Cont: Global warming discussion V

[wobs]

It costs you nothing to keep generating power, so why would you ever shut it off?

The more wind/solar you have as a % of your grid, the more you'll have to have switched off for much of teh time, as you will need far more excess capacity owing to its intermittency. That extra capacity is very expensive.

The problem here is that you are relying on "research" that has fundamentally skewed some basic concepts in order to try and make Nuclear look more attractive. Taking generating capacity offline due to over capacity does impact it's costs and economic viability, but the notion that it must always be wind\solar and never Nuclear that get taken offline when you have too much capacity is wrong. There is NO good reason why the costs of overcapacity should all be paid for by renewables.

No, its research that looked into nealry 1000 scenarios. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean its skewed. I've even explained why this is the case.

I showed that if you ran a grid just on wind/solar, you'd have such over capacity, it would be uneconomic. This is why I pointed out about switching off wind turbines, it assumes you wouldn't have nuclear power.

If you have just renewables, it will be paid for by the renewables. Which is why it is uneconomic to just have renewables - You would need such over capacity that it would be prohibitively expensive.

 

[dann]

And so the higher % of the grid you have is intermittent (wind/solar), the more you have to do that. If you want to have all wind/solar for your grid, you will have to have such a high % switched off much of the time, it would be uneconomic (see previous post).

You don't seem to understand that I don't give a **** if it is uneconomic. Bowing to that principle is what got us where we are now. I don't really give a **** if wind and solar are uneconomic. They don't contribute to CO₂ emission (or at least they don't as soon as the production and mainentance is powered by wind and solar).

Lets have another example:
Lets say you spend £2.3million of a turbine. Over 25 years of its expected life, it runs at a capacity factor of 30% (average for on shore). You assume an availability of 90% if it works ok, and you can work out your payback according to the price of feed-in tariff etc.

If you make enough money per year, you'll pay back the investment in a few years (7 years in my experience, but that was a few years ago). However, if you need to switch it off for prolonged periods, you're not getting any payback. With a grid with many times as many wind turbines than the demand needs (because you'd need so much excess capacity), that investment could never payback.

I don't give a **** if "that investment could never payback." This kind of capitalist calculation is why we are where we are!

If you say "oh, but we'll get paid to switch it off, so it will payback anyway". Well fine, but society has to pay for that. Its still really expensive for society when you scale it up to a national grid scale operation.

I would never say that. 'We' won't be paid back. I don't own any wind turbines or solar panels. And yes, "society has to pay for that," which appears to be a concept that you have a hard time grasping. So let society pay for it if that is what it takes! Let society scale it up to a national grid scale operation.
I don't see the problem because there isn't any. The only problem is to let all decisions depend on capitalist calculations. Nationalize the ******* grid and get over it!

The alternative is you follow the evidence (see previous posts), and invest in nuclear as part of the baseload supply, so you don't have to have as much excess capacity

No it isn't. And you again ignore that even nuclear needs to have excess capacity.

 

[dann]

That extra capacity is very expensive. ... it would be uneconomic. ... it is uneconomic ... it would be prohibitively expensive.

Nothing, except for your capitalist calculations, makes it "prohibitively expensive." But a planet fit for human habitation rules out CO₂ emissions.
You are obviously very fond of nuclear. Do you have a vested interest in nuclear?

 

[wobs]

Nothing, except for your capitalist calculations, makes it "prohibitively expensive." But a planet fit for human habitation rules out CO₂ emissions.
You are obviously very fond of nuclear. Do you have a vested interest in nuclear?

If its not economic, we can't really do it on a scale required. There is no environmental, social, or technical reason not to invest in nuclear. Without it, CO2 will rise further, and that's the issue at hand.

I have no vested interest in nuclear, but I do care about tackling climate change. You seem to have an emotional investment in being against nuclear. That isn't a judgment or anything, people are emotionally invested in ideas all the time.

Don't get me wrong, there are many other things we need to do as well, such as green hydrogn (which won't appear in the UK until about 2040), electrify as much as we can, develop biomass use in a sustainable way, with carbon capture, walkable cities, better public transport...... to name a few things, but nuclear power seems to be a point of contention for many.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

solar and wind had the benefit of exponential growth in efficiency.
There is every reason to believe that energy storage technology will undergo the same growth, only quicker, because we have more actors with more money trying to make it happen.

 

[wobs]

solar and wind had the benefit of exponential growth in efficiency.

