TimG Posted August 13, 2015 Report Posted August 13, 2015 (edited) No kidding. As has already been explained to you the baseload power argument is a myth and coal and nukes will/are being phased out in favour of cheaper, clean renewables.Only in your delusional fantasy world. There is a simple test to prove it: eliminate all subsidies for renewables and lets see how quickly they are adopted. If your claims had any merit then they would still be viable without subsidies. I am very confident that they would not be adopted because these analyses are based on wishful thinking and cherry picking stats. Germany is building coal powered generation because its engineers know that renewables are not the answer. Edited August 13, 2015 by TimG Quote
Mighty AC Posted August 13, 2015 Author Report Posted August 13, 2015 (edited) Only in your delusional fantasy world. There is a simple test to prove it: eliminate all subsidies for renewables and lets see how quickly they are adopted. If your claims had any merit then they would still be viable without subsidies.Renewables are already cheaper in many instances. Fossil fuels have been subsidized for 100 years and continue to benefit from public funds. No matter though, investment in solar over the next 25 years will already be larger than coal, gas and nukes combined, with wind in second place. Major initiatives to divest from fossil fuel companies are steadily gaining momentum, which will only strengthen the trend. Edited August 13, 2015 by Mighty AC Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
Bonam Posted August 13, 2015 Report Posted August 13, 2015 The point mentioned in the article that modern natural gas fired plants can be ramped up/down in output more quickly and efficiently (compared to coal and n nuclear plants) seems to be correct. Given the recent natural gas boom, it seems like building a power grid that is powered primarily by renewables and where load variation is handled by a large number of natural gas plants might be plausible. Of course, these plants would be required to operate far below capacity much of the time, meaning they'd be running at an operational loss and therefore their construction and operation would have to be subsidized by the government, as part of its strategy to shift to renewables. Nonetheless, it seems possible. Quote
segnosaur Posted August 13, 2015 Report Posted August 13, 2015 The devil is in the unmentioned details which, in this case, is water and phosphorus. A lot is required. The devil is in the unmentioned details which, in this case, is water and phosphorus. A lot is required. Water may not be an issue.... A closed system would reduce the amount of water required. And, some research has shown that salt water can also be used. Phosphorus is a little trickier, but its not insurmountable. Waste water could be used. There is also phosphorus that is dissolved in seawater (which fits in with recent research on the use of salt water for algae growth). And depending on the process, phosphorus is left behind and can be recycled. http://www.rdmag.com/news/2012/11/new-study-shows-saltwater-algae-viable-biofuels http://ecowatch.com/2013/12/22/algae-to-crude-oil-less-than-hour/ Another killer is the physical properties of the oil. i.e. gasoline is easy to transport and pump at cool temperatures. Algae based fuels tend to harden: http://www.scidev.net/global/biofuels/news/biofuels-from-algae-plagued-with-problems-says-review-1.html[ Keep in mind that your article didn't say "all" algae-based fuels tend to harden. It said many did. But, I assume that we'd be smart enough to pick a form of fuel that doesn't have that issue. Some of the processes actually result in either alcohol or crude oil produced. And those will be no more trouble at cool temperatures than fossil fuels are today. The problem is, at this point, there are many ideas about the 'best' way to do biofuel... closed system vs. open pond, GM organisms that produce oil directly or fermenting algae to produce alcohol, use waste water, sea water or fresh water, use sunlight to grow the algae or use sugar in their environment. I really don't know which the best method is, but they've mad a lot of progress. I don't think any of the issues is insurmountable. Quote
kimmy Posted August 13, 2015 Report Posted August 13, 2015 Pumped hydro storage can work in many areas. And, if the desire to store energy on a large scale is really there, terrain can be modified to allow for pumped hydro storage even where there are no natural features. Artificial lakes big enough to store enough energy to smooth out production/demand variations for a city could plausibly be built. In some cases the excavation has already been done; large projects now exist using abandoned mines. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
