Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Comments 151 to 200:
-
tder2012 at 05:24 AM on 9 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
"They are currently building out factories and mines to manufacture them in large numbers". And yet Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) expect BESS to generate 1TWh of electricity for the entire year of 2030, they generated 0.363TWh for all of 2024, according to the Volta Foundation. Considering 30,000TWh of electricity was consumed for 2024 and this number is expected to rise year over year, as it always has, as global population continues to increase (projected 10 billion by 2050) and more and more of the global population enjoys a decent standard of living. So batteries better pick up the pace and grow by orders of magnitude more than is expected by pro renewables and batteries BNEF and of course costs decrease by orders of magnitude from what BNEF expects.
-
tder2012 at 04:51 AM on 9 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
I stated "Name one country that has 50-80% RE, other than hydro, averaged on an annual basis and has achieved the Paris target of <100gramsCO2emitted/kwh, averaved on an annual basis". Sorry I should have stated "other than hydro AND nuclear" and services at least 5 million people. Norway is mostly hydro, so they shouldn't be on your list. Sweden gets electricity from hydro and way too much nuclear for you liking, so they shouldn't be on your list. Finland is way too much nuclear, so they shouldn't be on your list. Denmark's CO2 emission are too high, so they shouldn't be on your list. England's emissions are way too high and they get too much from nuclear, so they shouldn't be on your list. Germany's emissions are way too high (345, instead of 100, grams of CO2 emitted / kwh), so they shouldn't be on your list. Spain gets way too much from nuclear and is still over 100, so they shouldn't be on your list. Lithunania has a population of under three million and their CO2 emission are still above 100, averaged on an annual basis, so they shouldn't be on your list. Maybe pay far less attention to %renewables (ideally none) and instead of focusing on GHG emissions. So all the countries you listed actually don't qualify, but you did say "I could go on and on but it's becoming clear that the numbers from Michael Sweet were not fantasy." So you should go on and on, that is, unless you care more about %RE than GHG emissions. And use a proper source. https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/LT/12mo/monthly
-
Philippe Chantreau at 03:42 AM on 9 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
I agree with the "do your own homework" part, but since this was so easy to do, I actually shouldered some of tder2012 homework:
From North to South:
-Norway: over 99% of electricity production from renewable, mainly hydro
-Sweden: more than 60% of electricity production from renewables, according to their official site
-Finland is not as performant but they are making progress, 43% production from renewables
-Denmark does well with between 79 and 81% in recent years.
- England lags a little but has made progress, reaching 51% of renewable electricity generation in 2023.
-Germany continues to progress 52.4 % in 2023
-Spain does surpirsingly well with 56% in 2024.
I could go on and on but it's becoming clear that the numbers from Michael Sweet were not fantasy. The E.U. as a whole has reached 50% in the first half of 2024. That is in spite of heavy reliance on fossil fuels from some members, especially the former soviet satellite nations. I'll add that I am not fundamentally opposed to nuclear, but the problems it poses must be acknowledged.
-
michael sweet at 02:53 AM on 9 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
tder2012:
Lithuania produces over 50% of electricity using renewable energy plus some hydro. Do your own homework. The first country I looked at.
-
michael sweet at 02:45 AM on 9 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder2012 posted on the solar energy thread:
"Over that time nuclear supporters like you have generated many false claims." Point out any false claims I have made and back it up with numbers, data and evidence in full context.
"Why analyze Germany alone when they currently are in a grid with the rest of Europe? Because you know in advance that it will be more expensive." France is also on this same grid and their residential electricity prices are half that of Germany.
tder2012 at 23:
You have made way too many false claims for me to list them all.
You claimed at post 16 "As I stated previously, breeder reactors are in operation today in China, India, Japan and Russia"
I showed that the reactor in Japan closed in 2010 clearly showing your post false. I note that none of the four sodium cooled reactors world wide are running as breeder reactors. One primarily generates weapons grade plutonium, one has not started yet and one is a burner reactor.
I showed that your claim of a maximum of 30% renewables is completely false.
-
michael sweet at 01:49 AM on 9 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder2012 at 383:
Batteries have only been economic for 2 or 3 years. They are currently building out factories and mines to manufacture them in large numbers. Pointing out that a brand new technology has not been manufactured in large quantity yet is absurd. Grid forming inverters have been manufactured. They can be produced in whatever numbers are requred.
