational too, as nothing ever happened there.

It is strange that such standards are not upheld for coal for instance. If there is a mining accident in China, does the US close down all its coal mines ?

What's also interesting is the following:

There's also the question of waste disposal. Proponents of nuclear power say disposal of the industry's waste products is a political problem. That's true. But it doesn't make the problem any less real. California, for instance, won't allow construction of more plants until the waste issue is resolved.

where it is recognized that the waste issue is ONLY a political problem. Well, then it needs a political solution, not a technological one. The funny thing with California is that it doesn't want (politically) to have more nuclear power, until the (political) waste problem is solved - will it help in solving the political waste problem ?

Finally, what's interesting is this:

Expansion of nuclear power in the U.S. doesn't pose a great proliferation risk, but a nuclear renaissance will put a strain on the current anti-proliferation system. Most of the growth world-wide is expected to be in countries -- such as those in the Middle East and Africa -- where a nuclear-energy program could give cover to surreptitious weapons development and create the local expertise in handling and processing nuclear materials.

So it is recognized that the proliferation risk isn't much linked with nuclear power in the US. Now, the Carter policy already showed that the rest of the world doesn't stop using nuclear power in this or that way, simply because the US does so. So one already knows that what the US does, is not necessarily followed elsewhere. Here, it is stated that the main proliferation risk is by foreign nuclear power industry (which is, as we saw, uncorrelated to the US nuclear power industry). So in other words, nuclear power in the US has no correlation with the main source of proliferation risk. Is that a good argument against it ?

So, in fine, we have as "no" arguments:
- nuclear power is expensive (but are there alternatives that are cheaper ? Don't think so!)
- nuclear power industry is limited in its production capacity of new reactors. (but are alternatives capable of doing better ? No).
- there is hypothetical technology that can solve the problem of the fluctuations in renewables. That technology doesn't cost anything, isn't limited by any industry, and... doesn't exist. Ah, yes, I forgot, in the mean time, we will use... gas.
- the safety problem seems to be that there might be a nuclear accident somewhere far away in countries that don't apply safe rules, which will then lead to the irrational backlash of nuclear power from power plants that have nothing to do with that.
- the waste problem is recognized as being a political problem.
- there is the proliferation risk, mainly due to nuclear technology abroad, which has not much to do with the US nuclear power industry.

Mmm... that's indeed Helen Caldicott's book.

 

[vanesch]

Some more detailed cost information on solar.

There are ample opportunities for reducing costs at larger scale here

The point is that $8.50 per installed watt means 5 times more per average watt in California, and 10 times more per average watt in Germany (see the quote I showed earlier). So we are around $42 per watt in California, and $85,0 per watt in Germany.

This was the link:
http://www.solarbuzz.com/StatsCosts.htm

in it:

In order to translate, kWp (a standardized measure excluding solar conditions) to kWh (a measure which takes account of solar conditions), an adjustment for the actual location of the solar panel is necessary in order to take into account how much sunlight would be expected in that location over the period of a year.

Some simple examples are that a 1kWp System will produce approximately:

· 1800 kWh/year in Southern California
· 850 kWh/year in Northern Germany
· 1600-2000 kWh in India and Australia

1kWp (installed power or peak power)

1800 KWh/year is 1800 / 24 / 365 = 205 Whr/hr or 205 Watt average: a factor 5 between peak and average.
850 KWh/year is 850 / 24 / 365 = 97 Whr/hr or 97 Watt average: a factor 10 between peak and average.

I hope there is room for improvement. The "no" part in the WSJ was already coughing at the exorbitant price of $6.0 per installed watt for nuclear...

And remember, in all that, we haven't yet taken into account the regulation and storage for peak demand. All this is no problem as long as we are with a few % of this in the grid. When we reach 70%, that's another matter.

Then there's the thin film approach:

The $1.25 per installed watt is attractive, but I have some difficulties believing it. Is it the price of the full installation ? Or just of the foil ? But even at this amazingly low price, we are around $6.0 in California for your average watt, and $12.5 in Germany. And still we have to add the price of the buffer. But it is true that this starts looking attractive. However, the problem we face now is the surface needed. At 20W per square meter average, a 1 GW plant average takes a surface of 50 square kilometers. That's a square of 7 km on 7 km. I don't know how much that land costs. And we still don't have the buffer.

Edit: to get an idea of the price of the land, an acre seems to be ~4000 square meters, or 0.004 square kilometer. Price indicators per acre:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2006-03-09-farmland-usat_x.htm

Say, about $3000,0 per acre, or 750 000 per square kilometer. Right. This is negligible. Our powerplant would only cost $50 000 000 in land. I'm surprised.

 

[mheslep]

The $1.25 per installed watt is attractive, but I have some difficulties believing it. Is it the price of the full installation ? Or just of the foil ?

As I read it, the $1.25 for thin film compares to just the PV parts of polysilcon at about $1.5 polysi+0.75create wafers+0.75create cells= $3.00/W, i.e., doesn't include labor, wiring, conversion, etc.

 

[mheslep]

And remember, in all that, we haven't yet taken into account the regulation and storage for peak demand. All this is no problem as long as we are with a few % of this in the grid. When we reach 70%, that's another matter.

I don't see anyone serious pushing that level. US DoE talks about 20% by 2020, or ~200GW average across the nation.

 

[mheslep]

Edit: to get an idea of the price of the land, an acre seems to be ~4000 square meters, or 0.004 square kilometer. Price indicators per acre:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2006-03-09-farmland-usat_x.htm

Say, about $3000,0 per acre, or 750 000 per square kilometer. Right. This is negligible. Our powerplant would only cost $50 000 000 in land. I'm surprised.

Whoa, that's a price for farm land. Solar would (does) use land in otherwise useless dry basin desert areas. That's why we frequently see some trash land that's otherwise just sitting there, like the back 40 at Nellis AFB, turned into solar arrays by existing owners. So the land is often ~free, or at least very cheap. Also, an owner can put in solar on spare land where they couldn't or wouldn't put in fossil. They otherwise would not tolerate the emissions or the construction time.

See the New Mexico rural price in your link -$250/acre for a better idea, great for solar not so much for anything else. There the 50 sq km = 12355acres is $3m and I suspect even that is high. Nuclear is always going to need a good water supply so the land is always going to be more expensive. Edit: I'm also speculating, as I posted earlier, that nuclear requires just a much land as solar once everything is factored in - the plant itself, waste storage, mining, etc.

