Fossil Fuel Free Future

[TimG]

no - although you've been debunked on this in past MLW threads, you continue to perpetuate this...

You are the one peddling self serving myths:

http://www.theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/328841/why-germanys-nuclear-phase-out-leading-more-coal-burning

These new power plants are sometimes blamed by nuclear proponents on the post-Fukushima decision to shut all nuclear power plants by 2022. This is a myth. Any large piece of infrastructure takes a long time to build, and Germany simply could not respond to Fukushima by building new coal power plants at this scale and speed. Investment decisions for these power plants were made in 2005-2008 (see table 2 here). In response supporters of the nuclear phase out claim this shows that construction of new coal power plants have nothing to do with Germany's decision to phase out nuclear energy. This however is historical revisionism.

The policy to phase out nuclear power was vital to the decisions to build new coal power plants. Closing down a quarter of your electricity generation leaves a gap that must be filled by something, and Germany realised it would largely have to be filled by one thing: coal. This is more or less beyond doubt, because Germany's then Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel said so. Gabriel, now Germany's Minister for Energy and Economics told climate scientist James Hansen that Germany had to build new coal power plants because of its nuclear phase out, and stated elsewhere that Germany would have to build 8 to 12 coal power plants to replace its nuclear fleet.

And this is exactly what he got. In the first half of this decade Germany will open 9 new coal power plants.

Keep in mind that the German consumer is outraged over the absurdly expensive renewable electricity bills they pay. German politicians will have to do something about this and they are not going to be able to do it without making sure that efficient baseload plants are economic. Edited August 13, 2015 by TimG

[waldo]

advanced nuclear... as oft mentioned/lobbied for by renowned scientist, James Hansen... in an open letter from: Dr. Ken Caldeira, Senior Scientist, Department of Global Ecology; Carnegie Institution, Dr. Kerry Emanuel, Atmospheric Scientist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Dr. James Hansen, Climate Scientist, Columbia University Earth Institute; Dr. Tom Wigley, Climate Scientist, University of Adelaide and the National Center for Atmospheric Research:

To those influencing environmental policy but opposed to nuclear power:

As climate and energy scientists concerned with global climate change, we are writing to urge you to advocate the development and deployment of safer nuclear energy systems. We appreciate your organization’s concern about global warming, and your advocacy of renewable energy. But continued opposition to nuclear power threatens humanity’s ability to avoid dangerous climate change.

We call on your organization to support the development and deployment of safer nuclear power systems as a practical means of addressing the climate change problem. Global demand for energy is growing rapidly and must continue to grow to provide the needs of developing economies. At the same time, the need to sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions is becoming ever clearer. We can only increase energy supply while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions if new power plants turn away from using the atmosphere as a waste dump.

Renewables like wind and solar and biomass will certainly play roles in a future energy economy, but those energy sources cannot scale up fast enough to deliver cheap and reliable power at the scale the global economy requires. While it may be theoretically possible to stabilize the climate without nuclear power, in the real world there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power.

We understand that today's nuclear plants are far from perfect. Fortunately, passive safety systems and other advances can make new plants much safer. And modern nuclear technology can reduce proliferation risks and solve the waste disposal problem by burning current waste and using fuel more efficiently. Innovation and economies of scale can make new power plants even cheaper than existing plants. Regardless of these advantages, nuclear needs to be encouraged based on its societal benefits.

Quantitative analyses show that the risks associated with the expanded use of nuclear energy are orders of magnitude smaller than the risks associated with fossil fuels. No energy system is without downsides. We ask only that energy system decisions be based on facts, and not on emotions and biases that do not apply to 21st century nuclear technology.

While there will be no single technological silver bullet, the time has come for those who take the threat of global warming seriously to embrace the development and deployment of safer nuclear power systems as one among several technologies that will be essential to any credible effort to develop an energy system that does not rely on using the atmosphere as a waste dump.

With the planet warming and carbon dioxide emissions rising faster than ever, we cannot afford to turn away from any technology that has the potential to displace a large fraction of our carbon emissions. Much has changed since the 1970s. The time has come for a fresh approach to nuclear power in the 21st century.

We ask you and your organization to demonstrate its real concern about risks from climate damage by calling for the development and deployment of advanced nuclear energy.

[Bonam]

Well maybe we should make it politically possible.

I'd be all for it. Sadly, political barriers are oftentimes far more insurmountable than technological ones. For example, I feel like I stand a better chance of inventing fusion than changing the political leanings of the public.

