War in Ukraine Likely to Speed Shift to Clean Energy

[Rebound]

“The energy crisis sparked by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is likely to speed up rather than slow down the global transition away from fossil fuels and toward cleaner technologies like wind, solar and electric vehicles, the world’s leading energy agency said Thursday.

While some countries have been burning more fossil fuels such as coal this year in response to natural gas shortages caused by the war in Ukraine, that effect is expected to be short-lived, the International Energy Agency said in its annual World Energy Outlook, a 524-page report that forecasts global energy trends to 2050.

Instead, for the first time, the agency now predicts that worldwide demand for every type of fossil fuel will peak in the near future.

One major reason is that many countries have responded to soaring prices for fossil fuels this year by embracing wind turbines, solar panels, nuclear power plants, hydrogen fuels, electric vehicles and electric heat pumps. In the United States, Congress approved more than $370 billion in spending for such technologies under the recent Inflation Reduction Act. Japan is pursuing a new “green transformation” program that will help fund nuclear power, hydrogen and other low-emissions technologies. China, India and South Korea have all ratcheted up national targets for renewable and nuclear power.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/27/climate/global-clean-energy-iea.html

Edited October 27, 2022 by Rebound

[suds]

It at least appears the democrats are finally coming around on nuclear. But i'll believe it when i see it.  If you want to get rid of fossil fuels and save the planet from global warming then you need nuclear, and lots of it. With the technologies available today, there is presently no other alternative.

[Rebound]

2 hours ago, suds said:

It at least appears the democrats are finally coming around on nuclear. But i'll believe it when i see it.  If you want to get rid of fossil fuels and save the planet from global warming then you need nuclear, and lots of it. With the technologies available today, there is presently no other alternative.

I know this is really complicated for you, but Democrats only exist in America. And the Democratic Party isn’t funding any new nuclear reactors and neither is the Republican Party.  
 

And what’s more… you just spout this comment “there is presently no alternative” to nuclear with nothing to back up your assertion.  And you’re dead wrong. For one thing, nuclear is proven to be a money loser. Toshiba/Westinghouse lost billions building nuclear reactors. Nearly bankrupted them. 
 

OTOH, California has extended the operating lifetime of their one operational nuclear plant.  But long term, it’s going to be wind and solar. Wind alone supplies 50% of Iowa’s electricity, over 20% of Texas’, and nearly 10% of the entire nation’s total.  Wind turbines work! And they can be built FAR FAR faster than nuclear plants, at far lower cost per kWh, and obviously far lower environmental impact. Farmers can put a dozen or more windmills on their land with almost no impact.  That’s clearly not so with nuclear.  

Edited October 27, 2022 by Rebound

[scribblet]

Germany is reopening up coal fir3d plants.

[Rebound]

23 minutes ago, scribblet said:

Germany is reopening up coal fir3d plants.

Only temporarily. 

[scribblet]

Just now, Rebound said:

Only temporarily. 

Maybe, so was income tax

[suds]

23 hours ago, Rebound said:

I know this is really complicated for you, but Democrats only exist in America. And the Democratic Party isn’t funding any new nuclear reactors and neither is the Republican Party.  
 

And what’s more… you just spout this comment “there is presently no alternative” to nuclear with nothing to back up your assertion.  And you’re dead wrong. For one thing, nuclear is proven to be a money loser. Toshiba/Westinghouse lost billions building nuclear reactors. Nearly bankrupted them. 
 

OTOH, California has extended the operating lifetime of their one operational nuclear plant.  But long term, it’s going to be wind and solar. Wind alone supplies 50% of Iowa’s electricity, over 20% of Texas’, and nearly 10% of the entire nation’s total.  Wind turbines work! And they can be built FAR FAR faster than nuclear plants, at far lower cost per kWh, and obviously far lower environmental impact. Farmers can put a dozen or more windmills on their land with almost no impact.  That’s clearly not so with nuclear.  

