Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 Next
Comments 10851 to 10900:
-
scaddenp at 10:14 AM on 27 April 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
On further note, both wholesale and retail prices in SA dropped in 2018 (remember a big battery?) and AEMC expect prices to drop further over next 2 years as more renewables and storage come online.
-
scaddenp at 10:05 AM on 27 April 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Thinkingman - I am puzzled. The reason I analysed the South Australia article was to demonstrate to you that you are relying on sources that cannot be trusted. Pundits like Leading Edge have happily quoted their source, but it does not support their claim. Like certain well-known denial sites, they know that if the message is what their readers want to hear, then they wont bother to check the source.
If you are continuing to insist that sources like FR are accurate when public data trivially demonstrates that they are not, then I cannot see how discussion can be continued. If you are not willing to look at analyses from reviewed sources that contradict your viewpoint, how can any discussion occur? If you bother to read the material provided by myself and others on storage, then you wouldnt be insisting on spinning reserves.
-
nigelj at 08:26 AM on 27 April 2019Climate Adam Explains Extinction Rebellion
The extinction rebellionwebsite has a good video on the tab labelled the truth.
However I dont think the IPCC reports are too hugely conservative as such relating to the science. The problem for me is more related to the summary for policy makers. It is good in terms of the science, but badly written in terms of style and presentation, and creates a very understated, conservative impression and it's this document that politicians will read.
For example it talks about things like good certainty of more extreme floods and heatwaves and sea level rise of up to one metre by 2100, etcetera, but I would say most policy makes looking at this will conclude this isn't too terrible, we can adapt.
What is missing from the summary for policy makers are some terse statements that warming could exceed 4 degrees as we go beyond 2100, multi metre sea level rise will occur beyond 2100, heatwaves could become deadly even this century, and we are getting near tipping points. Much of this information is buried in the body of the report, but policy makers will not be reading this.
Of course most of the summary for policy makers is meticulous, accurate and well written, but it could be better in terms of getting the seriousness across and still be accurate. I have not read every word of the IPCC report and stand to be corrected, but this is the impression I get.
Perhaps the summary for policy makers gets watered down by politicians who have to sign the thing off. I don't know. But if so then climate scientists need to be speaking out more. And yes they sometimes come up against a corporate owned, hostile media, but do what you can.
-
Eclectic at 08:13 AM on 27 April 2019There is no consensus
Pl @789 ,
I would certainly not wish to overstate your claims.
At the same time, it would be best if you clarified your claims far more precisely than you have in post #789 and prior. Otherwise, we are mutually tackling a Hydra-headed creature called a consensus, and doing so in an uncoordinated manner.
From my position as somewhat of a "naive realist", the primary meaning of (climate) consensus is in the basic sense of : the scientific consensus of our modern knowledge of climate physics. In other words, the current understanding of the science (of climate). In essence, the science is found in the (summation of) scientific papers published in reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals. Twas ever thus !
That is why a number of studies (including the very clever Cook et al., 2013 with its notorious 97% ) have looked at what is found in the many thousands of published papers. BTW, the Cook study was outstandingly excellent, because it cross-checked its findings by asking the actual authors what they considered their own papers showed. And yet it is important to remember that the Cook paper of 2013 was centered on a median paper "age" of approximately 2005 date ~ and the "consensus" has moved on by a considerable amount in the 12+ years since then.
Some other studies were even older than that.
However, it is even more important to remember that the scientific consensus (on climate matters) is the science itself ~ and that it is not a vote or a percentage or an opinion poll. (As you yourself have implied, we can easily end up in a futile tangle of shades of definition, if we are merely assessing "opinions" by scientists of all stripes.)
A survey of opinions is only a proxy of the scientific consensus. Taking a vox pop of scientists shows (as we would expect!) that "the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science" [Cook et al., 2013]. Obviously here, Cook is using consensus in its loose meaning of "opinion". It is understandable that the non-scientists & politicians of this world would have a desire to deal with a brief proxy of the complex science of climate ~ and a "percentage consensus" is a handy first approximation. But it is only a proxy, and we should never mistake it for the underlying science.
As your linked 2016 reference (to the IPCC) states: "human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century." That is a fair summation, though expressed in an overly-conservative manner. And - as you yourself say - "stamping a specific number with % sign to a consensus is [a] non-trivial task". To which I would add: it is both non-trivial and essentially irrelevant.
-
nigelj at 07:50 AM on 27 April 2019Is the grid ready for electric vehicles?
alea @ 17
"With my car, I can go in excess of 500 miles from one full tank, equivalent to two return visits to distant family or five weeks of commuting. I know of no electric car that comes close to this, at least without costing as much as a cheap house."
How often do yo need that? I would say it would be rare for most people, because most long trips have petrol stations along the way. By analogy its like saying my Ferrari can go 300 kms hour. People seldom use that ability.
Owners of electric cars could hire a hybrid or petrol car for the occasional long trip that doesn't have recharging stations along the route. Range of the latest electric vehicles is also pretty good, even for the cheaper ones.
"One comment I have heard from doubters of electric vehicles is that if they became widespread in the UK, the government would lose a lot of tax revenue through fuel tax (which is high in the UK), how would they compensate for this deficit?'
The government could put a road user tax on electric vehicles based on distance. You pay it when you pay for a warrent of fitness. There would be other ways as well. It's a non issue, and only becomes significant when uptake of electric cars becomes substantial.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:30 AM on 27 April 2019Is the grid ready for electric vehicles?
alea@17,
The Tesla Roadster has a 1000 km range. But it is the pricy Tesla (but not as pricy as other high end sports cars ... so maybe every owner of a high sports car (priced at or higher than the Tesla Roadster) who doesn't also own a Tesla Roadster should be heavily taxed for their incompetence as a leader of society.
The more affordable Tesla Model 3 and soon to be available Model Y have ranges near 500 km. On a long road trip that means planning to stop for coffee and maybe a snack or meal while a 30 to 45 minute recharge is completed (30 minutes at a Tesla Supercharger station provides another 270 km of range).
And many other electric cars have ranges beyond 300 km that make long distance travel practical with reasonably frequent rest stops (which every driver should be taking). However, many of those cars are not built to be recharged as rapidly as Tesla Superstation recharging.
Canada's NRC has developed a handy resource for learning about the energy efficiency of every type of vehicle available to Canadian buyers - NRC Fuel Consumption Ratings Search.
As for the end of revenue from a fuel tax, the revenue from the much larger Carbon Pricing that will be applied to help achieve the required rapid corrrection will also end. Smart sensible leaders would already be working on the transition, rather than trying to figure out how to be popular by making up excuses for making bigger problems for future leaders.
-
alea at 06:14 AM on 27 April 2019Is the grid ready for electric vehicles?
11: "Maybe I’m missing something but I don’t know many people that get gas every time they go from home to work. "
No, and the reason is that gasoline is an energy dense fuel for motor vehicles, so a full tank will last a while. With my car, I can go in excess of 500 miles from one full tank, equivalent to two return visits to distant family or five weeks of commuting. I know of no electric car that comes close to this, at least without costing as much as a cheap house.
One comment I have heard from doubters of electric vehicles is that if they became widespread in the UK, the government would lose a lot of tax revenue through fuel tax (which is high in the UK), how would they compensate for this deficit?
-
There is no consensus
Eclectic @786,
I think you made some of these points above already, you are somehow overstating my claims, I think my two points are more subtle in their supposed effect.
