Will Solar Power Outshine Oil in the Near Future?

[rootone]

I simply do not believe CO2 emissions are going to be "ongoing" on this scale for much longer. 30 years from now, they will be lower than today.

Only if industries which produce the most CO2 become unprofitable.

 

[mheslep]

I simply do not believe CO2 emissions are going to be "ongoing" on this scale for much longer. 30 years from now, they will be lower than today.

Global http://endcoal.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Jan-2017-New-by-year.pdf: 77 GW (42 GW China, 19 GW India)
As of January 2017: global coal capacity planned or permitted: 570 GW

 

[RogueOne]

Nikkkom, you can believe that current CO2 emissions, ongoing, will not be significantly harmful; believing what you like is, for ordinary citizens, like a civil right. However for those holding positions of trust and responsibility to choose to reject and dismiss the abundant, consistent and persistent expert advice the option to believe what they like is not a right, it is negligence..

I think you are misinterpreting the way that our government works here in the U.S. We have what is called a constitutional republic. In this form of government, we have a constitution that is to be adhered to while elected officials gently guide the country in ways that align with what the voters want.

This is not a form of government that is intended to be controlled by an unelected and concentrated group of elites whom are hand picked by each other on the basis of being dubbed an "expert".

For elected officials holding positions of trust and responsibility, choosing to reject and dismiss the abundant, consistent and persistent will of the voters and supreme law of the land set by the constitution, the option to believe what they like is not a right, it is Tyranny.

 

[OmCheeto]

...
Would people in 1650 think wind, waterfalls, and wood, were "hand wavy" solutions, when that was pretty much all they had?

Apparently you only have to go back to about 1800.

No fancy "Omic" maths this time. Everything should add up to 100%.
And yes, I changed parameters around 1940, from Global to US.
Can't remember how many times I've told people I'm not god, and cannot fix the worlds problems.
Think globally, act locally, and invent a refrigerator for Zoob and your sister, to alleviate at least a bit of the problem.

[reference for left side of "Global" graph: People who love graphs as much as I do, apparently]
[reference for right side of "USA!" graph: Yup. The gubment. 1.3 Primary energy consumption by source]

 

[Ken Fabos]

I think you are misinterpreting the way that our government works here in the U.S. We have what is called a constitutional republic. In this form of government, we have a constitution that is to be adhered to while elected officials gently guide the country in ways that align with what the voters want.

This is not a form of government that is intended to be controlled by an unelected and concentrated group of elites whom are hand picked by each other on the basis of being dubbed an "expert".

For elected officials holding positions of trust and responsibility, choosing to reject and dismiss the abundant, consistent and persistent will of the voters and supreme law of the land set by the constitution, the option to believe what they like is not a right, it is Tyranny.

Elected representatives are to some extent, above and outside the reach of Common Law yet I suggest it does still apply and under common law those in positions of trust and responsibility who's decisions fail to take account of expert advice and harms arise as a consequence can be found liable. A recent court decision in the Netherlands shows this legal principle used in practice with respect to elected governments although I grant that the US system, despite relying on Common Law may be different, yet I understand court cases have gone ahead within the US legal system. The global, multi-generational nature of the harms arising as well as, where it exists, strong electoral support for ignoring them will tend to extend the de-facto immunity from responsibility elected officials enjoy but I suggest that under Common Law even being popularly elected to enact policies that avoid climate responsibility does not make that responsibility go away.

It isn't really a choice between recognition of climate responsibility and tyranny but it's not uncommon to try and frame the question that way to justify ongoing responsibility avoidance

 

[CWatters]

Oil companies are investing in renewables like wind and solar because costs have fallen making them more profitable than oil...

http://business.financialpost.com/n...embracing-push-to-green-energy-wood-mackenzie

 

[RogueOne]

Elected representatives are to some extent, above and outside the reach of Common Law yet I suggest it does still apply and under common law those in positions of trust and responsibility who's decisions fail to take account of expert advice and harms arise as a consequence can be found liable. A recent court decision in the Netherlands shows this legal principle used in practice with respect to elected governments although I grant that the US system, despite relying on Common Law may be different, yet I understand court cases have gone ahead within the US legal system. The global, multi-generational nature of the harms arising as well as, where it exists, strong electoral support for ignoring them will tend to extend the de-facto immunity from responsibility elected officials enjoy but I suggest that under Common Law even being popularly elected to enact policies that avoid climate responsibility does not make that responsibility go away.

It isn't really a choice between recognition of climate responsibility and tyranny but it's not uncommon to try and frame the question that way to justify ongoing responsibility avoidance

I know that it is not a choice between recognition of climate responsibility and tyranny. That is because "recognition of climate responsibility" is the new name for tyranny. So "recognition of climate responsibility" and "tyranny" have become a package deal today. Maybe your movement will gain more traction if you can break that. Until then, the people don't want the democrat's version of "recognition of climate responsibility". They won't even tolerate it anymore.

