Lots of People Are Bullish on Renewable Energy
I may not have friends in high places, but I sure have them in distant places. A long time ago, Greg Horrall left the U.S. to work on an engineering project in Indonesia, and decided to set down roots there. He’s in the ancient city of Yogyakarta, about 300 miles east of Jakarta.
Greg wrote to inform me of his interest in renewable energy and suggest a phone call, during which he expressed a deep understanding of the subject, as well as a considerable optimism re: the outcome for humankind.
He sent a few pics, including the one above, to which I responded, “What a beautiful family you have.” His reply: “Thanks! I always remember how lucky I am to have a great family and five wonderful children…that’s what life is all about, and why we’ve all gotta keep fightin’ to make a better future.”
Hard to disagree with that.
He continues: On a further positive note, please see the attached (which I have reproduced here):
Let’s try to look at things as positively as possible within the bounds of what’s already here technologically, or very near and its economics:
- PV is now at $0.03 per kWh lifetime for good siting and with Perovskite may get even better than this. 24M battery tech (now Li and later Mg) enables us to have a grid that’s 90% renewable and we can get 24/7/365 for now by burning fossil diesel as our long-term storage system, transitioning gradually to all-RFTS (Renewable Fischer Tropsch Synthesis, as developed by Doty Energy) diesel starting first by blending it at small percentages. This gets us down to an electricity cost of 10-12 cents per kWh and a price of 15 cents per kWh, on par with current all-fossil.
- EVs using 24M battery tech and designed with the right amount of power and range to keep battery costs acceptable can already be totally cost-competitive with ICEs, and along with the amount of enviro-consciousness, sustainability awareness, and other nice things about EVs (quiet, low maintenance), this means the market for them will grow and they will replace virtually all fossil-burners in the next few decades.
- Other good things are happening on efficiency: LED lights now at low-enough cost to attract far more buyers, also more energy-efficient appliances and electronic devices
These realities may be able to get enough market momentum rolling so that we will transition to sustainable energy soon enough.
So, I’m going to try to be more optimistic! We just may make it without any tax strategy, even though it sure would be nice to get rid of the income tax and to drive things faster.
People like to hear a positive song better than a negative one! Accentuate the positive! De-emphasize the negative!
How things might play out:
- The revolutionary lower-cost 24M battery tech will enable EVs that, if designed for max eta in mind (unlike Tesla) will be both more energy-efficient and more total lifetime cost/mi efficient than gasoline engine-powered vehicles.
- This will bring about a substantial drop in oil consumption, and that will force Big Oil and OPEC to raise their prices (since they need to maintain revenues). This in turn will force them into a corner where they can’t escape as it will make RFTS diesel/jet A competitive for those vehicles (High-Power/Long-Range) not EV-able. It will also drive those vehicles to become more efficient.
We will be able to transition to higher eta and totally renewable fuels before the pumps run dry!
The world will no longer be controlled by Big Oil and OPEC!
Go EVs!
Java, a place to remember… Thanks.
It is a very interesting time. We have a reasonably good battery tech. Tesla choose one path to bring the cost down using economies of scale. As I followed the developments, I was concerned that it might be too early for such a large commitment.
24M redesigns the battery from the inside out changing the manufacturing process. The cost and energy density both would be improved, but I haven’t seen any reference to battery life, recharge times, or flammability.
Lots of people are bullish on nuclear power, including many leading environmental scientists. Here is a very informative link:
https://seekerblog.com/2016/10/22/why-the-environmental-movement-is-important-for-nuclear-power/
There are those who assert that migration to renewable intermittents is happening; they provide figurers to support that assertion. However, because of my work experience, I see it very differently.
Quite often it was said that a software project was 90% complete. Perhaps it was 90% complete, but often the last 10% took more time than the first 90%! Many people in the software writing field will understand exactly what I am talking about. Similarly, I expect that it will be found that when renewable intermittent sources of power achieve perhaps 50% penetration, the difficulties of going higher will increase to the point that going much farther will seem hopeless.
Frank I admire your nuclear tenacity. At the risk of seeming “heavy handed,” the article you cited relies upon “experts in the field” for some of the statements. Here is the expert response to their arguments: http://www.ecowatch.com/mark-jacobson-to-james-hansen-nukes-are-not-needed-to-solve-worlds-cli-1882141790.html
Some paragraphs have been devoted to the safety of nuclear energy, and a mention of the increased use of Natural gas, as a positive. The world has moved on yet these statements are brought against arguments that have left the building. The primary concern against Nuclear today is that it seems to have a negative learning curve. https://thinkprogress.org/does-nuclear-power-have-a-negative-learning-curve-b389ef2de998#.7fhcrxbul As time goes on it becomes increasingly expensive. https://thinkprogress.org/nuclear-power-is-losing-money-at-an-astonishing-rate-e9473d62acc5#.mv7fbj4ls
“We should be investing in new technology” is the counter claim, but such “new technology” is reasonably 20 to 30 years from widescale deployment. Renewable energy needs just one thing that our grid needs in any event, under any path: energy storage.