To be clear, I like playing devil's advocate more than preaching to the choir, so you can take that context into account when responding.
Re motivation of scientists - that's probably more complex, my guess would be that the primary driving factor is usually interest in the topic and natural curiosity, so not necessarily fame and pursuing contrarian views. But this is a bit off topic, so I'll leave it at that.
Let me focus on your last question - what do I think of when writing "the method of determineng the level of consensus":
I've skimmed through one of the papers linked above, you can see they are discussing such methods in length. They don't seem to address the two points I made above (attractor theory and peer influence), unless I missed it in the text.
Stamping a specific number with % sign to a consensus is non-trivial task. For example, processing abstracts using some simplistic method may potentially skew the result a lot, so I would personally prefer surveying scientists, allowing non-binary response, weighting the data by their level of expertise in the field and ability to critically think... - which would be very difficult, if not impossible to pull off.
Therefore my question(s) in first comment I made. The paper I linked to don't seem to address that and I'm lazy to study all consensus survey papers on my own, so I was hoping someone who knows the answers may chime in.
-
ThinkingMan at 23:25 PM on 26 April 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Mr. Sweet,
With regards to your 23 Apr. comment disputing the need for spinning reserves: How do you propose large electrical systems cope with the huge swings in wind turbine output within 1, 2, 3 hour and other short time spans? Ditto, fluctuations in the frequency of electricity generated by wind turbines.
The above is a sincere question, seeking to build on your acknowledgement that wind turbines must be supplemented with other sources of electricity.
-
cpske at 23:16 PM on 26 April 2019Climate Adam Explains Extinction Rebellion
Climate Adam did a good job explaining Extinction Rebelian.
As for Extinction Rebelian itself, I recommend they 'market test' the results of their campaign of street protests and see if it helps them meet their stated goals. For example, does disrupting someone's commute make them talk about global warming, or does it just make them mad at some hippies?
Here in the US, what's the first rule of global warming? Don't talk about global warming. The topic is taboo. Try this at a cocktail party and see what you get.: "Hey, if we continue business-as-usual, the mean wet bulb temperature will rise to 35C, and humans will no longer be able to cool themselves, therefore become extinct." Thud.
You are up against slick marketing technologies, so I suggest you reply in kind. Start by reading "Don't Even Think About It" by George Marshal, or "Merchants of Doubt" by Conway, et al, or more generally "Made to Stick" by the Heath brothers.
I also suggest you target the media first. For example, during the Vietnam war, Johnson knew the jig was up when Walter Cronkite started reading the names of the dead on every broadcast.
-
ThinkingMan at 23:02 PM on 26 April 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Hopefully, this post will enable readers to view sources referenced in prior comments.
SOUTH AUSTRALIAN ELECTRICITY PRICES:
For the Financial Review article, and similar articles, in Bing, please search the phrase "australian-households-pay-highest-power-prices". The search results should yield the FR article, and you should be able to see the entire article. Some links limit one to the first paragraph.
www.statista.com/statistics/418078/electricity-prices-for-households-in-germany/
www.statista.com/statistics/418075/electricity-prices-for-households-in-denmark/
PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT OF RENEWABLES:
www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/How-Electricity-Gets-Bought-and-Sold-in-California#gs.7f8mt4
www.massclimateaction.org/recs
www.maine.gov/mpuc/greenpower/faq.shtml
www.50hertz.com/en/Transparency/GridData/Windpower
WIND GENERATION DATA:
For TX: www.ercot.com/gridinfo/generation
For New England: www.iso-ne.com/isoexpress/web/reports/operations/-/tree/daily-gen-fuel-type
-
ThinkingMan at 22:40 PM on 26 April 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Pls ignore the earlier 26 Apr. post. Its sole purpose was to test adding links, and the test failed.
This post tries again. www.afr.com/news/australian-households-pay-highest-power-prices-in-world-20170804-gxp58a.
-
ThinkingMan at 22:29 PM on 26 April 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
www.afr.com/news/australian-households-pay-highest-power-prices-in-world-20170804-gxp58a
-
Hank11198 at 20:47 PM on 26 April 2019Is the grid ready for electric vehicles?
nigelj @ 15 our solar panels were $30k but got a $10k tax deduction so effectively we paid $20k. We looked at solar panels for a long time and kept seeing the price was dropping every year. But last year we decided it was a good enough payback period to go ahead and purchase. Like I said it truned out much better than we expected.
-
Eclectic at 12:24 PM on 26 April 2019There is no consensus
Pl @787 ,
of course you are quite correct that there are institutional pressures towards conformity. As well as the genetically-inherited tendency of humans to "team up" in a tribal manner : just witness the current mindless tribalism in political matters ~ "full steam ahead and damn the facts!" ;-)
But your question suggests you are insufficiently aware of the drive towards contrarianism by scientists as individuals. The up-and-coming scientist seeks not money, but reputation / respect / fame / prestige. Yes, a Nobel Prize may well be awarded in 10 years' time or more . . . but scientific acclaim this year is a powerful inducement for publishing clever / innovative / iconoclastic work. And the competition is fierce !
Similarly, there is no shortage of respected journals that are ready & willing to publish novel dissenting papers (always provided the ideas have some reasonable evidentiary backing . . . and are not just fruitcake speculation.) A journal gains in prestige by being the first to publish groundbreaking work.
Between the scores of journals and the 10,000+ climate-related scientists, there is really nothing for you to fear that any worthy contrarian idea will be suppressed.
Yes, there are a few real scientists who speak against the mainstream climate science, but they have no actual evidence to back up their viewpoint ~ and if you look more closely at them, you find a sorry collection of crackpots / religious nutcases / political extremists / and a few aging "emeritus" types (even a rare Nobel Laureate) whose maverick-inclined personalities have become warped by the early changes of senility. [ I myself know a once-respected researcher, PhD equipped etc, who is a member in good standing of a local branch of the Flat Earth Society.]
But let's not get bogged down in Ad Homs ~ however apt & amusing. The basic problem is that the climate contrarians are still fighting last century's battles ~ and they have no facts to support themselves.
All they can muster is rhetoric & the unjustified "soft claims" you mention . . . in their attempt to sway the susceptible.
( btw, since the consensus of climate experts is extremely close to the 100% mark, I am wondering what you can mean by "the method of determining the level of consensus". What can you be thinking of ? )
-
There is no consensus
Eclectic @786,
My comment was mainly about the method of determining the level of consensus.
Point 1 ("attractor" theory) addressed my assumption, that the method includes statistics about numbers of articles - which can be strongly biased by such "attractor". If there was another attractor in rather distant past, it has little to do with this argument. However, I also assume that such bias may have been controlled for - I'm simply asking for brief explanation how.
Point 2 (peer influence) - I know in the ideal world, scientists have such characteristics as you claim, in real world they often follow direction or advice of their more senior peers, topics are to significant extent determined by projects / programs, etc. Again, I'm not saying this is a big issue, but it's most likely not totally negligible either. I'm interested in how such bias was / would be addressed when determining the level of consensus.
On a related note - a foot soldier of science may find it more productive to focus on particulars rather than spending time questioning consensual claims. I'm probably not the only one seeing a bit of positive feedback loop in there.
Regarding lack of valid alternative theories - I fully agree. There are softer claims than that though - "the field is young, it's not established science yet, the link to human activity is not conclusive yet" and similar. Only miniscule part of general public is able to determine that themselves, so I find preaching the importance of scientific consensus probably the most effective way. I.e. the arguments for it (specific consensus and it's level in climate science) better be airtight. Therefore my original comment.