 

[russ_watters]

I know that it is not a choice between recognition of climate responsibility and tyranny. That is because "recognition of climate responsibility" is the new name for tyranny. So "recognition of climate responsibility" and "tyranny" have become a package deal today. Maybe your movement will gain more traction if you can break that. Until then, the people don't want the democrat's version of "recognition of climate responsibility". They won't even tolerate it anymore.

Let me reframe that slightly and then see if we can get off the politics:

It has been my percption that most supporters of aggressive anti-climate change action believe there are only two sides to the issue, with the other being climate change denial. But there is a third: accepting climate change, but opposing agreessive government action to correct it.

Regardless, this thread is about solar power's prospects, which can be judged through multiple lenses:
1. Aggressive government directed clean/renewable energy programs.
2. Aggressive private sector solar power product marketing (Apple/Elon Musk and damn the economics).
3. Passive growth prospects (it happens on its own due to its technical and economic merit).

And of course each of these can be viewed in terms of one's desire to see it happen versus predicting its likelihood to actually happen.

 

[RogueOne]

Let me reframe that slightly and then see if we can get off the politics:

It has been my percption that most supporters of aggressive anti-climate change action believe there are only two sides to the issue, with the other being climate change denial. But there is a third: accepting climate change, but opposing agreessive government action to correct it.

That has been my perception as well. I think that is why they have created the term "climate denier" or "science denier". It splits factions into two easy-to-discriminate groups, so that all viewpoints other than theirs are vilified. Its easier to campaign on black-and-white topics.

I think there is more complex spectrum than that, especially for those who do not strictly adhere to the AGW viewpoints that have been favorited by politicians and their news outlets. There are other vectors, such as estimation of magnitude of anthropogenic contributions to the climate's actual amount change. Then there is the estimation of what the "lethal dose" is for those contributions. There are also differing estimations on how much the world's government could actually impact climate change, even if everything were outlawed/regulated right down to how much air the politicians allow proletariats to exhale.

I am now done with the political side of this discussion and will focus on the future of solar power.
Solar power will gain in popularity in the very long term. It will decrease in value temporarily due to their reliance on subsidies.

 

[OmCheeto]

Let me reframe that slightly and then see if we can get off the politics:

It has been my percption that most supporters of aggressive anti-climate change action believe there are only two sides to the issue, with the other being climate change denial. But there is a third: accepting climate change, but opposing agreessive government action to correct it.

Regardless, this thread is about solar power's prospects, which can be judged through multiple lenses:
1. Aggressive government directed clean/renewable energy programs.
2. Aggressive private sector solar power product marketing (Apple/Elon Musk and damn the economics).
3. Passive growth prospects (it happens on its own due to its technical and economic merit).

And of course each of these can be viewed in terms of one's desire to see it happen versus predicting its likelihood to actually happen.

Is it ok for me to support all three?

ps. For some reason, your post reminded me of Rickover's "energy" speech from 1957. I still consider him to be both a genius, and a prophet.
Not to mention, that his numbers seem to corroborate mine:

% energy by source
year    who     HC%     Other%
1850    H.R.     5        95
1850    O.C.     7        93

1957    H.R.    93         7
1959    O.C.    93         7

HC = hydrocarbons
H.R. = Hyman G. Rickover
O.C. = Om Cheeto

And it's interesting to see how little things have changed in just 60 years (and one month):

H.R., 1957; "Our country, with only 6% of the world's population, uses one third of the world's total energy input; this proportion would be even greater except that we use energy more efficiently than other countries. Each American has at his disposal, each year, energy equivalent to that obtainable from eight tons of coal. This is six times the world's per capita energy consumption."

O.C., 2017; "Our country, with only 5% of the world's population, uses one quarter of the world's total energy input"​

And the weird coincidence:

H.R., 1957; "I am honored to be here tonight, though it is no easy thing, I assure you, for a layman to face up to an audience of physicians."

O.C., 2013; "[Former Energy Secretary] Professor Chu has entered the room. [at the Hospital Om used to work at. ]" [ref: PF. Fun thread! I'll have to go back and re-read @atyy 's link, as it appears I did not respond. Perhaps I didn't like what I saw, and my "Greenie" bias "just couldn't handle the truth". But I have to go buy plants for my garden now, so maybe tomorrow. Ciao!]​

 

[johnbbahm]

