Are current renewable energy strategies worth it?

[macdoc]

You should learn some math.

New Harvard Study Examines Cost of Coal
Report released Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School estimates coal costs U.S. one-third to over one-half a trillion dollars annually

The public is unfairly paying for the impacts of coal use…Accounting for these ‘hidden costs’ doubles to triples the price of electricity from coal per kWh, making wind, solar, and other renewable very economically competitive. Policymakers need to evaluate current energy options with these types of impacts in mind. Our reliance on fossil fuels is proving costly for society, negatively impacting our wallets and our quality of life.

Our comprehensive review finds that the best estimate for the total economically quantifiable costs, based on a conservative weighting of many of the study findings, amount to some $345.3 billion, adding close to 17.8¢/kWh of electricity generated from coal. The low estimate is $175 billion, or over 9¢/kWh, while the true monetizable costs could be as much as the upper bounds of $523.3 billion, adding close to 26.89¢/kWh. These and the more difficult to quantify externalities are borne by the general public.

cheap you say - not really...but I suppose you support using the atmosphere as a free sewer and not holding companies making billions of dollars in profits responsible for the damage???

•••

and mickey mouse?? no not that either...

The worldwide wind capacity reached 296'255 MW by the end of June 2013

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/10/28/wind-power-dramatically-cut-global-warming-pollution-u-s/

you want ot back your assertions?? this is a science forum and positions are supported by facts...not vapid commentary....

 

[macdoc]

This however is what we need more of to shut down coal permanently....

Nuclear Energy Around the World

As of January 2014, 30 countries worldwide are operating 436 nuclear reactors for electricity generation and 72 new nuclear plants are under construction in 15 countries.
World Nuclear Power Plants in Operation
Reactors Under Construction Worldwide
Nuclear power plants provided 12.3 percent of the world's electricity production in 2012. In total, 13 countries relied on nuclear energy to supply at least one-quarter of their total electricity.

http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/World-Statistics

 

[annnnoid]

That is a different question.

You did not think it could be done.
I disagree.

Will it be done - some areas yes, others will lag as we see now.

“…so it shall be written…so it shall be done…”

Yul Brynner…doing his best ruler of the universe thing.

I think folks generally want to do the right thing (like Portland and Sweden)…there just needs to be more momentum in that direction. IOW…doing the wrong thing has to not only be stupid….it has to look stupid (dumb folks are often more concerned about how they look than what they do). The ideal has to become…very clearly…not maniacal self-serving short term ignorance …but sensible, reasoned, responsible, cooperative, intelligent, and creative management (…and did you know that in India they are building a city called Utopia ! [where… presumably … sensible, reasoned, responsible, cooperative, intelligent, and creative management will reign supreme][…as if!]).

A good step in the right direction might be…give everybody a Swedish nickname and have Abba do a global reunion tour.

Always lots of news and developments in the energy sector. Seems like a slow slog up a very big hill. I agree about the nuke thing….especially in Canada. No worries about tsunami, earthquakes, hurricanes, typhoons, or tornadoes. We sit on multi-billion year old bedrock. The occasional ice storm ripples along…but we just chop wood for a couple days and handle it.

But what about energy storage??????

Am wondering how significant a factor energy storage systems are in these various situations. There seem to be evolutionary and even revolutionary new storage technologies on the horizon. Driven by the demands of portable tech as well as the demands of the auto sector. Basically…storage tech that can charge quickly (minutes instead of hours), recharge over thousands of cycles, is relatively small and light, and can store ever increasing quantities of energy (not to mention fuel cells…ever a dark horse). These advances are not yet on the markets… but all indications are that they not only will be, but that there are numerous developments that hold as-yet untapped potential to revolutionize this segment.

So….how do renewables such as wind and solar (and others) scale as new storage technologies come on line?

…and how significant a limiting factor are currently available storage technologies in the auto sector? Given that it is only a matter of time until new storage tech comes online…when can we predict the demise of the internal combustion engine? For example…if VW comes out with Das Auto that will do 500km on a 30 min recharge at $25K…does that spell RIP V6?

…and ever the eternal optimist …I predict that within two decades we will see sustainable home power generation. Everyone will be off the grid. Power generation will no longer be a political weapon because everyone will have enough (….how?...I guess we’ll find out in two decades).

 

[macdoc]

The biggest cost is going to be a smart grid.

In Australia for instance it is illegal to use solar power in a home directly as there have been way too many issues.

Solar tech is accelerating like crazy....into computer chip turf..