 

[mheslep]

Power when we want it, that is. Not when it is available. ...

I think you may be overplaying the availability of nuclear a bit. Edit:
http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/reliableandaffordableenergy/graphicsandcharts/usnuclearindustrycapacityfactors/

So nuclear capacity factor is good but its not there all the time. Median CF in the US is 91%, though ~15 plants are below 85%.

 

[vanesch]

I think you may be overplaying the availability of nuclear a bit. Edit:
http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/reliableandaffordableenergy/graphicsandcharts/usnuclearindustrycapacityfactors/

So nuclear capacity factor is good but its not there all the time. Median CF in the US is 91%, though ~15 plants are below 85%.

The point is not that it is always there, the point is that you can regulate it. In France, the nuclear capacity factor turns around only 77%, because it is not only used as base load, but as load follower. At 22 hr, you can crank up nuclear power if desired. Try cranking up solar.

So one should see how much in the capacity factor was actually desired reducing of production, how much was maintenance time etc... but in any case, it is not erratic down time during "normal operation", which is the typical mode of operation of solar/wind. When the plant is operational, you can count on it, and you can, if so desired, diminish or crank up its power. Now, because in the US, nuclear is only a minority contributor, it usually works as baseload (near 100%) and never as follower. So 85% means that 15% of the time, it is in maintenance, or stopped for another reason. But it is not *randomly* 15% in small chunks, throughout the day and throughout the year.

THIS is the problem with solar and wind. That problem remains invisible of course below the 5 or 10%. But the Danes are having a hard time coping with more than 20% of arbitrarily fluctuating power sources. Now, solar is a bit more regular than wind, but whereas wind can blow day or night, summer or winter, solar has the problem that it is fully absent at night, and much less efficient in winter than in summer. As long as it is a minority contribution, "something else" will take over of course, but when it is supposed to replace the main source, it should be able to adapt to the demand, and instead it is introducing itself, uncontrolled variability.

This is why I'm always insisting on storage. If one is serious about reducing CO2 exhaust, then one should be able to get off fossil fuels for, say, 80 or 90%. Getting off fossil fuels for 20 or 30% doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. Under the hypothesis of AGW, that would only delay a certain amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by a decade or so. In order to have any effect on the long term, one has to cut CO2 emissions by a factor of 2 to 4. Electricity production is responsible, in the US, for about 40% of the fossil fuel CO2 emissions. That means that if we could turn ALL electricity production into a CO2-poor emission system, that we have gained a small factor of 2. The rest must be sought in the transport sector and the industrial sector. If we reduce CO2 production in electricity with 30%, we've only diminished overall CO2 exhaust by about 12%. That's peanuts compared to the target (75%), and it was the easiest part.

So one should target an almost CO2 free electricity production towards 2040. That means that the technologies we should consider should be able (at least together) to take over a LARGE FRACTION of the electricity production. And that means: a serious power source that can adapt to demand, at any hour of the day, and any day of the year.

 

[mheslep]

The point is not that it is always there, the point is that you can regulate it. In France, the nuclear capacity factor turns around only 77%, because it is not only used as base load, but as load follower. At 22 hr, you can crank up nuclear power if desired. Try cranking up solar.

Point taken, however in some of these calculations we've been doing in this thread, to price enough solar and wind to meet some demand X we've been factoring in capacity while nuclear gets a pass. Time to start dividing nuclear required Watts by 0.77

... Getting off fossil fuels for 20 or 30% doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. Under the hypothesis of AGW, that would only delay a certain amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by a decade or so.

AGW is not the only concern; its certainly not my first. So for other reasons, geopolitics, economic growth, of course a 30% renewables goal makes a great deal of sense.

 

[mheslep]

There's another issue I'm just reminded of in reading on the topic that argues against large centralized power (of any source). Any electric utility that constructs a large centralized power plant, esp. something requiring several $B in capital, then the operator necessarily wants to sell every single kWhr of capacity, meaning they necessarily become anti-efficiency for a time, advertising for silly things like electric heating, until demand eats up the new capacity and then they're 'green' all of a sudden, attempting to avoid any new capital outlays to build more power. Local distributed power such as co-generation, solar, ~wind avoids this use-it-all, conserve-it system of growth. I sat in on a forum once where the CEO of utility (nuclear,coal, gas portfolio) basically confirmed this model for big projects.

 

[mheslep]

... At 20W per square meter average, a 1 GW plant average takes a surface of 50 square kilometers. That's a square of 7 km on 7 km. I don't know how much that land costs. And we still don't have the buffer.
...
Say, about $3000,0 per acre, or 750 000 per square kilometer. Right. This is negligible. Our powerplant would only cost $50 000 000 in land. I'm surprised.

...See the New Mexico rural price in your link -$250/acre for a better idea, great for solar not so much for anything else. There the 50 sq km = 12355acres is $3m and I suspect even that is high. Nuclear is always going to need a good water supply so the land is always going to be more expensive. Edit: I'm also speculating, as I posted earlier, that nuclear requires just a much land as solar once everything is factored in - the plant itself, waste storage, mining, etc.

Yes here's a comparable.
http://www.sptimes.com/2008/03/11/news_pf/State/Nuke_plant_price_trip.shtml
Progress Energy has a two reactor 2200W (total) plant on the table. They bought 5200 acres in Florida for $80M ($15k/acre). That doesn't include the right of way for transmission yet. BTW, proposed price for the plant is $17B

 

[vanesch]

Point taken, however in some of these calculations we've been doing in this thread, to price enough solar and wind to meet some demand X we've been factoring in capacity while nuclear gets a pass. Time to start dividing nuclear required Watts by 0.77

No, not really, because that's WANTED under-efficiency, which is part of the buffer capacity of the system. You are right that one should divide by the factor of *availability*, which, in France, is over 90%: that means that a plant is *capable* of delivering full power more than 90% of the time: the other part is (usually planned) downtime for maintenance.
So that means that, if you want to have, say, 9 GW available all the time (because it is your peak consumption, plus a margin), that you need to install not 9 GW, but 10 GW. 1 out of 10 is then able to be in maintenance or whatever, while the others take over.
If consumption is, most of the time, only 5 GW, then your utility factor will only be 50%, but you are nevertheless 90% available all the time, and that's necessary because at any moment, they can go for their peak demand, and you are capable of doing that.