-
nigelj at 06:10 AM on 26 April 2019Is the grid ready for electric vehicles?
Hank @13, car bonnet covered in solar panels has been done in photo here. However it's a prototype, so no doubt specially reinforced and expensive like Ger says. Not pretty either, but early days yet.
An acquaintaince of mine has a solar panel powered house with a tesla battery pack, which has allowed him to go about 90% off grid. His house is passive solar design so built with good insulation, and to maximise heat gain in winter with big windows and the floor as a heat sink, and solar curtains in summer to refelect as much heat as possible. External shutters would be better.
The panels and battery are an expensive up front investment, with break even in 15 years from memory. I guess government subsidies would help.
However the panels and batteries are not hugely expensive to my way of thinking. Together they are about the cost of 15sq metres of floor area in New Zealand.
However it's not clear to me which is better: Centralised solar plant or residential roof top solar. I haven't been able to find any clear article or research, and its not clear which governments should promote the most. Does anyone know?
Of course being independent off grid is a nice feeling, and you have no more power bills, or minimal power bills. Residential solar power does clearly suit rural communities especially in poor, rural based countries where its not easy to supply such communities from a centralised power station.
-
Eclectic at 01:10 AM on 26 April 2019There is no consensus
Pl @785 ,
1. The original "attractor" theory (held up until the 1930's) was that the Earth's climate was self-correcting i.e. homeostatic within narrow limits. But that was disproven, as experimental & observational & paleo-climatic evidence mounted up. Satellite-based evidence has re-inforced that, too.
2. "Peer influence" is not a problem ~ because genuine scientists have a natural tendency to be contrarian & genuinely skeptical.
The consensus is pretty much unanimous for climatologists, because nowadays (unlike 50 or 100 years ago) the evidence for "CO2/AGW" is conclusive. There are no longer any "alternative theories" that hold any validity ~ the plausible alternative have been disproven (e.g. GW from variation in cosmic ray intensity; homeostatic cloud formation as an "Iris Effect"; long-cycle ocean current effects).
If you take time to learn more about the mechanisms influencing global climate, you will recognize that the (mere handful of) "dissenting" climatologists are offering only empty dissent . . . because they have nothing valid to back up their dissent. They are just running on automatic . . . such as the well-known retired Professor Lindzen, who has an Old Testament religious belief that the Earth has been designed to remain close to the Garden of Eden climate status. A few others suffer from extremist political beliefs, motivating them to cherry-pick / ignore the plain evidence.
Please note that the respected scientific journals welcome dissenting views provided that there is reasonable supportive evidence. (Journals and scientists gain prestige & fame by demonstrating valid contrarian evidence.)
But alas, every contrarian idea has failed the validity test, and there are extremely strong reasons why no "undiscovered" factor exists.
-
Ger at 22:58 PM on 25 April 2019Is the grid ready for electric vehicles?
@Hank @ 13: Not soon, the hood and trunck are not parts of the chasis. For carrying the cells the structure of the hood and trunk should be enforced, guess. Perhaps with "robo heavy hinges and flexible power cables. Cost for such extensions would be not worth the power generated. Windows could be covered with thin film. But there are some safety issues I guess. Perhaps when RoboTaxi is there.
-
There is no consensus
While I do believe there's sufficient consensus, I'd like to see the following considerations addressed. I'm pretty sure it's nothing new, but still it's not something widely discussed in popular science media, so any hints appreciated.
1. "Attractor" theory - since CO2 AGW is the predominant one, other alternative theories may not receive the attention and resources thay may potentially deserve, resulting in low number of papers, etc.
2. Peer influence - putting pseudoscience outliners aside, I find it plausible those wit mildly dissenting views will feel some pressure to conform to the level they wouldn't if the topic wasn't so controversial.
So again, I fully agree there's strong consensus and believe AGW is almost certainly real, methodologically when determining the level of consensus, the above two variables need to be controlled for. I'm just not sure if & how it was done.
-
Hank11198 at 20:27 PM on 25 April 2019Is the grid ready for electric vehicles?
nigelj @ 12 I have been following that technology and was wondering if they could be placed on the hood and trunk lids also.
-
TVC15 at 11:45 AM on 25 April 2019It's the sun
@1262 Daniel Bailey
Thank you! I learn so much from you guys when I post the denier claims that I'm not confident in answering.
Thank you so much! :)
-
Daniel Bailey at 09:02 AM on 25 April 2019It's the sun
Only if you're talking about the 1960s.
TSI has dropped off since then while temperatures continue to rise.
Actual scientists have unpacked the contributions of natural forcings to climate change; only by including the human-caused warming forcing can the upward rise in observed temperatures be explained.
And actual scientists have quantified the warming forcing from the GHG emissions from the human burning of fossil fuels and have found them to be over 50 times greater than the slight extra warming coming from the Sun itself since 1750
Your "friend" is no scientist.
-
nigelj at 08:33 AM on 25 April 2019Is the grid ready for electric vehicles?
Hyundai introduces solar roof technology. "The first-generation system for hybrids features a structure of silicon solar panels integrated into a standard car roof that is capable of charging 30 to 60 per cent of the battery over the course of a normal day, depending on weather conditions and other environmental factors."
-
nigelj at 06:54 AM on 25 April 2019Should a Green New Deal include nuclear power?
M Sweet @22 don't apologise for long comments. All quite interesting!
India has cancelled many of its nuclear projectshere. "While the government did not provide a reason for the nuclear power cancellations, it is likely due to the following challenges: 1) a lack of funding, 2) a supply chain that cannot reliably handle huge increases in orders, and 3) a lack of trained personnel, who can build and operate the plants at the planned level of activity."
-
TVC15 at 06:42 AM on 25 April 2019It's the sun
Hi Again,
I shared the "Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions" link on a public forum with the snipet: In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. In the past century, the Sun can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount.
A climate denier swooped in all angry and made these comments: As for that 35 year cooling trend, a child can see the fallacy in that arguement.
Cooling trend from what? The highest cycle in the 400 years observed. Yet this is followed, in your 35 years of "cooling" by the 2nd and 3rd highest cycles is it not? So against the 400 year average output is still greatly higher- why would we expect cooling of any kind, which could only happen if output was LOWER than the 400 year average? (Solar output is still far higher during the entire 35 years than it was for 400 prior so the sun is still forcing warming, not cooling as you claim).
I am not quite sure how to respond.
-
Hank11198 at 06:25 AM on 25 April 2019Is the grid ready for electric vehicles?
Maybe I’m missing something but I don’t know many people that get gas every time they go from home to work. My wife is close to replacing her car and we will definitely buy an electric vehicle. She drives 26 miles to work so a day’s driving will be about 25% of the charge at most. That can be charged in about 2 hours even if on just a 120v outlet.
With all the European countries that are going to ban the sale of gasoline powered cars or actually forbid there use in the country, it’s going to be like going from horse and buggy to autos on steroids. US car manufactures cannot afford to lose the European market so they are going to have to change. And we are seeing that happen.
