Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

[Voltron]

You gotta wonder why an Australian, who lives in one of the countries best suited for solar generation, with vast open spaces, abundant sunshine, and relatively localized cities, so much so that they hold the world championship solar car races there, would resist solar adoption so much, and push coal and nuclear still despite the known problems.

Coal | Australia’s Energy Commodity Resources 2021

AECR assesses Australia’s energy commodity reserves and resources, and highlights our nation’s ample and available geological energy resource base.

www.ga.gov.au

"Australia is currently the fifth largest producer and the second largest exporter of coal and has the third largest reserves of coal in the world."

Australia's Uranium - World Nuclear Association

Australia's uranium has been mined since 1954, and three mines are currently operating. Australia's known uranium resources are the world's largest – 29% of the world total. It is the world's third-ranking producer, behind Kazakhstan and Canada.

world-nuclear.org

I guess it's harder to export sunshine for money.

 

[JackFlorey]

And dont forget, that the majority of Ca’s electricity is still from Gas generation

Nope. 35%.

and 25+% imported from other states

In 2017 it was 26%. Last year it was 20%. So we are headed in the right direction there.

closing of those Nuk’s and coal plants

I understood why they closed San Onofre (it was leaking) but I would have preferred they spent the money and fixed it rather than closing it. For all the downsides of nuclear, once the plant is up and running there's very little downside in keeping it running,

 

[Chalo]

For all the downsides of nuclear, once the plant is up and running there's very little downside in keeping it running,

So we can stash the high level waste at your place? Cool.

 

[Hillhater]

You gotta wonder why an Australian, who lives in one of the countries best suited for solar generation, with vast open spaces, abundant sunshine, and relatively localized cities, so much so that they hold the world championship solar car races there, would resist solar adoption so much, and push coal and nuclear still despite the known problems.

I “gotta wonder” why why anyone does not see the limitations of solar (and wind) as a utility supply generation source !
Its intermittent, unpredictable, expensive ( as an integrated utility with BESS etc) and relies on foreign suppliers (China)
Australia has invested heavily in solar and wind, eliminated much of the coal generation, yet all it has resulted in is increased energy costs, and a critical shortage of electricity supply.
And beyond that, the intended result (CO2 reduction ?) is both not happening nor is it a good idea !

 

[JackFlorey]

So we can stash the high level waste at your place? Cool.

Nope. We leave it right where it is right now.

 

[Chalo]

Nope. We leave it right where it is right now.

In temporary cooling tanks inside the reactor buildings? That worked pretty swell in Fukushima!

 

[JackFlorey]

In temporary cooling tanks inside the reactor buildings?

At first, yes. You have to. Then dry cask storage.

 

[Voltron]

And inside the reactor building didn't mean inside the containment vessel, but next to it in an unreinforced part of the building, so a fire would have directly vented the atmosphere.
Their study afterward concluded if water hadn't luckily leaked from the ruptured containment vessel on the #4 reactor into the cooling pool, the rods would have been uncovered long before the repair crews were able to restore pumping.

"leakage through the gate seals was essential for keeping the fuel in the Unit 4 pool covered with water. Had there been no water in the reactor well, there could well have been severe damage to the stored fuel and substantial releases of radioactive material to the environment."

Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident: Lessons Learned for Spent Fuel Storage - Lessons Learned from the Fukushima Nuclear Accident for Improving Safety and Security of U.S. Nuclear Plants - NCBI Bookshelf

 

[TheBeastie]

Solar isn't always as great as you think.
My brother is a Greens voter and he refuses to get solar panels put on the house he bought about 10 years ago, the reason is the gamble of the solar install lasting. He had a few friends tell him their solar installs broke down after a few years.

And then there was that nasty ABC report on how they are seeing a lot of panels in Australia die after about 5-6 years. It seems to be the only solar panels that might last 30 years are ones from NASA or maybe the Tesla solar tiles, everything else is a gamble. And it doesn't seem dodgey solar installers are ever held accountable, they just disappear after a few years.

Australia is facing a 450,000-tonne mountain of used solar panels. Here’s how to turn it into a valuable asset

As the energy revolution gains pace, huge numbers of PV panels are already going to landfill. Many are still usable and even those that aren’t contain valuable materials that shouldn’t be discarded.

theconversation.com

^Here is a new article on the issue.
I am pretty dubious they are suddenly going to find a magical efficient way to recycle solar panels.

In Australia they are just been dumped in landfill.
Here are older videos from the ABC on the subject. ABC is normally INCREDIBLY pro renewables, but they made these reports anyway, I guess in the hope that solar's problems can be refified.

