Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

[jimw1960]

You have a source for that chart? I'm sure it doesn't include all the hidden subsidies that fossil fuels get. To really compare you need to value the cost to society of the externalities of fossil fuel extraction and consumption. Add in the social cost of $50+ per ton of CO2, not to mention the environmental damage, the added cost of maintaining public roads out in the fracking fields, dealing with the piles of coal ash, the stench and pollution from oil refining, the cheap access to federal lands, increased rates of asthma and other health effect for the poor people who have to live near coal plants and refineries, contamination and depletion of groundwater, tearing up of lands to mine fracking sand, increased seismic activity from deep injection of fracking waste, etc. You would do the same for renewables, of course, but the hidden subsidies would be a tiny fraction of fossil energy's. And that's not even including the costs to adapt to and mitigate climate change: the forest fires, the infrastructure needed to protect against sea level rise, droughts and crop failures, increased flooding, dealing with refugees, and loss of water supplies for regions that depend on snow melt.

 

[Cephalotus]

FIT for new solar power plant generation in Germany: ca. 40-50€/MWh for 20 years
FIT for new nuclear power plant hinkley C in UK: ca. 105€/MWh for 35 years + compensation for inflation

Cost above market (= subsidies):

solar ca 10€/MWh (falling to zero)
Hinkley C: ca. 60€/MWh and rising over time

Let's have a look at India:

https://qz.com/india/1483353/indias-solar-wind-plants-are-cheaper-to-run-than-thermal-ones/

so the consequences of this are:

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/india-coal-solar-power-investment-money-climate-change-iea-a8921961.html

Don't fool around with data from 2007-2013 if there is newer data around.

The world has moved since than. You don't talk today about battery cells from 2007, do you?

 

[Cephalotus]

Nuclear is fantastically inexpensive if it's allowed to be inexpensive. Which it is not.

Sure. Just avoid all that expensive savety bullshit. Just use your next river for cooling the reactor and dump the radiactive stuff into the next lake.
Has been done before:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Karachay

Very cheap. Very nice.

Standing one hour next to that lake will kill you.

There is literally nothing that the human race can do that does not result in carbon releases. I

You can do almost everything without releasing CO2.

Driving a car: Zero problem
Heating your home: Easily done
Flying around half of the globe: entirely possible
Making steel: Can be done
etc...

 

[sendler2112]

You can do almost everything without releasing CO2.

Not at anywhere close to this scale that supports modern civilization now. 17.5 TW average.
.
.

.
.

 

[furcifer]

Making steel: Can be done
etc...

Lol.

 

[Punx0r]

How did the deniers in this thread miss this one?

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2209895-journal-criticised-for-study-claiming-sun-is-causing-global-warming/

Evidence of the 0.1% who don't believe in AGW and published in a proper journal. Of course, the authors have vested interests and the paper contains fundamental errors such that the journal is left with egg on it's face for not having reviewed it properly before publishing.

 

[Punx0r]

Meanwhile, it may be possible to prevent the collapse of the west antarctic ice sheet. All it requires is 145 GW of power for 10 years to pump 7.4 trillion tonnes of water onto it:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2210043-a-drastic-plan-might-prevent-catastrophic-antarctic-ice-sheet-collapse/

Who said fossil fuel use was cheap?

 

[ZeroEm]

Texas changing; more electricity from wind than coal.
https://www.kut.org/post/texas-has-generated-more-electricity-wind-coal-so-far-year

 

[Hillhater]

Texas changing; more electricity from wind than coal.
https://www.kut.org/post/texas-has-generated-more-electricity-wind-coal-so-far-year

From that same page..

Many of the coal plants in Texas are "peaker plants," meaning they operate only when electricity demand is high. A mild spring and summer may have kept demand lower than expected and some of those ]

IE.. wind has priority supply access, whilst coal is on standby to fill the shortfalls.
You could read that same data as “wind fail to supply 21% of the time” !
AND....Gas still produces more than double the wind output

 

[jimw1960]

IE.. wind has priority supply access, whilst coal is on standby to fill the shortfalls.
You could read that same data as “wind fail to supply 22% of the time” !
AND....Gas still produces more than double the wind output

Sure. For now. But that's changing. By 2040 there will be less than 20% from coal and natural gas to cover peak loads in summer. We already closed two local coal plants last year and we still have some of the cheapest electricity rates in the country. https://cpsenergy.com/flexiblepath

 

[Hillhater]

I hope you were given a guarantee with that crystal ball...just incase you want a refund in 2040 :wink:
And logic says your cheap electricity prices can only be due to a low price of gas !

