When oil falls below $70....

[eyeball]

Of course the other thing we could do is resign ourselves to making hay when the sun shines - so the pace of our economy more closely matches the capacity of the local environment and region to sustain it.

At the end of the day though the only lasting sustainable solution is to ratchet our population back to about a billion people.

Maybe we should broadcast an SOS (save our species) into space and hope someone a lot smarter than us hears it in time.

[Wilber]

The worst emitter is of course coal, which is in decline.

I would venture that few people know how the grid works, and its central position in our privileged lives. An utterly reliable supply of electricity is taken for granted, until it is not there

'Expensive redundancies' is a term that is in itself redundant, any redundancy is by definition both expensive and absolutely essential. The redundant capacity has to be as reliable as the main sources too. Not just generating capacity, but to a lesser extent transmission capacity too.

If you are saying the cost of things like solar and wind isn't just in the cost of that particular technology, then I agree with you. However, it might well be a cost we will have to bear if we are serious about providing reliable power with low emissions.

[overthere]

Of course the other thing we could do is resign ourselves to making hay when the sun shines - so the pace of our economy more closely matches the capacity of the local environment and region to sustain it.

At the end of the day though the only lasting sustainable solution is to ratchet our population back to about a billion people.

Maybe we should broadcast an SOS (save our species) into space and hope someone a lot smarter than us hears it in time.

Not only that but we all need to move immediately to the tropics, where less energy is required to live. Of course, we'll have to do it without air con in the 12 hour days, and without lights in the 12 hour nights.

So which one are you volunteering for? The ratchet back to one billion which will a profoundly bloody affair, or the move(using only sails and bicycles of course) to the tropics?

[overthere]

If you are saying the cost of things like solar and wind isn't just in the cost of that particular technology, then I agree with you. However, it might well be a cost we will have to bear if we are serious about providing reliable power with low emissions.

I regret that you have missed my point entirely.

I don't know how to explain it more clearly.

[eyeball]

Yep, we've really backed ourselves into a dead end haven't we Wilber?

Edited December 2, 2014 by eyeball

[TimG]

if we are to take reducing CO2 emissions seriously.

The operative word is *if*. Nukes are the only option available at this time if nukes are not acceptable then nothing will get done because the people responsible for running the grid know that people want reliable, low cost power more than they want to do something about CO2.

However, it might well be a cost we will have to bear if we are serious about providing reliable power with low emissions.

It is not just the cost - a grid with >10-15% solar/wind simply cannot function no matter how much money is thrown at it. If you care about CO2 then you need to support nuclear. If you don't want nuclear you need to stop pretending to care about CO2. Edited December 2, 2014 by TimG

[Bonam]

Nuclear is really the only option to substantially cut CO2 emissions (other than genocide on an unprecedented scale as eyeball proposes). I read an interesting article recently that showed that Genghis Khan probably did more to cut CO2 concentration in the atmosphere than any other person in history... his extermination of tens of millions of people was so massive in scale and duration, that forests grew back in previously settled areas and CO2 concentrations dropped. But I don't think we want to go down that route.

One hour of unbiased internet research will quickly illustrate the reality that nuclear is the only viable near-zero CO2-emission energy source to replace coal/oil.

See this debate here, for example:

While the pro-nuclear advocate makes a good case, the anti-nuclear advocate's numbers regarding the availability of renewables (solar and wind) are not explained, and are completely wrong in any real world application. The one good point that the anti-nuclear advocate does make is that with the current regulatory regime, it takes up to 20 years to get a nuclear power plant built. That means 20 years of "opportunity cost" lost in terms of emissions continuing to be emitted from coal/oil during that time. But the answer to this is of course not to foreswear nuclear power, but rather to streamline the process for building reactors so it takes less time.

Edited December 2, 2014 by Bonam

[overthere]

Nuclear is really the only option to substantially cut CO2 emissions (other than genocide on an unprecedented scale as eyeball proposes). I read an interesting article recently that showed that Genghis Khan probably did more to cut CO2 concentration in the atmosphere than any other person in history... his extermination of tens of millions of people was so massive in scale and duration, that forests grew back in previously settled areas and CO2 concentrations dropped. But I don't think we want to go down that route.

One hour of unbiased internet research will quickly illustrate the reality that nuclear is the only viable near-zero CO2-emission energy source to replace coal/oil.

A single large forest fire- and there are many every year somewhere- would have a more profound affect on our planet than anything a Khan could manage.

[eyeball]

Nuclear is really the only option to substantially cut CO2 emissions (other than genocide on an unprecedented scale as eyeball proposes).

Get a grip. I said ratchet back, not exterminate.

