Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

[cricketo]

The report said nothing about intentional legal limits per house.

It did not, but I am just pointing out how it works in practice. Rooftop solar currently is meant to offset the energy consumption of the household where it is installed, not to turn such household into energy producer, as that would clash with the interests of the power utilities. Because of that, legal frameworks setup to force utilities into "net meetering" and "feed-in tariff" programs put caps on how much solar a home owner can have in order to qualify for one of those. In some locations interconnects are not mandated at all, and utilities will deny the requests.

So when there is a conversation around available roof space, the more correct way to describe it "out of X number of residences, Y could have offset their energy usage by installing PVs", as opposed to "there is Z amount of roof space available for PV deployment". And that is because majority of PV deployments don't maximize the use of available roof space, just look at a few carefully when you get a chance.

 

[craneplaneguy]

Being around residential and even light commercial buildings like I am (my own) that are being supplied with 100% more or less of their energy needs with a roof top grid tied PV system is one thing. But, when you spend time around large industrial facilities like I also do, and see the involved infastructure for the huge amounts of electricity they need, 24/7 no less, I don't have to do the math to grog that renewables can't supply all our needs, not even close. And the cost?? This from a grid tied guy, it'd be nice if it wasn't so, but it's reality.

 

[cricketo]

Being around residential and even light commercial buildings like I am (my own) that are being supplied with 100% more or less of their energy needs with a roof top grid tied PV system is one thing. But, when you spend time around large industrial facilities like I also do, and see the involved infastructure for the huge amounts of electricity they need, 24/7 no less, I don't have to do the math to grog that renewables can't supply all our needs, not even close. And the cost?? This from a grid tied guy, it'd be nice if it wasn't so, but it's reality.

Impossible! Unnecessary! Costly! Meanwhile SpaceX reflew and landed a booster for the third time Progressive and clever engineering will prevail, we just need to ignore the noise.

 

[sendler2112]

Impossible! Unnecessary! Costly! Meanwhile SpaceX reflew and landed a booster for the third time Progressive and clever engineering will prevail, we just need to ignore the noise.

The longer we cling to the false hope of rebuildables seamlessly replacing fossil fuels before they slip away, the less time we have to implement the social changes that could bring us down for a softer landing.
.
Scale.

 

[Chalo]

Industry will always use horses! Mark my words.

Renewable energy is there for the taking. It's a matter of willingness and commitment to do what it we must do to use it. And to one degree or another, it's also a matter of consuming energy like it's expensive instead of consuming it like it's free. As fossil energy becomes more expensive to buy (and not just expensive for everybody to live with), there will be no disagreement in this regard. But we can speed the transition process by taxing fossil energy until it's expensive, like they do with gasoline in Europe.

We've made the leap with artificial lighting during my lifetime. Hot wires for illumination are a rare exception anymore. Overkill, low efficiency industrial equipment and processes will follow the same path. The rising costs of materials like copper and steel are likely to drive this trend just as much as concerns about pollution or energy supply.

 

[sendler2112]

Industry will always use horses! Mark my words.

Renewable energy is there for the taking. It's a matter of willingness and commitment to do what it we must do to use it.

Whatever distributed solar (and internet of knowledge) that we can build out will be much better than nothing after we are forced back closer to the days of muscle and firewood (which 1/3 of the world has never left yet). Even if total energy falls back to 1/4 of the current level.

 

[sendler2112]

we just need to ignore the noise.

Unless you really think we will EVER have fusion reactors running on seawater. Building 20 rockets per year is nothing compared to the material throughput it would take to build 1,000,000 2MW wind turbines. Which if land based will average 30% capacity. That will make .6TW on average. 4,000 Solar Star scale solar farms in desert locations at 25% CF will make .5TW. We are using 3TW just for the USA. People unfortunately have no concept of how big that is compared to wind turbines or solar panels. Fossil fuels are unbelievably dense. 100 million barrels a DAY we are blowing through.
.
I don't care for the biased writing style of the "Roadmap to Nowhere" but there is some good analysis of scale that is useful nonetheless. You are late to the thread and haven't read in from the beginning so I will post it for you again.
.
https://www.roadmaptonowhere.com/chapter-two/
.

 

[cricketo]

Building 20 rockets per year is nothing compared to the material throughput it would take to build 1,000,000 2MW wind turbines.

Don't worry, we won't need so many turbines when population is dramatically reduced due to cataclysms, starvation and cancer

 

[Hillhater]

Industry will always use horses! Mark my words. ..

If the Horses analagy was meant to imply we have moved on to better power sources..
Then the equivalent of moving from fossil fueled generation to solar and wind , would be like industry moving from Horses to Steam engines !
Its a temporary change until a better solution is realised.
I can easily see localised "Nuclear" generation units ..even as local as individual industry plants.
All we have to do is get over a few mental and technical issues

 

[sendler2112]

Industry will always use horses! Mark my words. ..

If the Horses analagy was meant to imply we have moved on to better power sources..