I see solar replacing oil for fuel, and much sooner than later!
Solar is one of the most energy dense alternate energy sources, roughly 2.8 acres per Gwh.
The main problem is the density and duty cycle still do not match the on demand needs.
Audi/Sunfire and the Naval research labs have been working on power to fuel projects, and have working prototypes in place.
http://www.audi.com/corporate/en/co...ity/product/synthetic-fuels-Audi-e-fuels.html
https://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2016/NRL-Seawater-Carbon-Capture-Process-Receives-US-Patent
The ability to store and accumulate solar power in the form of liquid hydrocarbon fuel,
changes the energy landscape.
When a refinery can make their own feedstock from water, CO2, and electricity, for less than cost of refining oil,
they will do so, because that will be the path of higher profits.
For a given region solar will have large seasonal surpluses.
Spring and Fall in the South, has low demand for air conditioning or heat, so a wide solar distribution
would make lots of surplus electricity. Without a demand, all those unused Mwh could damage the grid.
The old oil refineries could act like an unlimited dump load, storing all the surpluses as liquid fuels.
Audi says their process is 70% efficient, so to store the 33 Kwh in a gallon of gasoline would require
roughly 50 Kwh of electricity. Wholesale electricity can be had for $.05 per Kwh, so $2.50 per gallon,
A barrel of oil yields about 35 gallons of fuel product, so 35 X $2.50 =$87.50 per barrel for the cost of what the refinery
brings into the plant.
I have not worked in the oil business for several decades, but the oil business has a long history of cutting edge research.
I would not be surprised, if the oil companies had their own better processes.

 

[CWatters]

I'm a bit late replying to..

Right, $30 to $60 for cheaper forms of power unsubsidized. Then look at Lazard's LCOE on storage technologies, which run from $300 to $1000 per MWh unsubsidized.. Nuclear, gas, coal - these don't need deep storage.

Currently solar and wind don't need or use storage to make a significant contribution to the grid. Currently storage is essentially provided by leaving oil and gas in the ground on sunny/windy days.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting we can all go 100% for wind and solar but right now it looks like most countries can and are increasing solar and wind capacity without too many problems or significantly increased cost.

 

[mheslep]

Currently solar and wind don't need or use storage to make a significant contribution to the grid.

The meaning of "significant contribution" is unclear. An ability to dump power on the grid is not the only issue. Cost matters, as the LCOE pricing you referenced in #353 suggests. Wind penetration in Texas already reached a point where power pricing frequently would go negative for hours. That is, if not for the ~$25/MWh subsidy granted to US wind, more wind power would not be built at such a point. Texas completed several $billion of additional transmission capacity a couple years ago reducing the problem for a time, but that is a cost not reflected by some LCOE accounts.

...Currently storage is essentially provided by leaving oil and gas in the ground on sunny/windy days.

The conventional list of storage technologies uses another form of man made power to charge the storage. Calling fossil fuel power "storage" conveniently removes it from the list of expensive https://www.greentechmedia.com/content/images/articles/Lazard_Storage_LCOE_behind_the_meter.pngs as if it were free. Clearly, it's not. The cost of that fossile fuel 'storage' is not accounted for in the LCOE pricing you reference in #353, that is, there is no "Solar PV plus coal plant backup" line item.

More importantly, the cost of fossile fuel power plants has two components: i) capital cost to build and ii) cost to operate once built. That LCOE chart from Lazard reflects the combination. If a fossil fuel plant is indeed built to provide a reliable grid in the presence of wind/solar, and I agree with you're point above that fossil *must* be built for solar/wind, then the capital cost is sunk and then the marginal cost to flip the switch and run the plant is very often cheaper than the cost of building new solar or new wind. Thus small shares of solar and wind (5% - 20%) drive the building (or continued existence) of fossil fuel plants, killing the economic incentive to build anymore solar and wind into a majority share, and thus locking-in the fossil fuel plants long term. Germany is illustrative, with 49 GW of coal plants in 2002, and 49 GW of coal plants today, and a 50% increase in natural gas plants over the same period.

So far, only nuclear and hydro have obtained deep cuts in carbon emissions in power grids.

 

[russ_watters]

Currently solar and wind don't need or use storage to make a significant contribution to the grid. Currently storage is essentially provided by leaving oil and gas in the ground on sunny/windy days.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting we can all go 100% for wind and solar but right now it looks like most countries can and are increasing solar and wind capacity without too many problems or significantly increased cost.

It's probably worth looking into the limitation for solar specifically or intermittent renewables/clean energy in general to see just how far they can go before significant problems become unavoidable.

Obviously, solar and wind can't be 100% of our energy use without storage since they don't operate 24/7. The true maximum before waste or storage becomes required (therefore amplifying marginal costs) may be a bit hard to pin down because it depends on how the grid load and solar output vary throughout the year.

However, a decent starting point would be from the fact that for a few minutes last year, Germany ran on 95% renewables, versus a total of 25% over the course of the year. About half of that peak was solar and most of the rest was wind, and for the year solar is about 4%. This implies a limit for solar of about 8% before at least some wasted capacity or storage is required. I believe @mheslep has cited 7% previously as being an apparent limit from real country data.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany
https://www.sciencealert.com/last-sunday-95-percent-of-germany-s-energy-was-provided-by-renewables

Broader, for all types of renewables/clean energy (if we accept biomass, which I don't) Germany runs about 25% for the year. Looking at the graph on the wiki page for Germany, they are currently replacing nuclear with "renewables" while keeping fossil fuel power (almost all coal) at about half of their power production. If Germany continues on that path, they will soon replace their nuclear power with clean/renewable energy, reaching a ceiling where more can't be added without storage or waste (and great marginal cost) and not put a dent into their carbon emissions.