The laws of physics disagrees with you.

There is every reason to believe that energy storage technology will undergo the same growth, only quicker, because we have more actors with more money trying to make it happen.

Many storage technologies are mature (eg. pumped storage), some have room for improvement (eg. batteries). But those are just tweaking. Making something more efficient is nice, but doesn't change the fundementals of that technology.

I hoped my Tokyo example would illustrate that, here it is again:
"Lets imagine Tokyo relied entirely on off shore wind. They have a huge quantity of excess capacity of turbines, and battery storage for when the wind drops. Then a storm hits, and all those turbines have to turn off, as its too windy. So they rely on battery back up for three days. How much do you think they'll need? 14million, purchase price: $400billion, which averages out at $27billion per year. (Numbers from How to Avoid Climate Disaster by Bill Gates)

That's just for the batteries, not including the wind turbines, which would also be expsensive owing to the excess capacity required."


It doesn't matter if you improve some technology (eg. batteries), you will never afford enough back up to rely entirely off storage/wind/solar, as you will need to install too much capacity to make it economic.

 

[dann]

The laws of physics disagrees with you.

Many storage technologies are mature (eg. pumped storage), some have room for improvement (eg. batteries). But those are just tweaking. Making something more efficient is nice, but doesn't change the fundementals of that technology.

I hoped my Tokyo example would illustrate that, here it is again:
"Lets imagine Tokyo relied entirely on off shore wind. They have a huge quantity of excess capacity of turbines, and battery storage for when the wind drops. Then a storm hits, and all those turbines have to turn off, as its too windy. So they rely on battery back up for three days. How much do you think they'll need? 14million, purchase price: $400billion, which averages out at $27billion per year. (Numbers from How to Avoid Climate Disaster by Bill Gates)

A mere storm hits? It lasts three days? And for some reason the turbines have to be turned off because of a mere storm instead of letting it produce an awful lot of power? Making it up as you go along!

That's just for the batteries, not including the wind turbines, which would also be expsensive owing to the excess capacity required."


It doesn't matter if you improve some technology (eg. batteries), you will never afford enough back up to rely entirely off storage/wind/solar, as you will need to install too much capacity to make it economic.

At least you make it abundantly clear that your objections have absolutely nothing to do with the laws of physics and everything to do with the laws of capital. Consider another practical solution to many of the problems you make up: When there is no wind, the most energy-dependents factors have to shut down. (Or, if you want a very genuinely capitalist solution: Their power bills will become so expensive that they can't afford to keep production going until the wind is back and power cheap enough for them to open again. It's a capitalist solution they'll whine about, but screw them!)

 

[dann]

If its not economic, we can't really do it on a scale required. There is no environmental, social, or technical reason not to invest in nuclear. Without it, CO2 will rise further, and that's the issue at hand.

CO₂ will only rise further if "we" let it rise, which we won't. It appears to be another one of your imaginary 'laws of nature'.

I have no vested interest in nuclear, but I do care about tackling climate change. You seem to have an emotional investment in being against nuclear. That isn't a judgment or anything, people are emotionally invested in ideas all the time.

Yes, my interest in not being exposed to nuclear radiation and radioactive waste is very vested. And, yes, it's emotional, too! I don't feel like being exposed to that *****
Whereas your emotional interest in expenses is so entirely rational that you tend to confuse it with laws of nature.

Don't get me wrong, there are many other things we need to do as well, such as green hydrogn (which won't appear in the UK until about 2040), electrify as much as we can, develop biomass use in a sustainable way, with carbon capture, walkable cities, better public transport...... to name a few things, but nuclear power seems to be a point of contention for many.

Not "seems to be." It actually is a point of contention. Get used to it being so.

 

[lomiller]

The more wind/solar you have as a % of your grid, the more you'll have to have switched off for much of teh time, as you will need far more excess capacity owing to its intermittency. That extra capacity is very expensive.

Intermittency is already built into capacity calculations and over regional and continental scales it's not particularly intermittent anyway.

And again, wind and solar are the last thing you want to shut down because the the incremental cost to keep them running is zero. The notion that you should shut down wind to make nuclear less unaffordable is fundamentally wrong.

No, its research that looked into nealry 1000 scenarios. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean its skewed. I've even explained why this is the case.

But it is skewed. Why you you shut down the cheaper energy source in order to keep the more expensive one running?

I showed that if you ran a grid just on wind/solar, you'd have such over capacity, it would be uneconomic.

