Another thread for lengthy debates, off-topic exchanges, long posts on regular hobby-horses etc.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Another thread for lengthy debates, off-topic exchanges, long posts on regular hobby-horses etc.
John Quiggin 
@John Morgan
Your comment is hollow and out of time.
We have already been through this issue.
There are new storage technologies that can store discontinuous energy for continuous baseload requirements.
They are all more expensive – but not unreasonably so.
As I remember, most of the info is in various magazines such as New Scientist, (molten metals not just molten salt) so please search the archive, or the internet for assistance.
Anyway – solar cells are approaching US$0.95 per watt.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/10/whats-behind-record-breaking-solar-cell-efficiencies-part-1
So renewables are moving towards centre-stage.
This is the silliest of the nuclear fan club’s defences. You’re suggesting that the powerful (!) hippy lobby is stopping those poor, weak nuclear corporations from building their reactors?
No. The reason nukes are not being built to any significant extent anywhere outside of China, India and a few other Asian locations is very, very simple: cost.
Added to cost is time to deployment and risk of failure. The new Finnish reactor is currently ~4 years over schedule and billions over budget. Assuming no further delays, it will have taken 13 years from licensing to grid connection. And Areva cannot just blame Finnish contractors (as they are trying to do) because they are suffering delays and cost overruns with the same EPR in France!
Added to all of that is the small issue of needing to store waste for a few thousand years (fast breeder reactors are vapourware, not commercial reality).
~~~
Your business card makes an absolute statement. That statement is nonsense – no matter how you parse it and equivocate. Just to drive that point home:
1. you are right and therefore thousands of German scientists and engineers have got it very badly wrong because they have worked out that they are going to be 100% renewable by 2050 (and are already ahead of schedule).
2. you are wrong.
World’s first concentrating solar power (CSP) to use molten salts for heat transfer and storage; can extend its operating hours 24 hours a day for several days in the absence of sun or during rainy days; first to be fully integrated to combined-cycle gas power plant. http://www.carboncommentary.com/2010/07/20/1604
That is a prime example of what I see from nuclear advocates – an assumption that things do not exist because you don’t know they exist. Again, reading only Barry Brook’s echo chamber will keep you in the dark about what is happening with renewable energy around the planet.
~~~
No, Alice is doing nothing similar to ‘the Gish Gallop’. Try playing the ball and not the (wo)man.
@DavidC
You have no idea how many times I posted or what the result was. You have no idea what my experience was. Last time my comments were pre-moderated and not published. The denizens then had a little party, crowing that I was a “drive-by” troll and that I had run away.
However, I have little interest in posting again. I only did so because I was shocked at the ignorant nonsense and eye-watering propaganda coming from an otherwise respectable scientist. Given the type of people attracted to Brooks’ blog, it would be as pointless engaging them as it would engaging the deniers at WattsUpWithThat.
I already explained that in my previous comment which you quoted (in amongst the jumbled mass of text that you quoted as well!). I’ll reword it: do you think it’s fair that China attempts to compete by using renewable energy against industrialised nations who built their economies on fossil fuels and continue to do so? Do you think there is one rule for Chinese people and another for you?
It fully addresses the question. Or do you think all those gigawatts of renewable electricity just disappear in to the ether? I’m afraid you’ve provided the wrong answer to your own question. Renewable energy displaces fossil fuels.
I thought it was obvious. My “Nuclear will take us to a magical utopia!” quip is a parody / mockery of the inanity of many in the nuclear fan club. It’s not serious so it’s not a strawman. That’s why I put it in scare quotes, you see?
Actually, it’s exactly as I said – *every* (OK, the vast majority) of ACC deniers rabidly favour nuclear. I have *many* years experience ‘debating’ ACC deniers. I know them well.
I note that you have ignored just about every piece of evidence that I have provided here. This is exactly the behaviour I encounter with nearly every nuclear advocate. It’s like an impenetrable cult!
P.S. I made an earlier response which has been held for moderation for some reason.
@DavidC
I agree David C. You can see the evidence for the religiousness of the pro nuclear stance in many (and “renewables dont work”) and simultaneous climate science denialism of the sort spangled drongo engages in …yet is also fervently pro nuclear??.