Does anyone really want this or see a way around this problem? Does Germany have a plan for meeting their Paris Accord commitment?

 

[mfb]

https://www.sciencealert.com/last-sunday-95-percent-of-germany-s-energy-was-provided-by-renewables

See 2016, week 18 in these graphs, I don't think there is a way to link directly to that week.

What actually happened that day: For two hours we had 50% solar, 25% wind, and 25% coal/nuclear power. Only 80% of the production was needed, so 20% was exported. Why could Germany export 20% of its production? The countries around it had sunshine and wind as well - but their share of photovoltaics and wind power is smaller, so they could use the excess power. If Germany would be an isolated system, or if the surrounding countries would have the same energy politics, the energy would have been wasted.

You can also see how the electricity price gets massively negative because all the solar and wind power operators want to get their subsidies for pushing even more power into a grid that has more than it needs already.

Replacing coal by renewable energies is great, it increases prices but it reduces pollution and CO2 emission. Replacing nuclear by renewables during the day and coal during the night? What a stupid idea, it increases prices, pollution and CO2 emissions.

 

[russ_watters]

See 2016, week 18 in these graphs, I don't think there is a way to link directly to that week.

What actually happened that day: For two hours we had 50% solar, 25% wind, and 25% coal/nuclear power. Only 80% of the production was needed, so 20% was exported. Why could Germany export 20% of its production? The countries around it had sunshine and wind as well - but their share of photovoltaics and wind power is smaller, so they could use the excess power. If Germany would be an isolated system, or if the surrounding countries would have the same energy politics, the energy would have been wasted.

You can also see how the electricity price gets massively negative because all the solar and wind power operators want to get their subsidies for pushing even more power into a grid that has more than it needs already.

Replacing coal by renewable energies is great, it increases prices but it reduces pollution and CO2 emission. Replacing nuclear by renewables during the day and coal during the night? What a stupid idea, it increases prices, pollution and CO2 emissions.

Yes, my (quick) analysis assumes a closed and well integrated grid (among other things), and I realize Germany's is very open.

Applying that to the US, which is a much larger country yet still isn't closed but also isn't well enough integrated, we are also already seeing some problems in certain areas, as @mheslep pointed out. I think the fact that our major population centers are thousands of miles apart (mostly spaced east-west) and by far the best solar potential is in the west, integration problems will be very significant at a lower fraction than Germany's.

 

[OmCheeto]

...I'll have to go back and re-read @atyy 's link, as it appears I did not respond. Perhaps I didn't like what I saw, and my "Greenie" bias "just couldn't handle the truth".
...

I have two guesses as to why I didn't respond:

1. Probably the first number that caught my eye: "...that panelling 5% of the country with photovoltaics at a cost of £200 000 per person..."

Now, atyy posted that in February of 2013, so I would have immediately googled the cost of PV and the exchange rate, and done some fast Omic maths:

, and saw that this "smarty" guy claimed I needed 415 THOUSAND watts worth of solar panels.
This is why I listed this as #1, as nobody uses that much power.

415,000 watts = 557 horsepower (We're talking BIG BLOCK, hemi head, fuel injected, dual overhead cams...)​

So I obviously thought this person was crazy.​

2. This was from a 383 page document.

ummmm... I wasn't retired back then. Ain't nobody got that much free time.​

Anyways, after checking out Prof MacKay on the interwebs, I prayed that I had never said a bad word about him.
And my prayers were answered; "Kind of refreshing to hear from a professor of physics rather than Geraldo."

Sadly, Prof. MacKay passed away in April of last year.
Reading just a fraction of his posted words, over the last 24 hours, made me feel like I would have enjoyed his company, greatly.

Although atyy quoted Mackay near the end, I would like to quote the apparent dedication, and preface:

Version 3.5.2. November 3, 2008.

to those who will not have the benefit
of two billion years’ accumulated energy reserves​

Preface

What’s this book about?

I’m concerned about cutting UK emissions of twaddle – twaddle about
sustainable energy. Everyone says getting off fossil fuels is important, and
we’re all encouraged to “make a difference,” but many of the things that
allegedly make a difference don’t add up.
Twaddle emissions are high at the moment because people get emotional
(for example about wind farms or nuclear power) and no-one talks
about numbers. Or if they do mention numbers, they select them to sound
big, to make an impression, and to score points in arguments, rather than
to aid thoughtful discussion.
This is a straight-talking book about the numbers. The aim is to guide
the reader around the claptrap to actions that really make a difference and
to policies that add up.​

 

[mheslep]

...Obviously, solar and wind can't be 100% of our energy use without storage since they don't operate 24/7...

And yet there have been several publications in the last few years claiming 100% supply from renewable power (solar, wind, hydro, geothermal) and others up to 80%, though none AFAIK in the primary journals. They make fairly ridiculous assumptions in my view to get there (esp. massive storage).

