Touch here for mobile friendly version

Thursday, August 17, 2017

More thoughts on the robustness of Mark Jacobson’s 100% renewable energy plan

Figure 1: Trickle-down solar collector test rig

When I first saw the paper critiquing Jacobson's 100% renewables plan (see here, here, here, and here) I thought to myself, “If he denies there are any mistakes but then makes changes, I'll know that the critiques had at least some measure of validity.” Lo and behold, after denying that there were any mistakes, he immediately made revisions to the study.

I also thought, “And if any changes made involve his input assumptions, that would suggest that the study results were likely heavily biased by cherry picked assumptions all along (garbage in = garbage out).”

Why did Mark Jacobson limit his 100% renewable game plan to the expansion of wind and solar?

In a nutshell, it’s because “we” environmentalists are opposed to practically every other energy source. Corn, palm, cane, and canola liquid biofuels, new dams, and the combustion of biomass have all more or less been rejected as being too environmentally destructive.

But nuclear power does not necessitate the obliteration of river ecosystems, salmon runs, forests, or grasslands. Instead, environmental groups have rejected it on the pretense that it’s too expensive, dirty, and dangerous.

And because none of that is necessarily true, one has to conclude that it’s being rejected out of willful ignorance (not unlike the rejection of the theory of evolution by some groups and for similar reasons).

You might argue that Jacobson rejected nuclear energy because of its cost but when Jesse Jenkins mentioned in a tweet that Jacobson’s own data had (inadvertently) demonstrated that the inclusion of nuclear would actually have lowered costs, Jacobson’s response was to simply ban Jenkins from his twitter feed.

The difference between Jacobson’s study and most others is the extraordinary claim to know how to decarbonize an entire industrialized planet via the expansion of only two (sporadic) energy sources: wind and solar.

I don’t know at what point Jacobson went off the rails, but a research paper is just a road-map used to test hypothesis. Unless and until the results are vetted, the results of studies like these are only, at best, theoretical. In reality, hypothesis rarely pan out, in part or especially in full. His promotion of the study’s grandiose theoretical results as factual borders on the (pick a word for me).

Papers tend to serve as stepping stones for later ones. They are rarely the be all end all solution. A study was recently published that looks a lot like Jacobson's except it fixed many of his problems with the inclusion of nuclear.

The devil is in the details.

Let me give you a simple real world example of a study I did to test the hypothesis that single story homes in Seattle can supply all of their own heating needs using a trickle-down solar collection system. I'd read about these systems but couldn't find any data on them, so, to satisfy my curiosity, I generated my own data by constructing a test rig using a single piece of black corrugated metal roofing covered with glass. A pump circulated water to the top of the roof segment from a three cubic foot insulated container at the bottom. See Figure 1.

The test confirmed that a system like this, on mild, partly cloudy days in Seattle could raise the water temperature from 70 degrees Fahrenheit to 110 degrees. Using that information and a whole lot of assumptions to fill in for missing data, I was able to calculate that it would be possible to store, during the summer, enough hot water in a well-insulated pool under a well-insulated single story house to meet its heating needs for a year in that part of the world using a south facing shed roof with the proper inclination etc, etc.

If I were so motivated, I might at this point claim my study proves that every house in Seattle could and therefore should be heated this way. But a peer review of my plan might ask:
  1. How would the glass, inside and outside, as well as the corrugated metal under it be cleaned and by who?
  2. How do you prevent ground water from compromising the insulation around your underground storage pool?
  3. How much power would the pumps consume (can’t be solar powered because the roof is all used for heating water)?
  4. How would you secure the glass to resist wind, snow, and seismic loads?
  5. How long would it take before the water abrades a hole in the roofing?
  6. Who would repair leaks in the storage pool and how?
  7. What would the design of this storage pool look like?
  8. How do you control the water quality in the pool?
  9. How would the heat be retrieved?
  10. What would it all cost?
Technological issues aside, how would you convince people to install this system, assuming you could get it to work and the necessary infrastructure to support it? Some neighborhood covenants require cedar shake roofing for its aesthetic appeal. Seattle zoning laws don't allow solar panels in front yards and on, and on.