I am completely serious. 200 years from now they will have drifted back to existing on real time solar flows. The ability to maintain high technolgy will diminish also due to energy and resource depletion. They will once again heat and cook with firewood and use human and animal muscle power to raise their own food and fiber. Let us revere those that still breed heavy horses. They will come in handy after oil.
.
.

.
.

 

[billvon]

I can easily see localised "Nuclear" generation units ..even as local as individual industry plants.
All we have to do is get over a few mental and technical issues

That would be great. Unfortunately we have been saying that for 64 years. And the history of small nuclear power plants is . . . not a good one.

 

[Hillhater]

...., I don't have to do the math to grog that renewables can't supply all our needs, not even close. And the cost?? ...

Dont bother with the math CPG, its been done before..

The Clean Air Task Force, a Boston-based energy policy think tank, recently found that reaching the 80 percent mark for renewables in California would mean massive amounts of surplus generation during the summer months, requiring 9.6 million megawatt-hours (9.6 TWh) of energy storage. Achieving 100 percent would require 36.3 million (36.3 TWh).

Building the level of renewable generation and storage necessary to reach the state’s goals would drive up costs exponentially, from $49 per megawatt-hour of generation at 50 percent to $1,612 at 100 percent. And that’s assuming lithium-ion batteries will cost roughly a third what they do now.

So even if there were the resources, funds, motivation, etc, etc ..to go that far...
....few would be able to afford to use the power generated, or buy the goods produced with it !
conclusion ?... it will not happen.

 

[Hillhater]

I can easily see localised "Nuclear" generation units ..even as local as individual industry plants.
All we have to do is get over a few mental and technical issues

That would be great. Unfortunately we have been saying that for 64 years. And the history of small nuclear power plants is . . . not a good one.

no, Tricky Dicky prevented development of the technology that could have been a whole different ball game.
But in time, anything is possible.
Even now, various national Navy's manage to operate comparatively rudimentary small reactors successfully.
so, if the need is there, solutions can be found.
Also, im amazed that the AGW movement have no drafted Nuclear into their list of preferred generation methods.. ??
Its effectively an inexhaustible source if energy..

According to the NEA, identified uranium resources total 5.5 million metric tons, and an additional 10.5 million metric tons remain undiscovered—a roughly 230-year supply at today's consumption rate in total. Further exploration and improvements in extraction technology are likely to at least double this estimate over time.

Using more enrichment work could reduce the uranium needs of LWRs by as much as 30 percent per metric ton of LEU. And separating plutonium and uranium from spent LEU and using them to make fresh fuel could reduce requirements by another 30 percent. Taking both steps would cut the uranium requirements of an LWR in half.

Two technologies could greatly extend the uranium supply itself. Neither is economical now, but both could be in the future if the price of uranium increases substantially. First, the extraction of uranium from seawater would make available 4.5 billion metric tons of uranium—a 60,000-year supply at present rates. Second, fuel-recycling fast-breeder reactors, which generate more fuel than they consume, would use less than 1 percent of the uranium needed for current LWRs. Breeder reactors could match today's nuclear output for 30,000 years using only the NEA-estimated supplies.

 

[Chalo]

I can easily see localised "Nuclear" generation units ..even as local as individual industry plants.
All we have to do is get over a few mental and technical issues

That would be great. Unfortunately we have been saying that for 64 years. And the history of small nuclear power plants is . . . not a good one.

You don't say.

Surely the profit motive and commercial cost-cutting would result in better safety than we've seen so far. Right?

Is widespread persistent radioisotope contamination a mental issue or a technical one? Because I don't see either improved attitude or technological wizardry making much difference in Chernobyl or Fukushima or Hanford. Maybe those facilities should have been trusted to Australian local utility operators.

P.S. -
Three Mile Island nuclear power station is licensed to operate until 2034. But they're shutting it down in 2019 because it's too expensive to compete against gas fired power plants. Yet solar has become competitive with coal fired plants. And it's not burdened with the expensive, long lasting unaccounted externalities of fossil or nuclear energy.

 

[billvon]

Is widespread persistent radioisotope contamination a mental issue or a technical one? Because I don't see either improved attitude or technological wizardry making much difference in Chernobyl or Fukushima or Hanford. Maybe those facilities should have been trusted to Australian local utility operators.

You don't think that an AP1000 (instead of an RBMK or PWR) would have made any difference in Chernobyl or Fukushima? Interesting.

 

[sendler2112]

According to the NEA, identified uranium resources total 5.5 million metric tons, and an additional 10.5 million metric tons remain undiscovered—a roughly 230-year supply at today's consumption rate in total. Further exploration and improvements in extraction technology are likely to at least double this estimate over time.

So this article is using some deception tactics similar to those that are espoused in many greenwashing statements when discussing solar and wind. They neglect to mention the scale of the total contribution that we get from nuclear. Which is only 4% of primary energy at today's rate. So if we would build enough reactor capacity to replace all fossil energy, we would have to divide their 230 year supply esimate by 20. = only 11.5 years of Uranium supply.
.
And
.
Filtering sea water for Uranium (or Tritium or Lithium, ect) is one of those scifi ideas that lie somewhere between won't happen and can't happen.
.
.