Wind and Solar are much cheaper than Nuclear. That's just a fact. What you are doing is insisting Wind MUST be used in a role for which it's entirely unsuitable then saying it must be uneconomical as a result. The fact is that nuclear and wind fill exactly the same role (use all the power it produces before moving on to other sources) and wind does it at about 1/3 the cost.

The other fact you keep ignoring is that peak demand is almost double the periods of lowest demand and the only way Nuclear can deal with this is to either use the same storage tech you as wind\solar or by building twice as many reactors as you need.

If you have just renewables, it will be paid for by the renewables. Which is why it is uneconomic to just have renewables - You would need such over capacity that it would be prohibitively expensive.

Again Nuclear is already far more expensive and requires comparable levels of overcapacity to deal with demand variation. Or, just build grid storage and improved long distance power transmission which benefits both.

 

[lomiller]

solar and wind had the benefit of exponential growth in efficiency.
There is every reason to believe that energy storage technology will undergo the same growth, only quicker, because we have more actors with more money trying to make it happen.

Energy storage in the form of electric cars is already growing quickly. All that's needed to take advantage of it is a smarter grid and charging systems that incentivizes charging during off-peak hours. There may even be the potential to sell back some electricity in peak hours.

 

[wobs]

A mere storm hits? It lasts three days? And for some reason the turbines have to be turned off because of a mere storm instead of letting it produce an awful lot of power? Making it up as you go along!

Wind above about 55mph, and turbines shut down to avoid damage. (You are aware that climate change will bring about changes in weather patterns right?)
https://www.pbsnc.org/blogs/science...f what you would,prevent damage to the blades.
https://web.uri.edu/offshore-renewable-energy/ate/can-wind-turbines-withstand-storms/
It varies between models, but that's a good illustration.

At least you make it abundantly clear that your objections have absolutely nothing to do with the laws of physics and everything to do with the laws of capital. Consider another practical solution to many of the problems you make up: When there is no wind, the most energy-dependents factors have to shut down. (Or, if you want a very genuinely capitalist solution: Their power bills will become so expensive that they can't afford to keep production going until the wind is back and power cheap enough for them to open again. It's a capitalist solution they'll whine about, but screw them!)

Its not a capitalist solution. Capitalism has no future if we want to tackle climate change. What we need to do is redesign the economy for a greener growth. But we can't magic up a system, and ignore these issues.

Large energy users already sometimes have to switch off at certain times (eg. electro-arc furnaces), but they still have to be viable businesses, so such shutdowns are manageable (not too long).

So you're saying that all large energy users should switch off when the wind doesn't blow, or when it blows too much? What would you do if we had another 2010 big freeze, where we had weeks of high demand, and little or no wind? Where would you draw the line?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_2010–11_in_Great_Britain_and_Ireland#Timeline

Do you want these industries to leave your country? They'll probably set up elsewhere with less stringent standards.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Meanwhile in Dubai...

https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1684478720554192896

I'm so glad there's a huge political constituency in this country that is determined to make sure these people only get richer forever.

 

[wobs]

Yes, my interest in not being exposed to nuclear radiation and radioactive waste is very vested. And, yes, it's emotional, too! I don't feel like being exposed to that *****
Whereas your emotional interest in expenses is so entirely rational that you tend to confuse it with laws of nature.

Where is your evidence that you would be? How would a modern design of nuclear power station expose you to radiation?

Nuclear power is the safest energy source we have
https://energyethics.st-andrews.ac.... any death is one,TWh of electricity per year.
Please explain how I confuse the laws of nature.

Not "seems to be." It actually is a point of contention. Get used to it being so.

And yet its the safest energy source we have.

 

[wobs]

Intermittency is already built into capacity calculations and over regional and continental scales it's not particularly intermittent anyway.

And again, wind and solar are the last thing you want to shut down because the the incremental cost to keep them running is zero. The notion that you should shut down wind to make nuclear less unaffordable is fundamentally wrong.

This is a misunderstanding of the issue. If you have wind/solar used for the majority of a grid (or all), it becomes more expensive, as you would need excess capacity owing to its intermittency. I'm sorry, I'm struggling to explain this any other way. Its just the way this technology works: you either turn it off or put the excess into storage currently, but as your renewables take over more of the grid, you need so much excess capacity that you can't install enough storage (not worth it), so that excess has to be turned off.