Now consider Jacobson’s claim to have calculated ways not to just heat homes in Seattle, but to power an entire planet with the expansion of just wind and solar. I came up with a short, very incomplete, list of ten unanswered questions for my study. Jacobson’s study would generate tens if not hundreds of thousands of them.

Communism also looked good on paper in its heyday …doesn’t work. The NIMBY factor alone likely makes his plan untenable. However, if I were a renewable energy lobbyist or  possibly an extreme left politician, Jacobson's plan would be just the ticket.



Thursday, August 3, 2017

Greenpeace isn't the only one, the UCS, Sierra Club, FOE, and even the WWF, to name just a few, all share the blame.





Michael Shellenberger is going after Greenpeace in a series of articles exposing their disingenuous anti-nuclear energy activities. More power to him.
  • Climate change isn't a global conspiracy by scientists to solicit research funding.
  • Climate change is the result of mass global deforestation and the combustion of billions of tons of hydrocarbons that have been stored underground for hundreds of millions of years.
  • The oceans are not going to absorb the extra carbon and heat energy forever.
I could be wrong about climate change. You never know. But isn't it about time to stop using coal to make electricity, regardless? Coal was the replacement for wood when parts of Europe ran out of forests to burn. It's old-school, dangerous to mine, environmentally destructive (although less so that burning wood), and filthy. Nuclear has been coal's main competitor for over half-a-century now. It is a much cleaner and environmentally friendly alternative. Maybe we should replace coal plants with nuclear plants and lessen the impact on those who make a living mining coal by facilitating their participation in their construction and operation?

Should we risk trying to decarbonize without help from nuclear, risk the effects of climate change by excluding the world's largest source of proven, scalable, low carbon electricity? Considering that there is no meaningful risk to including nuclear in the energy mix and that the risk of excluding it may be cataclysmic, the answer should be one of those rare no-brainers.

Video of a dragonfly laying eggs

Nature was collapsing all around us long before anyone heard of climate change. Read the latest in a very long line of books about this subject: The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History. Just a few days ago I took the above video of a dragonfly laying eggs in a goldfish pond. This is not an intact ecosystem. It's covered with a net to keep the cats, raccoons, and herons from eating said colorful carp, which are an invasive species, as is the English ivy in the foreground. It has a pump to aerate the water, and the fish are fed fish food made from fish. Being in the middle of a city you can hear the city noises; cars, trucks, aircraft, snippets of conversations. If the larvae of that dragonfly reduce the goldfish population, that's fine, because dragonflies also eat mosquitoes.

Argentine wildlife reserve--Esteros del Ibera

Speaking of which, I once had the pleasure of visiting an increasingly rare, largely intact ecosystem. You have probably never experienced one this intact, and as sad as this sounds, your children and grandchildren are even less likely to do so. While watching caiman, capybara, and any number of other fascinating creatures go about their business at dusk, I witnessed hundreds of thousands of dragonflies rising into the sky to eat mosquitoes (3:17 into above video and pardon the poor quality for I knew not what I was doing). Although it was ideal mosquito habitat, I don't recall being bitten by one, or even seeing one, while there.

What led many of the world's largest environmental organizations to focus on nuclear energy at the expense of nature (nuclear is one of our most benign sources of energy when it comes to ecosystem disruption--Chernobyl actually resulted in the creation of Europe's largest wildlife preserve)?

In part, the answer has to do with the profit motive (big surprise). I'm all for seeking profit, but sometimes it can lead to bad outcomes. There's money to be made if you can convince people that you're going to protect them from some evil, like nuclear power ...Satan. It works for the Vatican, the UCS, Greenpeace, FOE, any lay-press organization that prints readership garnering anti-nuclear articles. In the beginning, there actually was a conscious effort by some of these environmental groups to make stuff up about nuclear energy, specifically to maintain or increase membership. But before long the creation and dissemination of anti-nuclear misinformation became a self-propagating snow ball rolling downhill, which didn't really matter much until it ran into climate change. Anti-nuclearism eventually evolved (can I use that word?) into a key component of most environmental group's tribal identity. Indoctrination works. Ask any creationist. To this day, a significant percentage of the victims of German antisemitic indoctrination in the thirties and forties still cling to their antisemitic views.