By contrast, there are no commercial breeder reactors operating anywhere in the world and no new designs have been submitted to regulators. If they ever build a breeder reactor there is no reason to think they will be economic or can be built in the time we have remaining to solve the climate crisis.
-
michael sweet at 00:15 AM on 9 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
tder2012 at 23:
You have made way too many false claims for me to list them all.
You claimed at post 16 "As I stated previously, breeder reactors are in operation today in China, India, Japan and Russia"
I showed that the reactor in Japan closed in 2010 clearly showing your post false. I note that none of the four sodium cooled reactors world wide are running as breeder reactors. One primarily generates weapons grade plutonium, one has not started yet and one is a burner reactor.
I showed that your claim of a maximum of 30% renewables is completely false.
-
michael sweet at 00:09 AM on 9 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
Tder2012 at 22
So now you are claiming that the numbers in your link are not reliabe and you want me to go to the Our World in Data link that I gave you and pick out a few of the countries that have over 30% renewables. Since you now say that your liink is unreliable, why should I believe anything you say or link??? It is your job to go to Our World in Data and look at the data there. Then you will know more of the background information that everyone informed knows. It is not my job to do your homework.
I note that in the first paragraph of your link the author says that he has had his head buried in the sand for ten years and does not know what everyone else knows about current world electrical systems. Why should I believe anything he says after that? Then he brings up a false claim from nuclear supporters that is ten years out of date and was never accurate. Get your act together.
-
MA Rodger at 21:17 PM on 8 May 2025Medieval Warm Period was warmer
The two Lüninget al (2019) papers linkedup-thread @273/274 are available in full - The Medieval Climate Anomaly in South America, and The Medieval Climate Anomaly in Antarctica. These will help the papers being used less selectively.
Thus in the South America paper we can read in its conclusions "A fully quantitative comparison of (medieval) and (present) temperatures is still complicated. Some sites suggest that the (present) may have been warmer than the (medieval), whilst others indicate the opposite."
Yet whatever an individual study (even when a review spanning a whole continent) may find, a bit of warming somewhere which coincides with the MWP or cooling coniciding with the LIA is surely no longer viable as some denialist rant. Consider this figure below from Kaufman et al (2020) 'Holocene global mean surface temperature, a multi-method reconstruction approach' . If we today have +1.5ºC AGW, where are we now on their Fig 3 below?
-
Eclectic at 21:08 PM on 8 May 2025Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Dick van der Wateren @276 :-
Dick, after making my @275 post, now my (admittedly-feeble) brain is somewhat confused by your @276 comment (second paragraph).
The Nature article you had linked [Forte et al., 2025] in the first sentence of its Abstract, said :- "The Antarctic landscape is one of the most stable environments on the Earth ... "
~ And the first sentence of the Introduction, states similarly :- "The Antarctic is considered to be one of the most stable environments on the Earth ... "
~ It seems quite a jump to mention your own paper (titled: "Stabilists strike again") which was indeed their reference #3 . . . which was from 30 years ago [1995] and is unfortunately (for me) behind a paywall.
I confess I am very unclear about the point you wish to make. Your thoughts and explanations would be most welcome !
-
Dick van der Wateren at 18:02 PM on 8 May 2025Medieval Warm Period was warmer
The third reference infers medieval warming based on rather weak evidence. Unfortunately, it has been picked up by climate sceptics claiming that the MWP was warmer than today, which the Nature paper does not say.
Their assertion that the Antarctic landscape is "one of the most stable environments on the Earth" is definitely not what it says in reference #3 in their paper, a comment by Richard Hindmarsh and myself Stabilists strike again.
-
tder2012 at 07:36 AM on 8 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
"Over that time nuclear supporters like you have generated many false claims." Point out any false claims I have made and back it up with numbers, data and evidence in full context.
"Why analyze Germany alone when they currently are in a grid with the rest of Europe? Because you know in advance that it will be more expensive." France is also on this same grid and their residential electricity prices are half that of Germany.
-
tder2012 at 07:32 AM on 8 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
"Batteries and grid forming inverters are readilly available today" last year, according to the Volta Foundation BESS generated 0.363TWh globally for the entire year of 2024. In 2024, there was 30,000TWh consumed globally, so batteries contributed 0.00121%. What are your numbers for grid forming inverters? As Sir David McKay said "numbers, not adjectives".