But it is skewed. Why you you shut down the cheaper energy source in order to keep the more expensive one running?

Its not cheaper (see previous posts). I mean you can run nuclear on a variable load I guess, but you would still need far more capacity owing to the intermittency of wind/solar, and installing many times capacity of any system is expensive. Installing many more wind turbines and have them shutdown for much of the time will suddenly make them not so cheap.

So this isn't true if you expand your wind farms to a too high % of your grid:

Wind and Solar are much cheaper than Nuclear. That's just a fact. What you are doing is insisting Wind MUST be used in a role for which it's entirely unsuitable then saying it must be uneconomical as a result. The fact is that nuclear and wind fill exactly the same role (use all the power it produces before moving on to other sources) and wind does it at about 1/3 the cost.

The other fact you keep ignoring is that peak demand is almost double the periods of lowest demand and the only way Nuclear can deal with this is to either use the same storage tech you as wind\solar or by building twice as many reactors as you need.


Again Nuclear is already far more expensive and requires comparable levels of overcapacity to deal with demand variation. Or, just build grid storage and improved long distance power transmission which benefits both.

I've already explained why wind/solar is more expensive when rolled out for such a large portion of a grid. I've done this more than once, and you haven't actually addressed the issue of what I said. The more excess capacity that you install, the more expensive it becomes. Wind would therefore become far more expensive, even with storage.

I even gave you an example from an actual book.

Nuclear does not require comparable excess capacity, as its capacity factor is about 90%, and is not dependent on factors beyond our control.

You can build storage as I've mentioned many times in this thread, but beyond a few days, it becomes very uneconomic. I recall an expert in solar CSP some years ago in saying that molten salt would be economic for about 18hrs. This is just an example, and I gave another example earlier regarding Tokyo.

HVDC cables simply moves the issues. In the UK many have suggested this, but that is often to connect to France, where they have nuclear power. Connecting to Norway where they have a finite amount of hydro is another option, but when the whole of Europe is in a deep freeze like us, that wouldn't be enough. Again, you'd be relying on storage from somewhere, with the issues mentioned already.

 

[wobs]

You don't seem to understand that I don't give a **** if it is uneconomic.

Its not capitalism to want something to be economic. If its prohibitively expensive on a national scale, if it drags an entire country down. In this instance, it would also be impractical.

We can in theory have a green economy, and I encourage you to read Doughnut Economics to see how. It doesn't have all the answers, but show that capitalism does not have a future for tackling climate change. But we do still need an economy that actually works, as we still have to live. We still have to build these changes we want, and we can't magic them into existence.

 

[wobs]

The other fact you keep ignoring is that peak demand is almost double the periods of lowest demand and the only way Nuclear can deal with this is to either use the same storage tech you as wind\solar or by building twice as many reactors as you need.

I don't ignore it, its a strawman argument. I'm not suggesting we use nuclear to meet changes in demand, we use it for baseload supply. However, you could in theory use storage with nuclear to meet demand (or use nuclear to meet demand directly), but will be less economic. However, the storage requirements would be less for nuclear than they would for renewables, owing to the intermittency of renewables. So again, we come to the economic disadvantage of renewables at such a higher % of grid usage: We would need far more storage with renewables, as we would be looking to go for long periods with not enough wind/solar.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I don't ignore it, its a strawman argument. I'm not suggesting we use nuclear to meet changes in demand, we use it for baseload supply. However, you could in theory use storage with nuclear to meet demand (or use nuclear to meet demand directly), but will be less economic. However, the storage requirements would be less for nuclear than they would for renewables, owing to the intermittency of renewables.

Even if that turns out to be true, it doesn't help the situation now. Increased solar and wind capacity can be (and is being) added rapidly, and battery storage is too. Dropping that in favor of nuclear would be a mistake.

Maybe if we had thought about it about 10 years ago we would have enough nuclear coming online now, but we didn't. Why not? Because nuclear wasn't cost-effective.

So again, we come to the economic disadvantage of renewables at such a higher % of grid usage: We would need far more storage with renewables, as we would be looking to go for long periods with not enough wind/solar.

Which we will have, because there is currently no alternative. The 'economic disadvantage' of a bird in the hand vs two in the bush.

Now consider that new solar panels are being produced that are twice as efficient and half the cost, and sodium batteries will also be half the cost with no use of heavy metals, and in 10 years time those nuclear plants being built now will have a hard time competing.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

capitalism does not have a future for tackling climate change.