Clearly, it's easier to motivate people with fear than it is with facts. That's because the parsing of fact from fiction is much easier said than done. And since warring parties always claim to have the facts on their side, logically, not being sure who actually has the facts, many people are going to play it safe and side with the group claiming to protect them.

So, in the end, fear trumps facts. Does this mean that if you want people to accept nuclear energy you have to make them even more afraid of climate change? Maybe, but these same environmental groups are busy convincing people that all you need is wind, solar, and hydro to defeat coal and gas. Their contention had been bolstered by the work of Mark Jacobson's 100% wind, water, and solar game plan, but that just went down in flames. Jacobson is a classic case of the Dunning-Kruger effect writ large. Irony is not a strong enough word to describe the negative impact of the anti-nuclear stance of major environmental groups when it comes to fighting climate change. Read Has anti-nuclear fear mongering nullified all progress made by wind and solar since 2000?

Aspects of our human nature, like our propensity to split into warring tribes, are preventing meaningful progress to slow climate change. Tribal identity is typically the result of imprinting in one’s youth, which could lead to a belief that it’s God’s will or just as easily that nuclear energy is inherently dangerous and dirty. From Clean Energy Mind Games:
“As persistent opposition to nuclear power by many environmental groups demonstrates, not even an appeal to concern about the global environmental threat of climate change is enough to reverse deeply held beliefs. The fear of being disloyal to the tribe and then being ostracized is a visceral, personal, and powerful barrier to revisiting the sources of one’s opposition to nuclear energy.

…we shape our views so they agree with the views of the group or groups with which we most closely identify. Agreeing with and promoting our group’s views demonstrates loyalty, which earns us status as a member in good standing, worthy of our group’s support. This is vital for nothing less than our sense of safety since as social animals we instinctively depend on our group—our tribe—for protection.

But nuclear opponents steadfastly deny these findings. They consistently portray nuclear accidents as doing much more harm than neutral experts have found. They consistently overstate the health risk from even the tiniest problems at any nuclear power facility. This is not unlike the science denial of people who reject the evidence of anthropogenic climate change. The phenomenon is the same. It is cultural cognition working to produce a view of the evidence that, though honestly held, simply conflicts with the current state of established scientific knowledge.”-- David Ropeik

Also consider reading this: How Tribalism Overrules Reason, and Makes Risky Times More Dangerous.

Likewise, climate activists are asking climate skeptics to be disloyal to their tribe, to brave being ostracized, to give up their sense of safety. Are most climate skeptics any more likely to do that than most climate activists are to embrace nuclear energy? Climate skeptics are just as resistant to facts as the anti-nuclear climate activists.

Not all people react to fear in the same way. Some deal with it via denial, which I suspect is the case for many climate skeptics. This is an example where too much optimism can lead to disaster. Evolution works in mysterious ways. Imagine three hominids in the distant past walking along on the African savannah. One is an optimist, one is a realist, and one is a pessimist. A lion approaches. The optimist assumes it probably isn't hungry. The pessimist has given up all hope. Where's the realist? There she is, in the top of that tall tree.

There’s always hope, or so they say, but that’s not really always true.











Sunday, July 23, 2017

Has anti-nuclear fear mongering nullified all progress made by wind and solar since 2000?

Figure 1 Emissions increase resulting from nuclear closures

"Twitter debate" is an oxymoron but once in a while I go down the rabbit hole, and when others get involved, it quickly devolves into a confused muddle not too unlike Alice in Wonderland.

It started when I responded to a tweet by Jonathan Gilligan:


At this point, I mentioned that fear, not economic competition had created the gap between the red and blue curves seen in Figure 1 above. After visiting his Twitter page, I'm thinking that maybe he's not all that enamored with nuclear:



The argument that the closing of the Japanese and German reactors as a result of anti-nuclear fear mongering may have largely, if not entirely, nullified all efforts by wind and solar to reduce emissions from 2000 on is pretty devastating.

