Examining the Validity of Different Energy Resources
My friend Cameron Atwood and I were talking about energy policy the other night, and I promised to get back to him about the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) and the energy return on investment (EROI) associated with each of the different energy sources. Here’s my response:
To answer the questions you raised in our last conversation, here’s a credible study on the LCOE associated with various resources; you’ll need to scroll down and see the chart.The Wikipedia entry picks up the same report, but includes data from other countries which vary wildly from what we experience here in the U.S.
As far as EROI is concerned, check this out article in Forbes (from a proponent of nuclear). Here’s one in Science Direct that’s probably more objective.
What you’ll notice immediately is that these numbers, alone at least, will not take you where you want to go in terms of prescribing the ideal energy policy; there are several reasons that’s true that become clear when you open up the charts. Do you like nuclear for its EROI? That’s fine, but it’s neither cheap nor free of safety issues. Do you like wind for its low (and falling) LCOE? What if I were to tell you that a great deal of that attractive cost profile goes out the window when you try to scale it up to address the parts of the country that have no real wind resources, where the power has to be transmitted over large distances?
A major problem is that, while both EROI and LCOE are important, neither contemplates most of the externalities of these various sources, which is obviously a key criterion; arguably, it’s the most important one. In the absence of that consideration, we’d simply be burning coal until the proverbial cows come home.
Another problem is that both the EROI and the LCOE of renewables in constantly improving, as contrasted against fossil fuels. Cutting edge solar PV is the width of a human hair, meaning that, when it becomes commercially available, its EROI will skyrocket above the figures reported above.
IMO, the thing to remember here is that our civilization is very, very close to harvesting all the energy it needs from its local star. We just need to push this across the finish line.
Unfortunately, that requires political will, and we’ve all seen what an enormous a stumbling block this is. The fact that the oil companies essentially own the U.S. Congress is a sad thing indeed, but an even more egregious example is our country’s reaction to the spate of mass shootings, where we can all see close up the power of the the gun lobbies to block all attempts at even the mildest forms of gun control. The wonderful cartoon by “Lalo” on the right would be funnier if it weren’t so tragic.
When calculating the cost per KW of electricity generated by PV systems, solar thermal electric systems, and wind generators, quite often they do not give consideration to the intermittent nature of the technology. Thus, if an intermittent system will produce only 25% of the power of its name-plate rating, they should really multiply the cost per KW by four. That would come closer to providing a fair comparison with nuclear power, although even that would not consider the cost of the necessary energy storage. So far, the cost of adequate storage is not known.
Comparisons with the cost of fossil fuels generally omit the externalities of fossil fuels such as the health and environmental effects. In fact, depending on the assumptions made, the cost of the externalities of using fossil fuels may be greater than the cost of the electricity thus generated. If these externalities were taken into account, probably the cost of electricity generated by nuclear plants would be far less than the cost of electricity generated by coal.
another problem with nuclear is that there is only a 5 year supply of mineble fissile uranium available to replace all the world’s fossil energy consumption.
We will never run out of uranium.
The oceans contain considerable uranium because it is leached out of rocks by rivers which flow into the oceans. That uranium can be extracted from oceans and guarantee a practically unlimited supply.
Moreover, our current nuclear technology extracts only about 1% of the available energy from the uranium fuel with the rest being discarded as if it were waste. Better nuclear technologies could extract over 90% of the available energy from the uranium fuel thereby greatly reducing the need to mine fuel. It would also be possible for better nuclear technologies to use our current “waste” as fuel.
Our present nuclear technology requires that natural uranium, which is about 0.7% U235 with the rest being U238, be enriched to from 3% to 5% U235. That is done by discarding most of the U238 using centrifuges. A better nuclear technology could even use the U238 as fuel which would further reduce the need to mine more uranium.
A reactor which uses thorium, which is about four times as plentiful as uranium, has been successfully demonstrated.
Considering all the above, there is no need to fear running out of nuclear reactor fuel.