[msj]

I'm not a fan of nuclear because of the waste issue.

I know we like to assume that the government can regulate it and handle it but Rome did not last 1,000 years and even then it's history was very turbulent.

To assume that whatever becomes of Canada 500 years from now is going to be the same as today ignores history - countries rise and fall, terrorist gain the upper hand, natural disasters occur where none would be expected.

[-1=e^ipi]

I'm not a fan of nuclear because of the waste issue.

The amount of waste produced is tiny and it's not really waste. Just nuclear fuel we can't use economically yet.

[waldo]

You are the one peddling self serving myths:

I don't recall saying anything about coal, "supposedly back-filling for the perceived dramatic nuclear shift - post Fukushima"... you are the one stating new plants were coming online to fill an anticipated gap that renewables couldn't (weren't expected to be able to) meet back in 2005. And that's the rub, hey! Renewables have quite clearly met the challenge in Germany...

.

Keep in mind that the German consumer is outraged over the absurdly expensive renewable electricity bills they pay. German politicians will have to do something about this and they are not going to be able to do it without making sure that efficient baseload plants are economic.

a couple of polls I've seen suggest Germans are heavily in favour of a coal phaseout... care to source your claimed "German consumer outrage", particularly attached to your specifically designated "absurdly expensive renewable electricity bills"...

.

[-1=e^ipi]

^ you are confusing capacity with energy production. Sure solar panels can have a lot of capacity. But if the sun isn't shining in the sky, they won't be producing any energy.

Edited August 14, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

Read more about German stupidity here: http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/germanys-solar-failure

[waldo]

^ you are confusing capacity with energy production. Sure solar panels can have a lot of capacity. But if the sun isn't shining in the sky, they won't be producing any energy.

no - I'm not confusing anything... the intent was to speak to what's on the German grid. I could have put up production numbers that show declines in conventional and correlated increases in alternatives (per below from the same sourced link above). Notwithstanding a most significant amount of the production associated with coal is not required for German domestic use... it's being exported!

[TimG]

^ you are confusing capacity with energy production. Sure solar panels can have a lot of capacity. But if the sun isn't shining in the sky, they won't be producing any energy.

Here is some data: https://www.energy-charts.de/energy.htm

>70% of Germany's production comes from conventional sources.

The fact that the installed capacity is so different just shows how inefficient solar/wind are.

If you look at exports you will see that almost all of the renewable energy was exported because it could not be used in Germany. If Germany could not dump its excess power on its neighbors its renewable capacity would be useless.

Edited August 14, 2015 by TimG

[waldo]

Here is some data:

here is some better data... notwithstanding hitting that 30% 31.4% mark for renewables (in effectively a decade or so) is quite remarkable... notwithstanding peak levels have reached as high as 78% at times... notwithstanding that 30% mark now exceeds the percentage level of production for any of the respective conventional sources... notwithstanding the 60% target for renewables by 2035:

Germany exported more power in the first half of 2015 than ever before, amounting to 25 terawatt hours (TWh) – the equivalent of around eight percent of all electricity generated from January to June. In the first half of 2014, Germany exported 19 TWh, up from 15 TWh the year before.

Demand for German power abroad was driven by continued falling prices on the power exchange, which are among the lowest in Europe. Prices fell due to the considerably larger supply of electricity from renewable energies. Its share in German power consumption grew as wind power production increased to a new record of 31.4 percent (from 81 to 92 TWh). In contrast, electricity generation from lignite and hard-coal power plants fell to 128 TWh compared to 135 TWh in the same period last year. Production from nuclear power plants (48 TWh) and gas power plants (27 TWh) remained steady near the previous year's level.

"Especially the older, coal-fired power plants came under increasing pressure due to the sharp rise in power from renewable sources, and frequently had to cut back production. They also sought refuge in increased exports,” says Dr. Patrick Graichen, Director of Agora Energiewende.

.

[Mighty AC]

In the long term, fusion reactors are the most plausible solution for our energy needs.

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.

So Bonman is rare earth barium copper oxide the answer to our fusion problems? An MIT Ph.D. candidate theorizes the stronger magnetic field generated using super cooled REBCO would allow the reactor to produce 6 times as much power as it takes to run it.

http://www.iflscience.com/physics/lets-all-get-cautiously-excited-about-fusion-power-breakthrough

[TimG]

So Bonman is rare earth barium copper oxide the answer to our fusion problems?