Gilligan began formulating an argument to deemphasize the fear mongering of anti-nuclear groups: 
Antinuclear fearmongering began in 1970s. Why does red curve only start 40 years later? 
This does not explain why anti-nuclear fear mongering was so much more effective after Fukushima than after Chernobyl or Three Mile Island
...but those don't show up on the graph that Finley posted: Steady growth until a few years before Fukushima.
Thus, the story of how antinuclear fears shaped the growth of nuclear energy is more complex & dynamic than the thesis that anti-nuclear fears were responsible for decline in global nuclear output after Fukushima.
No similar declines after Chernobyl or TMI. The causal factor was present for 40 years, but the decline only recently. Thus, more to the decline than just fears.
In your argument, what caused citizens to become convinced nuclear was too dangerous after Fuku 11, but not after C'byl 86 or TMI 79?
I tried to pin him down:
You're saying that 60 or so reactors in Germany and Japan would have closed post quake even without the indoctrinated unfounded fear of it.
He then appears to cede that they were closed at least partly out of fear and then suggests other factors:
No. I never said that. I said that the fear is complicated, and it's only one of the many factors. 60 reactors didn't close after C'byl.

Many reasons. One is techno-optimism: renewables were much more plausible to public in 2011 than in 1986 (20% of German electricity).

I responded that "techno optimism" does not explain the suddenness of the closures in Japan and Germany. The suddenness was out of unfounded, implanted, fear. As for Chernobyl, fossil fuels were very plausible substitutes for nuclear back in 86 but didn't replace it in Russia (as they have largely done in Japan and Germany) because they had not been indoctrinated with a fear of nuclear.

Gilligan continues:
Neither fear nor optimism account for the whole story. What other factors do you think contributed?
I am saying that it's more complicated than just one cause, and we don't know all the factors. You're the one saying it's one simple cause.
Conversely, I wonder ab't role of techno-optimism: growing perception that renewable power is feasible, so ppl want clean non-nuke options [emphasis mine].

He has a mildly relevant point in that fear is just one piece of misinformation being used against nuclear--it isn't safe:
 
New Scientist Graphic and Greenpeace version of it (added wind, ignored hydro)


...it isn't clean:


The groups over-hyping solar/wind/HVDC Super Grids (the techno optimists, except when it comes to new nuclear) tend to be quite negative about nuclear (Mark Jacobson is rabidly anti-nuclear).

Clearly, and unequivocally, Japanese and German reactors were not closed by economic competition. Fear is the link that all of the other arguments for the closing of Japanese and German nuclear hang from. Without the fear factor, those reactors would still be up and running.

In a nutshell, the world can thank the misinformation disseminated by anti-nuclear groups for nullifying most, if not all, emissions reductions from wind and solar combined since 2000.

If Figure 1 starts to gain traction (finds its way into other articles as my aerospace/nuclear industry analogy did), we can expect to see the formulation of more counter-arguments to deflect the blame away from anti-nuclear fear mongering for largely nullifying the progress of wind and solar. Watch for it.

Because all studies depend on input assumptions, by assuming that there is an extra cycling penalty on natural gas used to follow the many ups and downs of wind and solar and assuming a reduction in capacity factor for aging wind and solar farms, it wasn't difficult to tweak assumptions to show that the closure of nuclear has nullified all emissions reductions from wind and solar since 2000.

A spreadsheet showing the assumed factors as variables allow one to see the impact of choosing different assumptions. A serious study would be vastly more complex and should include error bands and on and on. My simple spreadsheet (screenshot in Figure 2) is substantially simplified, serving only to demonstrate some of the factors that would be considered to quantify emissions nullification. Like any study, it's biased, and in this case, the bias is in a direction to make my points about research bias as well as the lack of progress resulting from the closing of nuclear.
Figure 2: Spreadsheet Screenshot of Simple Study to Demonstrate Potential Emissions Nullification
A recently published meta study (of dozens of other recent studies) found that inclusion of nuclear along with wind and solar in low carbon grids significantly reduces costs.


Update 7/24/2017: Added last two paragraphs and figure 2.








Sunday, July 9, 2017

David Roberts--Solar saving lives while intense battles rage across the country as batteries neuter attempts by utilities to attack it!