TimG Posted August 13, 2015 Report Posted August 13, 2015 Of course, these plants would be required to operate far below capacity much of the time, meaning they'd be running at an operational loss and therefore their construction and operation would have to be subsidized by the government, as part of its strategy to shift to renewables. Nonetheless, it seems possible.If energy production needs to be subsidized then it is not something that can keep our society running. Quote
Bonam Posted August 13, 2015 Report Posted August 13, 2015 Biofuels are pretty much a complete non-starter if one assesses the math and the science honestly. Pretty much the only reason they are used at all is a result of the agricultural lobby in America. First, if you're using the sun to grow biofuels... that same area could instead be covered in solar panels and produce far more energy. The typical energy efficiency of photosynthesis is ~1% (1% of the incoming solar energy is converted to stored chemical energy in the plant structure), while cheap silicon solar panels are ~16% efficient and advanced solar panels can reach ~40% efficiency. And if you're using some energy source other than the sun, then you have to take that into account to, something that seems to be rarely considered. Second, fundamentally, any combustion-type engine is limited to about 30-35% efficiency, regardless of whether it uses conventional or bio fuels. In contrast, battery-electric systems can run in excess of 90% efficiency. There is no excuse to use a system with 1/3 the energetic efficiency in the long term, once battery storage and charging issues are resolved. You can argue that the electricity still needs to be produced, in many cases still by plants that burn fossil fuels, but modern multi-cycle power plants can achieve 50-60% efficiency, almost twice as good as ICEs. Furthermore, it is much easier to filter/trap emissions at a single centralized source where large infrastructure can be built, rather than at millions of individual small sources. Therefore, even if all new electricity to charge electric cars had to be produced by new fossil fuel plants, you'd still drastically cut emissions. The overall system efficiency of using sunlight to grow plants, that are then converted to combustible fuels, that are then burned in an ICE is gonna be around 0.1%. Meanwhile, the overall system efficiency to use sunlight to produce electricity in solar panels to charge batteries, which are then used to spin electric motors, can be closer to 10%. That's a 100x difference in the amount of land area needed to devote to solar energy collection. There's just no way around the simple math/physics of it. Quote
TimG Posted August 13, 2015 Report Posted August 13, 2015 (edited) Renewables are already cheaper in many instances.Not based on any real economic analysis that include all costs. Fossil fuels have been subsidized for 100 years and continue to benefit from public funds.There is a difference between subsidizing R&D and subsidizing production. Fossil fuel production is NOT subsidized in any meaningful way. Renewables are not viable without production subsidies. That makes them useless as an energy source. Edited August 13, 2015 by TimG Quote
Bonam Posted August 13, 2015 Report Posted August 13, 2015 If energy production needs to be subsidized then it is not something that can keep our society running. Not necessarily. It just means an increase in the average cost of energy. The extent of the increase will determine the effect it has on the economy. My guess is that the economy can handle a factor of several times increase in the cost of energy with relatively little overall effect on society besides higher prices on certain goods/services, which consumers would just have to deal with. Quote
waldo Posted August 13, 2015 Report Posted August 13, 2015 Fossil fuel production is NOT subsidized in any meaningful way. we've beat upon this over and over and over again. You simply choose to ignore all the information provided to you that speaks to the most significant year-upon-year fossil-fuel subsidies... to the historical fossil-fuel subsidies that dwarf anything provided for renewables. Quote
segnosaur Posted August 13, 2015 Report Posted August 13, 2015 You are assuming that our next generations will think like Boomers. Car ownership won't disappear, but it will diminish, especially in Urban centers. 80% of Canadians live in urban centers and that number continues to rise. In our cities, car shares and on demand driverless cars will significantly reduce ownership and personal vehicles will become primarily electric. We've got a mobile population. I'm not a boomer nor are my siblings. All of them have cars and it would not be practical (based on their life style) to go without. And simply living in an urban center doesn't mean you won't want the freedom of having a vehicle. We keep throwing up low-density housing suburbs, which make the use of public transportation measures (including on demand cars) impractical. We can't produce enough biofuels for mainstream power on farm waste and inarable land alone, hence they would have to invade useful land resources. First of all, you have ignored the fact that I pointed out that you don't necessarily