See e.g.:
Jacobson, Delucchi, et al. 2015. “100% Clean and Renewable Wind, Water, and Sunlight (WWS) All-Sector Energy Roadmaps for the 50 United States.” Energy Environ. Sci. 8. Royal Society of Chemistry. doi:10.1039/C5EE01283J.
Becker, S et al. 2014. “Features of a Fully Renewable US Electricity System: Optimized Mixes of Wind and Solar PV and Transmission Grid Extensions.” Energy 72: 443–58. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2014.05.067.
Elliston, B., I. MacGill, and M. Diesendorf. 2014. “Comparing Least Cost Scenarios for 100% Renewable Electricity with Low Emission Fossil Fuel Scenarios in the Australian National Electricity Market.” Renewable Energy 66: 196–204. doi:10.1016/j. renene.2013.12.010.
Frew et al. 2016
Lenzen et al. 2016

For criticism see e.g. "DEEP DECARBONIZATION OF THE ELECTRIC POWER SECTOR INSIGHTS FROM RECENT LITERATURE"
http://innovationreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/EIRP-Deep-Decarb-Lit-Review-Jenkins-Thernstrom-March-2017.pdf

 

[mheslep]

...Solar will continue to grow and in 20 years, will generate 20-40% of US electricity...

Consider the consequences of arriving at 40% of annual US generation from solar in 20 years:

• US annual generation (2016) from all sources per the EIA was 4000 TWh, or a 0.5 TW average annual power load. Assuming a generous solar PV annual average 20% capacity factor (Germany averages 11%), total US installed solar capacity must rise to double the US average load (0.4/0.2), or 1 TW rated solar capacity for the ~five full power equivalent hours fixed tilt solar provides during the day, in order to arrive at 40% annual generation.
• US annual solar installation in 2016 was 15 GW/yr, with 42 GW cumulative already installed (solar industry association). One TW in 20 years requires an average installation rate of 50 GW/yr. Assuming a 25 year panel life, the rate of installation (replacement) must continue at 40 GW/yr indefinitely.
• Assuming solar is used and not curtailed (wasted), storage is required that can accommodate the 0.5 TW solar surplus during the day and redistribute the energy in off-solar hours. If storage is neglected in favor of keeping conventional power and flipping it on during non-peak solar hours, 40% generation from solar is not achieved. Assuming a daily US storage depth of 6 TWh (0.5 TW*12 hrs) requires 171 years of one Tesla Gigafactory annual battery output (35 GWh/yr), replaced every ~decade.
• Losses of 20% can (generously) be expected in the storage loop, requiring another 125 GW of solar PV.
• Most of the conventional power fleet must be maintained in place, indefinitely, to supply poor seasonal solar weeks or months. If not, then storage must become seasonal and grow by two orders of magnitude.

 

[russ_watters]

And yet there have been several publications in the last few years claiming 100% supply from renewable power (solar, wind, hydro, geothermal) and others up to 80%, though none AFAIK in the primary journals. They make fairly ridiculous assumptions in my view to get there (esp. massive storage).

Long study and I do intend to read it. One thing after a skim is I wish they spent some time discussing the premise (e.g.; why not nuclear? Is there a short term role for natural gas?) instead of essentially apparently just setting it as a self-evident postulate that we have to use his preferred mix of energy sources.* Clearly, a lot of effort went into the paper, but it doesn't discuss the key issues that need to be discussed: what do we want and why.

He does bring up a key piece of the storage picture that we haven't discussed much though: thermal storage for HVAC. Surprisingly enough, some ground source heat pumps actually do thermal storage (season to season) and more directly, ice storage for air conditioning.

There is a chicken-or-egg problem with ice storage though in that it is a local economic tool, so it will be difficult to implement as policy. And currently it runs opposite to how solar would need to use it, buying cheap power at night and using it to offset power use during the day(in the US anyway). The grid would need to become heavily saturated with solar/intermittent renewable power and the conventional sources driven out of business to flip that script over to store energy during the day. I suppose though that Germany was nearly at that point with those couple of hours of 95% renewables last May.

*Unfortunately there isn't much public discussion of these issues that I can see, which is why I think threads/forums like this are so important. Instead, the politicians sign silly and pointless treaties like Kyoto and Paris while paying pretending to be pro clean energy while using renewables to offset nuclear instead of coal! And the media and clean energy advocates lap it up because I guess they don't know any better/haven't thought these issues through.

I considered briefly writing a paper or book on this, but then I remembered that I'm too lazy to update my energy policy thread at the top of this forum! I've searched only briefly for literature, but what I've seen seems thin (question: why is the Royal Society of Chemistry publishing a paper on a US energy grid conversion to renewables?) or even crackpotish (shame on IEEE). I do have some hope for a book I just bought which has exactly the right focus: It's called "Energy for Future Presidents". I haven't opened it yet, so we'll see what the take is...
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393345106/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[mheslep]

Long study and I do intend to read it.

Id recommend skimming and spending more time on the critical review. Jacobson' papers include subtle assumptions like a 1/2 hour time resolution in his models for electricity availability, which implies a 1/2 hour of national storage: 250 GWh, though never mentioned.