For me the key point is an advancement in material science leads to huge improvements in performance. If barium copper oxide is not the answer then something else will be.

Contrast that with solar: even if a new solar technology with 100% efficiency and zero cost emerged solar would still be uneconomic because of all of the infrastructure needed to connect a huge number of panels to the grid.

Edited August 14, 2015 by TimG

[WIP]

Electric cars are a stopgap technology at best, because if someone is really taking the long view of the future they have to consider the infrastructure costs in economic and resource terms. Another problem is very similar to the game builders of windmills and solar panels try to play: avoiding total carbon output of proposed new tech.

Specifically, if we're going to keep cars on the roads rather than scale back transportation and settle for mass transit, what are the carbon footprints of the sources of electricity and the production of those sources? Whether the electricity is coming from an outside outlet at home or a "charging lane," producing electricity cannot be done for zero carbon emissions, if we consider the entire carbon footprint of the sources. Even windmills and solar panels have to be made with mined resources and manufactured! But, specifically dealing with cars: what are carbon footprints of the production and maintenance of the batteries and electric motors and let's not forget all of the steel, plastics and rubber needed to be produced and assembled to make the car! Many of these new high tech miracle breakthroughs are being done with using rare earth elements, and as a rare metal like the highly conductive and heat resistant - Neodymium becomes in even greater demand in the era of "green technologies," the increasing scarcity plus the increasing carbon footprint of that already ecologically damaging ingredient needs to be factored in, since all of our excess carbon emissions add to the increasing Co2 levels in the atmosphere, regardless of their sources or the intentions of their proponents!

And let's not forget....if we're going to try to keep running the auto-centered societies we have today, then we need to add the carbon footprint of construction materials for roads...especially highways, and for the building and maintenance of those roads. Putting electric cars on those roads and highways won't change the carbon footprint demands of producing and laying thousands of miles of concrete and asphalt (like we're doing right now).

In the final analysis, my greatest frustration with how these "green" issues are debated and argued, is almost everyone....including the people wearing green....are trying to run the same kind of economies that have put us collectively at the edge of extinction, and rather than step back and look at the whole picture, the environmentalist collective that gets most of the money and most of the media attention since the Algore era just wants to make piecemeal changes to the way we do things now, rather than look at where we are likely to be 10, 20, 50, 100, let alone 1000 years from now and ask what has to be done...what sacrifices have to be made to stave off disaster. Because personally, I can't take anyone seriously who thinks we can still keep running the kinds of capitalist constant growth economies we have now and that it will be easy and make us richer! That is just a fantasy veering on fraudulent or a sign that almost everyone prefers to live in denial.....even those who believe they are dealing with climate change.

[-1=e^ipi]

So Bonman is rare earth barium copper oxide the answer to our fusion problems? An MIT Ph.D. candidate theorizes the stronger magnetic field generated using super cooled REBCO would allow the reactor to produce 6 times as much power as it takes to run it.

http://www.iflscience.com/physics/lets-all-get-cautiously-excited-about-fusion-power-breakthrough

But funding research like this doesn't help us feel all warm and fuzzy inside by funding inefficient renewable energy.

[-1=e^ipi]

here is some better data... notwithstanding hitting that 30% 31.4% mark for renewables (in effectively a decade or so) is quite remarkable

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean that you should. For example, I could stab myself with a fork.

[-1=e^ipi]

Electric cars are a stopgap technology at best

Unless you build a bunch of nuclear power plants.

[waldo]

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean that you should. For example, I could stab myself with a fork.

do something? You mean like pursuing initiatives to help reduce dependencies on conventional fossil-fuels... to help reduce CO2 emissions? Yes, clearly; you've most certainly made your 'anti' position on these quite evident... pretty much summed up by your serious pining for 1200ppm CO2, "the sooner the better" you said. And you questioned being labeled a 'concern troll'? Really?

.

[waldo]

Contrast that with solar: even if a new solar technology with 100% efficiency and zero cost emerged solar would still be uneconomic because of all of the infrastructure needed to connect a huge number of panels to the grid.

per Investment Bank, Lazar: Unsubsidized Levelized Cost of Energy Comparison

this would be your queue to step-up and speak to those "grid connection costs" you mention...

.

Edited August 15, 2015 by waldo

[msj]

I read articles about how bad China's air problem is like this one: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheAtlantic/~3/M4ntXGnijv8/story01.htm

Presumably strongly correlated and also caused by coal and other fossil fuels.