-
tder2012 at 07:28 AM on 8 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
"I was shocked when I've learned last week that most of the European countries have 50-80% of RE in the total generation mix." Name the countries that are 50-80% of RE in the total generation mix, averaged on an annual basis. The quote you used is out of context, it is only for the specific time period for a few days last week. Name one country that has 50-80% RE, other than hydro, averaged on an annual basis and has achieved the Paris target of <100gramsCO2emitted/kwh, averaved on an annual basis, point it out here.
-
michael sweet at 05:48 AM on 8 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder2012
Batteries and grid forming inverters are readilly available today!!! They need to scale up the rate of construction and we will have the carbon free grid that we need. Factories are being built as we post!
By contrast, the nuclear facilities that you favor have not been designed yet. Let us imagine they finish the design in 2 years. Then 4 years to get regulatory approval, 4 years to find a location and get permits and then 5 years to build the prototype. We wait for 5 years of experience to determine if the prototype works and then it is at least 8 years before lots of additional reactors can be built.
That is a total of 28 years before large numbers of reactors are built. That is too late!! The nuclear ship sailed long ago. And there is not enough uranium to put in the reactors! Read Abbott 2012. All the problems he suggests still apply.
-
michael sweet at 05:02 AM on 8 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
I have been in this game for about 20 years. Over that time nuclear supporters like you have generated many false claims. For example when a paper was published with a single 1 MW wind turbine connected to a gas generator. It was then argued that more CO2 was emitted from the wind turbine. No-one has a grid with a single wind turbine. Experience in using wind turbines has shown that that analysis was completely false.
Your citation calculates the cost of a solar and battery system without using any hydro or wind. And they only use a very small grid (Texas and Germany). These are gross mistakes. The literature shows that it is much cheaper to have a larger grid than a smaller one. Most realistic analysis use all of North America as a grid.
Why analyze Germany alone when they currently are in a grid with the rest of Europe? Because you know in advance that it will be more expensive.
The analysis you linked is ignored for a reason. It is obviously junk science. A grossly too small grid and no existing hydro or wind. Texas will have to connect with the rest of the USA if they want cheap electricity. (Texans already pay a premium because of their small grid).
Just look at Europe: most of the countries have 50-80% renewables and they save money on their electric bills!
-
michael sweet at 04:41 AM on 8 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
tder2012:
Your link at post 2 claiming that no more than 30% renewable energy should be used says:
"I was shocked when I've learned last week that most of the European countries have 50-80% of RE in the total generation mix." my emphasis
I suggest you read your own links more closely. Obviously systems with more than 30% renewable energy work and save billions of dollars. Occasionally there are problems that require new hardware and/or programming since the technology is only 10 years old. Our World in Data can give you exactly the percent renewables for most of the countries in the world and breaks down different renewables.
Jacobson only uses existing hydro. This was done about 10 years ago. I believe that all 100% renewable energy solutions do not use additional hydro. Are you suggesting all existing hydro should be removed? Read my links to you above. If you read more of the background material you will not ask questions about common knowledge.
-
tder2012 at 04:17 AM on 8 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
Since science is in the name of this site, I think it would be fair to ask for any evidence for your fossil fuel propagnda claim "Your post claiming high cost of LFSCOE (made on another thread) is simply fossil fuel propaganda" Is it Carl Sagan that stated "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"?
-
tder2012 at 04:09 AM on 8 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
"Many other countries generate as much as 100% renewable energy. Claiming that is not possible in your post 2 when it is already widely done is beyond misleading". Could you please name these "many other countries" and provide evidence to support your claims? Also, knowing that hydro is essentially tapped out, provide examples that don't use hydro, since going forward, hydro is likely not available very much as new electricity generation.
-
tder2012 at 04:04 AM on 8 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Since its OK to wait for synchronous condensers, grid forming inertia, flywheels and batteries to be available at the scale required, is it OK for reactor companies that claim to be fast breeder reactors or be able to use spent nuclear fuel to wait for them as well? Such as Oklo, Copenhagen Atomics, Terrapower, ARC Nuclear Energy, Moltex, Newcleo, etc. Also see on youtube "The integral fast reactor", why did Clinton and Kerry cancel this reactor in 1994 when it was ready to be commercialized? Grave error. Kerry regrets this and is now pro nuclear.
-
michael sweet at 03:55 AM on 8 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
tder:
reactor question replied to on the nuclear thread
-
michael sweet at 03:54 AM on 8 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder2012:
You posted:
"As I stated previously, breeder reactors are in operation today in China, India, Japan and Russia. One in Russia came on line in 1980."
on the renewable energy thread.