That is, Spangled Drongo, for example, denies AGW exists yet sees a need for nuclear anyway. If it doesnt exist then why does Spangled Drongo support pro nuclear so much? Completely contradictory and because for him its become a political argument a la “Lefts go for renewables and rights want nuclear so I, Spangled Drongo, barrack for my team”.
It seems its another thing written into the handbook fo young conservatives / republicans.
The entire thing is bizarre and political which is not particularly helpful. Neither is the underlying attack on “progresssive greens who support renewables” by pro nuclear advocates. Yet another scientific debate hijacked to fight an engineered left right war by disciples who are less nuclear disciples than they are conservative / republican political disciples.
Another simple sign is the sheer length of the posts and how some posters, with names unheard of prior, descend here as if from the outer universe at the first mention of a nuclear topic.
Many of them protest too much and we already know that conservatives use the methodology of fighting a so called war of words (which involves conjuring up an imaginary left right divide) using members to disseminate climate science denialism.
It is entirely appropriate in these times to question scientists qualifications to disseminate their supposed expertise if they take a strongly one sided public position on the expanded use of a very dangerous material as Professor Brook does. They should naturally expect public questions and inquiry.
Chris,
Chris, there are no technologies available for energy storage on the scale required to enable baseload renewable power in the gigawatt range at a cost that is remotely viable. That you think you maybe read about it in New Scientist and that maybe it had something to do with molten metals does not inspire confidence in your grasp of the issues.
Look, the most plausible thermal storage technology available today is molten salts. The ZCA2020 plan tried to construct a generation system employing molten salts. It was ruinously expensive. And it only specified 17 hrs storage on its solar thermal plants. You can’t contemplate having a stable grid with that paltry amount of storage, you’d need a minimum of ~40 hrs to hold over for a day of cloud, or the grid will be a train wreck. But at that level of storage the cost is into trillions of dollars.
And you’re suggesting that “new” storage technologies technologies are more expensive than this, but not “unreasonable”?
But if you think I’m wrong, just give me an example of an alternative technology that can work.
Say, thats pretty cheap. How much to buy that watt at nine o’clock tonight?
I’ve commented several times previously about the conditions I would have to see met before accepting nuclear power on a large scale in Australia. I’ll leave it at that.
With regards to Barry Brooks’ advocacy of nuclear power – I have watched his views move towards advocacy and away from a more reflective and open arguing of the alternatives. I don’t read his blog very much now. BTW, his advocacy for nuclear power is not what I have a problem with, beyond disagreeing with him on the relativities that he believes make nuclear power so utterly compelling.
Our largest concern now should be a simple one: what activities may be achieved within the best guess time frames to make the best long-term impact? While dollar cost has its importance, every day of foot-dragging we accept is another day that the balance of concerns shifts away from dollar cost and towards what is physically achievable. We forget too easily that manpower is a finite resource on short to medium time scales, no matter what pile of cash we might have as enticement to do a job.
Nuclear power reactors are large scale facilities and are complex. They take a lot of time to go from concept to turn-key on day one of operation. Wind turbines while certainly not cheap have some benefits in the Australian context that nuclear does not – wind farms may be extended rapidly and incrementally, as opportunities and/or demand arise. Same goes for many types of solar facilities.
The displacement effect of trying to go nuclear as the solution for Australia, instead of attempting a mixed solution of large scale transition to multiple sources of power, is where nuclear may create a cross to heavy to bear. In my opinion nuclear advocates should define a clear short term goal to go from A to Z with a relatively small number of nuclear reactors chosen to give the best chance of the quickest completion time. If the project is successful, meaning that the reactors are operational and operating at expected loads, then it is likely that both the skills and capital necessary for a second project will be available even before the first project is complete. Staging it in this way is probably a lot more palatable to Australians than a “big bang” approach, and if a small but substantial project of say three reactors is unable to execute to completion on time targets, then in the meanwhile other achievable alternative energy projects have had a chance during the same time period.
We should be putting a hell of a lot more effort into alternative energy production, distribution, storage, and usage patterns; we should be contracting to remove permanently existing coal-fired power stations and for their replacements to be non-coal and preferably non-gas too (gas aka methane is a potent greenhouse gas, and some is lost to the atmosphere at several points in the production to consumption chain); we should be finding ways of reducing household need of their current energy by aggressively seeking more efficient ways of achieving the same ends. If we do these things then I can accept nuclear power projects of the type I’ve described above, as being in the mix.