The IPCC 1.5C Report: nuclear energy’s role for effective action to mitigate climate change

For immediate release 8 October, 2018

The IPCC has released a special report on the impacts of climate change and what would need to be done to limit temperature rises to 1.5C.

Responding to the report, Agneta Rising, Director General, World Nuclear Association said;

"Today’s IPCC report makes clear the potential benefits of limiting climate change to 1.5C, the urgency for action to achieve this and the necessity of nuclear energy as an important part of an effective global  response."

The IPCC report concludes that achieving the 1.5C goal will require global greenhouse gas emissions to start reducing almost immediately. This will require a faster switch to electricity for energy end use and for that greater electricity demand  to be met by low-carbon generation, including nuclear. Nuclear generation increases, on average by around 2.5 times by 2050 in the 89 mitigation scenarios considered by the IPCC.

Achieving a rapid decarbonization of the electricity sector will require, at first, deploying proven technology. The report recognizes that the projected increase in nuclear generation can be realized through existing mature nuclear technology or through new options such as generation III/IV reactors and SMRs.  Generation III reactors have already come into operation in several countries.

The report notes that, historically, ‘scalability and speed of scaling of nuclear plants have been high in many nations’, noting that France implemented a programme to rapidly get 80% of its (electrical) power from nuclear. The report also notes that ‘comparative risk assessment shows health risks are low per unit of electricity production’ and land requirement is ‘lower than that of other power sources.’

The report states that nuclear economics have been improved in countries where the electricity system allows for reduced investment risks, the realisation of benefits from series build or through stable relations between regulators and industry. However, in some other countries market conditions have increased investment risks of high-capital expenditure technologies, such as nuclear. The report also notes that the current deployment pace of nuclear energy is constrained by ‘social acceptability’ in some countries.

Agneta Rising commented;

"The IPCC report highlights the proven qualities of nuclear energy as a highly effective method of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as well as providing secure, reliable and scalable electricity supplies.  To maximise nuclear energy’s contribution electricity markets need to acknowledge these benefits. We also need more effective harmonized regulatory processes to facilitate significant growth in nuclear capacity and an effective safety paradigm where the health, environmental and safety benefits of nuclear are better understood and valued by society."

[herbie]

And what the hell's that got to do with Ukraine? THey sure as hell won't be building any nuclear power stations in a war zone.

They're gonna need small decentralized power generation exactly like wind & solar. Shit you'd be an idiot to waste missiles and drones on. Cheap, quick to build, many of them.

[Rebound]

2 hours ago, suds said:

The IPCC 1.5C Report: nuclear energy’s role for effective action to mitigate climate change

For immediate release 8 October, 2018

The IPCC has released a special report on the impacts of climate change and what would need to be done to limit temperature rises to 1.5C.

Responding to the report, Agneta Rising, Director General, World Nuclear Association said;

"Today’s IPCC report makes clear the potential benefits of limiting climate change to 1.5C, the urgency for action to achieve this and the necessity of nuclear energy as an important part of an effective global  response."

The IPCC report concludes that achieving the 1.5C goal will require global greenhouse gas emissions to start reducing almost immediately. This will require a faster switch to electricity for energy end use and for that greater electricity demand  to be met by low-carbon generation, including nuclear. Nuclear generation increases, on average by around 2.5 times by 2050 in the 89 mitigation scenarios considered by the IPCC.

Achieving a rapid decarbonization of the electricity sector will require, at first, deploying proven technology. The report recognizes that the projected increase in nuclear generation can be realized through existing mature nuclear technology or through new options such as generation III/IV reactors and SMRs.  Generation III reactors have already come into operation in several countries.

The report notes that, historically, ‘scalability and speed of scaling of nuclear plants have been high in many nations’, noting that France implemented a programme to rapidly get 80% of its (electrical) power from nuclear. The report also notes that ‘comparative risk assessment shows health risks are low per unit of electricity production’ and land requirement is ‘lower than that of other power sources.’

