Cont: Global warming discussion V

[wobs]

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.

Its not an either/or.

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.

Nothing has changed. We still need it. Its still economic compared with the alternative.

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.

I have already explained why renewables are more expensive when they reach a higher % of the grid. Many times in this thread.

Edit: There are many websites claiming we can go total renewable, and its getting cheaper etc, with smart grids, and interconnectors etc, but the costs do not add up when you look at the above studies (its also what I learned at Uni many years ago), and there is no reason not to use the alternatives to decarbonise.

There is a limit to how efficient solar panels will get, but even if we laugh in the face of thermodynamics and say they'll get to 90%+ (they won't of course), it still won't change the issues.

 

[wobs]

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.

Agree with this.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

There is a limit to how efficient solar panels will get, but even if we laugh in the face of thermodynamics and say they'll get to 90%+ (they won't of course), it still won't change the issues.

The only reason to be concerned about solar panel efficiency (for ground use) is how it affects the cost. It's now up to over 30% compared to 15% previously, meaning you will only need half as much area for the same power. Most homes have enough roof area at 15%, so at 30% you can easily produce more than you need.

Efficiency itself doesn't matter much because the energy is beaming our way anyway and 99.9% of it just hits the ground (or water) and heats it up. We could be using NASAs super-efficient space panels, but that would be a huge waste of money when less efficient panels cost less per watt.

My friends who live 25 km out of town recently doubled the number of panels on their roof. They have a Kia EV6 with over 500km range that can be used to power the house at night or during power cuts. If they get stationary batteries or even just another EV they can be totally self-sufficient and feeding excess electricity into the grid during the day (when industry and AC needs it most) or even helping to reduce base load in the evening.

 

[lomiller]

Its not an either/or.
I have already explained why renewables are more expensive when they reach a higher % of the grid. Many times in this thread.

Repeating yourself doesn't make it true.

It doesn't reflect how power grids will actually be run. In reality power grid manages will use their lowest cost electricity first. That means that unless the Nuclear plant sells it's electricity at a loss Wind generating capacity will get used first. Wind turbines will not be "shut down" the way you are claiming, if they can be producing electricity they will be. The fact that capacity factors continue to rise backs this up.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Its not an either/or.

Actually it is. We only have so many resources so what we spend on one isn't available for the other. This is just basic economics. The problem with nuclear is the resources you put into it now won't see a return for 8-10 years (or longer). We don't have 8-10 years to get this ball rolling.

So sure, build those nuclear plants. But don't do a lot of it at the expense of wind, solar and battery storage that are more cost effective in the short term, and will make the need for nuclear less in the future.

Some scientists have joined the bleating of deniers who now say it's too late already. It isn't, but if we piss around for another 10 years it will be. It would be a real shame to have a ton of nuclear come online too late to stop runaway global warming because we listened to the naysayers.

 

[Aber]

It doesn't reflect how power grids will actually be run. In reality power grid manages will use their lowest cost electricity first.

Up to a point. They will use the cheapest firm power first ie the generating plant that they are certain will be available. Wind is not firm power, see discussions of capacity credit

For example, with a low, but realistic (cf. Ensslin et al.[6]) wind power capacity credit of 5%, 20 gigawatts (GW) worth of wind power needs to be added to the system in order to permanently retire a 1 GW fossil fuel plant while keeping the electrical grid reliability at the same level.

For very low penetrations (few percent), when the chance of the system actually being forced to rely on the VRE at peak times is negligible, the CC of a VRE plant is close to its capacity factor.[6] For high penetrations, due to the fact that the weather tends to affect all plants of similar type at the same time and in the same way - and the chance of a system stress during low wind condition increases,[15] the capacity credit of a VRE plant decreases.

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

For the UK the grid system has to be set up to ensure that there is sufficient generating capacity after dark (no solar) in the winter (peak demand), when there is a high pressure system in the North Sea so that there is little windpower generation.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

However they manage it, the fact is that the contribution from renewables in the UK is rapidly increasing, while the amount from fossil fuels is decreasing. As of 2020 renewables were producing more, and this trend is expected to continue. Base load will eventually be taken mostly by nuclear, with battery storage smoothing out wind and solar.



Right now UK wind is providing 31%, gas 21%, nuclear 11%, solar 3% and biomass 2%. Another 7% of wind is coming over interconnects from Holland and Belgium, 15% nuclear from France, and 5% hydro from Norway. Coal is 0%.

That's a total of 74% renewables + nuclear vs 21% fossil fuels.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

However they manage it, the fact is that the contribution from renewables in the UK is rapidly increasing, while the amount from fossil fuels is decreasing. As of 2020 renewables were producing more, and this trend is expected to continue. Base load will eventually be taken mostly by nuclear, with battery storage smoothing out wind and solar.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1476&pictureid=13644[/qimg]

Right now UK wind is providing 31%, gas 21%, nuclear 11%, solar 3% and biomass 2%. Another 7% of wind is coming over interconnects from Holland and Belgium, 15% nuclear from France, and 5% hydro from Norway. Coal is 0%.

That's a total of 74% renewables + nuclear vs 21% fossil fuels.