All nuclear is not something I could support however. In this instance I just don’t see how it could be less risky to go all nuclear than to go for a more aggressive target of replacement per unit time (of coal based power) in which multiple lines of alternative energy sources are being installed.
In this note I am assuming more or less that the dollar cost is not the primary objective, but rather the replacement of coal-based energy per unit time (with a relatively hard time limit based for example on the 2015, 2020, 2025 dates in order to force transitions that are scientifically compatible with climate scientists estimates). The work of Hansen and many others makes it abundantly clear we are entering a period where the costs are much larger, simply because we have fallen so far short of action right up to the present day.
John Morgan,
“you’d need a minimum of ~40 hrs to hold over for a day of cloud, or the grid will be a train wreck. But at that level of storage the cost is into trillions of dollars”
that is total rubbish. Please some reading on the hybride CSP solar thermal system.
Donald Oats,
“I’ve commented several times previously about the conditions I would have to see met before accepting nuclear power on a large scale in Australia”
I haven’t seen your previous posts. Could you provide a short list of the main points.
If they include concern about the safety aspects or nuclear waste (once used nuclear fuel), then why would you be concerned. Nuclear fuel cycle is 10 to 100 times safer than coal so, why delay any longer? Any move to nuclear will save lives, clean up the environment, reduce mining, reduce use of fresh water (if located on the coast), and more. So why argue for further delay?
“Our largest concern now should be a simple one: what activities may be achieved within the best guess time frames to make the best long-term impact?”
I agree. Few would disagree (other than locked in renewable advocates).
“While dollar cost has its importance, every day of foot-dragging we accept is another day that the balance of concerns shifts away from dollar cost and towards what is physically achievable. We forget too easily that manpower is a finite resource on short to medium time scales, no matter what pile of cash we might have as enticement to do a job.”
I agree with the point. What you seem to not understand is that the quickest way to cut our emissions by the huge amounts being advocated is to get moving with nuclear asap. We’ve been delaying for 20 years and the same arguments are being presented now to continue the delay as was presented 20 years ago.
Do you realise that wind power for example has little or no effect on cut emissions?
http://www.masterresource.org/2010/06/subsidizing-co2-emissions/#more-10349
Yet, the wind industry, and the governments’ environment departments continue to mislead the public that wind farms cut emissions by the same proportion as the energy they displace from coal fired power stations. Here is an example of such a claim:
From the energy generated (140,000 MWh/y) and the claimed emissions avoided (180,000 t/y) the emissions avoided are 1.3 tonnes CO2 avoided per MWh. That is the same as the emissions from Victoria’s highest emitting power station. That is an example of the misinformation that is being propagated by the renewable energy advocates and the federal and state governments’ environment departments.
This comparison demonstrates that by far the least cost and quickest way to cut our emissions is to roll out nuclear power to replace fossil fuels electricity generator. We need to keep electricity as cheap as possible for many reasons, one of which is that if clean electricity is cheap it will more quickly displace fossil fuels for heat and for land transport. Low cost electricity also bring massive benefits to society. So arguing to raise the cost of electricity, rather then to allow low cost clean electricity, is exactly thje wrong solution. It is another one of the many short sited, single issue solutions that have been advocated for decades by “greenies” and cause us so many problems later.
@John Morgan
There is no point to this.
As replacement technology is developed and demonstrates breakthroughs and efficiency gains, it is not relevant to demand that it show “technology that can work” now.
Only pro-nukes play this game.
Also any solution to zero-carbon future will include a mix of renewables – wind, hydro, solar, tidal, geothermal and a mix of storage capacities. It may even be more expensive, but this can be countered by a subsidy similar to that gifted to capitalists in the GFC.
If you can bailout capitalists why not bail out humanity?
The cost of PV cells is not and indication of the the cost of the power station. The new, state of the art, solar PV station at Windora, Qld, is $34,615/kW (c.f. about $4,100/kW for the NPPs recently contracted for UAE).
But Windora has a negligible storage. So it is a day time, (mostly summer time) power plant. The cost of average power works out $109,500/kWy/y (c.f. about $4,500 for the nuclear plants in UAE). So the capital cost si about 8 times nuclear, the energy cost (roughly) about 20 times the cost, and the energy is not available on demand so is of low value. There is no way any of these renewqable energy plants would be built if not for the fact they are mandated by governments.