Researchers from North Carolina State University and the Chinese Academy of Sciences have found an easy way to modify the molecular structure of a polymer commonly used in solar cells. Their modification can increase solar cell efficiency by more than 30 percent.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-01-simple-cheap-solar-cell-efficiency.html#jCp

over 50% of the world lives in cities now - arcologies are not adaptable to home brew systems.
And the uban conglomerates are the focal point for solving fossil fuel traffic congestion likely with a mix of better public transit and hybrids and full electrics.

All those will see electric power demand soar.
Now certainly home solar could be a player in charging vehicles - but the apartment and condo dweller cannot and should not try and use panel output directly

Even for public transit - trains like Frances and Japan's high speed systems require stable base power ....in France 80% or more is nuclear so they have a big leg up on low carbon.

 

[arthwollipot]

At least coal actually provides electricity and not exorbitantly expensive and inefficient mickey mouse power.

What is it that makes 1kWh of solar electricity more mickey mouse than 1kWh of coal electricity?

 

[McHrozni]

Yes, he has several points. And he has several things wrong. Lomborg's basic shortcoming, IMHO, is that he focuses on continued economical growth. Economical growth has done a lot of good for mankind, and large populations still have a lot of it coming, but in the long run, we need to find a way of having a zero growth, sustainable society.

Hans

Nothing in nature remains as stable as this would have to. We can strive for periods of moderate growth, punctured by recessions (or worse) that mitigate it. This is similar, but saying "zero growth" is way too simplistic.

McHrozni

 

[Virus]

Green energy policy worked out pretty well in Germany. And by "pretty well" I mean it was a colossally expensive failure.

 

[ThunderChunky]

Renewables are a long term plan. Not much more can really be done, perhaps a carbon tax. There is a limit to how effective throwing money at a research problem is. We don't just need advancements in current tech for renewables to take over fossil fuels. We need major breakthroughs that cannot be predicted. I think the current strategy of investing in everything (biofuel, solar, wind, etc) is a good one, but solar has the most potential.

With current tech nuclear would be the only fossil fuel alternative, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen. Hopefully we figure out a good way to mitigate climate change because prevention isn't happening..

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I read a paper a number of years ago written during the period that Carter's solar energy tax credits (discontinued by Reagan) were still in effect, written by the company currently known as Xcel Energy. In that paper a prediction was made, based on trends at the time, that by 1990 or so 80% of Colorado's domestic hot water would be solar. A burgeoning industry was in place at the time putting hot water panels on roofs. We still have some installed in our neighborhood, and reports from the neighbors are that they work well but can be fussy to maintain and make re-roofing more expensive.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I read a paper a number of years ago written during the period that Carter's solar energy tax credits (discontinued by Reagan) were still in effect, written by the company currently known as Xcel Energy. In that paper a prediction was made, based on trends at the time, that by 1990 or so 80% of Colorado's domestic hot water would be solar. A burgeoning industry was in place at the time putting hot water panels on roofs. We still have some installed in our neighborhood, and reports from the neighbors are that they work well but can be fussy to maintain and make re-roofing more expensive.

My dad sold home solar hot water heating for a period of time late 70's early 80's. He sold parabolic tracking units easily capable of supplying all the hot water needs of a household, even in winter, even in Indiana. They were 10,000 dollars installed, and with the tax credits federal and state, net 3,500 dollars. Not for everyone. Still a significant investment, but for a family with large hot water usage, the economics worked over time.

BUT here is the problem. For every legit solar company out there, there were 10 selling complete crap, some even with a net INCREASE in energy use for the household. What did those woo frauds charge? You guessed it. 10,000 dollars installed.

The tax credits were 40% fed and 25% state up to?...You guessed it again, 10,000 dollars. (although the lessor state credit went slightly higher if I remember correctly)

We could have solar so common that 80% of households were using it at least in part. Problem is the government's program to stimulate growth in solar actually was ill conceived by the Carter administration. It had good intentions, but in reality it stimulated more fraud than solar energy use.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Yes the eternal question of whether more is less.
I think without addressing lifestyle choices we will not solve the energy problem no matter the technology.

At least with currently known technologies, that is true. Of course, a clean, unlimited, renewable energy source would change much, but even given that, the issue is deeper: Even without ressource limitations, there is a limit to growth. There will come a point where we simply will not need more of anything. This state may seem a long way off when looking at the world as a whole, but I think many people in the industrialized countries are close; if you gave me unlimited ressources to use for myself, I would soon run out of ideas of what to want.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

I disagree.....there is no reason not to have a fully sustainable first world industrial society ( that is what Sweden is in line for ).

We do not need zero growth....in fact we need immense growth but in the direction of sustainable procedures.....tear every old building down in Britain and put in high tech energy conservation dwellings and cut Britains energy needs in half or more.

Put triple pane windows into every dwelling in N America and cut energy needs ( both heating and cooling enormously ) and all for the cost of a high tech factory ....less than the cost of an oil platform.