I read somewhere that as much as 3/4 of the UK residential is on gas heat, so electricity production isn't the whole picture. Retrofitting existing homes with electric heat (that is hopefully on a green grid) is a major challenge to be addressed

 

[lomiller]

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

Ensslin et al. is significantly out dated at this point. Capacity Factor for new wind turbines has essentially doubled since this paper was written in 2008.

Also, you should consider what Ensslin et al. actually says:

The contribution can be up to 40% of installed wind
power capacity (in situations with low wind penetration and
high capacity factor at times of peak load). It can also be as
low as 5% in higher wind penetrations, low capacity factor at
times of peak load or if regional wind power output profiles
correlate negatively with the system load profile. Aggregation
of larger geographical areas will result in the capacity credit
being higher.

The wind capacity credit in percent of installed wind
capacity is reduced at higher wind penetration, but depends
also on the geographical smoothing. In essence, it means that
the wind capacity credit of all installed wind in Europe or
the US is likely to be higher than those of the individual
countries or regions, even if the total penetration level is as
in the individual countries or regions.

IOW the 5% number is the absolute worst case, for a region where wind quality is low, and there is a negative correlation between peak output and peak demand, and you only consider the local region not the wider power grid.

Some other things to remember is that this is discussing generating capacity kept in reserve not whether the wind capacity is actually used. It's also based on the nameplate capacity NOT the effective capacity, this is an important distinction because wind farms installed capacity isn't based on the nameplate capacity. The "20GW worth of wind power" from the wiki page only represents 4GW of installed capacity the turbines average 20% capacity factor.

Another factor to consider is that this metric doesn't consider synergies like wind and solar. For example on-shore wind often produces it highest power output at night time, while solar produces it's electricity during the day. When you combine both on the grid you will get much more stable levels of production than if you analyzed each one on it's own.

Also, as I have stated many times, Nuclear power also has similar issues when it makes up a high % of grid supply. Because you can't easily scale it's usage up and down meeting Peak demand can mean you are producing twice as much power as you need when demand is at minimum. You also need to account for cases like France having to shut down half it's reactors all at once because of a design issue that is causing rusting in a critical safety system. Backup capacity, grid storage and enhanced power grids would all still be required for a grid with a high fraction of Nuclear power.

 

[lomiller]

That's a total of 74% renewables + nuclear vs 21% fossil fuels.

It's also worth remembering that going from Coal to Gas represents a 50% reduction in CO2 released for the same amount of electricity produced. Not all fossil fuels are equal by any means.

I read somewhere that as much as 3/4 of the UK residential is on gas heat, so electricity production isn't the whole picture. Retrofitting existing homes with electric heat (that is hopefully on a green grid) is a major challenge to be addressed

I'm not sure what the viability is in the UK but offering subsidies for ground source heat pumps can go a long way towards reducing natural gas used for heating. The problem for the homeowner is that they ususllay still need a backup heat source so they can't just replace the gas furnace, they need both.

Once again we see the technology is mostly there already, all that's required is the political will to make it happen on a large scale.

 

[Aber]

Ensslin et al. is significantly out dated at this point. Capacity Factor for new wind turbines has essentially doubled since this paper was written in 2008.

You missed out the recent actual ESO figures

Indicative de-rating factors in Great Britain
Year Onshore wind Offshore wind Solar PV
2020/2021 9.0% 14.7% 1.2%
2022/2023 8.4% 12.9% 1.2%
2023/2024 8.2% 12.1% 1.2%

NB capacity credit/ derating falls as more renewables are added to the grid, and is not linked to the capacity factor of individual projects; capacity factor for offshore wind in the the UK is likely 45%.

I'm not sure what the viability is in the UK but offering subsidies for ground source heat pumps can go a long way towards reducing natural gas used for heating. The problem for the homeowner is that they ususllay still need a backup heat source so they can't just replace the gas furnace, they need both.

UK policy is to replace gas heating with air source heat pumps in new builds from 2025 by banning gas boilers. The theory is that new houses will be very well insulated so heat demand is much reduced; however retro-fitting to existing buildings will be difficult and expensive.

 

[Aber]

It's also based on the nameplate capacity NOT the effective capacity, this is an important distinction because wind farms installed capacity isn't based on the nameplate capacity. The "20GW worth of wind power" from the wiki page only represents 4GW of installed capacity the turbines average 20% capacity factor.

For clarity, 20 GW of installed capacity of offshore wind gives:
Peak output - 20GW
Average annual output, at 45% capacity factor - 9GW
Output using in grid planning, at derating factor 12% - 2.4GW

System operators have to balance both the long-term planned output, and the peaks and troughs of actual output (wind blowing vs not), on a daily and on a seasonal level. Dispatchable output is far more valuable than wind at a system level.

 

[Hercules56]

Question. We discover that if we don't start some serious, extreme reductions in GHG emissions within the next 25 years, the Earth will become mostly inhabitable to humans. 6 month long heat waves, new ice age, etc etc.

What can we do about it, short of destroying society and rebuilding from scratch? Or is that the only viable option?