As for electricity being generated by renewable energy, we built our house about 14 years ago and had foam insulation throughout the exterior walls and rafters. It does a pretty amazing job of keeping the house draft free and noiseless. But with 3000 sq ft our electric bill averaged a little more than $300/month. We had been talking about solar panels for some time and about 18 months ago we decided to install them and make some other changes to reduce that bill since I’m close to retiring. We installed 10 kW solar panels, replaced the seer 10 outside A/C unit with a 16 seer unit, changed every light to LED, and installed a door between the downstairs and the upstairs. Our bill now averages $120/month. And $16 of that is for the special meter they installed for the solar panels. I did not expect it to drop that much so we were very pleased. The total cost was about $25,000. That’s about a 10 year payback even if the rate doesn’t increase, which it has been for the last few years.
I said that to point out that it seems for those that can’t afford the upfront costs that electric companies or the government could have solar installed on houses and the owners use the savings to pay back the costs. Then power companies would not have to build new power plants, it would smooth out the peak usage problem, and people could charge their cars with renewable energy. Just my thoughts. -
JWRebel at 04:23 AM on 25 April 2019Is the grid ready for electric vehicles?
@Ignorant Guy
I have read about battery replacement numerous times. Besides the difficulties mentioned by @7-8, the battery is a significant part of the price for the whole car, and the longevity of the battery is affected by age, temperatures, and how you treat/charge them. They are therefore not fungible like current or gasoline. To get beyond this, you would need to purchase the car plus a battery plan which discounts for deterioration in the battery + maltreatment. Things get complicated because poor treatment occurs more often if it is not your own property. So it's not as straightforward as it seems at first blush, but it is an obvious 'solution' to charging time. -
One Planet Only Forever at 01:41 AM on 25 April 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #16
In addition to nigelj's comment @2 regarding the "The Next Reckoning: Capitalism and Climate Change", Paul Krugman presents related criticism of the right-wing likes of the Heritage Foundation in "Survival of the Wrongest-Evidence has a well-known liberal bias" in the Opinions section of the NYTimes.
What Krugman bluntly correctly points out is how consistently incorrect the Right-wing have become.
My own opinion is that the Right-wing populists are appealing to people who have developed harmful incorrect motives to resist changing their minds about things.
Many harmful unsustainable social and economic beliefs and actions have developed. They clearly need to be corrected. But people who sense that the corrections will result in them losing some of their developed perception of status can be expected to resist being corrected. They may even understand that they are being harmful, but they are powerfully motivated to continue to be harmfully incorrect by desires to maintain developed perceptions of status through preferred beliefs and related harmful actions.
-
Evan at 00:29 AM on 25 April 2019Is the grid ready for electric vehicles?
Seems like EV and renewable energy are a perfect example of the chicken-and-the-egg syndrome. To build more renewable energy generation we need storage. For EVs to make sense we need more renewable energy generation. We charge at night for 7.5 cents/kwh, and I've seen some programs drop that to 4.5 cents/kwh. No doubt those rates will evolve as more EVs plug in at night, but it seems like a perfect marriage between EVs and renewable energy, because EVs can charge when the power is available, hence a great match to the variability of renewable energy.
No, I'm not saying anything new nor am I saying anything that the readers here don't already know. Just bringing it back into the conversation. But I don't expect hot-swappable batteries to appear anytime soon. Lots of logisic issues associated with that.
-
michael sweet at 20:37 PM on 24 April 2019Should a Green New Deal include nuclear power?
Sauerj,
Unfortunately, this week I am too busy to watch more nuclear videos. Please start using peer-reviewed, written assessments instead of unreviewed sources on the internet. I doubt others want to read more about nuclear so I will summarize as much as possible.
While you are concerned about 1.2 million panels per day, (Jacobson has calculated that all materials and labor are cheaper than fossil fuels including this amount), Abbott calculates that worldwide they would have to build 1 nuclear plant every day forever or about 1 nuclear plant every 4-6 days for the US alone to supply all power. Since they are currently struggling to find laborers for 2 plants in the USA under construction I doubt that could be attempted.
Questioning Lazard's costs without data to support your claims makes you look bad. Using nuclear supporters references to industry estimates instead of neutral authorities is arguing black is white.
1) The opinion of some random internet guy cannot be compared to Abbotts paper published by invitation in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. The editors peer reviewed it. Arguing that we should listen to a random internet guy with no qualifications is black versus white. The fact that the nuclear advocates have not answered Abbott after 10 years indicates that they think he is correct.
Nuclear plants cannot recyce their materials since they will be rendered radioactive. They will probably bury most of the plant on site (intending to leave it there forever) since there is no-where that will accept the nuclear waste.
2) Lazard is an accepted expert. Substituting internet analysis for them is black versus white.
3) KEPCO (the Koreans) are way over budget and way behind schedule on their builds in the UAE. The budget is secret but estimates are currently $25-30 billion for 4 plants. China and India budgets are similarly not transparent. On this basis, you should double your nuclear cost estimates. The first plant in the UAE is three years overdue. A nuclear supporter told me that the first plant was built on time because they claimed it was finished in 2016 even though it is currently three years past due for generating power. There must be serious construction defects to keep the plant closed. You cannot use build estimates for nuclear proposals.
You have left out decomissioning costs from your estimates. For nuclear they are the same or higher as the build costs. All your nuclear estimates have to be doubled again. Black versus white. Most nuclear plant owners seem to be currently planning on getting the government to clean up their mess.
By contrast, wind turbines are refurbished and resold when they are replaced by new units (the new units are more efficient). Nuclear proponents claims that turbines last only 20 years are deliberate lies.
Jacobson's recent estimates are for buiilding out all power, electricity, transportation and industry. You appear to be comparing an estimate of most of electricity for nuclear to all power from Jacobson. All power is about 3 times electricity. This is a black/white comparison. Jacobson's estimates include all storage. Nuclear advocates use pumped storage because it is the most expensive storage and makes renewable look more expensive. Renewable advocates do not use pumped storage since there do not exist enough locations to build them (b/w). Most existing pumped storage in the USA was built to store excess nuclear power when nuclear was supposed to be "too cheap to meter".
You have not included costs of storage for nuclear. Since the demand for power is not constant during the day or seasonally and nuclear cannot load follow, nuclear requires storage also. No-one knows how much storage is needed for nuclear since they have not done any analysis, but it would be comparable to storage for renewables (b/w).
4) I do not have time to review Schellenberger again. He compares France to Germany with an unlabeled graph to argue renewable is too expensive (France subsidizes electricity to make people thing nuclear power is cheap). He has a graph of declining electricity prices declining as more wind is added to argue that renewable is uneconomic.
5) I have demonstrated that Schellenberger is a deliberate lier. Refering to anything he says makes you look very bad. B/w.
The nuclear industry killed 1500 people at Fukushima. There are arguments about how many cancers they have caused. Hundreds of thousands of people cannot return to their homes. Nuclear advocates deny they are responsible for the damage they cause. B/w.
6) If Shelenberger's graph was genuine he would provide a tracable citation. Textbooks never generate graphs, they copy them from sombody else. He should have cited the original source of the graph, not a copy. If the graph exists, the data is probably from 1990. Shellenberger is a known lier.
7) If nuclear cannot get it straight after 70 years why should I expect them to improve in the future?
8) You make yourself look bad parroting the nuclear industry internet position. Read way more. All the papers looking at future power systems (there are hundreds of them, not just Jacobson) discount nuclear.
We did not discuss how you would power Syria, Iran and all of Africa with nuclear. Your internet wiz refered to new designs which do not use exotic materials which take years and cost hundreds of millions of dollars. There is no evidence that they can be designed without the necessary exotic materials. The implied claim that exotic materials are not needed is transparently false.