One thing after a skim is I wish they spent some time discussing the premise (e.g.; why not nuclear? Is there a short term role for natural gas?)

The most infamous 100% renewable author must be Jacobson, and in public discussions he is fanatically anti-nuclear, though he's not the only one. In comparing emissions from various sources, he ranked nuclear high in CO2. How so? Well, per Jacobson, one needs to count the massive fires started by coming nuclear wars and count them against nuclear power, never mind the actual blast destruction. For example:

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security†
Mark Z. Jacobson*
...
Because the production of nuclear weapons material is occurring only in countries that have developed civilian nuclear energy programs, the risk of a limited nuclear exchange between countries or the detonation of a nuclear device by terrorists has increased due to the dissemination of nuclear energy facilities worldwide. As such, it is a valid exercise to estimate the potential number of immediate deaths and carbon emissions due to the burning of buildings and infrastructure associated with the proliferation of nuclear energy facilities and the resulting proliferation of nuclear weapons

My take is that nuclear power puts the 100% renewable plans in the trash bin and thus these authors out of business. All of the 100% plans make near crackpot assumptions in my view, which can only stand-up when making a claim that there's no clean power alternative. Thus nuclear power has to become a non-option.

Edit:

It's called "Energy for Future Presidents". I haven't opened it yet, so we'll see what the take is...
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393345106/?tag=pfamazon01-20

The author of Future Presidents, Muller, is physics professor at Cal and has an interesting background, with several online videos teaching the material.

 

[russ_watters]

Id recommend skimming and spending more time on the critical review. Jacobson' papers include subtle assumptions like a 1/2 hour time resolution in his models for electricity availability, which implies a 1/2 hour of national storage: 250 GWh, though never mentioned.

The most infamous 100% renewable author must be Jacobson, and in public discussions he is fanatically anti-nuclear, though he's not the only one. In comparing emissions from various sources, he ranked nuclear high in CO2. How so? Well, per Jacobson, one needs to count the massive fires started by coming nuclear wars and count them against nuclear power, never mind the actual blast destruction. For example:

Oh - Jocobson must be the "shame on IEEE" guy I was referring to earlier. Though I'd like to just ignore him, the problem is that when trash gets published in a semi-respected semi-technical journal, we are essentially forced to pay attention to it. It has been cited in this thread via link to a previous discussion on the issue of nuclear fuel availability. PF policy prohibits crackpot sources, but it is tough to deal with crackpot material in a mainstream source. I may bring that up in the mentor's forum...

My take is that nuclear power puts the 100% renewable plans in the trash bin and thus these authors out of business.

Could be this is the new "power lines cause cancer". Real thinkers need to be gaining more traction. I guess this thread is doing our part for that cause...

 

[EnumaElish]

If subsidies to "too big to fail" bankrupt firms are somehow justified, subsidies to renewables are only more so. IMO subsidies must reflect the capitalized present value of delayed extraction of nonrenewables, including (i) their potential future use value, (ii) preserved option value that would have been lost at extraction, (iii) the value of environmental externalities arising from postponed extraction, (iv) other non-specific externalities such as future alternative uses of new technology, and industry contagion effects. Otherwise a rational, competitive market society would not have issued said subsidies. Would it?

 

[mfb]

Jacobson

Okay, one author I can safely ignore from now on.

Number of nuclear weapons used against countries with nuclear weapons: 0
Number of conventional weapons used against countries with conventional weapons: Countless.

Otherwise a rational, competitive market society would not have issued said subsidies. Would it?

Subsidies for renewable energies were never issued by a rational, competitive market. They were issued by politicians, for various reasons, including publicity for the next election, but not including a rational cost analysis.

 

[gmax137]

a rational, competitive market society

Subsidies for renewable energies

I have been told the wind guys in northern New England get $100 per MW-hr; meanwhile Dominion gets $40 per MW-hr at their Millstone nuclear station in Connecticut. There is "an invisible hand" at work here but it isn't the one you learned about in Econ 101.

 

[mheslep]

I have been told the wind guys in northern New England get $100 per MW-hr; meanwhile Dominion gets $40 per MW-hr at their Millstone nuclear station in Connecticut. There is "an invisible hand" at work here but it isn't the one you learned about in Econ 101.

Eh, not exactly. Many US states have for long had Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) that require the state utility to buy some defined share of its electricity from a list of so called "clean" power sources, solar/wind/hydro/trash and, straight from the 18th century, trees. Last I looked, none of the state RPS include nuclear. Connecticut certainly does not, not yet. That effective subsidy of the competition hurts Millstone, and nuclear in general.

Connecticut has drafted a bill which is under debate to allow nuclear into the RPS, i.e. Millstone. The RPS prices are set by a market in renewable credits, which are certain to be above, perhaps double, the conventional New England market price of $35/MWh.

Millstone supplies about half of Connecticut power, so allowing it into the state RPS will squash new solar and wind, even with their direct federal subsidies. If Millstone were to close, state emissions would sharply increase (as they have everywhere in the US when a nuclear plant closes).