Had government funds for nuclear reactor R & D not been cut off, we would already be using better nuclear technologies. If R & D for cars had been cut off when cars were at a state of development compared with nuclear reactors, cars would not even have four wheel brakes and would still be crank started.
Trouble with adding nuclear energy to the mix is that eventually all power production produces a thermal rise in the atmosphere. Redirected energy sources such as wind and solar do not add any more contingent energy to the mix
Quite true, but probably not significant.
All thermal plants are only about 35% efficient. PV is only about 18%. A square mile of PV will cause the other 80% of light to be turned into infrared. The concernable amount is figured by comparing how dark in color the panel is compared to the land it’s “replacing”.
I Don’t believe wind to cause thermal issues and all generation “decays” into heat due to entropy. GHGs trap this otherwise quite natural variation of heat output along with the much greater amounts hitting the planet from the sun.
In the case for hundreds of sq mi of PV on a desert, although a most probable increase of local temps, less global effect due to that much less excess co2. Consider that more has to be made to make up for lesser capacity factor, and there might really become issues with the heat island effect.
Therefore, the best way to do solar is to integrate it across the planet using long distance powerlines, so less has to be built for storage, thereby reducing energy input for storage, too.
My friend Larry writes: Thanks Craig, but you nailed it; nothing important will happen in the energy sector until Americans punish the Republican Party for “making stupid great again.”
Ha! So true.
Thanks for this, Craig – much appreciated! 🙂
It’s what I was put on Earth to do. 🙂
Craig,
I don’t know how you expect to rationally discuss energy technology when you include pointless US political party point scoring, and populist myths.
Development of alternate energy is not restricted to the US, nor is it really hindered by existing technology, except by overt competition.
Shuffling around statistics and re-inventing the questions to achieve answers that fit a particular philosophy or political bias, is unhelpful.
The “Age of Coal” is largely over. No major industry ceases quickly, or even altogether. The coal industry will slow continue to dwindle as it’s economics slowly diminish and resources start to become limited.
In the case of coal, this process will be hastened by increasing pressure on the industry to reduce emissions,raising costs and making extraction less lucrative.
More importantly, coal can’t compete with natural gas. New technology ensuring increasingly cheap and plentiful increases the economic pressure on Coal for grid generation in many parts of the world.
The Peoples Republic of China (PRC) and India will remain significant consumers of coal as both nations have burgeoning heavy industrial bases with a huge and ongoing investment in coal-fired generating plants.
Production of oil for electricity generation is very limited, and insignificant. Oil companies have very little interest in electricity production, (except for natural gas) and as a result, whether they “own Congress” or not, they have no interest in either global or even US electricity generation !
Generation of electricity should be driven by demand. The technology that can best supply the needs of consumer is the technology that will prove most competitive.
Government subsidies and other restrictions, especially mandates, have a role to play in helping regulate and develop new technologies. Governments must be very careful to not interfere with the competitive process with excessively cumbersome regulations, or distort economic competition to ensure “White Elephant ” technologies remain in existence, after the used by date.
Arguing about including the external coats of the coal industry is pretty pointless, unless a technology exists that can replace the generating capacity. Where Natural Gas is available, coal becomes noncompetitive and the industry withers. Where hydro or reliable Geo-thermal can replace coal it does so without political pressure, simply because it’s a less productive investment.
Comparing the different alternate power generating technologies is difficult since all are at a very early stage of development.
Wind and Solar have limitations, some of those limitations may be solved with increases improvements in storage and generating technologies.
Development of nuclear generation, especially Thorium, has been deliberately neglected by governments, especially the US which has very cumbersome and outdated regulatory requirements.
One thing that will not be useful in the development of future sources of -emission power generation, is cheap and inane partisan political jibes.