Nuclear plants take at least 10 years to build and are generally at least 15 years from first proposed. If you could overcome peoples resistance it is impossible that significant nuclear could be built before 2035. That is too late. Trained engineers, welders and plant operators do not exist. By contrast, renewable facilities are built by regular engineers and builders who exist in plenty. Renewable can be built today.
In a renewable world peak power to back up wind and solar on windless nights is the most valuable. Baseload power is not valuable. We need storage not baseload.
Nuclear is uneconomic. I am sorry I ran on so long.
-
Ger at 18:09 PM on 24 April 2019Is the grid ready for electric vehicles?
@nigelj #7: already there.
Semi-automtic battery replacement on city buses
battery swap system for scooters.
As far as I know the automobile industry is working on a standard replacement battery. As Tesla is the largest -western- perhpas their system can become a de-facto standard.
-
nigelj at 11:01 AM on 24 April 2019Is the grid ready for electric vehicles?
Replacement batteries sound interesting, but firstly the batteries are heavy so are positioned low down in the floor pan towards the centre of the car for good weight distribution and not taking up boot space, and this makes them rather inconvenient to easily remove. Secondly, recharging stations would need a large range of different replacement batteries because of the wide range on the market and this would be challenging to accommodate.
There are probably solutions to all this like standardised batteries, but by the time some plan is developed recharging times will probably be down around 10 minutes, making the replacement idea redundant. But who knows, its all one possible idea I'm not rubbishing it.
This will be one to watch. Lexus are planning an electric vehiclehere.
-
Ignorant Guy at 09:16 AM on 24 April 2019Is the grid ready for electric vehicles?
Toys and other gadgets have battery compartments that can hold standard size batteries, like e g AA cells. So I had this fantasy: The battery in my EV is drying up so when I happen to drive by the (future) service station I drive in for a battery replacement. I stop, go out of my EV, open the hatch in the side of the car, pull out the empty battery (with a lifting device because it's heavy), put the empty battery in the rack for empty batteries, fetch a recharged battery from a rack of recharged batteries, shove it into my car (all this of course with the help of the lifting device), close the hatch, pay for difference in energy between the batteries (because maybe my old battery was not totally empty) and drive off. If I hurry a lot I could reload my car in about 40 seconds. Instead of "fast" charging it in thirty minutes or slow charging it in 5 hours. But exactly nobody (that's right, I am a nobody) proposes this technical solution. So can someone explain to me why this is such a very bad idea? My very bad idea also includes that if you really want to slow charge you car at home or at work you can have it both ways. And of course it also includes that the service stations are optimised to recharge batteries in a cost-effective way that is good for the grid.
-
scaddenp at 09:05 AM on 24 April 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Thinkingman. You made the claim:
"See: https://www.leadingedgeenergy.com.au/highest-electricity-prices-world/ The point is: South Australia’s electricity price became the HIGHEST IN THE WORLD during the second half of 2017." The price was AUD47.13c/kWh.I understand that your accusation of moving the goal posts consists of:
1/ I put a of comparison of countries rather than states
2/ I used data from other than 2017 when the accusation was made.I disagree. While the statement about highest prices in the world is made using 2017 price, the data being used to support that claim is from a report in using comparitive data from 2015 (and published 2016). That report considered only OECD not whole world for comparison. My world countries basis did indeed show countries but it can be trivially seen that AUD47.13 (the SA price) is less than US99.
In fact, let me summarize what I believe are the facts based on those sources.
- In 2015, South Australia had higher electricity prices than average price of any OECD country at market exchange rates and higher than any other Portugal on PPP basis (though Japan and Ireland are in there too).
- In 2017, South Australia may have had a higher rate than any of the OECD countries, but to honestly claim that, the comparison would need to be updated with 2017 prices for those other countries and there is no evidence in either that Leading Edge nor Financial Review did that.
- In none of 2015, 2016, or 2017 did South Australia have the highest electricity prices in the world whether compared on exchange rates or PP basis.
I would additional concluded that both FR and LE misrepresented their sources and misled their readers, including you.
I am glad you do recognise that Lazard uses capacity factor since so much misinformation claims they dont. What is your basis for claiming Lazards range of capacity factor and lifetime are flawed? Hopefully not another FF schill.
-
sidd at 08:18 AM on 24 April 2019Should a Green New Deal include nuclear power?
First a quibble. 100% nuke electric for current patterns of consumption means about half of them must load follow. Lifetime of thermal loop components decreases with thermal cycling, so maintenance cost and downtime rise.
Much more important: The nuclear industry has lost trust. No matter what the design safeguards and failsafes, it is not clear that in the USA can build one correctly any more (Vogtle, Sumner) , or operate the current nukes safely. Davis-Besse is a prime example, the only metal left at some points in containment was the thin layer of chromium plate, all the steel was gone. And Jaczko is absolutely correct, flood defense in US nukes is a travesty. They were warned of flood vulnerabilities for more than a decade and they have done far less than they need to. I think the operating extensions granted to some 40 yr old nukes was a bad decision, and one that will bite.
sidd
-
nigelj at 07:59 AM on 24 April 2019Should a Green New Deal include nuclear power?
Sauerj @19, I get where you are coming from.
Regarding Abbots research. It's hardly surprising that people with vested interests have attacked Abbots published research, however the criticism of Abbott has been informal in articles. Until his critics commit to a proper published peer reviewed criticism their criticism obviously lacks rigour.
I see a potential place for nuclear power, probably alongside renewables, but I think it's really a decision to be made by generating companies on the basis of costs. We all want the cheapest power providing its safe and low carbon, and despite accidents like Chernobyl, nuclear power kills or disables fewer people per mwatt hour than other generating options.
Right now generating companies are building renewable energy in western countries because nuclear is not cost competitive, and remember generating companies would consider the longer term cost issues you raise. Maybe this would change if resources for wind and solar power start to get scarce, or the nuclear industry reduces costs but these are market issues. What is it governments or you and I can do or say about it? Not much. I dont see a case for governments to artifically favour nuclear power above other options.
I don't know why nuclear costs are cheaper in Asia. America has strict safety standards and I would not want to see those compomised. But in any event America has to deal with its own realities.
-
william5331 at 06:14 AM on 24 April 2019Is the grid ready for electric vehicles?
As the article mentions, part of the solution is to induce people to charge their cars when excess power is available. This is good for the generation companies as well. For instance, they can reduce the amount of water flowing over the spillway and run it through the generators, making more money from their facility. The key is smart grids. not the pitiful ones we have now designed to eliminate meter readings but really smart grids in which the price of 'optional' electricity continually varies according to how much excessis available. This doesn't apply to power on demand (your house lights for instance) but only for devices such as your hot water cylinder and your wall battery or car battery. This demand balancing rather than the predominant supply balancing we have at present is good for the customer and for the electric companies. You dial the amount you are prepared to pay for electricity and if the price falls to that level, you charge your battery. https://mtkass.blogspot.com/2018/12/energy-storage.html
-
JWRebel at 01:40 AM on 24 April 2019Is the grid ready for electric vehicles?
No definitive or qualified answer to the question posed in the title. The upshot seems to be that on balance a lot of adaptation will have to occur to the current electrical grid but with planning, incentives, and thoughtful application of forward-looking policies, the impact will be smaller than detractors might claim.