Figure 1 NREL Study Results

David Roberts has recently published two new somewhat obtuse energy articles:
The first is a rehash of a joint 2016 Berkeley Labs and National Renewable Energy Lab study touting the benefits of solar titled The Environmental and Public Health Benefits of Achieving High Penetrations of Solar Energy in the United States [When Compared to Coal and Natural Gas, But Not Nuclear]. And keep in mind that solar in the U.S. makes up roughly 0.4 percent of total energy consumption at this point in time.

Like any study, it has its biases, and like any study, the results are largely the result of assumptions chosen. Read The 44% Nuclear, 35% Renewables, 21% Natural Gas Low Carbon Grid and Bounding the Renewables-Nuclear Debate (also see Figure 1).

When talking about water use, they assumed that concentrated solar will use dry-cooled technology (which uses an order of magnitude less water than a typical wet-cooled system). Why would the authors conclude that only solar would do that when there are no laws in place mandating it and if there were laws, why would they not apply to other power systems?

Tuesday, July 4, 2017

The 44% Nuclear, 35% Renewables, 21% Natural Gas Low Carbon Grid

Typical Rube Goldberg machine with its many attendant assumptions and potential failure nodes
Proposed coast-to-coast  HVDC super-grid with its many attendant assumptions and potential failure nodes

Would a continent-sized super HVDC grid be a Rube Goldberg machine writ large?

Back in the day, you would have been hard-pressed to find an article on the internet critical of biofuels. We should all be driving biodiesel or cellulosic ethanol powered cars by now. Politicians at the Federal level from both sides of the aisle saw this as an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone; buy votes from the farm belt, implement a permanent farm subsidy. So, in the end all we have left is the government mandated consumption of corn ethanol. Ethanol made out of corn now replaces roughly 10% of gasoline use. Not quite what everyone was hoping for. Governors and mayors also jumped on the bandwagon with similar dismal results.

Because Seattle is too small to grow its own biodiesel, the goal was to at least source it from Washington State, but for economic reasons, it ended up coming from Canada. So, in the end, there was a transfer of wealth going on from Seattle to Canada for its canola-based biodiesel, which is why all of the biodiesel stations have since disappeared. A similar situation arises with the generation of electricity.

Dozens of studies and white papers supporting biofuels were being pumped out (no pun intended) at the height of the craze. I see all of this as a potential analogy for what we're witnessing today with wind and solar.

The latest low carbon energy system research seems to have given up on storing excess wind and solar generated electricity in a form that will be used to create electricity later (minus the 20%-30% lost from storing and retrieving it) when there is demand for it.

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

Bounding the Renewables-Nuclear Debate

Figure 1: From NREL Renewable Electricity Futures Study

Very few people out there are arguing for a 100% nuclear future, and most are not arguing for a 100% renewable future. When we toss the extreme views out, the debate is over how much of what.

If you bound your debate to electricity generation in 2017 in a given geographical area, say, Seattle, you get:

Hydro 87.3%
Nuclear 4.7%
Wind 3.1%
Coal 2.1%
Natural Gas 1.3%
Biogas 1.1%
Other 0.4%

Not bad. Who said you can't cost effectively decarbonize with renewables (when 87% comes from hydro)? Doing that with wind and solar, on the other hand, remains an untested hypothesis.

If you bound your debate to electricity generation in 2050 in the continental United States you might get what you see in the lower half of Figure 1 above, which encapsulates the four-volume mega-study from the National Renewable Energy Lab to replace 80% of our electricity generation with "renewable" sources.

If you can't trust the NREL to come up with a competent study biased to favor renewable energy, who can you trust?

Some things to note about that study:

Tuesday, May 30, 2017

Do We Have the Tools to End the Fossil Fuel Age?


I turned a comment I made under The Energy Endgame: We AlreadyHave the Tools to End the Fossil Fuel Age into a post. The article was written by “Tyler Norris [who] served as a Special Advisor to the U.S. Secretary of Energy in the Obama administration. Until May 2017, he was a Director at S&P Global Platts/PIRA, a market intelligence consultancy, where he co-led the firm’s cleantech practice.”

There is no indication that he has any engineering background, which may explain why he does not understand basic concepts like baseload and LCOE verses system costs.