Without coal, it is unlikely that the industrial revolution would have occurred and most of us would still be living in poverty and having much shorter lives. The industrial revolution was based mostly on steam power with the steam generated by burning coal. Coal, by replacing wood as fuel, greatly reduced the rate of deforestation. So, we owe a debt of gratitude towards coal.
Coal, despite how helpful it was, damaged the lives of many people. Men, women, and children worked in “coalaries”, i.e., coal mines. To see just how ghastly conditions were in coal mines, google “victorian coal mines”. And that was only part of it; smoke from burning coal killed many people. London was known for its “pea soup” fogs during which many people died; they “pea soup” fogs disappeared when heating with coal was phased out. Recall the line of Eliza Doolittle (Audrey Hepburn) when she sings, “Lots of chocolates for me to eat, lots of coal making lots of heat.”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LRsW6gWL5M
Now, of course, we no longer need coal and for well-known reasons, it should be phased out as quickly as possible. However, we should not forget that in only slightly earlier times it played an entirely essential and indispensable rôle.
If civilization collapses because of global warming, fossil fuels, including gas, oil, and coal, would no longer be conveniently and readily available so it might never be possible to recover. Surviving people would be living a pre-industrial life forever.
Hi Frank,
Well said ! Coal created the industrial revolution and allowed for the development of electricity.
Coal is still an important source of energy, generating about 40% of the world total electricity and nearly 70% of all heavy industry generation.
Replacing coal will be very difficult as the role of coal energy is the hardest sector to replace with renewable sources. The most effective method of replacement is natural gas or nuclear.
Great efforts are being made to develop technology to minimize the harmful effects of coal emissions and some early results are proving promising. Coal Mining extraction methods are proving even more amenable to lowering environmental harm, but the industry is hampered by the public perception of coal as irrevocably pollutant.
An argument exist that the environment would better assisted by improving harmful coal emissions than replying solely on renewable technology. This is a view endorsed by the IEA, DOE and many other authorities.
That’s one of the biggest problems of a “Crusader” approach. By adopting an unrealistic “winner take all” attitude, Crusader style advocates preach visions of impractical technologies, that don’t exist on a realistic scale.
That’s not to say there is no value in developing renewable energy, just to say that other, less perfect, but more achievable technologies should be given equal priority.
I don’t believe civilization will collapses because of global warming, technology is advancing faster than the growth of emissions.
When I was a small boy, I was taken to visit an old long disused coal mine once owned by my family. The local town still existed and people still supplemented their income by scavenging small scale coal deposits deemed no longer commercially viable. I remember being fascinated by the shiny black lumps, and wondering how Superman could turn them into diamonds.
Many years later, I visited a modern coal mine in Australia and was struck by the amazing difference and advances in mining technology.
Last year I attended an international conference and heard expert evidence of the costs, challenges, feasibility and difficulties of implementing ‘Clean Coal’ Technologies, Carbon Capture & Sequestration.
Many of the presenters advanced the possibility of achieving both coal production, and burning coal without adding to global carbon dioxide levels.
On the balance, I remain skeptical. However, I must confess the search is not without merit. For nations like India and PRC, the question is one of national economic survival.
If “clean coal” technologies can be a more efficient method of lowering greenhouse gas emissions, then attitude by some green advocates to deny the legitimacy of such R&D on the basis that it would slow banning coal altogether, seems selfish, and counter-productive.
Frank,
Yes i agree that coal energized the industrial revolution. It is a potent force of course during that time. However, the use of coal goes with time. It is already absolete. We live in the modern world where steamships is no longer in use. So much so with coal. Lets have something new and modern source of power. The best and the most modern is Nuclear.
Many skeptics dont favor the use of nuclear. The thing is there must be a body or a sort of academic enlightenment regarding its use.
Emmanuel,
For power generation I agree that coal is already obsolete. Except for countries which have considerable hydro power, I see nuclear as the only way to go except for areas which cannot be connected to the grid in which case wind and solar are probably best in spite of their serious limitations.