Here is the link for the Windorah solar farm figures:
http://ecogeneration.com.au/news/windorah_solar_farm/011780/
Hi Alice,
Perfectly put. That’s my experience. “Whatever those leftie / socialist / treehuggers are for, I’m against!”
I guess it should have been obvious that the right would be mobilised on this subject given the funding, influence and control exerted by the fossil / mining corporations and billionaires over their world view.
Absolutely. And it’s perfectly reasonable to ask about conflicts of interest or funding from vested interests. Professor Brook has categorically denied that and there’s no reason to doubt him.
He’s a very good climate scientist and did an excellent job of exposing Ian Plimer’s nonsense, but I really wish he’d stick to his area of expertise because I believe he is myopic when it comes to energy.
Fortunately, I think this energy ‘debate’ is largely academic. Every credible opinion and analysis (e.g. Google ‘Nuclear: New dawn now seems limited to the east.’) points to nuclear remaining a niche energy source while renewables continue to drop in cost and increase in efficiency and be deployed at an accelerating rate. We just need to speed up that process by fighting back against the obstructionism and propaganda coming from the fossil dinosaurs.
I left out another link that should have followed this statement;
“Yet, the wind industry, and the governments’ environment departments continue to mislead the public that wind farms cut emissions by the same proportion as the energy they displace from coal fired power stations. Here is an example of such a claim:”
http://ramblingsdc.net/Australia/WindVic.html#Challicum Hills Wind Farm
Do you realise this is utter factual nonsense? Google ‘No myth: Wind power HAS reduced Denmark’s CO2 emissions a lot’ and read. I’d link to it but my comment would go to moderation.
Also, do you realise you’re linking to a blog run by a libertarian ex-Enron executive? I wouldn’t trust that source to tell me what colour coal is!
What if we invested in a better world and a liveable climate for no reason?
@DavidC
says to PL “Also, do you realise you’re linking to a blog run by a libertarian ex-Enron executive? I wouldn’t trust that source to tell me what colour coal is!”
Great – just great. Links to libertarian Ex Enron execs who are wading into the debate on renewables…what other quack links can we expect here?
Amazing isnt it – one think you can count on with the political pro nuker AGW deniers. They never go far without dropping their rubbish links in here. Its a damn political strategy – thats all it is.
Shut the air off this topic again Prof. Its quite clear the zombies are thriving on higher C02 levels and now they want something radioactive to expose us all to (can we use them as labrats?).
There will be a fancy dress parade of the lunatic fringe Monkton calibre anti science links in here if you dont. There already is. PL has taken over from el gordo and is moving to the front of the mad link dropper race.
The pace of improvements in renewables seems reasonable. Here is one outline (pdf version of powerpoint presentation):
Click to access Blakers_ANU_CPV.pdf
The chart at slide 38 is particularly interesting.
Does that Brook fellow’s blog give any link to this recent research on renewables?
Wow, not much rational discussion about facts here. The anti-nuke sentiment displayed by some posters is like a highly emotive defence of a dearly held religious belief. This obvioulsy was ignored:
https://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2010/10/09/sandpit/comment-page-1/#comment-268875
What’s your problem? Don’t you know how to read pdf documents from the ANU website?
That would be Utopia.
@Peter Lang
“The anti-nuke sentiment displayed by some posters is like a highly emotive defence of a dearly held religious belief.”
I dont think so PL. The only religious beleifs in here are aligned to the pro nuclear advocates here who refuse to countenance consideration of any other alternatives less harmful energy sources…including even reading ANU research (ie real research) as Chris suggests above. No you would rather link to a profusion of religio political sites like unqualified ex Enron executives charlatans “opinions”.
How to identify a religio political pro nuker – count the links to crackpot sites.
@Peter Lang
You also linked to sites that have either been funded by or worked with the CATO institute and whos principals have a profusion of works that may as well say “parlez vous laissez fairer for me… but not for you”.
Sound of retching from utter disgust from me. Do your homework PL. Your links are mostly politically inspired rubbish.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cato_Institute
“Does that Brook fellow’s blog give any link to this recent research on renewables?”
You wouldn’t like it Chris, it’s too factual.