-
sauerj at 00:29 AM on 24 April 2019Should a Green New Deal include nuclear power?
All, I am hardly a NP biased proponent. I have only just began to learn about NP (only starting in the last 9 months). I was technologically agnostic before that (instead only focusing on revenue-neutral carbon tax policy). I would call myself a proponent of skeptical science and due-diligence. I have made my primary motivations (zero GHG emissions) quite clear in the above comments. The above characterizations and snide remarks toward me (#16: "black is white and up is down") are unprofessional. I have been fair, professional and forthcoming; referencing all of my points and pointing out (w/o meanness) where the refs that I provided were not correctly understood (ex. 1.2mm panels per day and for US only). ... Nigelj points out that this latter point doesn't matter b/c NP is cheaper (#14); but, this cost detail is very complicated and not so clear, as I explained above & further explain below. Regardless, I still think a continuous replenishment of 1.2mm panels per day, for the US, forever, (assuming a conservatively high 40-yr life span), even if recycling, is something not to dismiss lightly.
I am still worried that a 100% RE plan (per Jacobson's plan, who was a big part of this greenman video) would be imprudently bias against NP and close-minded to how NP can help us (in the mix) get to zero GHG emissions as quickly, smartly & justly as possible. I believe that Jacobson's 100% RE 35-year roadmap plan needs more careful cross-examination; and I base this on what appears to be a thorough review video (cited above & again HERE for convenience), as well as per what other reputable people are saying, also pointed out above, such as highly respected people like James Hansen & others), and I feel that this sort of on-going diligent cross-examination of Jacobson's plan should be pointed out (as I have done).
In the end, I feel that cost should decide, but only provided we are truly & earnestly looking at all costs, and also including all external, long-term costs in the cash flow analysis (which is what the EICDA bill ultimately gets us at (concerning GHG pollution). I am not convinced that that kind of total & comprehensive cost analysis is done w/ Lazard's cost #'s, mostly b/c of the two missing big factors (mentioned in my comments above) which are: non-equal service-life & non-equal reliability (which are not included in Lazard's cash flow analysis).
1) Abbott (MSweet's 16.1): I didn't address the Abbott 2011 paper (material resource issue, #13 in his paper) b/c it is way over my head technically. By myself, I could never get to the bottom on what is the definitive truth on this. To fairly review this paper, it would take a team of senior NP & geological experts, to be able to give Abbott's conclusions due analytical diligence. I am nowhere near qualified for that.
But, in order to meagerly attempt to do that (in the last 2-3 days), I have submitted this Abbott 2011 paper to NP experts (who frequent this "RE vs NP" FB public group) to give them a chance to review & comment on this. A 'Colby Kirk' has given me the following information that throws the Abbott 2011 paper into doubt.
1.1) On Abbott's Material Resource Issue (his point #13):
Per Colby Kirk: "I reviewed his [Abbott] claims on the limited materials. He didn't give a number of materials per reactor, he just claimed all of these materials are required for nuclear reactors and then did a basic algebra formula based on the reserves limited to only the U.S. This is far from being scientific, quantitative or honest."For instance zirconium ... "15 Metric tons per reactor unit of ACR1000" at 15,000 reactors will still not be an issue [see page 73 of this site HERE for this 15MT/rx #]. 225,000 tons for the world nuclear fleet against a world supply of 73,000,000 tons [sauerj insert: Abbott has this at 56,000,000 tons]. That's also assuming we only use that reactor design, which advanced reactors will eliminate the need for zirconium cladding.
"None of this brings up the possibility of recycling which would become a large part of the supply line as these materials go up in price. Fuel assemblies go in and come out with the technical possibility of reprocessing and recycling. Different reactor designs have different needs and any bottle neck on certain materials will just motivate a substitution or design pivot."
1.2) On Abbott's paper being "peer reviewed":
Per Colby Kirk: "I've learned to not rely on the approval of peer review since lots of easily refuted antinuclear hit pieces get published in the literature under "peer review". Editors and reviewers can play favorites, have bias and also not know what they are looking at, which is unfortunate. I've seen lots of terrible work pass under "peer review". I can say for sure he [Abbott] is citing some widely refuted anti-nuclear hit pieces that were not peer reviewed like SLS. [sauerj inert: See my note below about this SLS paper below (*).]"There are also some egregious errors and mistakes in the rest of the paper that any honest reviewer would catch, like cherry picking U235 as the only viable nuclear fuel.
"The document is labeled under "point of view" [sauerj insert: see top of the Abbott paper & on every corner] which looks to be a debate platform in the IEEE content stream. They talk about "personal positions" and "predictions" without mention of peer review like they do for the rest of the journal. Therefore I doubt it is peer reviewed. HERE is the description of that page. "(*) About the non-peer reviewed SLS paper (that Abbott cites 3 places in his 2011 paper): Colby Kirk also sent me the following two rebuttal articles about this SLS paper, see HERE & HERE.
Finally, on this 16.1 point, I personally could not find where Abbott says that the shortage limit of Be, Nb, Zr, Y, Hf will limit NP to 5% max of total power (NP currently provides 11% of global power today). MSweet, could you cite where Abbott claims this?
2) Lazard pg 13 Methodology (MSweet's 16.4, 2nd para of 16.4): This page 13 is just an example free cash flow analysis for just one technology (wind). That is why it doesn't show a comparative table for NP. But regardless, no, they probably don't include disposal costs for NP; so that is a fair point. But, they probably don't also include replacement & recycle costs with the RE options either; though this is probably much less $ than that for NP.
3) Costs (MSweet's 16.4, 1st para of 16.4): My statement above (comment #13) about NP being less than solar & equal to wind (based on slide #2 on THIS site) was not apples-to-apples in comparison; I did not read the slide carefully enough (my error). This slide is a comparison of old fully depreciated NP and new un-depreciated solar & wind, which shows old NP being less cost than new solar & equal to new wind (but this not a fair comparison on new vs new). As MSweet pointed out above (pt 16.4) (in the PDF that I sited), new NP is much more than solar & wind. ... My next thought (per the bottom citations I gave above in #13, & for convenience citing again HERE & HERE) does NP have to be this expensive (based on installations in China, India & South Korea being 25-30% less and per the 3.1 & 3.2 paragraphs below that give credible evidence & references that Jacobson's 100% RE plan would cost 3x more than a Gen III NP plan in reguards to capital costs). But, I fully admit & agree, per Lazard's #'s, without any correction for service-life & equal reliability differences (or without consideration of the capital cost differences per 3.1 & 3.2 below), that new NP does cost more than new RE.
Lazard's #'s do not account for differences in service-life (per its pg 13 methodology), nor offsetting to achieve equal on-demand reliability (ditto). I think these two are big cost factors that are missing from Lazard's cash flow analysis, which is otherwise quite rigorously & technically well done. This lack of 100% apples-to-apples comparison (due to these two missing points) is the same lack of apples-to-apples consternation as cited in the Grist article above (conveniently cited again HERE, see below the "Are renewables cheaper?" header)
On comparing capital cost differences b/w a 100% RE plan vs a mostly NP plan to supply the US with enough non-carbon energy to de-carbonize the US, the following information is noteworthy:
3.1) Capital cost to put the US on 100% RE: Per Jacobson, to supply the 1591GW US demand using his 100% RE plan will cost $15.2tr (not counting necessary pumped hydro back-up which adds $1.3tr for every 4 hours of total US grid back-up). Ref: See this video (3:15-4:15) for these Jacobson 100% RE costs #'s.