So any utility is saying to itself, ” I am going to have to invest in storage regardless. Why should I invest in Nuclear which is proving to be extremely expensive and / or too distant a technological solution.
I appreciate your concern about an uncertain future. A nuclear power plant that has no emissions sounds good (although most reactors are designed to vent radioactive gas as a safety measure.) Even better if we can burn up our existing stockpiles of nuclear waste in a new type of reactor. But they are never going to be a complete solution to a climate crisis. Even France is backing away from its high level of nuclear commitment to include renewable energy. http://www.enn.com/energy/article/47327 The roots of this change can be found in the 2002 study that I previously cited: http://www.ecn.nl/docs/library/report/2002/c02043.pdf
But Frank, I can cite all the articles, if you won’t look at them, of course you are going to continue to have doubts about indeterminacy and renewable energy.
Here is an article about how electrical co-ops are serving their customers, with a unique energy storage plan, it seems better than utilities, who are afraid of losing revenue: https://thinkprogress.org/this-kind-of-electricity-provider-is-already-integrating-renewables-6d92a26f006e#.by6xocbkk
Enjoy your day.
Let us look at the rebuttal point by point.
1a. “The scale-up time for existing nuclear (10-19 years between planning and operation compared with 2-5 years for wind or solar) is too slow to help solve climate problems. Nuclear power requires 10-19 years between planning, permitting, financing and operating in all countries of the world.”
The time for nuclear power has not always been that long. The rebuttal does not consider investigating WHY the time has become that long or what could be done to reduce it. Moreover, it was not that long in France which went from 0 nuclear to 80% nuclear in 17 years, for electricity.
1b: “Nuclear is not carbon free and emits 6-24 times more carbon-dioxide equivalent emissions than wind per unit energy produced over the same 100-year period.”
Nonsense! The “support” for that arguments runs around in circles to the extent that adequately addressing it is difficult. The amount of concrete and steel required for renewables is several times what is required for nuclear. Unless a way is devised to reduce iron ore to iron without using carbon, the emission of CO2 to meet the steel requirements for renewables will be far greater than for nuclear. According to this site
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_concrete
The production of concrete is a large CO2 emitter. Wind generators require especially huge amounts of concrete thereby emitting huge amounts of CO2 to build wind farms.
1c: “Dr. Hansen argues that nuclear power “must” play an important role in the future.” … “. Your link objects to Dr. Hansen’s argument. To support the objection would require proof that renewable intermittent sources of power are able to do the job. In a sense, argument against 1c is circular reasoning. Renewable intermittent sources of power have not been demonstrated an ability to do the job with presently available technology, and not because of a lack of attempts to do so. If it were possible, Germany and other anti-nuclear countries strongly committed to renewables would by now have done it and they have not.
More from 1c:
“Because of the significant lead time, lesser carbon benefit, weapons proliferation risk, meltdown risk, waste risk and uranium mining risk, nuclear appears to be an opportunity cost relative to clean, renewable energy.”
Weapons risk? That would exist even without nuclear power. The easiest and fastest path to nuclear weapons no longer requires nuclear reactors. Instead, centrifuges are used to enrich natural uranium to 90+% U235. Thus the weapons risk would continue to exist without nuclear power.
“uranium mining risk”? Really? That has been greatly exaggerated. Proper safeguards, which have not always been followed, result in risks no greater than for mining other materials. Moreover, a better nuclear technology would dramatically reduce the risks of mining by dramatically reducing, or even eliminating, the need for more natural uranium.
There is also a risk in refining the rare earth metals which the latest wind generators use for their magnets. For that reason, they are not refined in the U.S., so the environmental damage is being done in China where the refining is done. It seems a bit odd to be concerned with the risks of uranium mining while ignoring the risks of refining rare earth metals.
In any case, we do know that nuclear power can do the job. That has not seriously been questioned. And, there is still no proof that intermittent renewables can do the job. It has never been demonstrated an ability to do so.
Meltdown risk? Reactors can and should be designed to be impossible to melt down. Had government R & D financing for nuclear reactors not been halted as “unnecessary”, we would already have such reactors. However, in spite of the risk that current reactor technology poses, the safety record of nuclear power is better than for other power technologies.