BTW, I bought my solar panels 25 years ago for $4 per watt and they are still the same price today, unsubsidised. [10kw for $40,000]
I also cannot measure any improvement in performance in new PVs over my old ones. There probably is a marginal improvement but it doesn’t show up on my multimeter.
That is, for the same area of PV.
I am attracted to the BNC website due to the high calibre of the posts and the informed comments from many of the contributers which are backed with objective evidence and data. Those who only want to rant, without facts to support their views are quickly taken to task. The issue of climate change and reduction in greenhouse emissions is the most important issue of the 21st century. I have to agree with Prof Brook, that on the current evidence the only mature technology available that is capable of replacing fossil fuels is nuclear. I went to an energy seminar about 35 years ago and was given the same message. For the record I have solar panels on my house and know their limitations.
@spangled drongo “I bought my solar panels 25 years ago for $4 per watt ”
That was a very good price – Wikipedia says the 1985 price was $US7/watt, which would have been about $A10, and of course the CPI has approximately doubled since then.
@Chris Warren
I read your link but as interesting as were the technical specs of the various systems there wasn’t a single claim in the whole PDF that the renewable energy captured by these systems could retire a single watt hour of fossil hydrocarbon energy.
Some lovely pics but nothing of substance in terms of abating CO2 emissions.
Here’s one for Chris and Alice: What is the difference between renewable energy and renewable power? Which is the more valuable?
@DavidC
What has fairness to do with it? If renewables are competitive with fossil fuels then surely the Chinese would want to build them, because coal is a huge drain on them right now. The Chinese are actually building more nuclear power than renewables, almost certainly for this reason.
Personally, I’d be happy for Australia to help them do so, because if we can’t abate CO2 here, then abating it in China or India is just as good, and I agree, as a socialist — the legacy issue lies with the first world.
John Quiggan,
Further to my post #48 regarding comparing the cost of electricity from different types of generators, the correct way to compare is on the basis of the Long Run Marginal Cost (LRMC) (also often called Levelised Cost of Electricity (LCOE)). However, to do this requires many assumptions about cost of capital, equity, debt, discount rates, taxes, etc). It is difficult to get truly comparable costs. The EU ExterrnE NEEDS project is an authoritative study that may do this as well as any:
http://www.needs-project.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=42&Itemid=66
Compare the projected cost of electricity for Solar Thermal and for Nuclear (but remember that even in 2020 solar thermal is expected to oly have storage for one day and cannot handle a day of heavily overcast weather).
Below is a simple, rough alternative to a full blown LCOE comparison. It is intentionally very smple so anyone can follow it. In this case the comparison is for wind power and nuclear power. This may assist you the readers to understand why wind and solar power are unlikely to ever be able to supply baseload power at a reasonable cost. Therefore, they can never provide more than a small component of our electricity supply and will always be little more than a heavily subsidised nuisance to the electricity system.
Compare the cost of wind power and nuclear power on the basis that they must be able to provide baseload power:
Requirements:
Power is available on demand whenever we demand it – every instant of every day and all through the night.
Cost of nuclear power
Assumptions:
1. the first nuclear power station would cost the same or less than the first nuclear power station to be built in United Arab Republic (contract for four APR1400 units awarded to a Korean consortium a few months ago); i.e.
A$4,100/kW
2. The cost of further units would decrease over time, to say
$3,000/kW for the sixth unit.
Cost of wind power (to provide reliable, on demand power)
$2,600/kW for the Wind farms.
$1,000/kW cost for transmission and grid enhancements to manage the peak and fluctuating wind power
$1,000/kW for gas generators to provide the power when the wind is not blowing at full power
$4,600/kW total
But wind power delivers, on average, only about 1/3 the energy of a nuclear power station of the same capacity. So we need 3 wind farms to produce the same energy per year (or average power) as a nuclear power station. So the cost of the wind farms to provide the same energy as a nuclear power station would be:
$7,800/kWy/y of average power for the wind farms
$3,000/kWy/y of average power for the transmission and grid upgrades
$1,000/kWy/y for gas generation for backup when there is no wind
$11,800/kWy/y total
An alternative to back-up with gas generators is to use energy storage, such as pumped hydro, compressed air or batteries. Pumped hydro is the cheapest option where the appropriate topographic and geological conditions are available (Australia does not have much economic hydro potential near our major demand centres).