From Wikipedia:
Japan: one breeder reactor at Monju "The reactor has been inoperative for most of the time since it was originally built. It was last operated in 2010[1] and is now closed." Calling this a production reactor is false.
China: one breeder reactor at Xiapu. Too small for a production reactor. Primarily used to generate plutonium for weapons.
India: one breeder reactor in Tami Nadu. Under construction since 2004. Apparently fuel was loaded in 2024 but no news since.
Russia: Two reactors 600 MWe and 800 MWe. 800 MWe plant started construction in 1983 and completed in 2016. Currently used to burn plutonium. Plans for a 1200 MWe reactor have apparently been drawn up but they are not building since it would not be economic.
I will let other readers decide if this record is of a technology ready to build or if it needs more work. There are no approved breeder reactor plans in the USA or Western Europe.
-
tder2012 at 03:38 AM on 8 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Like I stated previously, I don't read Jacobson and haven't for years, no point. He gets debunked and stops with the scientific debate and then takes it to court and loses that as well. https://retractionwatch.com/2024/02/15/stanford-prof-who-sued-critics-loses-appeal-against-500000-in-legal-fees/ Bryer works closely with Jacobson, so I don't bother with him either.
UNIPCC states nuclear is 14 grams CO2 emitted lifetime, UNECE states 6 and Jacobson states 171 because of emissions from burning caused by nuclear war. These differences are indeed significant, considering the Paris climate targets are for electricity grids to be <100grams CO2 emitted/kwh, averaged on an annual basis.
-
tder2012 at 03:16 AM on 8 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
As I stated previously, breeder reactors are in operation today in China, India, Japan and Russia. One in Russia came on line in 1980.
-
tder2012 at 03:15 AM on 8 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
Of course Lazard thinks Lazard's LCOE is best, they should be very confident in their own work, but, as I highlighted from the 2024 Lazard report, Lazard acknowledges there are many omissions.
-
michael sweet at 02:55 AM on 8 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
tder2012:
I see that Lazard considers LCOE as the best way to compare different costs of energy. The quote you have seems to be a boiler plate discussion of the limitations of LCOE. All methods of evaluation have limitations, Lazard thinks LCOE is the best one. Utilities have to do more in depth evaluations of their current and future generation supplies so they have to consider additional data.
-
michael sweet at 02:21 AM on 8 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder2012,
Your claim of 4 billion years of uranium requires breeder reactors not currently designed, reprocessing the waste to recover materials that can be used again (a known arms problem), and recovering uranium from seawater. The development of these processes would take longer than we have time for in the current climate crisis. According to your linked blog post, current supplies of uranium using current reactor designs would only last 6 years. Abbott 2012 addresses these claims. In general, peer reviewed papers are considered a better source than blog posts.
In general, processes that have not been developed yet are not considered good options for solving large problems rapidly.
If you read Jacobson, his primary objection to nuclear reactors is the long time it takes to build them. These emissions are not considered by UNIPCC or UNECE. The emissions from a nuclear war are trivial (although the human loss is tremendous).
-
tder2012 at 02:13 AM on 8 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
Feel free to address one claim at a time. My point in showing the 2016 post is simply this is at least how long I am familiar with Jacobson's work. Address only this point them from Lazard's 2024 LCOE+ report. Page 8 from https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024-_vf.pdf
"Other factors would also have a potentially significant effect on the results contained herein, but have not been examined in the scope of this current analysis. These additional
factors, among others, may include: implementation and interpretation of the full scope of the IRA; economic policy, transmission queue reform, network upgrades and other
transmission matters, congestion, curtailment or other integration-related costs; permitting or other development costs, unless otherwise noted; and costs of complying with
various environmental regulations (e.g., carbon emissions offsets or emissions control systems). This analysis is intended to represent a snapshot in time and utilizes a wide, but
not exhaustive, sample set of Industry data. As such, we recognize and acknowledge the likelihood of results outside of our ranges. Therefore, this analysis is not a forecasting
tool and should not be used as such, given the complexities of our evolving Industry, grid and resource needs. Except as illustratively sensitized herein, this analysis does not
consider the intermittent nature of selected renewables energy technologies or the related grid impacts of incremental renewable energy deployment. This analysis also does not
address potential social and environmental externalities, including, for example, the social costs and rate consequences for those who cannot afford distributed generation
solutions, as well as the long-term residual and societal consequences of various conventional generation technologies that are difficult to measure (e.g., airborne pollutants,
greenhouse gases, etc." -
michael sweet at 01:58 AM on 8 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
tder2012:
It is not pratical to address many claims made at once (Gish Gallops). If you want to discuss renewables or nuclear there are OP's at SkS for that. Please address only one or two claims at once so that they can be resolved before moviing on to additional claims.