 

[billvon]

I hope you were given a guarantee with that crystal ball...

No need for a crystal ball to see that coal is on the way out. All you need is a newspaper. Or do you now deny the news, too?

And logic says your cheap electricity prices can only be due to a low price of gas !

No, deniers say that. Logic says this:
=====================
Plunging Prices Mean Building New Renewable Energy Is Cheaper Than Running Existing Coal
Megan Mahajan

The price to build new wind and solar has fallen below the cost of running existing coal-fired power plants - customers save money when utilities replace existing coal with wind or solar

A new report reveals 42% of global coal capacity is currently unprofitable, and the United States could save $78 billion by closing coal-fired power plants in line with the Paris Climate Accord’s climate goals. This industry-disrupting trend comes down to dollars and cents, as the cost of renewable energy dips below fossil fuel generation. . . .In other words, customers save money when utilities replace existing coal with wind or solar .
=======================

 

[Hillhater]

Meanwhile, it may be possible to prevent the collapse of the west antarctic ice sheet. All it requires is 145 GW of power for 10 years to pump 7.4 trillion tonnes of water onto it:

Have you heard of the principle of “Conservation of Energy” ?
If so, how can adding 145 GW into a system, help to cool it ?

 

[Hillhater]

. . . .In other words, customers save money when utilities replace existing coal with wind or solar .
=======================

You might like to believe that could be true, but,...
..the fact is.real world experience has proven the opposite with those countries / states that have invested heavily in wind and solar , now experiencing the highest electricity prices in the world,..many times more than pre RE prices.

 

[billvon]

You might like to believe that could be true, but,...
..the fact is.real world experience has proven the opposite with those countries / states that have invested heavily in wind and solar , now experiencing the highest electricity prices in the world,..

You have once again confused cause and effect! Places with high energy prices (due to rapid industrialization and population increase) see faster paybacks for solar - and so solar is installed in such places preferentially.

However, I am all for having a special rate for you - say, 2X what everyone else pays - so that you can get all your energy from the more expensive coal and nuclear sources. But knowing people like you, you will never have the courage of your convictions and actually do anything like that.

So keep whining! The rest of the world will keep building and moving forward.

 

[Hillhater]

I have re-read that post 3 times......yet it still makes absolutely no sense !
Disjointed, unrelated ramblings.
Can you try again when you are sober ?

 

[Punx0r]

Meanwhile, it may be possible to prevent the collapse of the west antarctic ice sheet. All it requires is 145 GW of power for 10 years to pump 7.4 trillion tonnes of water onto it:

Have you heard of the principle of “Conservation of Energy” ?
If so, how can adding 145 GW into a system, help to cool it ?

Bwahahahaha! :lol:

Quoted for truth.

Interesting to see your profound ignorance of basic physics isn't particular to AGW or power generation.

 

[billvon]

Bwahahahaha!

Just wait until he sees his first refrigerator! His mind will be BLOWN!

 

[furcifer]

Have you heard of the principle of “Conservation of Energy” ?
If so, how can adding 145 GW into a system, help to cool it ?

oh my silly hillhater. You need to stop using terms you don't fully understand. Conservation of energy only applies to a closed system.

 

[furcifer]

Sure. For now. But that's changing. By 2040 there will be less than 20% from coal and natural gas to cover peak loads in summer. We already closed two local coal plants last year and we still have some of the cheapest electricity rates in the country. https://cpsenergy.com/flexiblepath

It is changing, but I have to lean more towards hillhaters pessimism on this account. From my experience they don't close the plants, they mothball them. Then the problem is the government changes and budgets get pushed etc. and next thing you know they're recommissioning these plants.
It's tough to plan 10 or 20 years down the road with power changing hands every 4. 4 years just isn't enough time to stop things or get things moving. I have to think it's one of the main reasons we continue to sit on our hands when it comes to climate change.

 

[Dauntless]

The only positive with coal is we are RUNNING OUT. Before 2100, by estimates of the ever increasing use of it. Of energy consumption in general.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/29/us/earth-overshoot-day-trnd/index.html

 

[Hillhater]

Bwahahahaha!

Just wait until he sees his first refrigerator! His mind will be BLOWN!