The author’s arguments rest on an untested hypothesis. There is no evidence that the world can be powered with renewables alone. From a peer-reviewed study in Science Direct:

While many modeled scenarios have been published claiming to show that a 100% renewable electricity system is achievable, there is no empirical or historical evidence that demonstrates that such systems are in fact feasible.

Of the studies published to date, 24 have forecast regional, national or global energy requirements at sufficient detail to be considered potentially credible. We critically review these studies using four novel feasibility criteria for reliable electricity systems needed to meet electricity demand this century.


Eight of 24 scenarios (33%) provided no form of system simulation. Twelve (50%) relied on unrealistic forecasts of energy demand. While four studies (17%; all regional) articulated transmission requirements, only two scenarios—drawn from the same study—addressed ancillary-service requirements. In addition to feasibility issues, the heavy reliance on exploitation of hydroelectricity and biomass raises concerns regarding environmental sustainability and social justice.

The author continues:
Baseload goes bust
Norris doesn’t seem to understand the definition of baseload, which is the minimum level of demand on an electrical grid over a span of time. Most certainly, that is not going to “go bust.” He’s parroting an old antinuclear argument that never did make any sense but continues to bounce around the internet echo chamber. You can provide baseload in any number of ways; including, but only in theory, the use of wind and solar if you have enough storage and/or an intercontinental HVDC super grid.
That’s why it’s essential to preserve and extend as many existing nuclear plants as possible and continue making long-term public investments in advanced nuclear and carbon capture technology, even if their scale-up is less than likely -- and even if the United States government doesn’t lead.
He is right about keeping existing nuclear power stations open, but there is no need to wait for even more advanced nuclear to deploy more nuclear. Nuclear power station designs being built today are perfectly adequate; safe, and if built by the right company, highly economically competitive. Carbon capture is a canard that is distracting from the conversation.

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

Amory Lovins's Comments on a Fred Pearce Post

I recently stumbled on a comment by Amory Lovins under an article by Fred Pearce at Yale 360 called Industry Meltdown: Is the Era of Nuclear Power Coming to an End?

360 holds every comment for moderation, which tends to thwart any meaningful dialog but that's a little better than no comment field at all (VOX), and much better than CleanTechnica's method of systematically censoring comments and commenters who have viewpoints that differ from that of the moderator. Watch for his confirmation bias and the backfire effect--a term that describes how people will cling ever more, ah, heartily, to a strongly held belief when confronted with facts that dispel it. There is very little difference in that respect between creationists and anti-nuclearists like Lovins.
Assuming that not all edits and comments will appear or will appear in a timely fashion, I thought I'd throw them into an article. From Lovins:
In the first five years after Fukushima, Japan has displaced 70% (64% without GDP renormalization) of its previous national nuclear output with electricity savings, renewables, and a bit of other distributed generation.

Your link is broken and your source which states that its mission is to “establish a society based on renewable energy,” is suspect. 

From Bloomberg:

From 2011 through 2013, Japan’s trade balance worsened by a cumulative 18.1 trillion yen ($169 billion), estimates Taro Saito, director of economic research at the NLI Research Institute in Tokyo. Of that amount, 10 trillion yen, or 55 percent, came from energy imports.

$169/3 = $56.33 billion
55% OF $ 56.33 billion = $30.98 billion.

2016-2011= 5 years.

5 years x $31 billion/year = $155 billion dollars lost to fossil fuel costs as a result of antinuclear fear mongering that has closed Japan's nuclear. How many nuclear power stations would that have paid for in that brief period?

(Note that my original comment had misinterpreted the $169 billion as being for each year instead of the cumulative total).

The uptick in coal-fired generation ended in 2013

Coal use was 10 percent higher in 2015 than in 2009 (source: BP statistical review).

…and was more than entirely due to record net power exports (particularly to France) as renewables helped drive German wholesale power prices well below French ones. (Data in German…)

Data in German? Wholesale prices drop when wind or solar create a glut on the market (because it has little value). Exporting that glut to areas without wind or solar is a way to minimize damage to the finances of your own domestic power producers (who have bills to pay).