[eyeball]

Nuclear makes sense to me as well. But not until we have institutions of accountability that are more secure than a nuclear waste dump. Way more secure.

[Wilber]

I regret that you have missed my point entirely.

I don't know how to explain it more clearly.

I think you have missed mine as well.

[Wilber]

The operative word is *if*. Nukes are the only option available at this time if nukes are not acceptable then nothing will get done because the people responsible for running the grid know that people want reliable, low cost power more than they want to do something about CO2.

It is not just the cost - a grid with >10-15% solar/wind simply cannot function no matter how much money is thrown at it. If you care about CO2 then you need to support nuclear. If you don't want nuclear you need to stop pretending to care about CO2.

I have never come out against nuclear. and a 15% reduction in CO2 emissions from power generation is nothing to sneeze at. It is something we should be working toward. While I think nuclear is an very bad idea in some parts of the world, I also think it is a good way to go in areas with stable geology and not subject to things like flooding.

There is no one size fits all solution to this issue. There is no one alternative that can replace fossil fuels entirely.

[GostHacked]

Unless the nuclear option is taken more seriously, expensive redundancies will be necessary if we are to take reducing CO2 emissions seriously. this will only happen when people realize the cost of doing nothing is greater than the cost of doing what's necessary to reduce emissions.

Nuclear power is the answer for power generation. But the long term radiological waste is the main concern. Nuke plants are designed to operate for about 50 years. Not long enough to make up for the amount of nuclear waste that it will produce.

[Wilber]

A single large forest fire- and there are many every year somewhere- would have a more profound affect on our planet than anything a Khan could manage.That carbon will be recat in the forests that grow up to replace the ones that burned.

That carbon will be recaptured by the forests that grow up to replace the ones that burned. If we allow them to grow.

[Wilber]

Yep, we've really backed ourselves into a dead end haven't we Wilber?

Quite possibly.

[overthere]

I think you have missed mine as well.

I don't think so. My comment was a result of this by you, and if you have expressed yourself clearly then I disagree with it.:

If you are saying the cost of things like solar and wind isn't just in the cost of that particular technology, then I agree with you. However, it might well be a cost we will have to bear if we are serious about providing reliable power with low emissions.

Having solar and wind as sources of power is not an issue of cost, or rather the cost is very secondary.

It is about relying on the unreliable for any part of the base load or the necessary redundancy.

It cannot and will not happen. It could not happen if solar and wind were free.

[dre]

You still need a line running the other way to provide 100% of your household demand when your panels produce zero.

All these problems are the result of not having economical storage except in areas with large hydroelectric reserviors.. But storage costs are coming down fast, and the IEA predicts they will halve again over the next decade, and at the same time energy from conventional sources is getting more expensive quickly. Right now it would cost 15-20 thousand dollars to add enough storage to a home to smooth over typical fluctuations in renewable supply, in most areas. Once that number falls below about 10 thousand, and energy generated by conventional sources increases another 30 or 40% it will be viable. You will start to see these kind of systems in large scale use in about 20 years.

[Keepitsimple]

Having solar and wind as sources of power is not an issue of cost, or rather the cost is very secondary.

It is about relying on the unreliable for any part of the base load or the necessary redundancy.

It cannot and will not happen. It could not happen if solar and wind were free.

Wind and Solar as the base load reminds me of that old joke....when the Americans landed a man on the moon the (insert person here - Frenchman, Italian, Newfie, etc.) said "That's nothing - we're going to the Sun!". But you can't - you'll burn up before you even get close! "No, no, no - we're going to go at night!".

Boo....hiss...catcalls.....

[Wilber]

I don't think so. My comment was a result of this by you, and if you have expressed yourself clearly then I disagree with it.:

Having solar and wind as sources of power is not an issue of cost, or rather the cost is very secondary.

It is about relying on the unreliable for any part of the base load or the necessary redundancy.

It cannot and will not happen. It could not happen if solar and wind were free.

I agree, you can't rely on it, therefore you will need to swallow the cost of excess generating capacity to compensate for that unreliability. It might mean fewer large generating plants and more small backup power stations that can be brought on line quickly, located within the actual solar and wind farms so they can use the same transmission infrastructure. I've no doubt there are limits to the amount of solar and wind that can be used in the grid but we should be pushing those limits.

[overthere]

All these problems are the result of not having economical storage except in areas with large hydroelectric reserviors.. But storage costs are coming down fast, and the IEA predicts they will halve again over the next decade, and at the same time energy from conventional sources is getting more expensive quickly. Right now it would cost 15-20 thousand dollars to add enough storage to a home to smooth over typical fluctuations in renewable supply, in most areas. Once that number falls below about 10 thousand, and energy generated by conventional sources increases another 30 or 40% it will be viable. You will start to see these kind of systems in large scale use in about 20 years.