What you have to take into account is not the factor of use, but the factor of availability. Your grid needs a certain amount of available power, and you have to design your sources in such a way that you can guarantee that.

Now, if you do that for solar, the factor of availability is simply 0% because at night, none is working. Same for wind on windless days. So if you want to reliably provide a potential peak demand of 9 GW with solar or wind, you'd have to install an infinity of it...

So what you have to do is to smooth out with storage capacity. And what do we have now ? Well, if we have storage capacity for a night (say, a pumping station), remember, FULL capacity that can take over the production entirely when it is dark, then the overall system now has a factor of availability which is equal to the minimum DAY production. Some cloudy days in winter, that will be pretty low, much lower than average. I have no idea, but let us say a factor of 3 easily (I think it is more). This means that in those days, the factor of availability is 30% of the average power. This means that such an installation, to be fully autonomous, should be 3 times as big than its average power would indicate. You'd have to install 30 GW (average! So that's 300 GW peak in Germany, and 150 GW peak in California), with a buffer for 9 GW for a night, to guarantee operability at 9 GW all the time.

The only way to avoid that, is to have a buffer that can work the whole winter.

AGW is not the only concern; its certainly not my first. So for other reasons, geopolitics, economic growth, of course a 30% renewables goal makes a great deal of sense.

To me, it makes sense in the sense of stimulating research and development. I 30% is ambitious, though. However, unless we have one day a good, cheap way of storing massive amounts of electricity, wind and solar remain to me, an inferior source of electricity, which doesn't deliver when it has to.

So the point is that in any case we will need another majority source. If we want to get rid of fossil fuels, we will need at least 70% of another source. And then the question is: purely economically, why would one install 30% of an unreliable and for the moment still much more expensive source, next to 70% of something else which has to work away the problems (unwanted fluctuations) of the first source in any case ?

Diversification ? Not really. Diversification means that we could use it on its own, which we can't. Solar doesn't work on its own. A town cannot run on solar ALONE. It can run on coal alone, it can run on nuclear alone, it can run on gas alone. But it can't run on solar/wind alone. Because it is cheaper ? Not really. No. Because we could rely on it to add some elasticity in the fuel market ? Not really. Coal is domestic in the US (and those for whom it is not domestic, better don't use it), and nuclear fuel can be stored for a couple of years ahead.

I think the only good reason would be to stimulate some research, because who knows, one day we might have solar cells that work on moonshine (eh ) or we might have a good storage for electricity.
But as technology stands now, and as it will be in the coming decade(s), there is no real economic incentive at all to switch to these sources. If you optimize resources, like say, a fleet of trucks, do you include 30% of trucks that are more expensive and don't run all the time when you want ? No, you go to the highest efficiency per truck, normally. You might diversify over several brands of trucks, in case you have a problem with one of them, but you'd try to have trucks of about similar quality and price from the different brands. You wouldn't include, in your fleet, 30% of expensive trucks that don't always run, just for "diversification". Why would we do that with electricity production ? Apart from research,
the only incentive is, IMO, some green propaganda.

EDIT: to illustrate the above, let us consider that Ivan's algae work out fantastically, and that we have a lot of algadiesel from it. Let us suppose that we set up wind farms and solar cell farms for 30% of production, and that, by lack of a suitable buffer, we count on the capacity of the rest, the algadiesel generators. So, we have now 300 GW of solar/wind effective installed. Let us now suppose that the rest, 70%, 700 GW, comes from algadiesel. In fact, we need 1000 GW of algadiesel installed, because the 300 GW are sometimes not there. And in fact much more, because the algadiesel capacity needs to be designed not for average, but for maximum capacity. So, let us say that we have 2000 GW algadiesel installed, of which we use on average 700 GW, and 300 GW come from solar/wind. Let us imagine that, as it will probably be the case, that algadiesel is cheaper (way cheaper) than solar/wind.
Now, why on Earth would we do that ? Why on Earth don't we JUST keep the algadiesels, and use it for 50% (1000 GW effective on 2000 W installed because of load following), instead of using it for 35% and the rest solar/wind ?

What would we win ? The entire price of the solar/wind installation, plus a lot of grid interconnect and regulation. The algadiesel installation is in any case sufficient (it has to). The thing that we will win with the solar/wind, is that we can do with 30% less algadiesel fuel.

 

[vanesch]

Yes here's a comparable.
http://www.sptimes.com/2008/03/11/news_pf/State/Nuke_plant_price_trip.shtml
Progress Energy has a two reactor 2200W (total) plant on the table. They bought 5200 acres in Florida for $80M ($15k/acre). That doesn't include the right of way for transmission yet. BTW, proposed price for the plant is $17B

Mmm, I'm beginning to understand the $17B ! The managers of that project simply do crazy things. I really don't see why you'd need 20 square kilometers for two reactors. Have you ever visited a nuclear power plant ? It's not that big ! One square kilometer would be by far enough to put all the buildings on - probably even much less. Or is that this new anti-terrorist thing where you need now zones of security and walls and dogs and crocodiles and all that ?

 

[sketchtrack]

When a corp drills for oil, the oil goes to the world oil market. Drilling off shore in the U.S. would only add 2% to the world oil market which would do what, at most we would see a 2% price drop. The key is that there is no we when it comes to oil, oil companies are not socialized and they don't share profits with "us".

There is a big political movement going on right now. Oil companies are trying to scare us into letting them drill off shores, but it won't help us much at all, only them.