*Which the solar/wind people don't like, and neither do the natural gas operators who would like nothing more for Millstone to close so they take all and not just half of Connecticut power supply.

Fossil operators don't like:

Connecticut Petroleum Council Executive Director Steven Guveyan said the Energy and Technology Committee’s approval of the Millstone bill amounts to “nothing less than corporate welfare that could raise costs for Connecticut consumers who already pay some of the highest electricity prices in the nation.” The statewide trade group is a division of the American Petroleum Institute, which represents America’s oil and natural gas industry.

Local non-economic operators don't like:

Other opponents say it is inappropriate to refer to nuclear energy as clean, renewable power.

“Senate Bill 106 would redefine old, nuclear sources as ‘clean energy’ and give Dominion a special deal at the expense of cutting-edge, truly renewable technologies,” said Claire Coleman, climate and energy attorney for Connecticut Fund for the Environment, which is based in New Haven. “Connecticut’s future lies in clean, safe, locally-produced energy like wind and solar, not nuclear plants that cause more problems than they solve.”

This complaint is particularly whiny though honest:

Mike Trahan, executive director of SolarConnecticut, the trade group for solar industry businesses in the state, said allowing Millstone to bid into the state procurement process now reserved for renewable energy resources such as large-scale hydropower, solar, wind and trash-to-energy facilities is akin to letting former major league pitching star Roger Clemens face a Little League baseball team in a game.

Exactly. If reliable, affordable, clear power was game for kids the solar trade group would have a point.

 

[mfb]

is akin to letting former major league pitching star Roger Clemens face a Little League baseball team in a game.

If we want the best team, maybe that is a good idea?

 

[Ken Fabos]

Solar is going to have a fantastic future. It will continue to get cheaper and so will storage - PV and battery, CSP and thermal. We are reaching the point in places where RE has been introduced at larger scales that intermittency issues are becoming significant and it's further ability to displace fossil fuels will depend on storage (and demand management and efficiency). It's reaching decision time in places like South Australia and these will be the testing ground - and given that solar and batteries are better on emissions than gas and gas is expensive too with stranding risks as well, the earlier batteries installations will get their chance.That displacement of fossil fuels with RE starts in the form of fossil fuel plant spending more time powered down or idling rather than shut down and stranded, but the economics of that situation will continue to make investments in storage more attractive, not less. Even in the presence of ongoing emissions amnesty.

Solar will continue to be beloved by politicians and policy makers that want to be seen to be taking the climate problem seriously (and because the climate/ GHG's link is real it means 97% and more of real climate scientists will keep coming up with more and more results that confirms it) the need to be seen to be taking the climate problem seriously is only going to grow. The easiest and most popular way for politics to appease those concerns has been and still is, to lend visible support to RE so a large part of politics will continue to do so - and with growing confidence given the plummeting costs of these technologies. The high costs and limited emissions achievement of earlier RE deployments do not properly reflect their future outlook; every RE element is cheaper now than ever before and we can be confident of further significant price decreases over the next decade, even without the "breakthrough" advances that would make the later challenges more achievable. The scales needed are enormous - that has always been the case - and we do need the R&D side to persist, to refine the tech we have and develop the tech that will replace it.

More ballsy is the politics of resisting climate concerns, with it's own indulgences in populist opportunism, like the expedient fanning of the flames of alarmist economic fears of strong climate action. It is especially brave because policy based on serious misapprehensions about emissions/climate concerns (even with their tame 3% of scientists desperately forcing round climate data into square holes) are never going to be fit for purpose except by the most extraordinarily lucky ineptitude. This kind of politicking has been popular enough to see heads of governments and whole mainstream political parties indulging in it, with opposing the support for RE that is a signature theme of the climate action agenda having become in turn the signature theme of the climate obstructionist agenda. Lot's of supporters of nuclear as an alternative to RE will continue to align with them - seeing their opposition to political environmentalism and to the support given to RE as cause in common. A serious mistake in my opinion as I don't think that alignment will achieve greater support for nuclear for climate purposes - but clearly there are proponents of nuclear here that disagree.

There are no certainties, whichever course we take, except perhaps that failure to rise up and face up to the climate and emissions problem is the most certain road to disaster and that making sacrifices, if that's what it takes to avoid an unfixable climate distaster, ought to be a no brainer. When people who, by any historical standards are wealthy beyond imagination and extravagantly wasteful with it, are encourage to feel outrage at the prospect of making even modest financial sacrifices for the sake of climate stability - and cry "what about poor people?" as they do so - I can only feel appalled at the self indulgence.

 

[nikkkom]

Eh, not exactly. Many US states have for long had Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) that require the state utility to buy some defined share of its electricity from a list of so called "clean" power sources, solar/wind/hydro/trash and, straight from the 18th century, trees. Last I looked, none of the state RPS include nuclear.

Why should it? Nuclear is not renewable. It does use fuel.