Rex spent $8,000 on solar panels he expected to last 25 years — they conked out in four and a half

Rooftop solar industry veterans say Australia has become a dumping ground for poor-quality solar products and some are questioning the regulatory oversight of household rooftop solar installers and products.

www.abc.net.au

 

[TheBeastie]

I googled up Art Berman to find out about his thoughts because one of his sayings is "energy = economy" which is something I agree with.
Found this video with Art Berman and Nate Hagens which has been a person whos views on energy have been posted by a few different people here on ES over the years.

This video has some interesting revelations I didn't know, such as that the reason why the USA exports "light/sweat crude" and still imports heavy crude is due to the fact there is only so much that can be done with light crude oil, the USA needs more heavy crude to make diesel etc.
Makes sense as why would you export oil and buy oil at the same time unless one of the oils wasn't as usable for all your needs.
They also discuss the issue behind government USA-issued stats/charts on oil and how they are really "oil equivalent" so they include natural gas etc. Art Berman says a lot of what is classed as "crude oil" actually has about 30% less total energy potential than what is considered traditional crude. Because when you drill deeper for new oil you only get lighter oils/gas because it is deeper in the earth's crust where everything is hotter including the oil, thus it has been somewhat "naturally refined" already by the earth already.

 

[CONSIDERABLE SHOUTING]

In temporary cooling tanks inside the reactor buildings? That worked pretty swell in Fukushima!

Funny enough, I was just in a discussion about nuclear power that naturally involved Fukushima- the WHO sees no increase in health concerns from the damage to the plant and Japan is planning new reactors for the future. Quote:
"Outside of the geographical areas most affected by radiation, even in locations within Fukushima prefecture, the predicted risks remain low and no observable increases in cancer above natural variation in baseline rates are anticipated."

Here's the paper from 2012. As far as I understand it, it's findings have not changed.

 

[TheBeastie]

CNBC do a video on the Sodium-ion battery, it's pretty well made. They include a chart of the current costs of the sodium-ion battery and this is where I was a bit surprised, currently the sodium-ion battery is priced exactly where its performance-to-price ratio of a lithium-ion would be. I guess that makes sense since there is only one company making them right now so they can charge whatever they want. I am just wondering when or if that will change since the original claim is that sodium-ion cells should be far cheaper to make bcos their materials are cheaper than lithium-ion..

*ADD*
Also here is a new "salt iron flow" battery for grid storage. The major upside of these salt flow batteries is they don't use any expensive rare materials like vanadium, Salgnenx claims their materials cost is about $5 per kW/h and also claims their storage size is only about 2-3 times bigger than lithium-ion, so if your grid storage that isn't a big deal. All up if this tech is real then grid utility companies would have to be insane as in "think you are an onion" to use lithium-ion instead of these flow battery technologies.

One of the two companies featured here claims to have a contract in California to build one next year, so it is only a matter of time before it is proven to be real or baloney.

 

[Hillhater]

Ref the foundation of all AGW actions and consequent activity,….…
.….. yet another paper contradicts the fundamental assumption that the cause of CO2 increase is Human activity.
Carbon isotope data analysis shows only 12% of the 400ppm CO2 is due to human activity. !

World Atmospheric CO2, Its 14C Specific Activity,... : Health Physics

1800 has been due to the anthropogenic fossil component have continued since they began in 1960 with “Keeling Curve: Increase in CO2 from burning fossil fuel.” Data and plots of annual anthropogenic fossil CO2 emissions and concentrations, C(t), published by the Energy Information...

journals.lww.com

Abstract​

After 1750 and the onset of the industrial revolution, the anthropogenic fossil component and the non-fossil component in the total atmospheric CO2 concentration, C(t), began to increase. Despite the lack of knowledge of these two components, claims that all or most of the increase in C(t) since 1800 has been due to the anthropogenic fossil component have continued since they began in 1960 with “Keeling Curve: Increase in CO2 from burning fossil fuel.” Data and plots of annual anthropogenic fossil CO2emissions and concentrations, C(t), published by the Energy Information Administration, are expanded in this paper. Additions include annual mean values in 1750 through 2018 of the 14C specific activity, concentrations of the two components, and their changes from values in 1750. The specific activity of 14C in the atmosphere gets reduced by a dilution effect when fossil CO2, which is devoid of 14C, enters the atmosphere. We have used the results of this effect to quantify the two components. All results covering the period from 1750 through 2018 are listed in a table and plotted in figures. These results negate claims that the increase in C(t) since 1800 has been dominated by the increase of the anthropogenic fossil component. We determined that in 2018, atmospheric anthropogenic fossil CO2 represented 23% of the total emissions since 1750 with the remaining 77% in the exchange reservoirs. Our results show that the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming

And for those who believe in the “Green House effect”,…

 

[Voltron]

Did you read down to the end of the paper and see all the responses from other scientists showing how error filled their conclusions were in the paper, and recommending it's retraction? Here's just one of them.