3.2) Capital cost to put the US mostly on NP: The Gen III reactors (in SKorea) were built for a cost of $4.4bn/GW. Therefore, to satisfy the US power demand, this would cost $6.7tr (almost 1/3 the cost of the 100% RE costs if the RE plan includes a moderate amount of pumped hydro back-up). And, this NP capital cost could fall to $3tr with Gen IV MSR reactors. These NP costs are per this video (4:50-6:30).4) Shellenberger (MSweet's 16.2 [the first 16.2]): MSweet, Could you post which video (& time) is pertinent to where you said he (Shellberger) contradicted himself? If that is so, then you are most right; and I would agree. Yes, there is absolutely nothing wrong with RE driving power prices down.
5) Shellenberger (MSweet's 16.2 [the 2nd 16.2]): About Fukushima deaths: Shellberger's claims of no deaths due to NP (this video at 14:37) are backed up by the May-2013 UN report (see wiki article, below the "UNSCEAR Report" header), which cites "No radiation-related deaths or acute diseases have been observed among the workers and general public exposed to radiation from the accident". In addition, Shellenberger ref'd the actual UN report, (in the above linked video slide at 14:37), which appears to be extremely thorough (200 pgs). Therefore, I see nothing to make me believe that Shellenberger misrepresented the facts in his video stating that there were no radiation deaths due to NP. Therefore, b/c the nuclear industry didn't technically kill anybody (that all associated deaths were only due to the fault of inappropriate emergency response) per this reputable UN report (that Shellenberger cites), my conclusion is contrary to MSweet's above statement: "Shellenberger denied that the nuclear industry is responsible for the people they killed at Fukushima. The industry demonstrates their complete lack of concern for safety when they do not accept responsibility for the people they kill."
Regardless to no one dying due to radiation, the Fukushima accident was still not good. But do we throw out any good that NP can provide, in getting to zero emissions, if done safely and prudently, due to a possible bad & risky design at Fukushima?
6) Material Mass/Power Comparison (MSweet's 16.3): MSweet, On this "tons/Mwh" point, you mentioned above having trouble finding ref docs that Shellberger referenced. To be clear, I used this Shellenberger video at 18:39 for the mass/power ratio #'s that I posted in #9 above. When I check Shellenberger's references here, I was able to quickly find his referenced doc HERE, which then points to HERE to access it. But, you have to have a sign-on clearance to access it, which I don't have. My expectation is that this doc will, in fact, have a Table 10 (that matches the same figures on Shellenberger's slide). So, I believe you might have been too quick to say that Shellenberger's graph was "falsified"; and to call him a "liar". Now possibly you were looking at a different video and slide, b/c the reference Shellenberger cites here (18:39) is not a "pro-nuclear book" but instead a DOE paper (which led me to the above two sites). If you are able to access this report (again HERE), and find no Table 10 to back-up Shell's slide here, then this does discredit him.
To try to find additional docs on this tons/Mwh ratio subject, I could also ask the above mentioned NP experts for more refs on differences between NP & solar & wind on this point. On the surface, it does jibes w/ my eng sensibilities that solar & wind would far outweigh NP on this ratio due to much lower energy density of the RE's vs NP, especially for the required large scale (per Jacobson's #'s) as outlined in this video (2:40-3:30, and 6:35-8:30).
At this point, on this mass/power ratio matter, I see nothing that gives me reason to doubt Shellenberger's numbers; and certainly no definitive evidence to classify him as a "falsifier" and a "liar".
Also, his presentation cites people who were once very anti-nuclear (Brand, Monbiot), but now in their zeal to really get to zero emissions (as smartly & quickly as possible), and in their honest examination of all the facts, these people have changed their minds. This is profoundly moving to me. Hansen's word is also profoundly moving to me, as I mentioned above (#13).7) NP Maturity (Nigelj 14): In my learning's about NP (in the last 9 months), I have learned that the NP industry is certainly not fully mature. It may be more mature than the solar industry, but there are many things that could be strategically done to bring the capital cost of safe NP down via alternations/upgrades to different paradigms (from Gen II to Gen III, IV) and construction streamlining techniques. Other countries are moving forward into these more cost competitive & safer paradigms (per all of my points above in #3 of this reply) and lower cost construction techniques.
In Conclusion: I am not a NP hack; please do not characterize me of that. I am a CC mitigation hawk and active CCL member, who is simply asking questions & trying to learn to find the truth, and I feel that reputable sites & people (as ref'd) legitimize my questions & concerns about a 100% RE plan. With this reply, I feel I have addressed your points comprehensively and professionally, and on subject concerning this greenman video and its Jacobson referenced content.
-
Paul D at 23:23 PM on 23 April 2019Is the grid ready for electric vehicles?
nigelj @ 1
Every one has to park their car, at work, at home, shopping etc.
So every parking space is a potential location to have charging technology.
That can be via induction or direct cable connection. You would just present your charging card and it will bill you electronically.
Some locations may be difficult, but there are already solutions for the majority. -
Johnb at 23:00 PM on 23 April 2019Is the grid ready for electric vehicles?
Charging your EV will become as familiar as charging your phone or iPad, mostly done at home, work or wherever your vehicle remains stationary for a sufficient period. One thing for certain is that the current service station will not have a future and those who retain legacy internal combustion vehicles will find it increasingly difficult to obtain their fuel as volumes decrease. Yes the Grid will be the critical element in the transition.
-
michael sweet at 20:33 PM on 23 April 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Thinkingman,
In response to my statement that your link does not support your calculations you have simply repeated your calculations. You have still not provided any links to support your calcualtions.
You appear to have made up your calculations out of the air. If you make up calculations you can reach any conclusion you want.
You need to completely delete your spinning reserve for two reasons: Renewable energy does not need so much spinning reserve and you have miscalculated the cost of spinning reserve. Spinning reserve does not produce power (that is why it is called spinning reserve) and has a cost only a small fraction of generating power.
No-one proposes using a wind only system. As I stated above, the combination of wind and solar requires much less gas back up. You should reduce the amount of gas needed by at least 75%. I recommend you look at actual bids from renewable energy before you start your calculations and provide data to support your wild assumptions.
Since you have demonstrated that you have no idea how to calculate costs you must provide a revieiwed citation to support your wild claims. Peer reviewed sources like the ones I cited above show that wind and solar are as reliable as fossil fuels and nuclear power but renewable energy is cheaper.
-
ThinkingMan at 12:02 PM on 23 April 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
scaddenp, you did in fact move the goal posts. You wound the clock back a few years. You substituted the Australian average for the South Australia price.
During 2017H2, the South Australian electricity price, A$47.13, exceeded prices in Germany and Denmark. Statista.com provides German and Danish prices in euros, respectively 30.48 & 30.1. The AUD:euro rate can be found at many online sites. 1.504 is representative. Converted to AUD, the German and Danish prices are A$45.8 and A$45.3.
With regards to levelized costs, while useful, they are flawed. Major flaws distorting onshore wind costs include the capacity factor assumptions (too high) and the service life (too long). Plus, the target ROI for wind is too low relative to natural gas fueled generators. Correcting these flaws significantly raises estimates of wind's full production costs in the absolute and relative to other sources for electricity. FYI, you can make the adjustments on and Excel spreadsheet to see for yourself. Also, FYI, estimates for natural gas and other generators are also appropriate.