 

[lomiller]

For clarity, 20 GW of installed capacity of offshore wind gives:
Peak output - 20GW
Average annual output, at 45% capacity factor - 9GW

Nameplate capacity is not used to report the capacity of wind farms, the numbers they report are already scaled down by the capacity factor. If a wind farm installs 2500 8MW turbines running at 40% CF it reports it's capacity as 8GW, not 20GW. When you numbers for installed wind capacity it's NOT the peak capacity it's the typical output so you would never see that 4GW number

Output using in grid planning, at derating factor 12% - 2.4GW

This calculation isn't used for determining output it's used for determining how much capacity to keep in reserve.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I'm not sure what the viability is in the UK but offering subsidies for ground source heat pumps can go a long way towards reducing natural gas used for heating. The problem for the homeowner is that they ususllay still need a backup heat source so they can't just replace the gas furnace, they need both.

Once again we see the technology is mostly there already, all that's required is the political will to make it happen on a large scale.

A significant issue, I suspect, is that many people rent. There's a ton of efficiency improvements that could be made to the ****-box apartment I currently rent in New England, which as far as I can tell doesn't have a shred of insulation in it and so drafty it leaks like a sieve, but I don't own the dump. The landlord doesn't pay the gas bill (which is quite substantial in winter because of the inefficiency) and has zero incentive to invest in the property, especially considering the rental and general housing market is so supply constrained. It's at least been my experience that homeowners put a lot of sweat equity into their own homes, such as solar panels or heat pumps or improved insulation and renovations, but rentals will stay as shoddy and poorly maintained as the market will bear (which is a lot in my area).

At some point we're going to have to stop nudging people towards doing the right thing and just straight up demand that people make green investments in their property. Absentee landlords will do the bare minimum, so we should increase that bare minimum.

 

[lobosrul5]

Question. We discover that if we don't start some serious, extreme reductions in GHG emissions within the next 25 years, the Earth will become mostly inhabitable to humans. 6 month long heat waves, new ice age, etc etc.

What can we do about it, short of destroying society and rebuilding from scratch? Or is that the only viable option?

I assume you mean uninhabitable.

We're likely already there. Except replace 25 years with 50 to 75. The answer to your question is: largely stick our heads in the sand and say "nuh uh", or point to misleading figures about how great their country is doing (ie the UK pointing out that their Co2 emissions are really good if you only count electricity, but leaving out heating, and the amount of Co2 that goes into the goods they import), or the USA way: nooooo scientist are stupid and corrupt. Some guy on facebook told me data that global warming is false, and deny theres even such a thing as the greenhouse effect. My HS education is just as good as a doctorate from MIT!

 

[lomiller]

Question. We discover that if we don't start some serious, extreme reductions in GHG emissions within the next 25 years, the Earth will become mostly inhabitable to humans. 6 month long heat waves, new ice age, etc etc.

What can we do about it, short of destroying society and rebuilding from scratch? Or is that the only viable option?

We aren't sure if it will become mostly uninhabitable. Some places may experience wet bulb temperatures that makes mammalian life impossible, but the key consideration for humans is how we grow food and how we keep our social and economic structures from collapsing.

Some people naively think that we can just grow food farther north as climates warm. There are 2 problems with this, the first is that there is less land at higher latitudes than lower latitudes. The second is that it takes hundreds if not thousands of years for soil and drainage to develop to a point where agriculture is viable.

The other issue is how we maintain our social and trade networks as our port cities flood and can no longer drain their sewage. This along with food shortages will eventually break our ability to produce the advanced technology we have become dependent on.

In terms of making the earth uninhabitable to humans, that's something more likely to be caused by Climate Changes less talked about cousin, Ocean Acidification.

 

[lobosrul5]

We aren't sure if it will become mostly uninhabitable. Some places may experience wet bulb temperatures that makes mammalian life impossible, but the key consideration for humans is how we grow food and how we keep our social and economic structures from collapsing.

Some people naively think that we can just grow food farther north as climates warm. There are 2 problems with this, the first is that there is less land at higher latitudes than lower latitudes. The second is that it takes hundreds if not thousands of years for soil and drainage to develop to a point where agriculture is viable.

The other issue is how we maintain our social and trade networks as our port cities flood and can no longer drain their sewage. This along with food shortages will eventually break our ability to produce the advanced technology we have become dependent on.

In terms of making the earth uninhabitable to humans, that's something more likely to be caused by Climate Changes less talked about cousin, Ocean Acidification.

Theres actually huge amount of land in the northern latitudes. Its somewhat distorted by the way maps are projected, but if Siberia and the northern 2 thirds of Canada become arable we're good to go. But, I remain unconvinced that they will be. Temperatures will be extreme there. Hotter than they are now in the summer, which is getting surprisingly hot, yet still brutally cold in the winter. Also, how much rain will fall? Much of that land is bordering on cold desert.

 

[Hercules56]

I was thinking more in terms of having China build millions of CO2 scrubbers, billions of sf of solar panels, dramatically increasing tidal power generation, etc.

 

[lobosrul5]

I was thinking more in terms of having China build millions of CO2 scrubbers, billions of sf of solar panels, dramatically increasing tidal power, etc.

Who is going to fund it?