The report states that nuclear economics have been improved in countries where the electricity system allows for reduced investment risks, the realisation of benefits from series build or through stable relations between regulators and industry. However, in some other countries market conditions have increased investment risks of high-capital expenditure technologies, such as nuclear. The report also notes that the current deployment pace of nuclear energy is constrained by ‘social acceptability’ in some countries.

Agneta Rising commented;

"The IPCC report highlights the proven qualities of nuclear energy as a highly effective method of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as well as providing secure, reliable and scalable electricity supplies.  To maximise nuclear energy’s contribution electricity markets need to acknowledge these benefits. We also need more effective harmonized regulatory processes to facilitate significant growth in nuclear capacity and an effective safety paradigm where the health, environmental and safety benefits of nuclear are better understood and valued by society."

One of the EIGHTY-NINE scenarios is nuclear… and you find an article which only discusses that one option, as if it is the only option.  Hmmm. 
 

That’s a pretty biased approach. And nuclear isn’t going to take off in the US. Maybe Japan and France, but it is a risky option and not acceptable in the US, not by Democrats or Republicans. Nevada is pretty conservative, and they shut down the Yucca Mountain disposal site. So I just don’t see it as feasible in this country. 

[suds]

9 hours ago, herbie said:

And what the hell's that got to do with Ukraine? THey sure as hell won't be building any nuclear power stations in a war zone.

They're gonna need small decentralized power generation exactly like wind & solar. Shit you'd be an idiot to waste missiles and drones on. Cheap, quick to build, many of them.

It has really nothing to do with Ukraine, it's about the shift to 'clean energy'.  Go back to sleep.

[suds]

7 hours ago, Rebound said:

One of the EIGHTY-NINE scenarios is nuclear… and you find an article which only discusses that one option, as if it is the only option.  Hmmm. 
 

That’s a pretty biased approach. And nuclear isn’t going to take off in the US. Maybe Japan and France, but it is a risky option and not acceptable in the US, not by Democrats or Republicans. Nevada is pretty conservative, and they shut down the Yucca Mountain disposal site. So I just don’t see it as feasible in this country. 

If the goal is to make the electrical grid a stand alone system of say wind and solar power.... well good luck with that.  Wind and solar are too UNRELIABLE. A back up power source such as large scale battery storage is currently not available at the grid scale (so claims the US Department of Energy).  And if it was available it would be so expensive not to be worth a second thought. So here's where nuclear comes riding to the rescue. Today's nuclear reactors are specifically designed to be capable of 'flex operation' meaning their output can be ramped up or down from seconds to hours to seasons (DOE). This makes nuclear a perfect fit to work with renewable power as a RELIABLE BASELINE POWER SOURCE (DOE). So there you have it, knock yourselves out with all the wind and solar power you want but it has to be backed up (or integrated) with something more reliable to meet demand. Nuclear plants have the capability of producing maximum power 92% of the time (if called upon) which is twice more than natural gas or coal plants and 3 times more than wind and solar. Plus it's a lot cleaner than the fossil fuels. And of course the more wind and solar you have, the less you have to depend on nuclear. So as i said.... knock yourselves out.

[Rebound]

6 hours ago, suds said:

If the goal is to make the electrical grid a stand alone system of say wind and solar power.... well good luck with that.  Wind and solar are too UNRELIABLE. A back up power source such as large scale battery storage is currently not available at the grid scale (so claims the US Department of Energy).  And if it was available it would be so expensive not to be worth a second thought. So here's where nuclear comes riding to the rescue. Today's nuclear reactors are specifically designed to be capable of 'flex operation' meaning their output can be ramped up or down from seconds to hours to seasons (DOE). This makes nuclear a perfect fit to work with renewable power as a RELIABLE BASELINE POWER SOURCE (DOE). So there you have it, knock yourselves out with all the wind and solar power you want but it has to be backed up (or integrated) with something more reliable to meet demand. Nuclear plants have the capability of producing maximum power 92% of the time (if called upon) which is twice more than natural gas or coal plants and 3 times more than wind and solar. Plus it's a lot cleaner than the fossil fuels. And of course the more wind and solar you have, the less you have to depend on nuclear. So as i said.... knock yourselves out.