-
scaddenp at 08:52 AM on 23 April 2019Sea level rise is exaggerated
Matt, see here for discussion of relative contributors to sealevel rise. Melting ice is only one source and contribution easily quantified - convert mass melted from GRACE to volume and spread over area of ocean. It is less important at the moment that steric rise from warming ocean. Isostatic adjustment is neglible and unaware of arguments claiming it to be important.
-
nigelj at 07:24 AM on 23 April 2019Is the grid ready for electric vehicles?
All well and good, but electric cars only make sense if the electricty is generated by renewable energy, so this is going to have to be expanded fairly quickly.
Electric cars seem like the way of the future to me, in most cases anyway, but how do you charge electric cars in the middle of the day when most people are at work? This will require complicated systems. Perhaps places where charging is best in the middle of the day might suit hydrogen fuel cell cars.
"Green" hydrogen produced by electrolysis driven by renewable electricity has also been proposed as a fuel for various applications, including providing peak electricty supply (typically currently provided by natural gas etc). Ie the hydrogen is effectively acting as a storage medium for use at the right time. Articlehere.
-
nigelj at 06:55 AM on 23 April 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #16
Other news: Trump issues Earth Day message without mentioning climate change
-
ThinkingMan at 06:26 AM on 23 April 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
This post replies to the:
• Apparent confusion about the distinction between the cost of reliable electrical service and the prices at which wind turbines sell electricity.
• Erroneous claim solar panels can take the place of spinning reserves
• Allegation of fakery
It also includes an insider’s comment about how preferential treatment by government influences wind’s role as source of electricity.The comment is “…we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That's the only reason to build them. They don't make sense without the tax credit ...”. We is Berkshire Hathaway, which owns about 8.5% of U.S. wind turbine capacity. The quote is from the 12 May 2014 issue U.S. News & World Report. Other periodicals have the same quote.
Disputing my point about reliable power’s cost by pointing out wind wins the bidding process reveals confusion about who picks what. A brief, basic description of the decision making process may resolve the confusion.
Electricity system decision makers choose between capacity and energy offers from wind turbines, solar panels and conventional generators. Relative prices, government mandates and dispatchability heavily influence how much of each is selected. The quantities are combined into firm service and interruptible service. Reliable service’s cost reflects the sum of prices paid for all the components (baseload + dispatchable + renewables + … ). The same is true of interruptible service’s cost.
Households, businesses, schools, government agencies and other electricity users choose between firm service and interruptible service. Some choose both. The cost of firm service vs. interruptible service influences the decision. Wind’s selling price typically only indirectly influences the decision, if wind is considered at all.
Firm service is reliable service. Customers get all the electricity they want when they want it—24 hours a day, 365 days a year …. .
Interruptible service allows the system operator to restrain or to reduce the quantity of electricity delivered to a customer. Typically, the limitations are temporary. Sophisticated electricity buyers understand the cause and effect relationship between the behavior of wind power and the amount of power delivered to them. They also have expectations for the adverse financial consequences of reduced deliveries. The adverse consequences are weighed against interruptible service’s discount relative to reliable service. Wind’s concurrent selling price influences the decision only if wind obviously influences on the discount (An example is an electricity user that prices some or all of its power with reference to wholesale or spot power prices. Wind power frequently dominates wholesale / spot electricity prices).
Spinning reserves perform functions different than the pairing of wind turbines with solar panels, and the need for the functions persists when wind is paired with solar.
Solar and wind can complement each other where seasonal, daily or other surges in one offset contemporaneous lulls in the other. The pairing can also compensate for mismatches between seasonal, daily or other routine fluctuations in demand for electricity and wind turbine output or solar panel output.
For example, the Georgetown, TX municipal electricity utility pairs solar with wind. A major reason for the pairing is: Seasonal demand peaks when the solar panel capacity factor is high and the wind turbine capacity factor is low.
In contrast, a major function of spinning reserves is to cope immediately with very short term fluctuations in electricity demand and supply. The causes, timing and nature of the fluctuations typically cannot be forecast. But, experience has taught operators of large electricity systems that something routinely goes wrong somewhere. When Murphy causes a problem, spinning reserves are part of the solution.
When backing up renewables, spinning reserves help cope with routine, very large short term changes in wind turbine output. Such changes occur during the night, when solar panels are idle. They also occur during the day, when the electricity system is already tuned to the inflow of solar electricity.
Allegations of fakery put forth by a fossil fuel troll violate the “3 Myths … “ expressed goal of promoting positive discussion (see the blog's introduction). Furthermore, such allegations are blatantly false. Those alleging fakery are challenged to point out where fakery occurred.
Is there fakery, an arithmetic mistake or a typo in these calculations?
• $90 = (.29 * $205 + .61 * $40 + .1 * $55)
• 1.65 is approximately $90 / $55
• $112 = (.43 * $205 + .49 * $40 + .08 * $55)
• 2 is approximately $112 / $55Do $205, $40 and $55 misrepresent 2018 values for peaker, wind and baseload costs shown on the levelized cost graph featured in the “3 Myths …. “ blog? Does the graph misrepresent the relative prices of each?
Do you challenge the validity of data provided by ERCOT and ISO New England?
Do you dispute that wind electricity is intermittent and variable, as generally described and as shown by data provided by ERCOT, ISO New England, The Alberta Electric System Operator, the Australia Energy Market Operator, Germany’s regional operators and others?
Do you dispute that reliable service has been and remains a key objective of electricity system operators?
Do you dispute the necessity of supplementing wind with other sources of power to create reliable service?
With regards to the shares of reliable energy supplied by peakers, wind and spinning reserves, my estimates favor wind. Wind turbine opponents in the recent past typically claimed that every 100 MW of wind capacity had to be backed up by 80 to 100 MW of conventional generating capacity, and that much of the back-up capacity had to operate 24/7. In contrast, my split is 100:55 approx., and only about 5 needs to operate continuously. Furthermore, my splits suggest reliable service structured around wind turbines cuts by 40-50% CO2 emissions relative to reliable service structured around natural gas. These are NOT results a fossil fuel troll would proclaim.
A wise person once advised: Progress should not be impeded by the pursuit of perfection. Those truly concerned about the environment should settle for progress achievable and feasible today to improve conditions over the next several years and concurrently work towards better solutions to be implemented in the future. That is far more constructive than savaging suggestions that differ by degree rather than direction.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:15 AM on 23 April 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #16
In my comment @7 I understand that the authors of the report qualified their claim about the 'merits of peer-on-peer corrective efforts through penalty' with the term "unfettered". But, of course, the the undeniable cause of the problem is "incorrectly or inadequately fettered" irational harmful behaviour, so it would be understood by altruists that any corrective actions should be "helpfully rationally fettered".
-
MA Rodger at 20:47 PM on 22 April 2019Sea level rise is exaggerated
Mat @302,
As Wikipedia shows, the atmosphere contains a tiny portion of our planet's H2O (12,900 cu km) while the oceans contain the vast majority of it (1.338 billion cu km). An increase in global temperature would raise atmospheric H2O by 7% or 9,000 cu km, and with oceans 351 million sq km in size, that would be enough to cause (or prevent) a sea level rise totalling 0.025mm.
I am not aware of there being a discrepancy between the evaluation of SLR drivers & observed SLR. For instance, IPCC AR5 Chapter 13 Table 13.1 shows the 'residual' to be well inside the confidence intervals.
Prev 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 Next