Waste? According to this site,
http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/On-Site-Storage-of-Nuclear-Waste
“the entire industry has produced 76,430 metric tons of used nuclear fuel. If used fuel assemblies were stacked end-to-end and side-by-side, this would cover a football field about eight yards deep.” That really is not a huge quantity. Moreover, it is not really waste. Rather, it is discarded fuel. Our current mediocre nuclear reactor technology and fuel cycle, after using about 1% of the available energy in the nuclear fuel, discards the rest as if it were waste. The solution is a better nuclear technology and fuel cycle.
I suggest reading additional information from the above site.
Frank this is just in: the contents of a mobil display that explains renewable integration into the grid: http://www.renac.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Download/Projects/CapREG/Capreg_Exhibition_Brochure_en_web.pdf
The fact remains that NO country has ever succeeded in getting all of its power from wind and solar systems. Until or unless that occurs, I shall continue to be very skeptical of the possibility of getting all power from wind and solar systems alone.
People become excited when some country succeeds in getting all its power for a very limited time from wind and solar systems. That is not proof of anything. The increasing percentage of power obtained from wind and solar systems is not proof either.
The most reasonable way forward would be to let those countries which are committed to wind and solar power to see whether they can make it work BEFORE there is a world-wide commitment to renewables alone. If some country does succeed in doing so, without depending on hydro power, THEN it would be reasonable for the rest of the world to make a similar move using the same approach that the successful countries have made. Meanwhile, we should be expanding nuclear power as rapidly as possible.
It should be inescapably clear that we cannot rationally assert that there is a 100% probability that renewables can to the job alone. We also know for certain that nuclear power can do the job. Considering the extreme consequences of failing to migrate almost 100% away from fossil fuels, it doesn’t make sense to commit ourselves to an technology which is not 100% proven when there is a technology which is 100% proven.
Frank, by your same standard of “proof.” There isn’t any large country that has made a complex demand system work using 100% nuclear energy either. Nuclear energy works the same way that slavery is a good way of farming. The reason that France is moving away from Nuclear Energy is because it is too expensive and too inflexible.
Nuclear Energy is a base load power system. Like any thermal power plant based upon a Rankine cycle there are limits to which it can be turned down and turned off before getting involved with long term material damage. So we want to run Nuclear flat out at full power. But that doesn’t work so well with demand loads. And it doesn’t work well at all when cheaper energy is available.
Renewable energy comes along and can get the job done with lots less expense. When renewable energy is available electricity is cheap and we are subsidizing Nuclear Energy just to keep it around.
This is from my notes on the article I have repeatedly referenced for you but you consistently seem to ignore: http://www.ecn.nl/docs/library/report/2002/c02043.pdf
The French nuclear system exists as a state protected monopoly with a commitment for a uniform and low price for electricity throughout the country and its territories. The industry was protected from outside influence, particularly renewable energy. The nuclear energy industry developed with the expectation that it would assume 100% of the electrical demand, and would allow France to export electricity and the construction of nuclear power plants. The high percentage of nuclear in the energy mix has proven to be a detriment to needed flexibility in the European marketplace.
Every single nuclear power plant under construction is suffering from cost overruns and is adding to the concept that nuclear energy is the only power type with a negative learning curve (more expensive as time goes on.)
To make Nuclear work in an open market it would have to be cheaper and it needs energy storage to give flexibility to an inflexible power source. That way we could have smaller plants that are not overbuilt 130% as France had to do. But if we are going to need expensive energy storage in any event then it will have to be coupled with the cheapest energy production and that is becoming renewable energy.
The kind of nuclear building project you envision has never been done even during most expansive period of nuclear energy, and certainly on such a global scale.
I am sorry Frank, in view of increasingly damming evidence of an inability for Nuclear to meet the flexible demands of today’s power requirements you keep pounding on the same podium with your shoe. You need to update your understanding with a review of any of the cites I have offered.
On the other side of the argument energy storage exists. You can put your figurative head in the sand and pretend otherwise but here is a list of worldwide energy storage facilities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_energy_storage_projects In addition cost projections in the near term of 10 to 15 years suggest that cost reductions will follow implementations to the point where energy storage will be as cheap or cheaper than present retail power. http://rameznaam.com/2015/10/14/how-cheap-can-energy-storage-get/
Frank perhaps there is some reason why you can’t read the cites I refer to you. Then you have my apology. But if you want to avoid a patronizing “yes grandfather, whatever you say grandfather…” then it could be valuable to look at new material. I understand that nuclear energy once looked like the only available resource to resolve climate issues, but new material suggests otherwise.
Frank, I could debate the points of expert opinions with you, but I don’t see the point. You pick out points you think you can counter and ignore the major decision pivots for utilities. Nuclear to too inflexible and too expensive.
Renewable energy is relatively cheap. It is not really a question of “can it be done?” and shouldn’t be a matter for “I have my doubts.” It is being implemented and R & D is going to storage solutions and not nuclear development.
Nuclear has priced itself out of the marketplace.