I don’t think it is necessary to make any grid entirely based upon wind and solar power. America has hundreds of billions of dollars of electric generation capacity and it’s not going to be shut down in the next decade or three. 
 

What is necessary is to A, increase electricity generation by about 1.5 percent per year, which has been our grid’s growth rate since the 60’s.  And, B, it’s necessary to reduce the carbon emissions of our electrical generation, which involves replacing coal fired plants with cleaner plants.  And, C, speed the transition to EV’s, because the carbon footprint of an EV is lower than a gas powered car even when the electricity is generated from coal.  There’s nothing irrational or unreasonable about these transitions. We can accomplish them and improve our quality of life in the process.  
 
While most of your points about nuclear are correct, I simply do not believe that American industry nor the public is going to accept nuclear power plants. The plain simple truth is that throughout the Three Mile Island accident and cleanup, the plant operators continually lied to the government and to the public.  Not a few times, but continually. Worse still, the accidents in Fukushima and Chernobyl have left the public terrified. Yes, we all believed that communism was an inept and corrupt system, but Japan? I mean, if anyone can be trusted to engineer and operate a nuclear plant with excellence and efficiency, it is the Japanese. Yet, they failed catastrophically.  
 

You cannot logic your way out of human emotion. I’m not the person you need to convince. States and cities will not be able to get their citizens to agree to new nuclear plants.  

Edited October 29, 2022 by Rebound

[robosmith]

8 hours ago, suds said:

If the goal is to make the electrical grid a stand alone system of say wind and solar power.... well good luck with that.  Wind and solar are too UNRELIABLE. A back up power source such as large scale battery storage is currently not available at the grid scale (so claims the US Department of Energy).  And if it was available it would be so expensive not to be worth a second thought. So here's where nuclear comes riding to the rescue. Today's nuclear reactors are specifically designed to be capable of 'flex operation' meaning their output can be ramped up or down from seconds to hours to seasons (DOE). This makes nuclear a perfect fit to work with renewable power as a RELIABLE BASELINE POWER SOURCE (DOE). So there you have it, knock yourselves out with all the wind and solar power you want but it has to be backed up (or integrated) with something more reliable to meet demand. Nuclear plants have the capability of producing maximum power 92% of the time (if called upon) which is twice more than natural gas or coal plants and 3 times more than wind and solar. Plus it's a lot cleaner than the fossil fuels. And of course the more wind and solar you have, the less you have to depend on nuclear. So as i said.... knock yourselves out.

The wind is ALWAYS blowing somewhere. The sun is ALWAYS shining somewhere. A GRID can backup individual generators. But DISTRIBUTED generation AT THE DESTINATION is clearly SUPERIOR to centralized generation. We DON'T need centralized backup; USER backup is AVAILABLE NOW, and it's getting cheaper all the time. New battery tech, will accelerate that.

[suds]

At present, fossil fuels account for 60% of electricity generation in US with natural gas accounting for more than 40% of that total.  Renewables (wind, solar, hydro-electric) account for over 20% with hydro-electric accounting for 60% of that total. Nuclear accounts for 20%. With this in mind, how feasible is Biden's plan of 80% clean energy by 2030?  How feasible is it even accounting nuclear as 'clean energy'? Another question is how reliable would this 80% clean energy plan be?

Capacity Factor  -  A Ratio (of sorts) of actual energy output over a given period of time to the theoretical maximum electrical energy output over the same period. The capacity factor of nuclear is 92.5% while hydro-electric, wind, and solar, is 41.5%, 35.4%, and 24.9%, respectively. As one can see, hydro-electric is only marginally more reliable than wind mostly due to the possibilities of drought and maintenance shut-downs.

To sum up, if one wants to get rid of fossil fuels and have a reliable system of electrical power production.....   nuclear has to play a large role as a reliable baseline power source to back up the 'un-reliables' namely wind, solar, and hydro-electric. The IPCC gets it, because there's really nothing else.