The last time i looked, a refrigerator did not have the compressor inside the chilled area.
It extracts energy from one zone and transfers it to another
How does extracting kinetic energy from wind , and converting it to heat in one single zone, help to reduce the ice melt in that area ?
Please explain !

 

[Punx0r]

It is changing, but I have to lean more towards hillhaters pessimism on this account. From my experience they don't close the plants, they mothball them. Then the problem is the government changes and budgets get pushed etc. and next thing you know they're recommissioning these plants.

Not ideal but at some point it becomes too expensive to keep them mothballed or to recommission them and the idea becomes unpopular.

Similarly, a gas (or even coal) plant that runs for a couple of weeks during the peak of summer or winter is not ideal but far better than it running 24/7 for baseload. It's also a relatively expensive proposition to utilise it at such a low rate, but again, it's still better than the status quo.

 

[TheBeastie]

Thought this picture in this zerohedge article was kind of cute and a good meme pic of the world being juiced and its not enough.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-29/world-not-enough

Over the years as I have taken long drives out of Melbourne into country areas its amazing to see how the major roads out of Melbourne were farmlands with constant vision of cattle/farm paddocks transform into just new houses.
The issue is, of course, this is the greenest land in the country and people keep complaining about the price of food/meat going up, well new people are literally building over where farms used to exist.

When I buy canned tuna at the supermarket I notice how the cheaper brands are really just "tuna mash" as in it appears to be bits of tuna that fell out of the premium cuts that probably go to restaurants etc.
I only started eating tuna after a blood test from my doctor and a diet he wrote down and told me to eat, but the decent "non-weird mash tuna" is expensive, and at the thought that one day there will be so many people in Australia that I won't be able to afford to eat normal-looking tuna at all one day is scary.

All up I am thinking is that while I am sure more people moving the the 1st world pushes up the stockmarket indexes and helps some people get more wealthy from selling "furniture/houses to even KFC food sales" the quality of the average person lives in the "1st world" is just going down.

I think about the old original claim in the USA when they first started building nuclear power stations, the claim was "nuclear could provide all the power the USA would ever be needed", and if the USA probably hadn't constantly imported more people every year and just had ZERO immigration, that claim on nuclear would probably have ended up true, but the fact is they have imported a massive amount of people.

The weirdest and dumbest part of the "immigration/open borders debate" for me is the question of how do people think their lives are possibly going to get better if more people move next to where they live and consume more of the limited electricity/food/resources supply, it flys directly in the face of all logic, more people make the vast majority of people poorer except for the people at the very top.

Australia on a "per capita" basis is the biggest importer of new people in the world, double even the USA.
This is again something that no one has ever asked the 1st world if they want more people its just governments have come in and imposed it on us, I think for no other reason than big business wants to push up sales of everything at the cost of the quality of the people already living here.

CO2 and energy and quality of living are all closely interlinked and while these people on YouTube don't talk about it specifically (or very rarely touch on it) they ultimately are all talking about the same things, quality of peoples lives and the craziness of politics that surrounds it.
I am surprised how little people bother navigating YouTube rather than just being recommended videos, so here are a set of people/channels (some of the people swap over) that talk about ultimately "the quality of your life".
https://www.youtube.com/user/SargonofAkkad100/videos
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClJ8Z0YvEm-ClFj3fdQgQkw/videos
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpiCH7qvGVlzMOqy3dncA5Q/videos
https://www.youtube.com/user/AmRenVideos/videos
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyZVnp-_owuoPlzNJNtaxZQ/videos
https://www.youtube.com/user/mark318i/videos
https://www.youtube.com/user/RedIceRadio/videos
https://www.youtube.com/user/stefbot/videos

I find it rare to listen to anyone and fully agree with them, there is in fact no one on this planet I fully agree with. But I have found a lot of people are the extremely narrow-minded, as in they are incapable of listening to anyone they don't agree with everything they say 99% of the time, this severely limits their scope to learn anything new about the world. If you are that narrow-minded, then these youtubers are probably not for you.

 

[Cephalotus]

Not at anywhere close to this scale that supports modern civilization now. 17.5 TW average.

From that 7 TW is waste heat from power plants and 4 TW is waste heat from combustion engines in vehicles. And we didn't talk about losses from buildings and inefficient industries yet.

In reality replacing those fossil energy systems is not so difficult. It already started to happen.