 

[robheus]

In contribution to this thread about "energy independence" here are my thoughts.
Firstly the long-term energy future would in my opinion be renewables, like solar, hydro, geo-thermal, wind, gulf streams, and possible others. Except perhaps for wind and hydro, many of these techniques are still under development, and when further developing them, will decline in price.
If enough money is invested in them (temporaral subsidies), the time it takes for such technologies to be able to compete with fossil energy can be shortened.
The problem of the balance between demand and supply is just a matter of technique. Some technologies (like concentrated solar power) already provide a way for internal buffering of the energy so that they can meet demand/supply variations. By setting up the grid for combining several of such technologies, most inbalances can be avoided without the need for using fossil fuels. Of course, using energy storages (like for instance storing it in hydro buffer by pumping up water ) for buffering energy reduces energy efficiency and will add to the price (less efficiency and extra cost for such an energy buffer), and must be calculated into the real price of that energy. But that counts for other energy sources too, which normally hidden. Like for the price of oil, one needs to add the price of the war in Iraq. For the price of nuclear, you need to add the costs of security from terrorist attacks, gaurding the nuclear waste for long periods of time, etc. Those costs are substantial, and are normally not included in energy price calculations, but still exist of course.
We need to compare the real costs of manufacturing the different energy technologies, including everything (also all kinds of indirect costs).

The conclusion is that converting the economy to a renewable energy use is very possible, and all techological difficulties can be satisfactory solved, it's just we need to invest more in those technologies.
The sooner we can be really independent of fossil and nuclear energy, the better.

Here are some other advantages of renewables over other sources:
1. You can (if you want to) be really independent of any energy supplier. Using sun, wind and or other available sources you could in theory provide all the energy you need without even needing the grid or any other energy resource. No other energy resource could provide you this freedom. You would not want to have you "home" nuclear installation, and even if it were possible, you still dependent on fission materials.
But all your heat and electrical energy needs, with current available technology already, you could manufacture yourself. You will neither be dependent on one manufacturer, since the technology is that simple that there will be a huge market for suppliers.

2. Fossil and nuclear are in the end not renewable. If we keep on being dependent of those sources, we simply put the burden of solving the energy crisis AND the environemental to future generations. That is not very ethical. We already consumed nearly half of the total supply of fossil energy, in that in only 200 years. Let us face that! How will future generations for coming thousands of years will reflect on that?
Is it "ethical" to use in a small fraction of time (relatively, as seen on the time scale of human civilisation) almost all available stored (fossil and nuclear) energy resources, and leaving nothing behind but the problems and evironemental and political issues connected with that?
I think we have the moral obligation to leave behind a better future for our children and grand-children. And since available stored energy resources will get depleted one day, sooner or later, we better provide our ancestors with a renewable source of energy, by developing these technologies not just as marginal energy resources but as the main energy resource.

3. Let us also see the political dimensions. As we know the war in Iraq had only one real purpose, and that is access to Iraq oil. Such political issues are more likely to arise in a world dominated by scarce energy resources like fossil fuels or fission materials. Renewable energies have much less this problem as these resources are avialable everywhere in some form or another.

4. We do not only have an energy problem but for most countries depletion of fresh water resources is a more urgent problem. Renewable energy sources can solve these problems, as for instance the use of concentrated solar power to both produce electricity and desalinate water. Concentrated solar power already is a very competetive energy resource, which has the potential to become much cheaper as the installed base is increased. This requires of course huge investments, which are not yet profitable.
Huge CSP plants for example in Northern Africa and Arabia can also increase the area of habitable land, since one can use the land area below the CSP installation for agricultural means. Dry, uninhabited desert like landmasses could be turned into habitable, productive land in the course of years. Since increase in population growth and shortages in food production are likely an issue (rising food prices due to massive use of corn etc. for bio-ethanol already is an issue), this is one possible way of solving this.
The fresh water is availabe from the CSP installation itself, you only need to have access to salt water. Which there are abudant, esp. near the coasts. And in those regions, which are mostly poor and underdevelopment, these economic activities would be most welcome.
In really dry areas, first thing that can grow in such places are the jathropa plant, which can be used as bio-fuel, and grows where no other food crops can grow, so this doesn't compete with growing food. This solution is far better then turning corn into bio-fuels. And after several years, the composition of the ground is improved and can then be used for growing other crops. CSP plants just have to be settled on another desolated/dry place, more land inwards, where the cycle can begin again, thus increasing yearly the installed base, and increasing the available agriculturally and inhabitable land areas.
Using DC power lines will enable to transport the electricity to grids and electricity consumers elsewhere with minimal loss (est. at 15% losses for very long DC lines).
Perhaps other ways of transporting the energy are possible too (producing hydrogen and transport that in huge containers on special adapted sea vessels maybe?) which are economical and safe.

The only question involved in this is simply: are we willing to invest huge amounts of money into the future of humanity? The source for this money is very easy to find: oil profits, costs of warfare.
What were the costs for 5 years of war in Iraq? How many billions of dollars are nett profits of oil companies?
If only a fraction of that money would be spend on developing real renewables (and not just on turining food into oil, which is likely to damage more then solve), we could release future humanity of these urgent problems.

 

[vanesch]

In contribution to this thread about "energy independence" here are my thoughts.
Firstly the long-term energy future would in my opinion be renewables, like solar, hydro, geo-thermal, wind, gulf streams, and possible others. Except perhaps for wind and hydro, many of these techniques are still under development, and when further developing them, will decline in price.

The problem I have with that discourse, is that IN THE MEAN TIME, we don't do anything, and we STOP good solutions from being implemented, waiting for the "perfect" solution. We say that we should develop technologies, that will solve certain issues, and that in order to do so, we should invest in it. No matter how much money you would have given to someone in 1850, you would not have had color television in 1880. Of course we should develop new technologies (which will be the mature technologies future generations will choose from to implement on large scale), but we should not STOP mature technologies from providing solutions, because we THINK that we MAY develop better ones in the FUTURE.

If enough money is invested in them (temporaral subsidies), the time it takes for such technologies to be able to compete with fossil energy can be shortened.
The problem of the balance between demand and supply is just a matter of technique. Some technologies (like concentrated solar power) already provide a way for internal buffering of the energy so that they can meet demand/supply variations. By setting up the grid for combining several of such technologies, most inbalances can be avoided without the need for using fossil fuels.

I really, really don't believe that. Study the Danish experience (it was not bad will, or subsidies that were missing). Grid balance is a technologically challenging problem, if you don't have steerable sources at your disposal - it is even a challenging problem when you have them ! Tripling the price of electricity is a serious economical problem, but is less of a difficulty than balancing the grid.

It is exactly this (IMO almost technologically almost unsolvable) problem that is missed by all alternative-energy enthusiasts.

For the price of nuclear, you need to add the costs of security from terrorist attacks, gaurding the nuclear waste for long periods of time, etc. Those costs are substantial, and are normally not included in energy price calculations, but still exist of course.