That solves the supply problem for the homeowner, and of course it assumes that they are willing to guarantee that they will never, ever need one watt from the grid. They'd also have to agree to never supply one watt to the grid, becausew then in both supply and demand for your home you'd have to have a grid and supply oversized to handle either. It does not address the larger issue of providing juice to the large urban users. If you are referring to efficient batteries as storage, the manufacture and disposal of them is hardly a green undertaking.

Oh, and it is not just hydro that has reservoirs of energy stored. All that oil and gas in the ground, uranium in the ground are also storage reservoirs.

[dre]

Unless the nuclear option is taken more seriously, expensive redundancies will be necessary if we are to take reducing CO2 emissions seriously. this will only happen when people realize the cost of doing nothing is greater than the cost of doing what's necessary to reduce emissions.

The nuclear option IS being taken seriously, but the current generation of concrete containment vessel reactors is just not viable from an economics standpoint except in countries that have no coal, or gas. In North America theres just no way an investor is going to invest in a nuclear plant when they can invest in a coal or nat-gas plant.

As is the case with renewables considerable research and development is needed. Countries like China and India are leading the charge.

[dre]

That solves the supply problem for the homeowner, and of course it assumes that they are willing to guarantee that they will never, ever need one watt from the grid. They'd also have to agree to never supply one watt to the grid, becausew then in both supply and demand for your home you'd have to have a grid and supply oversized to handle either.

No thats not true at all. All that storage would be PART of the grid. Consumers would still be getting energy from the grid, but the storage component would smooth over fluctations in supply. A distributed storage component will actually make a power grid a lot EASIER to manage... not harder.

[overthere]

No thats not true at all. All that storage would be PART of the grid. Consumers would still be getting energy from the grid, but the storage component would smooth over fluctations in supply. A distributed storage component will actually make a power grid a lot EASIER to manage... not harder.

You are aware that if a customer, with or without home made power, has the ability to access the shared grid that you have to have 110% of total RELIABLE demand ready to produce in reliable generating capacity, and 110% in total transmission capacity ready to carry the load. You cannot build that when the sun does not shine. There is zero savings, the base system must be there.

If you get from and transmit enegery through the grid, the capacity for both must be built. So as a solar or wind producer you'd have two capital costs: one to add your capacity, and another to pay for the grid capacity. There was an example above of wind producers having to pay for that, it's not greed and it is not a fairy tale. There is no free lunch, and making homegrown market does not get one for you.

[dre]

. If you don't want nuclear you need to stop pretending to care about CO2.

Nuclear is really the only option to substantially cut CO2 emissions

Nobody is going to invest in nuclear energy in its current form except in countries that have no coal or gas. The glut of natural gas in North America makes nuclear pretty much irrelevant, and countries like France with little coal and gas are already using nuclear extensively (and as a result consumers there pay twice for electricity what we pay in Canada).

And its just flat out false to say that nuclear plants are the only way to reduce CO2 usage. In North America you are far more likely to see things like Allam Cycle coal and gas plants and those have the potential to reduce emmisions just as much as nuclear, and also significantly boost plant efficiency. And these technologies are going to have legs because utilities and energy companies have a lot of capital tied up in in-ground assets such as gas and coal. And they are not only expected have near zero air emissions, but they are also expected to produce electricity for less than current fossil fuel plants.

You guys dont seem to have a very strong grasp of nuclear economics. Nobody is going to invest money in them. Up front capital costs are MASSIVE, and it can take decades for the initial investment to be recovered. As much as 70% of money recovered from selling electricity during the life of the plant is eaten up paying down the origional loans and all the interest. And of course you have to set aside about another 500 million dollars for the eventual decommisioning.

Why on earth would anyone invest money on such a venture if they can invest in a coal or gas plant that costs a fraction of the money to build, produces power at a lower cost, can be just as clean, and doesnt cost half a billion dollars to decommision?

[dre]

You are aware that if a customer, with or without home made power, has the ability to access the shared grid that you have to have 110% of total RELIABLE demand ready to produce in reliable generating capacity, and 110% in total transmission capacity ready to carry the load. You cannot build that when the sun does not shine. There is zero savings, the base system must be there.

This is only true in a grid with no storage capacity. With enough storage capacity you could run a grid on 100% intermittent sources, provided that your total production is greater than the total consumption. This is why hydroelectric systems work even though the ammount of water coming down streams and rivers is intermittent (dependant on weather, seasons, snowmelt, rainfall etc). The catchment basin provides storage to smooth over those fluctuations.

Edited December 3, 2014 by dre