Beware of the many press reports about German CO2 that confuse the power sector with the whole economy. The notion that Germany substituted lignite for nuclear power or built backup capacity for "intermittent" renewables is nonsense…

Beware of those who want you to believe that German emissions would not have been less had they closed coal instead of nuclear. Roughly 40% of German electricity still comes from coal.

The French Academy's "common-sense" claims are a throwback to the 1990s, ignoring extensive European analysis and experience in achieving high renewable electricity shares (e.g. in 2014, as a fraction of total annual domestic consumption, 46% in Spain, 50% in Scotland, 59% in Denmark, 64% in Portugal) without adding backup capacity or bulk storage, and with superior reliability.

 From the Breakthrough Institute:

When wind oversupply would crush their energy market, they export it to other grids that have little wind. So what happens when those grids have as many wind turbines as Denmark? Denmark won't be able to export it. So, in other words, because Denmark is part of the Nordic Synchronized Area, it isn't really supplying 40% of the energy to that Nordic grid with wind. It's supplying about 10%.

Denmark just happens to use most of that wind because the turbines are located in Denmark and closer to the sources that use their electricity. The game's over once the other countries in their grid get as much wind as they have. And that's the point. They will likely stop wind development far short of Denmark because they don't want to be crushed by their own wind causing oversupply. They will use Denmark wind, i.e., Denmark is only supplying about 10% to the grid it is part of. This is also true for the other countries in your list.

Indeed, the ultrareliable former East German utility 50Hertz in 2015 got 49% of its electricity from renewables, three-fourths of them variable (PV and windpower), and its CEO says it could readily go to 60–70%, still without adding bulk storage.

Indeed …but growth of the non-intermittent renewable sources (biomass and hydro) as well as solar are grinding to a halt in Germany which leaves wind as the only source with much potential for further growth. Note that wind currently supplies only about 2% of Germany’s total primary energy consumption.


John Finnegan's cited blog endorsing certain nuclear operating subsidies is puzzling because it tracks only carbon, not also dollars. It therefore overlooks the opportunity to reinvest a distressed nuclear plant's saved operating cost into several times more energy efficiency (or cheap renewables), thus saving both carbon and money by closing the nuclear plant

What I find puzzling is the lack of evidence that high penetrations of sporadic energy sources decrease the electric bills for citizens. Your above comment rests on the assumption that they do.

 

Nuclear advocates' claim that closing a reactor always means burning more fossil fuel is worth examining but is clearly untrue in Japan, Germany, and even Vermont, where the uptick in gas-burning lasted only a year: NE-ISO's 2014–16 nuclear output loss was 91% offset by renewables and hydro-dominated imports, and another 69% by reduced sales.

Japan? Nuclear output dropped 158 TWh while the combination of wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and biomass only increased 42 TWh (data per 2016 BP Statistical Review). The increase in renewables did not offset the much greater loss of nuclear. And if the rest is from energy conservation, then clearly reductions would have been even greater had nuclear not been shut down.

Germany? Like I said earlier, beware of those who want you to believe that German emissions would not have continued to decline had they closed coal instead of nuclear. Roughly 40% of German electricity still comes from coal.

Vermont? Your comment about Vermont appears to say that 91% + 69% = 160% of nuclear power was replaced by renewables plus hydro power (which is a renewable) along with reduced sales. But a reduction in emissions from energy efficiency would have existed with or without replacing one zero carbon source (nuclear) with others. Certainly, few nuclear plants can be replaced by hydro and if that is really the case in Vermont, it must have been excess hydro not being used by somebody else already or hydro taken from some other user who has had to replace it with something else, low carbon or not.
Grid integration of variable renewables has at least ten flexibility options, not only in supply but also demand (efficiency and flexibility), and not only in bulk electrical storage but also in thermal storage (in buildings' thermal mass, hot water, cold water, ice), hydrogen, and distributed storage worth buying anyway (such as bidirectional smart-charging electric vehicles).

Why did you say “variable renewables” when you mean wind and solar? And why have these options not scaled up in the decades you have been promoting them? Why will they suddenly scale up a few orders of magnitude in the next few decades just because wind and solar need them? And if they are feasible, why couldn’t nuclear baseload charge all of these storage devices at night when demand is low to minimize the need to run gas power plants in the day, and why haven’t they already capitalized on all of this theoretical profitability already?