Then I wonder, does this count as a subsidy to the FF industry when they are not held responsible for the 4,000 premature deaths per day?

If so, what's the value that should be added to the cost of production?

[waldo]

If so, what's the value that should be added to the cost of production?

bigOil proponents don't like to discuss externalities, particularly social costs, particularly health impact costs!

a relatively recent study focused on the U.S.: Economic value of U.S. fossil fuel electricity health impacts

Fossil fuel energy has several externalities not accounted for in the retail price, including associated adverse human health impacts, future costs from climate change, and other environmental damages. Here, we quantify the economic value of health impacts associated with PM_2.5 and PM_2.5 precursors (NO_x and SO₂) on a per kilowatt hour basis. We provide figures based on state electricity profiles, national averages and fossil fuel type.

We find that the economic value of improved human health associated with avoiding emissions from fossil fuel electricity in the United States ranges from a low of $0.005–$0.013/kWh in California to a high of $0.41–$1.01/kWh in Maryland. When accounting for the adverse health impacts of imported electricity, the California figure increases to $0.03–$0.07/kWh.

Nationally, the average economic value of health impacts associated with fossil fuel usage is $0.14–$0.35/kWh. For coal, oil, and natural gas, respectively, associated economic values of health impacts are $0.19–$0.45/kWh, $0.08–$0.19/kWh, and $0.01–$0.02/kWh. For coal and oil, these costs are larger than the typical retail price of electricity, demonstrating the magnitude of the externality.

When the economic value of health impacts resulting from air emissions is considered, our analysis suggests that on average, U.S. consumers of electricity should be willing to pay $0.24–$0.45/kWh for alternatives such as energy efficiency investments or emission-free renewable sources that avoid fossil fuel combustion.

The economic value of health impacts is approximately an order of magnitude larger than estimates of the social cost of carbon for fossil fuel electricity. In total, we estimate that the economic value of health impacts from fossil fuel electricity in the United States is $361.7–886.5 billion annually, representing 2.5–6.0% of the national GDP.

.

[TimG]

Then I wonder, does this count as a subsidy to the FF industry when they are not held responsible for the 4,000 premature deaths per day?

Well numbers like this are usually completely bogus but if you want to start looking at them you have to ask how many lives are saved with access to low cost energy and how many people will die if energy becomes too expensive.

Also, the biggest pollution problem in cities the late 1800s was 100% organic horse crap. How many people do you think died from that waste? Can you honestly say things are worse now?

If so, what's the value that should be added to the cost of production?

Modern coal plants have almost no particulate emissions and neither do nuclear plants. Producing the massive number of solar panels required to supply even a fraction of the energy required results in massive piles of toxic waste. Do you consider this? How about the birds and bats killed by wind turbines? The absolute numbers are only small today because wind deployment is small. If wind produced a significant portion of our power the bird population would be in serious trouble.

All sources of energy have their downsides and require a proper cost-benefit analysis. At this point wind and solar fail any cost benefit analysis because they cannot provide the power our society needs because of their variability. We need base load and dispatchable sources capable of providing power when we need it. We can supplement this power with a fraction from wind/solar but they can never provide more than 10-15% of the grid power requirements (note that the numbers posted for Germany above ignore the fact that almost all of the renewable power produced by Germany is exported so the grid that has to be used to calculate the 10-15% is larger than Germany itself).

You can see the export numbers and renewable production for Germany here: https://www.energy-charts.de/energy.htm. In July 11.7 TWHh of solar/wind and 5TWh were exported. The renewable power consumed in Germany is 15% of the total. In Feb the percentage consumed within Germany is down to 2.5%.

Edited August 15, 2015 by TimG

[waldo]

(note that the numbers posted for Germany above ignore the fact that almost all of the renewable power produced by Germany is exported so the grid that has to be used to calculate the 10-15% is larger than Germany itself).

citation request

[waldo]

How about the birds and bats killed by wind turbines?

in a discussion about the most significant costs of fossil-fuel externalities... you're going to counter with... birds & bats?

.

[-1=e^ipi]

bigOil proponents don't like to discuss externalities, particularly social costs, particularly health impact costs!

a relatively recent study focused on the U.S.: Economic value of U.S. fossil fuel electricity health impacts

Waldo, let's just say I take that study at face value and ignore the possibility that there may be large confirmation bias in the study.

Nuclear does not have these emissions so is still a far better option than wind or solar in most cases.

Edited August 15, 2015 by -1=e^ipi