I'm sorry but they are part of the price calculation. In fact, nuclear is the only technology where one takes into account the waste issue. One can argue that one doesn't count enough for it. I wonder if in the price of a park of wind turbines, one has included the price of dismantling them, cutting them to pieces, transporting this to a waste dump and so on.

We need to compare the real costs of manufacturing the different energy technologies, including everything (also all kinds of indirect costs).

In fact, this has been tried, and the problem is that it always includes some arbitrary cutoff, and then discussions turn over this cutoff. Current technologies are based upon a lot of different techniques, science, research, ... You can almost say that a modern nuclear power plant, or a modern wind turbine, needed 4 billion years of evolution to get there, and start calculating what was the cost of that. Do we have to include Tesla's salary into the costs of every electricity generator ? So you have to put a cutoff somewhere. For instance, people insist to include in "government subventions", the research in nuclear technology by research labs. Should we now also include in the price of wind energy, every laboratory that studies hydrodynamics ?

The conclusion is that converting the economy to a renewable energy use is very possible, and all techological difficulties can be satisfactory solved, it's just we need to invest more in those technologies.

I very strongly object to that statement. We simply don't know how to do so. In as much as people in 1850 didn't know how to make a color TV set.

The sooner we can be really independent of fossil and nuclear energy, the better.

Is that an ideological statement, or is there a reason for it ? Fossil, I understand, in the optics of possible AGW. Nuclear, I don't know what the haste is about.

Here are some other advantages of renewables over other sources:
1. You can (if you want to) be really independent of any energy supplier. Using sun, wind and or other available sources you could in theory provide all the energy you need without even needing the grid or any other energy resource. No other energy resource could provide you this freedom. You would not want to have you "home" nuclear installation, and even if it were possible, you still dependent on fission materials.

This is correct. Now tell me, where is that region or country that lives on renewables alone ?
If it was so feasible, it would have been done already somewhere, right ?

But all your heat and electrical energy needs, with current available technology already, you could manufacture yourself. You will neither be dependent on one manufacturer, since the technology is that simple that there will be a huge market for suppliers.

Now, how does my steel factory run then, at a winter night, when there's no wind ?

2. Fossil and nuclear are in the end not renewable. If we keep on being dependent of those sources, we simply put the burden of solving the energy crisis AND the environemental to future generations.

Do you really think that people in the 18th century had to solve our energy problems ? That's what you are talking about when you talk about solving the energy crisis for future generations. We don't have to implement technologies that will last hundreds of years. We're not using 18th century technology to solve our problems, right ? People in the 23th century will not use our technologies, and that includes fossil fuels, nuclear fission energy or anything else.

We already consumed nearly half of the total supply of fossil energy, in that in only 200 years. Let us face that! How will future generations for coming thousands of years will reflect on that?
Is it "ethical" to use in a small fraction of time (relatively, as seen on the time scale of human civilisation) almost all available stored (fossil and nuclear) energy resources, and leaving nothing behind but the problems and evironemental and political issues connected with that?

Well, there's a logical fallacy here. Visibly you want our generation already to get away from the use of fossil fuels and nuclear energy. So these will then be "useless" energy ressources already now. If they are then already useless for our generation, they certainly will be for future generations. So we're not stealing anything from them, then, are we ?

I think we have the moral obligation to leave behind a better future for our children and grand-children. And since available stored energy resources will get depleted one day, sooner or later, we better provide our ancestors with a renewable source of energy, by developing these technologies not just as marginal energy resources but as the main energy resource.

Yes. We should develop them. It will take time. In the MEAN TIME, let us use those resources that we know work already. Our great grand children will not use our technology, in the same way as we don't use horse and cart as our main transportation system right now.

What you seem to miss entirely is that we currently don't have economically competitive and technically feasible energy sources that are renewable. That's green propaganda against nuclear, but since the 30 years that they are saying this, they never managed to put it in action. That lie has nevertheless managed to stop nuclear, but where they do so (like in Germany), they replace it with... coal.

3. Let us also see the political dimensions. As we know the war in Iraq had only one real purpose, and that is access to Iraq oil. Such political issues are more likely to arise in a world dominated by scarce energy resources like fossil fuels or fission materials. Renewable energies have much less this problem as these resources are avialable everywhere in some form or another.

Fission materials are NOT scarce. In fact, the current "waste" still contains about 99% of its nuclear energy, which can be made available with fast breeder reactors. The reason is that current thermal reactors only use (mainly) the U-235 isotope, which represents only 0.7% of the natural uranium, and most of the 99.3% of U-238 is untouched. But in a fast breeder, that can be fissioned too. So if we run already 30 years on nuclear, in the waste there is still the potential to run for 3000 years more on the same rate, or 600 years at 5 times more power, which would be the entire world energy consumption. Read this again: the current nuclear "waste" can still be used during 600 years for total electricity production. Now, we won't be doing that for 600 years, because I guess by then we've found much better techniques. But for sure, it isn't a scarce resource, it is the "waste" people want to get rid off ! Fast breeder reactors have already been demonstrated since several decades, but are not yet commercially exploitable. It are the famous "generation 4" reactors.

The only question involved in this is simply: are we willing to invest huge amounts of money into the future of humanity? The source for this money is very easy to find: oil profits, costs of warfare.
What were the costs for 5 years of war in Iraq? How many billions of dollars are nett profits of oil companies?
If only a fraction of that money would be spend on developing real renewables (and not just on turining food into oil, which is likely to damage more then solve), we could release future humanity of these urgent problems.

I think that is a bit naive. I'm also for developing new technologies, but you can't count on a technology that still has to be developed, and it is simply not true that by throwing a lot of money on a problem, you solve it quickly. Wind and solar have a fundamental, unsolved problem: intermittency. Price is only secondary - although it is also a problem.
Then there is another problem: industrial availability. One of the arguments against nuclear energy is that the industry, at this point, is not capable of delivering, say, 200 power plants in the next 10-15 years. First of all, I'm not sure about that. France, on its own, built 58 reactors in 20 years time. But let's take that. Now, do you think that the industry is capable of building, say, for 300 GW of solar and wind power plants in the next 10-15 years ?