Replacing coal for making steel from iron ore will be much more difficult. Current technology uses carbon (coke, made from coal) to reduce the iron oxide. There are other ways to reduce iron oxide but so far as I know none have ever been used, at least on a large scale. Hydrogen can be used to reduce iron oxide. However, H2 changes the properties of metals and I don’t know whether that would be a serious problem. It may be that ways could be found to reduce iron oxide electrolytically similarly to the way aluminum (aluminium for you Brits) oxide is reduced. My knowledge of this is not sufficient to know what is reasonable.
Reducing aluminum is another matter. Currently a sacrificial electrode of carbon is used and that emits CO2. How serious a source of CO2 that is I don’t know and I don’t know whether another method would be practical.
It has been proposed to use nuclear reactors for ships. I’m not 100% opposed to it, but I have serious concerns. It would make me very uneasy if there were thousands of ships with nuclear reactors. Quality, reliability, and safety could be compromised if reactors were made on such a large scale and it could be difficult to have competent staff to operate them.
Regarding steam ships, in about 1966 I took a steam powered car ferry across lake Michigan. It was totally quiet and smooth; there was no vibration. The ship glided smoothly and quietly away from the dock. Had it been Diesel powered there would have been considerable noise and vibration. The ship burned coal, which was not good; there was considerable smoke. Last I read they plan to keep the two Skinner uniflow compound steam engines for nostalgic reasons but convert the boilers to natural gas, either CNG or LNG. I hope they do that; I’d hate to see the steam power system scrapped.
https://www.asme.org/getmedia/8999fb61-583c-453f-8ab1-7b864258a557/191-SS-Badger-Carferry-1952.aspx
It’s hard to know why people coal is already obsolete when it’s more than 30% of the US grid-mix, and, more importantly, it’s growing like a weed in India and China.
Is obsolesce determined exclusively by how commonly something is used?
Hollerith cards for computer input were used for many years after many of us considered them to be obsolete. In 1978, when I went to work for a very well-known international company, they still used Hollerith cards. One of my coworkers put a cartoon on the bulletin board. It showed an elderly woman in her living room, surrounded by antiques, including a spinning wheel, a wood stove, a photo of a model T Ford, and in IBM key punch.
Later I went to work for another company which almost unbelievably still used Hollerith cards. Over one of the key punch machines, I put a notice reading, “On loan from the Smithsonian Institute. At one time these machines were in common use but years ago all modern companies replaced them with terminals using a keyboard and monitor.”.
Perhaps we need similar cartoons to depict the obsolesce of coal.
Here’s what our coal consumption looks like: http://www.2greenenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Coal-Consumption-1965-through-2013.png. Call it what you will.
Craig,
Your graph directly corresponds with the transfer of heavy industry to Asia.
It’s pointless congratulating yourself on the the closure of a coal fired plant in the USA or Europe, only to open a much larger plant coal fired plant in Asia and increase the rate of pollution by shipping.
Yes, a point I’ve been making consistently for the last seven years 🙂
Craig,
Noted 🙂
Marcopolo,
Not only that, but the Chinese are actually importing coal. Several countries, including the U.S. and Australia, export coal to China.
Frank,
Several rivers have been widened and deepened so coal shipment can be brought into the heart of the PRC.
Marco,
That is not unusual.
Many decades ago, the Mississippi River was dredged so that coal barges could get to power plants. From 1957 to 1978 I lived in Minneapolis, Mn, and often saw dredges operating.
Hi Craig,
I really commend your zeal in the pursuit of renewable energy sources .
It is pertinent to know that the world can exist without coal/fossil oil, but it’s inevitable without wind/solar as energy source
Coal is an obsolete ,bulky/cumbersome and hazardous energy source and needs be changed by green house renewable energy source.
Come worth may the exploration of fossil oil is expensive and costly for developing nations and their rural areas . Hence the renewable energy/solar and wind ; with uranium/thorium to produce nuclear batteries is a big subtitude.
Thanks.
Ademola