 

[TheBeastie]

New hydrogen production breakthrough that requires only 1/10th of the Iridium catalyst than it did before.

 

[Ianhill]

Lots of incremental achievements been made but the levers of control seem to prefer been pulled from muscle memory little is actully changing.

 

[leisesturm]

Ref the foundation of all AGW actions and consequent activity,….…
.….. yet another paper contradicts the fundamental assumption that the cause of CO2 increase is Human activity.
Carbon isotope data analysis shows only 12% of the 400ppm CO2 is due to human activity. !

I honestly didn't think anyone was still holding onto this line of argument since I was last here. Earthquakes, Floods, Tornadoes and other extreme weather events are not due to human activity either. And? There are building codes, dikes and levies and other strategies devised by humans to limit the extent of Natural Disasters. Why? Because loss of life on any scale is upsetting to our species.

A rather small percent of humanity benefits financially from the proliferation of Fossil Fuel Technology. Their profits go into a Black Hole of tax shelters and is never seen again. Does that make sense? Can this be justified any longer when continued denial of the obvious is going to cost us all our lives?

Unless you are literally 90 while reading this, your life is going to be cut short by the refusal to do anything about Climate Change. It doesn't matter whose fault it is. It doesn't matter if it is"natural". It matters that by reducing Fossil Fuel usage the warming of the atmosphere will slow. Actually, no, it doesn't matter anymore. We are past the time when we could do anything to extend the arc of humanity. It's just the adding of (intelligence) insult to injury that persists. It's kind of criminal.

Migrating transportation (all) to electric NOW won't slow or stop Climate Change. We're literally cooked. Unknown is how long we have left. First World civilizations will start to experience Civil and Economic breakdown in the next decade. That may or may not precipitate a world ending global war. But whatever or whatever not, human happiness has about a decade left. It's pure grind after that.

It would at least be a 'cleaner' world without the gas powered cars and lawn mowers. Lots of illnesses would stop filling the hospitals.

 

[leisesturm]

At first, yes. You have to. Then dry cask storage.

Dry cask storage where? Unless it's on the Moon, that's not good enough. Do you know why there aren't more Nuclear Disasters? Because there are hardly any Nuclear Reactors. Human greed and cost cutting know no limit. Guaranteed we would (badly) muck up a world with freely proliferating Nuclear Technology. Until we have off planet storage for Nuclear Waste, lets not get any further out over our skis.

 

[Chalo]

Human greed and cost cutting know no limit. Guaranteed we would (badly) muck up a world with freely proliferating Nuclear Technology.

Whatever do you mean?

Ocean disposal of radioactive waste - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Surely the responsible authorities wouldn't be so callously indifferent as to despoil conditions for hundreds of generations of people and other living things!

 

[Hillhater]

A rather small percent of humanity benefits financially from the proliferation of Fossil Fuel Technology.

..i can say with certainty that you have never lived a single day without the benefits of fossil fuels !
Weather it is the water you drink, food you eat, the clothes you wear, the roof over your head, warmth, cooling, etc, etc, ….all are by the use of fossil fuels.
There always have been , and always will be one group of people exploiting other groups for financial or other benefits.

We're literally cooked. Unknown is how long we have left. First World civilizations will start to experience Civil and Economic breakdown in the next decade. That may or may not precipitate a world ending global war. But whatever or whatever not, human happiness has about a decade left.

..Right back at you….I honestly didn't think anyone was still holding onto this line of argument !
..yet another decade before it happens ?… you do realise that has been predicted for the past 30 years at least…yet NOTHING HAS CHANGED !
But, what will break down world economics, and impact negatively on ALL civilisations, and likely lead to world wars… is the restriction of fossil fuel use before a practical alternative source of cheap energy is available……and we do not have that yet.
For you clowns still believing control of CO2 is the “magic bullet”, Nuclear is the most realistic , option

It would at least be a 'cleaner' world without the gas powered cars and lawn mowers. …

Yes i can agree with that, ……but it is not yet a realistic expectation within a generational time frame.
Ignoring heavy trucks and Ag vehicles, and machinery,.. even just converting 50% of the US car fleet over to EV is not going to happen in the next 20 years…..there simply are not the resources to achieve it……especially if fossil fuels are restricted !