The problem of those wanting inexistent technology (but convinced that it "can" be done, and it is just bad will or politics that stops them) do a lot of harm by stopping technology that IS available and DOES work.

We don't have to solve the problems of the 22nd century, we have to solve the problems of the beginning of the 21st century, without putting up those of the 22nd century with extra problems. But those of next century will not use OUR technologies, OUR resources, or anything. They will do THEIR thing, with THEIR technology and THEIR resources. In the mean time, don't stop people NOW from solving problems NOW with technology that exists NOW.

 

[robheus]

The problem I have with that discourse, is that IN THE MEAN TIME, we don't do anything, and we STOP good solutions from being implemented, waiting for the "perfect" solution. We say that we should develop technologies, that will solve certain issues, and that in order to do so, we should invest in it. No matter how much money you would have given to someone in 1850, you would not have had color television in 1880. Of course we should develop new technologies (which will be the mature technologies future generations will choose from to implement on large scale), but we should not STOP mature technologies from providing solutions, because we THINK that we MAY develop better ones in the FUTURE.

There is no "single perfect" solution, since the energy future will most probably contain a very diverse mixture of several alternatives.
In the mean time we can ALREADY built those almost economical viable solar installations (CSP and those that are economically comparable) in many locations.
I think that are better alternatives then simply call for "more drillings/more refineries".

I really, really don't believe that. Study the Danish experience (it was not bad will, or subsidies that were missing). Grid balance is a technologically challenging problem, if you don't have steerable sources at your disposal - it is even a challenging problem when you have them ! Tripling the price of electricity is a serious economical problem, but is less of a difficulty than balancing the grid.

Well that is just the lesson to be learned. Before scaling up our renewables, we should investigate how they fit to varying demand/supply balances. So, best would be to spend some money on styding that.
And a likely outcome would be is that you can better use 2 or more independend renewable sources then just 1, as the likelihood that AND there is no solar AND there is no WIND and there is no <other> is off course less. Also, we need to investigate means for buffering energy and/or how conventional power units can be made economical even in cases where their only use is to meet peak demands.
Also spreading the risk by developing a more capable grid is some solution. If using DC electric power lines, you can distribute electricity over thousands of kilometers with little loss (~ 15%), which is of course better then dumping peak production for which there is no demand, and better then even the most efficient storage mechanisms. If there is a very wide grid, this will most certainly provide a more stable rate of production (for example in a range of some thousands kilometers, the change that there is no wind in the whole region is far less as in the case of a grid of only some hundred kilometers).
So there are a number of ways, and combinations of them to tackle this problem. Just create some large computer simulation on this (fed in with actual resource and demand data), use probabilistic scenario's,etc. to find an optimum solution to this, minimizing the risk of a major grid failure.

It is exactly this (IMO almost technologically almost unsolvable) problem that is missed by all alternative-energy enthusiasts.

That is why such features need to be studied more. So, the money should not just go to improving technologies to produce renewable energy, but also to make it a more reliable source. See my comments above.

I'm sorry but they are part of the price calculation. In fact, nuclear is the only technology where one takes into account the waste issue. One can argue that one doesn't count enough for it. I wonder if in the price of a park of wind turbines, one has included the price of dismantling them, cutting them to pieces, transporting this to a waste dump and so on.

A fair price comparission should include that also as well as the costs for buffering and having backup power units (which would be less efficient then when used continously).

In fact, this has been tried, and the problem is that it always includes some arbitrary cutoff, and then discussions turn over this cutoff. Current technologies are based upon a lot of different techniques, science, research, ... You can almost say that a modern nuclear power plant, or a modern wind turbine, needed 4 billion years of evolution to get there, and start calculating what was the cost of that. Do we have to include Tesla's salary into the costs of every electricity generator ? So you have to put a cutoff somewhere. For instance, people insist to include in "government subventions", the research in nuclear technology by research labs. Should we now also include in the price of wind energy, every laboratory that studies hydrodynamics ?

It would be just fair to say that any general study in new technologies which are not yet mature, should be places as general costs for the society as a whole, and only count specific studies of technologies in real economical applications as (more or less) direct costs for such technologies.

I very strongly object to that statement. We simply don't know how to do so. In as much as people in 1850 didn't know how to make a color TV set.

Well, there are of course a couple of technological challenges to be overcome. They need to be overcome one day. They existed for oil industry also, as well as for nuclear. I don't think it would be wise to keep avoiding the technological challenges, as that would keep us too much dependent on oil, gas and nuclear, and in the end, how longer we wait, the more difficult the transition would be (as meanwhile the population grows, and energy pro capita grows too). This would make the problem more difficult as it already is.
As I see it, a transition from (mostly) fossil and some nuclear and only marginally renewable to dominantly reneweable is not an issue of years, but will take several decades.
This makes it also urgent since for example oil production will be going to decline within a decade,at most two. To be able to meet the challege then, we better be prepared.
The whole issue is that postponing the inevitable is NOT a good strategy. Developing all the necessary technologies and difficulties that come with using renewables is not doable in some years.
Technological problems don't get solved by themselves. They need people and budgets and an economic/societal reason, and the latter are already fulfilled, we just need more people and budget working on it.

Is that an ideological statement, or is there a reason for it ? Fossil, I understand, in the optics of possible AGW. Nuclear, I don't know what the haste is about.

There are political issues involved in going nuclear (like proliferation) and the general risk on any such limited resources that political conflicts may arise from them (not every country has uranium, and some countries see them being blocked access to such technologies, because of the risk that they may produce nuclear weapons).

This is correct. Now tell me, where is that region or country that lives on renewables alone ?
If it was so feasible, it would have been done already somewhere, right ?

Some countries DO have plans already to be practically independend of fossil fuels as soon as 2020 or so.
Given some time in technological advancement AND rising oil prices, will cause other countries to follow that example also, I guess.

Now, how does my steel factory run then, at a winter night, when there's no wind ?