[robosmith]

13 minutes ago, suds said:

At present, fossil fuels account for 60% of electricity generation in US with natural gas accounting for more than 40% of that total.  Renewables (wind, solar, hydro-electric) account for over 20% with hydro-electric accounting for 60% of that total. Nuclear accounts for 20%. With this in mind, how feasible is Biden's plan of 80% clean energy by 2030?  How feasible is it even accounting nuclear as 'clean energy'? Another question is how reliable would this 80% clean energy plan be?

Capacity Factor  -  A Ratio (of sorts) of actual energy output over a given period of time to the theoretical maximum electrical energy output over the same period. The capacity factor of nuclear is 92.5% while hydro-electric, wind, and solar, is 41.5%, 35.4%, and 24.9%, respectively. As one can see, hydro-electric is only marginally more reliable than wind mostly due to the possibilities of drought and maintenance shut-downs.

To sum up, if one wants to get rid of fossil fuels and have a reliable system of electrical power production.....   nuclear has to play a large role as a reliable baseline power source to back up the 'un-reliables' namely wind, solar, and hydro-electric. The IPCC gets it, because there's really nothing else.

Grimsby wind farm is claiming 98% availability due to being a very windy location. 

 

[suds]

27 minutes ago, robosmith said:

The wind is ALWAYS blowing somewhere. The sun is ALWAYS shining somewhere. A GRID can backup individual generators. But DISTRIBUTED generation AT THE DESTINATION is clearly SUPERIOR to centralized generation. We DON'T need centralized backup; USER backup is AVAILABLE NOW, and it's getting cheaper all the time. New battery tech, will accelerate that.

The real growth in solar/wind power systems has been in 'grid connect' systems.  Why? Because 'stand alone' systems are more expensive because batteries are expensive. And batteries can run out of power. If i was invested in a 'stand alone' system, I would invest further in a reliable gas generator as backup (which is exactly what they don't want you to do).  I would be interested in taking a small area (of say 10,000 people) and implementing a 'stand alone' system completely based on wind, solar, and batteries. Then let's give it the test of time to see how that makes out in terms of cost, sustainability, and reliability.

[robosmith]

2 minutes ago, suds said:

The real growth in solar/wind power systems has been in 'grid connect' systems.  Why? Because 'stand alone' systems are more expensive because batteries are expensive. And batteries can run out of power. If i was invested in a 'stand alone' system, I would invest further in a reliable gas generator as backup (which is exactly what they don't want you to do).  I would be interested in taking a small area (of say 10,000 people) and implementing a 'stand alone' system completely based on wind, solar, and batteries. Then let's give it the test of time to see how that makes out in terms of cost, sustainability, and reliability.

Batteries are going to get a lot cheaper, soon. Wind and solar are already cheaper than centralized fossil fuel plants.

In my town, distribution charges are 3-4 times generation charges.

[suds]

5 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Batteries are going to get a lot cheaper, soon. Wind and solar are already cheaper than centralized fossil fuel plants.

In my town, distribution charges are 3-4 times generation charges.

What do you mean they're 'cheaper'.  Does this include subsidies at federal and state levels?

[robosmith]

21 minutes ago, suds said:

What do you mean they're 'cheaper'.  Does this include subsidies at federal and state levels?

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-30/renewable-power-costs-rise-just-not-as-much-as-fossil-fuels#:~:text=New onshore wind now costs,plants are %2481 per MWh.

Quote

New onshore wind now costs about $46 per megawatt-hour, while large-scale solar plants cost $45 per megawatt-hour. In comparison, new coal-fired plants cost $74 per MWh, while gas plants are $81 per MWh.

 

[herbie]

Unfortunately the overall structure of the USA rules against spending a penny of public money, inconveniencing so much as one corporate entity, risking the return of a single shareholder's  dividend  or even the co-operation of 50 sub-entities. Add in 50 years of anti-nuclear propaganda and the growth of anti-science beliefs, the very thought of green alternatives is doomed there.

As impossible as public health care...