 

[Hillhater]

. Do you know why there aren't more Nuclear Disasters? Because there are hardly any Nuclear Reactors….

Err ?….hardly any ?……fact check.
at last count there are 436 operational nuclear reactors in the world (95 in the US alone), with many more under construction and coming on line every year !

Nuclear power plants in the world 2023 | Statista

How many nuclear power plants are there in the world? Although 32 countries owned a nuclear reactor, the U.S. had roughly 20 percent of them.

www.statista.com

so now explain why there are not more Nuclear disasters ?

 

[leisesturm]

Err ?….hardly any ?……fact check.
at last count there are 436 operational nuclear reactors in the world (95 in the US alone), with many more under construction and coming on line every year !

Nuclear power plants in the world 2023 | Statista

How many nuclear power plants are there in the world? Although 32 countries owned a nuclear reactor, the U.S. had roughly 20 percent of them.

www.statista.com

so now explain why there are not more Nuclear disasters ?

Gotcha. 95 in the U.S. alone. OMG that's a LOT. How many Fossil Fuel powerplants do you think are operating in the U.S. alone? How many thousand, coal, natural gas, diesel, whatever powerplants do you think are operating in the U.S. alone? Do you think if the AEC had to keep tabs on even 200 nuclear powerplants that they could pull it off? I don't.

 

[leisesturm]

..i can say with certainty that you have never lived a single day without the benefits of fossil fuels !
Weather it is the water you drink, food you eat, the clothes you wear, the roof over your head, warmth, cooling, etc, etc, ….all are by the use of fossil fuels.
There always have been , and always will be one group of people exploiting other groups for financial or other benefits.

..Right back at you….I honestly didn't think anyone was still holding onto this line of argument !
..yet another decade before it happens ?… you do realise that has been predicted for the past 30 years at least…yet NOTHING HAS CHANGED !
But, what will break down world economics, and impact negatively on ALL civilisations, and likely lead to world wars… is the restriction of fossil fuel use before a practical alternative source of cheap energy is available……and we do not have that yet.
For you clowns still believing control of CO2 is the “magic bullet”, Nuclear is the most realistic , option

Yes i can agree with that, ……but it is not yet a realistic expectation within a generational time frame.
Ignoring heavy trucks and Ag vehicles, and machinery,.. even just converting 50% of the US car fleet over to EV is not going to happen in the next 20 years…..there simply are not the resources to achieve it……especially if fossil fuels are restricted !

I seriously do not recall anyone predicting human demise within the last 30 years. What I do recall hearing is that if we don't DO something within the next 30 years ... ... and, would you not agree that, whatever you thought before. No matter how Chicken Little it sounded. Can we agree that right about now it's starting to look like a Climate Breakdown for Real?

I personally do not think that control of CO2 was a winning strategy. I would have targeted the actual BTU's wasted by all kinds of industrial processes. CO2 is a blanket. Blankets trap HEAT. If you can't do anything about the blanket maybe turn off the space heater? Your argument about 'transition'. If a drug is killing you slowly but you need to taper off of it or die quickly, when do you HTFU and start cutting back your dosage?

We had decades to 'taper off' of Fossil Fuels. Now we don't. I don't want to hear it. We don't. All kinds of sea life is washing up dead on our shores. We've killed the Oceans. Sure as shootin'. They are so damn big we don't know the half of it. But smart people know what time it is even if others want to pretend there is still time to fart around and build nuclear powerplants that no one is going to shield properly or site properly and the waste HEAT that they produce will be a problem because we never did anything about the CO2 and the Methane so we have this big blanket trapping HEAT ... ...

The problem was always the listening to the people who said, "now we can't be hasty about things", "there simply aren't the resources" ...

 

[Hillhater]

CO2 is a blanket. Blankets trap HEAT.

I think that explains everything about your limited understanding of the situation. !
Maybe you should question some of the things you read in the media and internet

 

[Hillhater]

I seriously do not recall anyone predicting human demise within the last 30 years.

"A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000."

The official was Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, who added: "Shifting climate patterns would bring back 1930s Dust Bowl conditions to Canadian and U.S. wheatlands.”

Instead, U.S. and global farm production rose, and more than 1 billion people worldwide rose out of extreme poverty due to economic growt

And the list is extensive , everyone from Royalty ( Prince, now King Charles in 2000) to teenage schoolgirls in 2016 (Thunberg), and the UN ( now proclaiming the world is “Boiling” !)
NONE, of the scarey predictions have materialised, the population has increased, flora and fauna have flourished, forrests have grown….
….so forgive me if i dont believe a word of this unscientific BS.!