Perhaps the steel factory should be placed where there is an abundance of available cheap renewable energy. For example there is a huge resource in geothermal energy, which has no problem in meeting the demand (in case of a steel factory the demand is near constant, and geothermal can easily be scaled up to meet a constand demand).
If that is not possible (or would not be economical feasible) and depending on what resource is available, there are diverse options. Like stated before, some solar technologies already can meet near constant energy production demand. For meeting peak loads you could have backup power units, fueled on bio fuels. And perhaps, if we can find methods to store hydrogen economically, this could be used for energy storage. That would be some breakthrough, as to produce hydrogen all you need is electricity (and water of course, but that is abundant), so wind farms and other renewable sources that produce electricity could store excess electricity in the form of hydrogen. But as hydrogen is the smallest atom.molecule it is very difficult to store it, or you would have to liquify it).
Apart from this you would want to look for ways of using waste heat from the steel factory for practical use.

Do you really think that people in the 18th century had to solve our energy problems ? That's what you are talking about when you talk about solving the energy crisis for future generations. We don't have to implement technologies that will last hundreds of years. We're not using 18th century technology to solve our problems, right ? People in the 23th century will not use our technologies, and that includes fossil fuels, nuclear fission energy or anything else.

The 18-th century did not bring an energy crisis, since they used considerable less energy as we, and almost all discoveries of large deposits of fossil fuels were in the 20-th century.
People in the 18-th century had a different perspective on the problems then we have now, for instance it was considered that Paris would be suffering from horse poop because of increasing traffic.
This was before the invention of the automobile.Of course that changed the whole problem all together.
The reason WE (this generation) needs to solve the energy problem is just because we are facing the depletion of the most common fuels. We are almost half-way the (calculated) oil , and although there will still be some deposits left undiscovered, the chances of still finding very large deposits are minimal. The oil discovery already peaked, and the only oil we find is more difficult to exploit (shale and deep sea oil mainly).

So, yes there is a reason to think NOW about how in the future we can replace those depleting energy resources, since we are nearing the depletion of some of the major energy resources already.
The situation in that respect is very difficult in that respect then that in the 18-th century.

Well, there's a logical fallacy here. Visibly you want our generation already to get away from the use of fossil fuels and nuclear energy. So these will then be "useless" energy ressources already now. If they are then already useless for our generation, they certainly will be for future generations. So we're not stealing anything from them, then, are we ?

Yes, we need to think about the energy future. Because we are certain that resources as sun,wind, geothermal, etc. are available for all future generations, and fossils only for couple of decades, century at maximum. Nuclear perhaps longer, depending on what kind of technology.

The point is off course the following: population AND energy demand pro capita is growing. So this will cause an increasing problem for any way of energy transition,which most likely must be thought of in periods of several decades instead of years.The longer we wait, the more difficult it will be.
The scenarion of depletion of conventional energy resources (fossil fuels) is that after they meet peak production there is a sharp raise of the price. This also meas: less economic means for technological advancement. It will simply put more stress on the already difficult issue, and less resources to solve it.
This means IMO we would be better off trying to solve those issues now, now we still have the resoources as doing that later, since a dramatic price increase of for example oil, will affect everything.
We KNOW that prices of many renewables can significantly drop in price, if they are scaled up (even aside of technological advancement which can even more reduce the price).
So a good strategy would then to already go and invest in that, so that near the time oil and price peaks we already have a scalable alternative.

As stated earlier, nuclear technology has a major disadvantage: although it can be available for many centuries, for sceurity reasons there is likely going to be some monopoly on the technique, which means that those companies/states that control the nuclear market effectively dominate whole humanity.
This is in fact already what is happening,and what will happen on a bigger scale in the future, if we place all our bets on nuclear technology.

To be stated simple: the (large scale) use of nuclear energy is not compatible with a democratic and equal-chance-of-development world society. In fact humanity would become hostage of those powers that control nuclear energy. And definitely large scale use of nuclear energy is going to become accompanied with rigorous forms of control or security, because breeder reactors can create the material nuclear explosives are made of.

Are you willing to give up democracy and freedom, just to have access to cheap energy?
I think the political price is simply to big for this.

All countries and all people have in principle same access rights to energy and other resources, and renewables are in this respect very democratic and very distributed. Nobody can monopolize wind or sun energy.

Yes. We should develop them. It will take time. In the MEAN TIME, let us use those resources that we know work already. Our great grand children will not use our technology, in the same way as we don't use horse and cart as our main transportation system right now.

What you seem to miss entirely is that we currently don't have economically competitive and technically feasible energy sources that are renewable. That's green propaganda against nuclear, but since the 30 years that they are saying this, they never managed to put it in action. That lie has nevertheless managed to stop nuclear, but where they do so (like in Germany), they replace it with... coal.

Hydro energy and wind energy are fairly competive I might say. Some forms of solar are pretty near competetive.
The problem for wind for instance is not that placing more wind turbines is not economical, but that government regulations limit the places were they can be built. That is why for example in the Netherlands they are going to be built off-shore (spin off from oil technology!).

Fission materials are NOT scarce. In fact, the current "waste" still contains about 99% of its nuclear energy, which can be made available with fast breeder reactors. The reason is that current thermal reactors only use (mainly) the U-235 isotope, which represents only 0.7% of the natural uranium, and most of the 99.3% of U-238 is untouched. But in a fast breeder, that can be fissioned too. So if we run already 30 years on nuclear, in the waste there is still the potential to run for 3000 years more on the same rate, or 600 years at 5 times more power, which would be the entire world energy consumption. Read this again: the current nuclear "waste" can still be used during 600 years for total electricity production. Now, we won't be doing that for 600 years, because I guess by then we've found much better techniques. But for sure, it isn't a scarce resource, it is the "waste" people want to get rid off ! Fast breeder reactors have already been demonstrated since several decades, but are not yet commercially exploitable. It are the famous "generation 4" reactors.

Yes, but whoever has access to breeding technology has access to nuclear weapons, and last time I checked, we do not want everybody to have access to nuclear weapons.

I think this issue IS important, and is also the reason we don't want our energy future dependend on nuclear.
There is too big a political price for that.

I think that is a bit naive. I'm also for developing new technologies, but you can't count on a technology that still has to be developed, and it is simply not true that by throwing a lot of money on a problem, you solve it quickly. Wind and solar have a fundamental, unsolved problem: intermittency. Price is only secondary - although it is also a problem.

Then there is another problem: industrial availability. One of the arguments against nuclear energy is that the industry, at this point, is not capable of delivering, say, 200 power plants in the next 10-15 years. First of all, I'm not sure about that. France, on its own, built 58 reactors in 20 years time. But let's take that. Now, do you think that the industry is capable of building, say, for 300 GW of solar and wind power plants in the next 10-15 years ?