 

[mfb]

Solar power and wind use the fuel of the Sun, indirectly. They will last much longer than uranium reserves, but both will last much longer than the next generations (plural) of power plants and both don't emit notable CO2.

 

[mheslep]

Why should it? Nuclear is not renewable. It does use fuel.

The goal, the best interest of the public, it seams to me is clean, reliable, affordable, long term power. "Renewable" is not necessarily the goal, but a semantic way for anti nuclear groups (including fossil fuel interests) to exclude nuclear.

 

[mheslep]

will continue to get cheaper and so will storage

When will storage be cheap enough or technically available? Decades? A century? There are no battery back up systems installed in the world that could replace a single middling power plant for a day.

Under cover of a few percent of solar and wind, vast amounts of new coal plants are under construction, though nuclear and some hydro already decarbonized several grids, decades ago.

 

[Ken Fabos]

When will storage be cheap enough or technically available? Decades? A century? There are no battery back up systems installed in the world that could replace a single middling power plant for a day.

We are at the early beginnings of storage; depending on circumstances, it doesn't appear to become essential until RE penetration approaches ~50% so it's not reasonable to complain that we haven't seen much of it yet. A surprising lot of eager new entrants trying to be ready for the boom; if you want a GWhr or two you can get it. Expensive, yes, but we are at the early beginnings of storage and it's reasonable to expect it to get cheaper as the scale grows. Under near term circumstances even modest amounts will go a long way but longer term we can't have too much of it.

The (interim) aim isn't for a battery backup system replacing a coal/gas power plant for a day, it's replacing them 6-8hrs every sunny day by solar, followed by batteries replacing them overnight, with the existing power plant moved to an RE backup role. I suspect that early stage storage capacity will better enable FF plant to spent more time cold and some of the emissions reduction potential of existing RE will become more apparent. I don't think we should expect a smooth, direct relationship between RE installed and emissions reduced; we will see stages where it lags and potentially, with more integration of storage, we will see more rapid emissions results.

Under cover of a few percent of solar and wind, vast amounts of new coal plants are under construction, though nuclear and some hydro already decarbonized several grids, decades ago.

More Solar and Wind are being built than new nuclear and coal according to IEA and vast amounts of planned coal plant look to be in doubt, such as in India and China. More electricity networks with growing contributions from RE sources will find themselves looking at choosing between new gas or batteries and given that less emissions than old coal but still too high for climate stability purposes is the best gas can do, they risk stranding in a world of persistent and growing climate concern that recognises their intrinsic unfitness for purpose.

Crediting past nuclear builds for their emissions reductions is all very well but those were done for other reasons than emissions, reasons that induced the necessary unanimity of political and policy purpose, and without those reasons - given emissions currently appears to be an inadequate incentive by itself - they will not get that political unanimity of purpose, so will not be repeated. Hydro however, has a solid place and doesn't have to be pumped to complement intermittent RE. wherever it exists. Where it does exist the need to invest in so much battery storage will be reduced and larger amount of RE will be easier to manage.

 

[russ_watters]

More Solar and Wind are being built than new nuclear and coal according to IEA...

[edit] Any reason you omitted natural gas from that? You probably got that from here:
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/electricity.php

Given that renewables are not projected to increase fast enough to offset any of the other major sources, doesn't that tell us we're not on a good path and should make changes?

Crediting past nuclear builds for their emissions reductions is all very well but those were done for other reasons than emissions...

So what? It still happened, just as opposition to nuclear power has caused higher emissions even though that wasn't their goal. Moving forward, if the goal is lower emissions, then it is clear that nuclear should be part of the solution, isn't it?

...given emissions currently appears to be an inadequate incentive by itself - they will not get that political unanimity of purpose, so will not be repeated.

We'll see. "Public support" is not where the rubber meets the road: the "incentive" that matters is money and since nuclear power is currently being treated unfairly in several ways financially, lifting that unfair treatment may make a significant difference. See:

Exelon Corp. announced Tuesday that it will “prematurely” shut down Three Mile Island Unit 1, the surviving reactor at the site of the 1979 nuclear accident, unless it gets some form of price supports from the Pennsylvania legislature...

Exelon, which is based in Chicago, has suggested that Pennsylvania should give nuclear power preferential treatment and premium payments similar to those given to renewable energies, such as wind and solar. Nuclear power is by far the state’s largest source of energy that does not produce harmful air emissions.

http://www.philly.com/philly/business/energy/exelon-says-it-will-shut-tmi-in-2-years-20170530.html

The issue has come to a head for TMI since as a one-reactor plant it is pretty cost ineffective. Leveling the playing field would help avoid having this massive source of clean energy be replaced by fossil fuel energy in a couple of years. And leveling it for one plant opens the door for others.

 

[mheslep]

More Solar and Wind are being built than new nuclear and coal according to IEA

I don't know that this is true in terms of new *generation* instead of nameplate(rated) power. In any case, the fundamental point is *not* to build solar and wind. The point is to lower emissions by stopping fossil, esp coal. Instead global coal is on a roll, under cover a narratives like yours about what will happen in future.