need land to grow biofuels (depending on the technology used). Building something on the ocean would work too. Secondly, lets say we can't use water areas for some reason. In another post, I quoted a reference that said they can produce enough energy for transportation in an area the size of the Texas Panhandle. That's roughly 26,000 miles sq. The Mohave desert has an area of 48,000 miles sq. So in theory you'd only need roughly have the size of the desert in the south west. (Granted you couldn't use ALL that area, since there are cities/towns in the area, I just wanted to show the size of the land mass we're dealing with.) Plus, there is the possibility that foreign countries with more unusable land (e.g. australia, the Sahara) would find it lucrative to set up an algae-based biofuels industry for export. It just makes sense to extract the bulk of our energy from a free, permanent energy source. Once again... if we manage to overcome the problems and get a viable biofuels industry, that energy will be from a "free permanent" source. Ultimately the energy will come from the sun. Instead of light hitting a solar panel, it hits a tank with algae. But its still free energy from the sun. Quote
TimG Posted August 13, 2015 Report Posted August 13, 2015 Not necessarily. It just means an increase in the average cost of energy. The extent of the increase will determine the effect it has on the economy. My guess is that the economy can handle a factor of several times increase in the cost of energy with relatively little overall effect on society besides higher prices on certain goods/services, which consumers would just have to deal with.This analyses tackles this problem in a different way by looking at the "EROEI" for energy sources: There is a minimum EROEI, greater than 1, that is required for an energy source to be able to run society. An energy system must produce a surplus large enough to sustain things like food production, hospitals, and universities to train the engineers to build the plant, transport, construction, and all the elements of the civilization in which it is embedded. http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/ A lot of assumptions but the problem statement is real. It is not enough to produce energy - we must produce enough excess energy to keep society going and that is not simply a function of price. Quote
segnosaur Posted August 13, 2015 Report Posted August 13, 2015 The overall system efficiency of using sunlight to grow plants, that are then converted to combustible fuels, that are then burned in an ICE is gonna be around 0.1%. Meanwhile, the overall system efficiency to use sunlight to produce electricity in solar panels to charge batteries, which are then used to spin electric motors, can be closer to 10%. That's a 100x difference in the amount of land area needed to devote to solar energy collection. There's just no way around the simple math/physics of it. Never claimed that biofuels were more energy efficient than solar panels. Their advantages lie elsewhere.... - Easier storage. Yes, people have talked about better batteries, or oil using large bodies of water to "store" energy from solar or wind... but, those solutions have problems of their own. (Building batteries requires mining some pretty specialized chemicals. Using water as a storage medium will probably have a significant impact on local ecosystem, assuming it can easily be done.) - Easier transportation. You can move a truck full of gas without an electrical grid - No need to replace our transportation infrastructure - Dual use of products for industrial purposes. Quote
Bonam Posted August 13, 2015 Report Posted August 13, 2015 This analyses tackles this problem in a different way by looking at the "EROEI" for energy sources: http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/ A lot of assumptions but the problem statement is real. It is not enough to produce energy - we must produce enough excess energy to keep society going and that is not simply a function of price. Energy returned on energy invested is a function of the technology, not the price. For both solar and wind, EROEI is far higher than 1. Quote
Bonam Posted August 13, 2015 Report Posted August 13, 2015 Never claimed that biofuels were more energy efficient than solar panels. Their advantages lie elsewhere.... I understand you argument, and realize you did not claim that biofuels are more efficient. Any claims regarding efficiency were made by me. The statement I am making is that the roughly 100x difference in efficiency between biofuels and electrics in terms of the overall system is large enough to more than outweigh any other benefits biofuels may possibly have. That is, with such a low overall system efficiency, they are simply not worth considering, even if they are ideal in every other way. Quote