If we did have economic pumped hydro sites available the cost might be something like this:
$7,800/kWy/y of average power for the wind farms
$3,000/kWy/y of average power for the transmission and grid upgrades
$1,500/kWy/y for pumped hydro generating capacity
$100/kWh for energy storage capacity and we’d need say 50 days energy storage to get us through the low wind season; 50d x 24h/d = 1200h x 1kW @ $100/kWh =
$120,000/kWy/y of average power
$132,300/kWy/y total (cost per kW average power)
As I’ve pointed out at length, Peter, the whole idea of baseload demand, on which your reasoning is based, is a nonsense. Coal and nuclear turn out power 24 hours a day whether there is demand or not. That’s why “off-peak” power has to be sold at low prices, or even given away.
https://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2009/07/22/the-myth-of-baseload-power-demand/
John Quiggan,
I posted another comment but it is held up in moderation. Is that because it has five links to references?
JQ, back in the early ’80s the AUD bought $US1.10. Maybe they were old stock or maybe they came off the roof of Hans Tholstrups car.
@Peter Lang
Five links is starting to look like a snowstorm of propaganda.
Peter L, I think your post has been caught in the permanent spam trap. Five links is generally too many.
BilB: “that is total rubbish”
Why?
If it is total rubbish,
i) are you saying a so-called “baseload” solar plant configured with 16 hours storage can serve its demand through a rainy day, ~40 hours low/no insolation?
ii) if not, how much storage do you say is required for a solar power plant to provide power through a rainy day? And,
iii) How many hours storage would be required to consider a solar plant baseload?
I note you have form with this “well thats total rubbish” approach. You’re quick to issue these dismissals, but you’ve never been able to articulate your reasons. We were having quite a useful discussion on Brave New Climate until you undertook to find a qualified friend to review our arguments, and we never heard back. May I formally invite you to continue that discussion? The thread is still live.
Chris Warren,
But you said “we already have solar thermals providing baseload power.” Are you now saying we don’t, but its not relevant?
To be clear, baseload solar does not exist. It doesn’t exist now, and in my opinion it is unlikely to ever exist, for the reasons I articulated above.
I did look through your set of ANU slides. Like Fran, I couldn’t see how they related to your point. You draw our attention to slide 38. The presentation only has 29 slides. There’s no research – just some nice pictures of solar collectors. Is that it?
And you’re wrong to say its not relevant to demand that the technology can work now. On the contrary, its critical. The immediate goal, as proposed by James Hansen, should be to completely phase out coal power by 2030. An effective plan must be able to shut down coal plants, one by one, until they are all gone.
That is a very ambitious timeline. It requires the immediate large scale deployment of technologies that are available now. It does not accommodate a discovery phase for new technologies or serendipitous breakthroughs. It does not accommodate the development phase for novel technologies to proceed through qualification at utility scale. It requires that we proceed now with what is available now. And the only available technology that is qualified at utility scale and is verified as capable of replacing coal is nuclear.
It may not be the option you want, but it is the only option that is available to us at this point in history where we are required to act, now. Its what we have.
@Peter Lang
At some point you just gotta laugh. Unfortunately for Lang his only reference contradicts his argument.
If you click on his cited link, and download the report titled:
“Cost development – an analysis based on experience curve” the cost trends over time become clear.
Fig 5.2 shows the cost of developing nuclear in France skyrocketing as the number of plants increased from 1977 to 2000.
It shows the opposite for photo-voltaic (PV) power in Japan from 1976-1995.
The cost of developing fuel cells also decline – Fig 5.5.
And of course the cost of developing wind farms also falls – Fig 5.6 (1981-2000).
The report indicates that the price of developing PV specifically for Sydney will also fall as we head towards 2020.
So what is the conclusion of this report w.r.t. nuclear and other renewables?
The report concludes:
Lang’s post had all the usual tricks from nuclaholics – playing with assumptions, ignoring Yucca Mountain, and so on. They are worse than the nicotine scientists.
So how does Lang deal with
Fig 5.2?
Fig 5.5?
Fig 5.6?
and the conclusion from his own bloody “authoritative” citation??????????
Where in his scenario is the cost of waste (low, medium and high) included.
@Fran Barlow
Fran
Not one of those points was in the scope of the presentation.
Not one of those points were relevant to why I pointed people to it.
You can always artifically criticise something for not complying with issues that lie out of its own defined scope.