Here is a list of success stories based on energy savings...
http://www.rggi.org/rggi_benefits/success_stories

Lots of jobs instead of fat oil sheiks.

UPS understands


http://www.pressroom.ups.com/Fact+S...+the+"Right"+Way+by+Avoiding+Left+Turns.print

no left turns...

The list goes on and on.

http://www.jll.com/case-studies/6/new-office-tower-soars-to-leed-platinum



and it's a stunning design

wiki image

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/19/BankofAmericaTower.jpg

Yes, all that is true, but it is still relatively short-term. It does not change the fact that we well need, within a generation or two, to change from a production society to a maintenance society.

And I think this is where people like Lomborg are missing out: They are thinking in short-time cost effectivity. It may well be that all our roof-mounted solar panels are a dead end, but they still give us experience and change mentalities.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Nothing in nature remains as stable as this would have to. We can strive for periods of moderate growth, punctured by recessions (or worse) that mitigate it. This is similar, but saying "zero growth" is way too simplistic.

McHrozni

Sure. Any future scenario in less that 10,000 words is very simplistic.

Hans

 

[McHrozni]

At least with currently known technologies, that is true. Of course, a clean, unlimited, renewable energy source would change much, but even given that, the issue is deeper: Even without ressource limitations, there is a limit to growth.

Without resource limitations, the limit to growth is human imagination. It's debatable whether that is endless or not.

There will come a point where we simply will not need more of anything. This state may seem a long way off when looking at the world as a whole, but I think many people in the industrialized countries are close; if you gave me unlimited ressources to use for myself, I would soon run out of ideas of what to want.

You'll need to define what "need" is, first. Anything beyond food, water, shelter and maybe fire (or equivalent) is debatable. We reached that minimum thousands of years ago.

Clothing industry would be a pretty good comparison, I think. The basics haven't changed for decades, the main materials are cotton and wool, with a few other materials here and there. We had the full color spectrum decades ago. We still get new and different clothes in stores every year, if only slightly different in cut and pattern. Advances were made in clothing for more severe weather, waterproofing and so on, but the large part of product is essentially very similar and yet still very different to what it was several decades ago. Shoes are similar to clothing in this regard.

Optimized products? Probably.

McHrozni

 

[Virus]

Yes, all that is true, but it is still relatively short-term. It does not change the fact that we well need, within a generation or two, to change from a production society to a maintenance society.

So are you going to tell the Chinese and the Indians that they can't live like you?

 

[DC]

At least coal actually provides electricity and not exorbitantly expensive and inefficient mickey mouse power.

Coal also brought us the AGW problem we have to deal with now.
but most probably you are a AGW denier anyway but are too cowardly to actually show up in the AGW Thread....

 

[DC]

So are you going to tell the Chinese and the Indians that they can't live like you?

They can, but not in such a wastefull and ignorant way we did.
the Chinese and Indians know damn well that our way was not very clever, but we didn't know.

 

[McHrozni]

Sure. Any future scenario in less that 10,000 words is very simplistic.

Hans

Hehe

It's really just that "zero growth" strongly implies the economy is pretty much unchanged from one year to the next. We might be able to reach such an optimized state and keep it there for a few years, maybe half a decade, only to suffer a recession for whatever reason, then growth again ... or keep it there for some time (which amounts to decay). A dynamic balance close to net zero is a much better approximation to reality, it's achievable and eventually even desirable. Eventually could mean anywhere from a few hundred years ago to a few dozen billion years from now, depending on how far we can go technologically ... which really tells us nothing, unfortunately.

McHrozni

 

[wobs]

Without resource limitations, the limit to growth is human imagination. It's debatable whether that is endless or not.

The laws of physics get in the way of indefinite growth. Even if we went 100% renewable, our current economic growth means we will exceed the energy we get from the sun within about 800years. And temperatures will continue to go up, and by 3985 the surface of the Earth will exceed that of the sun, as our consumption will exceed the output of the sun (in theory).

Basically, even without fossil fuels, the consumption of energy results in the production of heat. This means we will make the planet hotter if we continue to develop at the rate we are doing.

While there is a limit to what people want or "need", the amount that some countries consume per head is scary. Its just good news that the world population could level off long before economic growth becomes such a serious problem.

But we need a steady state economy. The problem is how to acheive this, and maintain our lifestyle when we have so many different values and ways of doing things.

You'll need to define what "need" is, first. Anything beyond food, water, shelter and maybe fire (or equivalent) is debatable. We reached that minimum thousands of years ago.

Largely irrelevant. Western societies' "needs" change and increase all the time.

 

[MRC_Hans]

So are you going to tell the Chinese and the Indians that they can't live like you?

No.