TimG Posted August 13, 2015 Report Posted August 13, 2015 (edited) Energy returned on energy invested is a function of the technology, not the price. For both solar and wind, EROEI is far higher than 1.You did not read the article. The estimate the minimum viable EROEI to be about 7. Here is the paper explaining the rational: http://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI_preprint.pdf The price is a measure of the resources consumed in order produce the energy. Edited August 13, 2015 by TimG Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted August 13, 2015 Report Posted August 13, 2015 (edited) Doesn't seem as cost effective as simply having stationary charging lanes. solar and wind prices that now beat coal Please provide evidence for this claim. Why not just build a bunch of nuclear fission plants? Cheap, reliable and clean. One thing that doesn't help the adoption of electric cars is having insanely high energy prices such as in Ontario. Edited August 13, 2015 by -1=e^ipi Quote
segnosaur Posted August 13, 2015 Report Posted August 13, 2015 I understand you argument, and realize you did not claim that biofuels are more efficient. Any claims regarding efficiency were made by me. The statement I am making is that the roughly 100x difference in efficiency between biofuels and electrics in terms of the overall system is large enough to more than outweigh any other benefits biofuels may possibly have. That is, with such a low overall system efficiency, they are simply not worth considering, even if they are ideal in every other way. Except that depending on the methodolgy used, the requirements for an algae system might end up overcoming the lower efficiencies. So, you want to build a solar array... you set up a square mile of solar panels. Each of these has to be manufactured, installed, cleaned, and (in a few decades) replaced, with the old ones disposed of. To generate the same amount of energy through biofuels, you will need more area. Yeah, might even take 100x the area. But that area might (depending on the technology) be very low maintenance. A stagnent lake. No "maintenance" other than pumps/skimmers to remove the algae for processing. Oh, and by the way, there are issues you might want to consider regarding your 100x efficency difference... - If battery or hydro storage is used, that will greatly reduce the efficiency - If you're dealing with land usage, any lake area used for hydro storage should be counted against the overall effiency Granted those won't make biofuels more attractive, but it will narrow the gap a bit. Quote
segnosaur Posted August 13, 2015 Report Posted August 13, 2015 Why not just build a bunch of nuclear fission plants? Cheap, reliable and clean. I'm all for nuclear. Think it would be a great way to reduce greenhouse gases. But, its politically unpopular. One of the little ironies... the party that would probably best protect the environment (the NDP) is against one technology that would have the best environmental contribution. Quote
Bonam Posted August 13, 2015 Report Posted August 13, 2015 Why not just build a bunch of nuclear fission plants? Cheap, reliable and clean. Politically impossible in Western countries. Quote
waldo Posted August 13, 2015 Report Posted August 13, 2015 Germany is building coal powered generation because its engineers know that renewables are not the answer. no - although you've been debunked on this in past MLW threads, you continue to perpetuate this myth! (yet another/new reference for you to ignore): Take a look at this chart (PDF in German) published by German environmental NGO Deutsche Umwelthilfe in November. It shows that two new coal plants recently went into operation, with eight others currently under construction – so the figure of 10 new coal plants is correct. But even if you don’t speak German, you can see under the “Status” column when these plants began. For instance, Datteln starts in 01/2007 (January 2007) and the latest date for the beginning of a plant’s status is 07/2009 for Neckerau Block 9. The two plants that went online last fall received permits way back in 2005 (Grevenbroich) and 2006 (Boxberg). The eight others soon to be completed were all underway by 2009 at the latest. Go down further into the list of “abandoned” projects (the green area), and you’ll see that six of those 20 projects have been abandoned since the nuclear phaseout. The only positive changes for coal since March 2011 concern two plants currently “planned” (orange area), and here nothing is currently being built. As a reaction to the nuclear phaseout, Germany has thus started building zero coal plants but stepped away from six. At current power prices, all conventional projects are on hold, and coal power may soon be unprofitable in Germany. Quote
socialist Posted August 13, 2015 Report Posted August 13, 2015 Does oil become an alternative energy source if non-fossil fuels become the majority? Finally folks are starting to look more carefully at this bunch. In Quebec, as well, Mulcair has had to deal with protesters the last 4 days because of saying different things in English and in French regarding pipelines and other issues. Quote Thankful to have become a free thinker.