Capitalism doesn't have a future for tackling anything except market efficiency. By it's very nature it encourages wealth inequality and economic distortion due to externalities. That's why no successful nation has a purely capitalist economy. But with the right guidance capitalism can be a powerful tool, because individuals tend to work harder when they see a personal benefit.

The problem with combating global warming is that most people don't see how it will directly benefit them. This is where involving private enterprise will help. Tesla, a company lead by one man with a vision who made his fortune in the capitalist market, has done more to force auto makers to do what's needed than decades of government cajoling and wailing greenies. Now Musk himself has (predictably) turned into a self-assured capitalist prick, but his business is still doing what's needed. We could do with more of that.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

So you're saying that all large energy users should switch off when the wind doesn't blow, or when it blows too much? What would you do if we had another 2010 big freeze, where we had weeks of high demand, and little or no wind?

FYI, 52% of Chinese coal plant capacity is just sitting there waiting for that situation. Detractors who complain about all the new coal plant capacity being added in China don't consider that. As renewable and storage capacity increases and the grid improves, the need for those coal plants will reduce dramatically. Soon they may be running at 25% capacity or less, many only being fired up during prolonged periods of insufficient wind and solar. In the US, coal plants are being decommissioned when the capacity factor drops below 33%.

Of course as global warming gets worse the times when the wind doesn't blow will get less too. The bigger problem may be making those turbines strong enough to handle gale force winds!

 

[wobs]

FYI, 52% of Chinese coal plant capacity is just sitting there waiting for that situation. Detractors who complain about all the new coal plant capacity being added in China don't consider that. As renewable and storage capacity increases and the grid improves, the need for those coal plants will reduce dramatically. Soon they may be running at 25% capacity or less, many only being fired up during prolonged periods of insufficient wind and solar. In the US, coal plants are being decommissioned when the capacity factor drops below 33%.

Of course as global warming gets worse the times when the wind doesn't blow will get less too. The bigger problem may be making those turbines strong enough to handle gale force winds!

52% is a small proportion compared to the amount you would need for wind/solar excess capacity.

Another study looking at decarbonising the US, also finds that it would be too expoensive with nuclear (and/or other low carbon such as geothermal):
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1610381114

Abstract
A number of analyses, meta-analyses, and assessments, including those performed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and the International Energy Agency, have concluded that deployment of a diverse portfolio of clean energy technologies makes a transition to a low-carbon-emission energy system both more feasible and less costly than other pathways. In contrast, Jacobson et al. [Jacobson MZ, Delucchi MA, Cameron MA, Frew BA (2015) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112(49):15060–15065] argue that it is feasible to provide “low-cost solutions to the grid reliability problem with 100% penetration of WWS [wind, water and solar power] across all energy sectors in the continental United States between 2050 and 2055”, with only electricity and hydrogen as energy carriers. In this paper, we evaluate that study and find significant shortcomings in the analysis. In particular, we point out that this work used invalid modeling tools, contained modeling errors, and made implausible and inadequately supported assumptions. Policy makers should treat with caution any visions of a rapid, reliable, and low-cost transition to entire energy systems that relies almost exclusively on wind, solar, and hydroelectric power.

It goes into detail as to why that claim you can are wrong. Yes in theory you can, on some technical level, but not on a practical real world level.

And here is the previous study I cited:
https://news.mit.edu/2018/adding-power-choices-reduces-cost-risk-carbon-free-electricity-0906

Regarding the policies, the team compared two different approaches. The “restrictive” approach permitted only the use of solar and wind generation plus battery storage, augmented by measures to reduce and shift the timing of demand for electricity, as well as long-distance transmission lines to help smooth out local and regional variations. The “inclusive” approach used all of those technologies but also permitted the option of using continual carbon-free sources, such as nuclear power, bioenergy, and natural gas with a system for capturing and storing carbon emissions. Under every case the team studied, the broader mix of sources was found to be more affordable.

You'll see that both claim that it is not afforable to have just wind/solar. Technologies such as geothermal and bioenergy may bring small amounts of grid penetration, they wouldn't make a big enough difference compared with nuclear.

Regarding you last point of stronger winds:
There have been moves to make turbines stronger, but it involves more steel, and other materials. This and better solar panels do not address the fundemental issues with wind & solar.

I need to point out that I have a vested interest in wind turbines: They are a major employer in my town. I like to see them, and want more of them, but they have limitations.