But so what?
I’m not sure what you mean by that first sentence. Do you think it’s fair that there is one rule for you and another for a Chinese person?
I’m stunned that this needs explaining to you: renewables are *not* competitive with fossil fuels in most locations. That’s the entire point of the ‘debate’ – people who deny ACC deny the need to stop using fossil fuels.
Coal is usually cheaper (excluding externalities) and more energy dense than any renewable source. In order to compete with ‘western’ industries – which are built on and still are powered by coal – China must use coal.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people drone on about what China (5 tons CO2 per capita) is doing when they live in Australia (19), USA (19), UK (10), etc. Clean up your own mess before complaining about your neighbour’s.
“China’s wind power capacity surpassed the country’s installed nuclear capacity in 2009, with just over 13.8 GW added to reach a total of 25.8 GW.” www. ren21.net/globalstatusreport/g2010.asp
Again: you’ll never find this information on Brook’s echo chamber or any of the nuclear fan blogs. They are all the same: carefully selected data, superficially impressive but simplistic maths (as Peter Lang has just copy pasted) and conclusions that do not match what is happening in reality *today*.
Also, China are making *massive* investments in renewable energy, high-speed rail links, tree-planting programs, shutting down inefficient factories, etc. The ‘dirty China’ argument is looking very tired and silly. Just a couple of days ago I read that there has been a big reduction in CO2 + CO emissions across China over the last several months as their efficiency / clean-up drive kicks in.
While much of the ‘west’ is bickering over the reality of ACC and who should do something about it, the Chinese are ‘quietly’ getting on with the job.
This makes no sense. You want to “help” China decarbonise but admit the main responsibility lies with the “first world”. The reality is that we must *all* act and act *now*.
I strongly suggest that you and all nuke fans inform yourself about the *reality* of renewables – and not the distorted view of them you get through some nuke propaganda blog. Try this for starters: renewableenergyworld.com – and watch the conveyor belt of daily advances in technology, new solar plants, new wind farms, new production records, new factories being opened, falling prices, etc. etc.
Compare that to nuclear: outside of Asia, virtually nothing is happening because it is too expensive, too slow to build and (slightly important in democracies) most people do not want it.
~~~
John Q,
An earlier comment of mine is stuck on the moderation queue. I’m going to repost it in separate chunks – so feel free to delete the original. Cheers.
This is the silliest of the nuclear fan club’s defences. You’re suggesting that the powerful (!) hippy lobby is stopping those poor, weak nuclear corporations from building their reactors?
No. The reason nukes are not being built to any significant extent anywhere outside of China, India and a few other Asian locations is very, very simple: cost.
Added to cost is time to deployment and risk of failure. The new Finnish reactor is currently ~4 years over schedule and billions over budget. Assuming no further delays, it will have taken 13 years from licensing to grid connection. And Areva cannot just blame Finnish contractors (as they are trying to do) because they are suffering delays and cost overruns with the same EPR in France!
Added to all of that is the small issue of needing to store waste for a few thousand years (fast breeder reactors are vapourware, not commercial reality).
Your business card makes an absolute statement. That statement is nonsense – no matter how you parse it and equivocate. Just to drive that point home:
1. you are right and therefore thousands of German scientists and engineers have got it very badly wrong because they believe they are going to be 100% renewable by 2050 (and are already ahead of schedule).
2. you are wrong.
World’s first concentrating solar power (CSP) to use molten salts for heat transfer and storage; can extend its operating hours 24 hours a day for several days in the absence of sun or during rainy days; first to be fully integrated to combined-cycle gas power plant. carboncommentary.com/2010/07/20/1604
That is a prime example of what I see from nuclear advocates – an assumption that things do not exist because you don’t know they exist. Reading only Barry Brook’s echo chamber will keep you in the dark about what is happening with renewable energy around the planet.
No, Alice is doing nothing similar to ‘the Gish Gallop’. Try playing the ball and not the (wo)man.
Stupidity – I never said that.
Slide 38, is labelled 38 on the bottom right-hand corner.
I am sure the ANU will be pleased to hear your sage comment and will give it the respect it deserves.
Can you (and Fran) explain why the citation does not show that:
“the pace of improvements in renewables seems reasonable.”
John Quiggan,
I now understand where you are coming from. I hadn’t seen this post of yours before.