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 13, 2015 Report Posted August 13, 2015 (edited) Politically impossible in Western countries. Yes, but not totally impossible. There are about 60 nuclear power plants currently planned or under construction in 15 nations, most being in Asia. Start † Reactor Type MWe 2015 Korea, KHNP Shin Wolsong 2* PWR 1000 2015 Korea, KHNP Shin-Kori 3 PWR 1350 2015 China, CGNPC Ningde 3* PWR 1080 2015 China, CGNPC Hongyanhe 3* PWR 1080 2015 China, CGNPC Yangjiang 2* PWR 1080 2015 China, CNNC Fuqing 2 PWR 1080 2015 China, CGNPC Fangchenggang 1 PWR 1080 2015 China, CNNC Changjiang 1 PWR 650 2015 Russia, Rosenergoatom Rostov 3* PWR 1070 2015 India, NPCIL Kakrapar 3 PHWR 640 2015 India, Bhavini Kalpakkam FBR 470 2015 Russia, Rosenergoatom Beloyarsk 4 FNR 750 2016 India, NPCIL Kudankulam 2 PWR 950 2016 Russia, Rosenergoatom Leningrad II-1 PWR 1070 2016 Russia, Rosenergoatom Novovoronezh II-1 PWR 1070 2016 Korea, KHNP Shin-Kori 4 PWR 1350 2016 USA, TVA Watts Bar 2 PWR 1180 2016 China, CNNC Sanmen 1 PWR 1250 2016 China, CPI Haiyang 1 PWR 1250 2016 China, CGNPC Hongyanhe 4 PWR 1080 2016 China, CGNPC Yangjiang 3 PWR 1080 2016 China, CGNPC Ningde 4 PWR 1080 2016 China, CNNC Changjiang 2 PWR 650 2016 China, CNNC Fuqing 3 PWR 1080 2016 China, CGNPC Fangchenggang 2 PWR 1080 2016 India, NPCIL Kakrapar 4 PHWR 640 2016 India, NPCIL Rajasthan 7 PHWR 640 2016 Pakistan, PAEC Chashma 3 PWR 300 2017 Slovakia, SE Mochovce 3 PWR 440 2017 France, EdF Flamanville 3 PWR 1600 2017 Russia, Rosenergoatom PWR x 2 70 2017 China, CGNPC Taishan 2 PWR 1700 2017 China, CGNPC Taishan 1 PWR 1700 2017 China, CNNC Sanmen 2 PWR 1250 2017 China, CPI Haiyang 2 PWR 1250 2017 China, CGNPC Yangjiang 4 PWR 1080 2017 China, CNNC Fuqing 4 PWR 1080 2017 China, China Huaneng Shidaowan HTR 200 2017 China, CNNC Tianwan 3 PWR 1060 2017 Russia, Rosenergoatom Rostov 4 PWR 1200 2017 Korea, KHNP Shin-Hanul 1 PWR 1350 2017 India, NPCIL Rajasthan 8 PHWR 640 2017 Pakistan, PAEC Chashma 4 PWR 300 2018 Slovakia, SE Mochovce 4 PWR 440 2018 Finland, TVO Olkilouto 3 PWR 1720 2018 Russia, Rosenergoatom Novovoronezh II-2 PWR 1070 2018 Russia, Rosenergoatom Leningrad II-2 PWR 1200 2018 Korea, KHNP Shin-Hanul 2 PWR 1350 2018 Argentina Carem25 PWR 27 2018 China, CGNPC Yangjiang 5 PWR 1080 2018 China, CNNC Tianwan 4 PWR 1060 2019 USA, Southern Vogtle 3 PWR 1200 2019 USA, SCEG Summer 2 PWR 1200 2019 China, CGNPC Hongyanhe 5 PWR 1080 2019 China, CGNPC Yangjiang 6 PWR 1080 2019 China, CNNC Fuqing 5 PWR 1150 2019 Romania, SNN Cernavoda 3 PHWR 655 http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Current-and-Future-Generation/Plans-For-New-Reactors-Worldwide/ Edited August 13, 2015 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
-1=e^ipi Posted August 13, 2015 Report Posted August 13, 2015 Politically impossible in Western countries. Well maybe we should make it politically possible. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.