.
.
Keep in mind when you see green for renewables that this includes wood for heat and biomass energy which even in green Germany is 2/3 of the renewable total.
.

 

[billvon]

So this article is using some deception tactics similar to those that are espoused in many greenwashing statements when discussing solar and wind. They neglect to mention the scale of the total contribution that we get from nuclear. Which is only 4% of primary energy at today's rate. So if we would build enough reactor capacity to replace all fossil energy, we would have to divide their 230 year supply esimate by 20. = only 11.5 years of Uranium supply.

Keep in mind that that's for light water reactor, low enrichment uranium. Fuel reprocessing (already done in France) greatly extends that, as does the use of natural (i.e. unenriched) uranium. And of course breeder reactors generate far more fuel than they use.

 

[sendler2112]

Breeding Thorium with molten salt coolant will be much better and safer. If we can pull it off. I'm rooting for Thorcon.
.
http://thorconpower.com/
.
Moltex also seemed promising but seems to have stalled with no recent news of progress.
.
http://www.moltexenergy.com/

 

[Chalo]

Is widespread persistent radioisotope contamination a mental issue or a technical one? Because I don't see either improved attitude or technological wizardry making much difference in Chernobyl or Fukushima or Hanford. Maybe those facilities should have been trusted to Australian local utility operators.

You don't think that an AP1000 (instead of an RBMK or PWR) would have made any difference in Chernobyl or Fukushima? Interesting.

My point is that once something goes seriously awry at a nuke plant-- and something will eventually and inevitably go very wrong-- no amount of winning attitude or technical acumen will make it better. Management fails; maintenance is neglected; security becomes rote. Systems that depend upon active vigilance will always collapse from time to time.

What's the worst photovoltaic accident you can imagine?

 

[cricketo]

My point is that once something goes seriously awry at a nuke plant-- and something will eventually and inevitably go very wrong-- no amount of winning attitude or technical acumen will make it better. Management fails; maintenance is neglected; security becomes rote. Systems that depend upon active vigilance will always collapse from time to time.

What's the worst photovoltaic accident you can imagine?

+1

 

[billvon]

My point is that once something goes seriously awry at a nuke plant-- and something will eventually and inevitably go very wrong-- no amount of winning attitude or technical acumen will make it better. Management fails; maintenance is neglected; security becomes rote. Systems that depend upon active vigilance will always collapse from time to time.

That's true of every source of power out there.

What's the worst photovoltaic accident you can imagine?

A fire that starts in a city and kills a few thousand? The odds of that in modern cities is very low, though.

The risk profile for photovoltaics is different than for nuclear. In nuclear power you will generate petawatt-hours without a single problem, then have a big problem that injures (or even kills) some people. In photovoltaics you'll have people being electrocuted, starting fires and falling off ladders one person at a time. A lot of little problems.

 

[Chalo]

Management fails; maintenance is neglected; security becomes rote. Systems that depend upon active vigilance will always collapse from time to time.

That's true of every source of power out there.

There are no lasting consequences of an accident in renewable power. The risks you've identified belong to all electrical power, not specifically to solar.

The lasting consequences of nuclear accidents can't be rolled back. And the lasting consequences of fossil power operating as intended can't be rolled back either.

 

[billvon]

There are no lasting consequences of an accident in renewable power. The risks you've identified belong to all electrical power, not specifically to solar.

Well, no. Electrical power doesn't require you to spend a few hours on a roof.

In the short term we are going to need both baseload and peak power. Baseload power is going to have to come from a baseload plant. In many cases that baseload can come from hydro or geothermal, which is great. But in areas where those are not practical, nuclear is the cleanest/safest remaining option. Unfortunately it's also the most expensive.

 

[cricketo]

There are no lasting consequences of an accident in renewable power. The risks you've identified belong to all electrical power, not specifically to solar.

The lasting consequences of nuclear accidents can't be rolled back. And the lasting consequences of fossil power operating as intended can't be rolled back either.

+1

 

[Hillhater]

There are no lasting consequences of an accident in renewable power.

I guess you are using "lasting" as your "get out " in that statement.?
But death is pretty lasting for those involved, and plenty of people have died as a result of failed dams.
..Just one such event in China...

26,000 dead from flooding, 145,000 dead from subsequent famine and epidemics, 11 million homeless. Caused loss of generation, [4]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hydroelectric_power_station_failures
Further, the current political pressure from the AGW (RE) movement, has seriously restricted access to funding for developing countries to build coal/gas fueled generation infrastructure to inprove living standards for millions.
Even in the developed world, RE has resulted in higher power costs for those countries that have invested in it, leading to thousands of poverty level citizens , pensioners, etc, being unable to afford the higher costs and resulting in them litterally having to choose between heating or eating and significantly increasing risk of death from malnutrician , hypothermia, and heat stroke.
Any form of energy generation has its risks