I believe this is such a major misunderstanding of the fundamental requirements of the electricity system it would take a lot of explaining to persuade you otherwise. Far more than can be done in comments here.
If you believe the concept of baseload is a myth, and you don’t recognise that about 75% of demand is constant, and that generators designed to generate constant power to supply the baseload, produce by far the least cost electricity, then there is an enormous gap to close between us before we could even begin to have a sensible discussion.
This explains the NEM energy demand as it is now:
Click to access peter-lang-solar-realities.pdf
I realise that you are basing your argument on this statement:
“If we didn’t discount offpeak electricity, it seems likely that offpeak demand would be around a quarter of daytime demand.”
However, I get the impression from your examples that you believe most of the night time demand is due to demand from residential and commercial customers rather than industrial customers.
You also say:
“But even then, the offpeak demand could be met by reliable sources that are independent of time of day, most obviously gas and hydro”
You can forget hydro. We do not have the resources. So gas it is. We’d replace coal with gas. That is a lot more expensive. Solar and wind are unreliable. Geothermal, forget it too. It will be another token gesture. I could go into that a lot more if you want to.
The Zero Carbon Emission Australia by 2020 Plan presented the case for what you are arguing for. It really is complete nonsense. I’ve provided the link to the critique before. This would be a good paper to read to get an understanding of how far from reality are these arguments for renewables being able to provide the electricity supply demanded by modern society
You say:
“A baseload demand problem would only emerge in a system reliant almost entirely (more than 75 per cent) on solar electricity.”
Where do we get our power during the day when most of eastern Australia is under cloud for several days? How much redundancy has to be built? How much trasnsmission? The costs of such a system are discussed here:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/09/10/solar-realities-and-transmission-costs-addendum/
and here:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/08/12/zca2020-critique/
You say:
“It is a positive disadvantage for nuclear that it generates power 24 hours a day rather than solely during the daytime. Much of that power, and the fuel used to generate it, is effectively wasted.”
That is a misunderstanding of nuclear power. Nuclear power plants are designed to run at full power all the time or to load follow. The ones designed to run at full power all the time provide power at the least cost. Plants that follow the load produce power at higher cost. And because of the higher capital cost and lower running cost of nuclear relative to gas, for example, it is cheaper to use gas for peak power (or hydro where available). The European EPR for example is designed to ramp its power up and down at 5% (80MW) per minute and can operate between 25% and 100% of full power (400MW and 1600MW). Nuclear powered ships stop and start and acceperate and decelerate, and the same is the case with nuclear power plants if designed to do so. If we were building NPPs in Australia, we would build baseload only plants until they have replaced at least 50%, perhaps more, of our coal fired plants before we started building load following NPPs.
John, Nuclear is by far the least cost way to avoid emissions, about the safest and has the least environmental foot print. By far!!
@DavidC
Not at all. I’d prefer that we decarbonised here and there, and would love to see the full externalities of fossil hyrdrocarbon imposed universally. Yet I’m just one person. If folks here are not willing to do what is needed, as a result of an unreasoning fear of nuclear power, that’s dreadful. OTOH, CO2 knows no jurisdiction and if we can help China and Russia and Indonesia and others who aren’t wetting themselves with childish fear over nuclear power decarbonise with our help then I say that’s still a step forward. It’s also just because the mess was substantially made by our predecessors here, and we are their beneficiaries. Call it restitution.
Energy density? You mean you think that is relevant? Gosh — will wonders never cease? Something pertinent crept into the considerations of an anti-nuclear campaigner! What does energy density tell you about the size of the likely subsidy to renewables David? If it exceeds the cost of the fossil hydrocarbon externality or else the capacity of human beings to pay, what then?
You are on the verge of an epiphany but you need to think this through.
@DavidC
Again, this is a non-problem as the volumes involved are tiny and well before we got anywhere near the “thousands of years” timeline (probably not later than 30 years) we would be using the hazmat in fast reactorts, further reducing the length of time at which it would be hazardous.
And can anyone here say what, 200 years from now, how hazmat management will be done? What would a person living in 1810 have usefully said of todays practices? In those days, sewerage wasn’t even connected. At the current pace of technological change, if hazmat is a serious concern in 200 years, better solutions than we have now will be found.
That’s not clean baseload. That’s summer solar with gas backup.