Well-designed systems running largely or wholly on renewables will need no added backup capacity and little or no bulk storage…
You are confusing untested hypothesis with facts. And again you said renewables when you meant wind and solar.

…that's the costliest option, so it would be bought last, not first, we needn't wait for it, and the market isn't waiting.

We already know that hydro works without need for backup. Don’t know what you mean by “the market isn’t waiting.” Remove wind and solar subsides and growth would come to a standstill, as happened in Germany with reduction of the solar feed in tariff.

Shellenberger's claim about land use is wildly off.
Your renewable energy footprint paper should be used to teach classes about confirmation bias.
Material per TWh by Russ Finley at Biodiversivist.com


 



Thursday, May 18, 2017

Jon Talton of the Seattle Times writes the ten-millionth uninformed, sensationalist, antinuclear energy article

Antinuclear poster from 2014 Climate March


Below I offer a few thoughts on a mind-numbing article by Jon Talton found in the Seattle Times originally titled Nuclear Energy Fears Exceed Its Benefits.
Among the four words one least wants to hear are “Hanford nuclear reservation emergency.”
Really? Isn’t that a rather sensationalist, not to mention, disingenuous remark? How will assorted pieces of irradiated junk buried in the ground as a result of cold war nuclear weapons production harm anybody not standing in close proximity to it?
At one time, the site had nine nuclear reactors.
Those were devices to produce weapon’s grade plutonium, not to be confused with commercial nuclear power stations. The University of Washington had a nuclear reactor for many years as many large universities still do. A nuclear reactor is not a nuclear bomb or a nuclear power station. The reactor is only the source of heat for nuclear power stations.
But don’t look for a major surge in U.S. nuclear power anytime soon.
There will be quite a surge as the power stations now under construction are completed. At this point in your article you segue from a problem with waste at a military super fund site into commercial electricity production. You have conflated the two for readers who now see using nuclear fission as a heat source for a power station as the equivalent of making material for nuclear weapons. That’s disingenuous and irresponsible in this age of the internet and man-made climate change

Part of the problem was revealed in last week’s Hanford incident.
Actually, waste storage isn’t part of the problem with the building of nuclear power stations. No nuclear power station has been closed because a long term storage facility isn’t available yet.
Inside the collapsed tunnel was radioactive waste buried inside rail cars, no doubt some of it from Hanford’s reactors. The same issue applies to modern commercial reactors. They haven’t released carbon into the atmosphere, but they have left 75,000 metric tons of spent fuel in the United States alone.
Except used fuel from commercial nuclear power stations isn't buried in train cars a few feet underground. The commercial nuclear power station located on the reservation has nothing to do with the military waste stored there. Long term storage facilities for used nuclear power station fuel are being built by other countries and two have already been built here but are not used for storage of that fuel yet thanks mostly to antinuclear lobbyists. You phrase the amount in a manner that makes it sound huge. Spent nuclear fuel is very heavy but takes up very little space. See Figure 1 below to get a feel for that:
Figure 1

And that waste can be deadly for 250,000 years.

Friday, May 5, 2017

Which Electric Car Would you buy, Bolt, 2018 Leaf, Model 3, Model S, or Model X?

Bolt, Leaf, Model 3, Model S, Model X (Tesla images via Next Big Future)
Cue the Sesame Street song, "One of these cars doesn't belong here." That would be the Model 3, of which, none have been delivered. Is it just me, or do the Tesla's all look like they all came from a storyboard for a James Bond movie?

My Leaf's range is approaching the point that it will no longer meet my minimum criteria, which is to get to Everett or Renton from Seattle on a cold day without need to hit a fast charger.

Musk and Trump share at least one thing in common, ah, make that two things: both are quite wealthy, both are consummate salesmen. Musk's Battery Wall pitch a few years ago was near total BS. His purported game plan has been to use the profits from his high-end sports and luxury cars to fund the development of an affordable electric car for the masses--the Model 3. But, I've been driving an affordable electric car for almost six years now.  Lots of car manufacturers beat him to that punch. The Chevy Bolt also beat him to the punch, and the new Leaf, with similar range as the Bolt, may beat him to the punch again.