Do you think if we wait another 20 years, and we need then not 300GW but 500GW, that it would be easier then?
I mean, postponing that, will not make the problem go away, but make it bigger instead.

The problem of those wanting inexistent technology (but convinced that it "can" be done, and it is just bad will or politics that stops them) do a lot of harm by stopping technology that IS available and DOES work.

All technology I so far have talked about are EXISTING technologies. They just have the problem that they don't scale well or don't fit well with varying demand/supply. So there we face some problems that need to be attacked.
Unless we WANT to solve them, we will FIND a solution, I'm sure. In fact they are pretty low level technological stuff, much less complicated as let's say, nuclear technology or rocket science.

We don't have to solve the problems of the 22nd century, we have to solve the problems of the beginning of the 21st century, without putting up those of the 22nd century with extra problems. But those of next century will not use OUR technologies, OUR resources, or anything. They will do THEIR thing, with THEIR technology and THEIR resources. In the mean time, don't stop people NOW from solving problems NOW with technology that exists NOW.

And where is the spirit of the moon landing? There was NOT ONE economic (and only very limited scientific) reason to land a man on the moon, but budgetting sufficient economic resources to that project made it possible to overcome ALL the technological difficulties that came with it. And it was by no means an EASY challenge, as everyone knows.

Let's say that is proof of my statement, that given enough economic priority, all technological difficulties of even the most ambitious project can be overcome. Scaling our economic infrastructure to be based on renewable resources only, is a major challenge, and needs to be solved.

I am sure that if we have the same ambition of developing large scale infrastructure for energy based on (mainly) renewable, this will be possible too. The tecnological problems are not that hard compared to what we already done, just different.

Why not taking up this challenge, instead of being dependent on existing technology, and playing ourselves into the hand of a few monopolists? You want to give freedom and democracy away?

If we want a future in which every human being now and in the future has access to a reasonable standard of living, I think renewable energy will fit in the best.
This comes only at the price that we have to put out of our mind that exponential growth is sustaoable given limited resources. Which we need to confront us with sooner or later.
Better doing that NOW then letting those problems (resource wars) dominate and plague future generations.

 

[robheus]

Well, there's a logical fallacy here. Visibly you want our generation already to get away from the use of fossil fuels and nuclear energy. So these will then be "useless" energy ressources already now. If they are then already useless for our generation, they certainly will be for future generations. So we're not stealing anything from them, then, are we ?

Previous post got too long for ellaborating on this.

It is not a logic fallacy, since wether or not and to what extend those resources (fossil and nuclear) will be sources that future generations can use, depend on the efforts we make now on replacing them with renewables.
The point is then, if we do not replace them soon enough, this decissions WILL be a burden for future generations, since they need to solve then an even bigger energy problem as we already have, and if technological advancement is postponed if short-term economic policy making is put in place, we in fact loose critical time.
Time is critical, since it would be already now a major challenge to replace a major portion of our energy needs with renewables, and that is exactly your point of discussion, which I do not contest.
The only point I bring in is that the longer we wait or procrast the decissions to become independent of fossil and nuclear, the bigger the problem gets.
The possible scenario is then that only a portion of humanity (a few countries) can provide their energy needs, based on military domination, and other people/countries,stay much less developed, offering less chances of economic development for their inhabitants.

My scenario would be that if we put enough economic resources into developing a majorly renewable form of economy, this can provide anybody a reasonable amount of economic development.
And the technology can be put in anybodies hands without security risk or pollution risks.

The disadvantage is that we can not have exponential growth in renewables. Exponential growth in the end will be catastrophal, since not only energy but also food supplies simply can not match up exponential growth.
It would place certain limits on using resources. But those limits will be there for anyone, and is not discriminating anyone. Basic things like housing, fresh drinking water,education, healthcare, food, clothing and other resources needed to stay alive and have well being should be available to anyone.
But some luxory things (like 3 times a year traveling by plane, or excessive mobil transport, etc) simply can not be provided for all of humanity, without causing major problems.
Nobody dies if those luxory things would be restricted, but not having food, fresh water or other primary needs, IS live threatening, and so we should direct the economic means to satisfy firstly those basic needs for everyone.

For most people though the availability of nuclear power in anybodies hand would be a night mare.
So, that is basically what we have to choose between. Do we want to be controlled by the nuclear industry, which will put rigorous security measures in place to avoid that just anybody has access to nuclear facilities, or do we want to avoid this to be an issue.
(btw. this does not mean that all nuclear energy usage or technology usage needs to be abandoned, just that we need to be fairly independent of it).

 

[mheslep]

... We say that we should develop technologies, that will solve certain issues, and that in order to do so, we should invest in it. No matter how much money you would have given to someone in 1850, you would not have had color television in 1880.

That is a very good answer to incessant call for 'another Manhattan project' for this, that, or the other thing. Motion to ban calls on PF for Manhattan projects. Second?

I'm sorry but they are part of the price calculation. In fact, nuclear is the only technology where one takes into account the waste issue. One can argue that one doesn't count enough for it. I wonder if in the price of a park of wind turbines, one has included the price of dismantling them, cutting them to pieces, transporting this to a waste dump and so on.

A nuclear plant deserves an order of magnitude more attention to decommission since it is a couple of orders of magnitude more difficult and expensive to do than some wind farm. If a given utility or municipality has reached end of life on its wind warm but happens to be be a little short on capital this year, so what? It feathers the blades and walks away for awhile, no high security to remain in place, no rigorous inspections required. No such luck with an end of life nuclear plant. As of 2006 in France no full scale commercial plant has ever been dismantled.
www.nea.fr/html/rwm/wpdd/france.pdf[/URL]. The small 70MWe Brennislis reactor began decommissioning in 1985, still ongoing 2007.
[PLAIN]http://www.francenuc.org/en_sites/brit_brenn_e.htm

 

[sketchtrack]

I don't think we can jump strait into renewable energy, but over the coarse of 20 years we should be able to make a dramatic shift. I also believe whole heartedly that drilling off coast in the U.S. isn't going to make a dent in oil prices.

The way I view it, America is at war with Big oil, because Big oil has our economy hijacked. The way to win the war is for our economy to claim independence from Big oil.