Citing a blog post from 2016 when wind, solar and batteries were way more expensive than they currently are while saying you will not consider current scientific studies makes for a difficult discussion at SkiS.
-
tder2012 at 01:50 AM on 8 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Are we short of uranium? "Nuclear fuel will last us for 4 billion years". Fast breeder reactors are in production in China, India, Japan and Russia. One of the ones in Russia came on line in 1980. Lifecycle CO2 emissions, according to the UNIPCC are 14 grams CO2 per kilowatt-hour. UNECE states they are about 6. Jacobson states they are 171, he includes "the emissions from the burning of cities resulting from nuclear weapons explosions” and some say Nate Hagens is a pessimist.
-
tder2012 at 01:41 AM on 8 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
I don't read Jacobson. He gets debunked and stops with the scientific debate and then takes it to court and loses that as well. https://retractionwatch.com/2024/02/15/stanford-prof-who-sued-critics-loses-appeal-against-500000-in-legal-fees/ Bryer works closely with Jacobson, so I don't bother with him either. I have read their material over the years, for example, here is one on my blog from 2016 that my friend wrote https://tditpinawa.wordpress.com/2016/09/17/tim-maloneys-analysis-and-critique-of-100-wws-for-usa/. I believe science debates should stick to science debates. There are nine grids today that have achieved <100 grams of CO2 emitted per kilowatt hour, averaged on an annual basis that service at least 5 million people. They are Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec and then there is Norway, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, France and Brazil. They have achieved this with either mostly hydro, mostly nuclear or mostly a combination of the two. "Your post claiming high cost of LFSCOE (made on another thread) is simply fossil fuel propaganda. It has been known for years that the last 10-20% of renewable energy will be the most expensive." You can state your opinions about propaganda all you like, how about showing the evidence in the real world, not just in Jacobson's spreadsheets, about the last 10-20% being the most expensive. Lazard didn't make changes, instead they are open about their limitations, as I quoted in a previous comment. Will Lazard scrap their limitations and instead do a complete study, as opposed to just points in time. I don't care so much about % of renewable energy, I care about CO2 emissions. Once Texas and Spain have achieved <100grams/CO2 emitted per kilowatt-hour, averaged on an annual basis, then we'll talk. Texas is 292 and Spain is close at 112, but they are planning to shut down nuclear so their emissions are likely to rise, just like everywhere else that shuts down nuclear. https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE/12mo/monthly Jacobson is a big proponent of Germany, but 345 for the last 12 months, their energy system is really struggling and due to high prices, their industrial and manufacturing are slowing down. "Let’s dive into one of the most ambitious (and chaotic) energy transitions in the world" Amory Lovins was awarded the German Order of Merit in 2016 for his influence on the German "Energiewende", maybe they jumped the gun a bit with this award.
-
michael sweet at 01:11 AM on 8 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
tder2012:
There is a thread for nuclear energy on this site. Please post any comments on nuclear on that thread. If you read some of the previous comments you might find answers to some of your questions. I recommend Abbott 2012 (linked in the OP of the thread).
-
michael sweet at 00:57 AM on 8 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
tder2012:
You need to find a more reliable source of information. In post 2 you claim:
"Electricity generators need to provide ancillary services such as black starts and synchronous inertia. Wind and solar are not capable of doing these on their own. BESS can do fast frequency response, but cannot assist with synchronous inertia."
Solar systems and batteries can be used for black starts already and can be used for synchronous inertia with proper inverters. In the past they have not been built with such inverters because they were not needed. As more wind and solar are implemented capable inverters will be deployed. It is deliberately misleading to claim that renewable energy cannot do something that was not needed in the past but where currently available inverters are capable of providing that service. The cost will be trivial.
It appears to me that your references completely leave out the cost of existing hydro. Hydro provides a significant source of on demand electricity and is the most flexible energy. Looking at the cost of 100% solar alone without taking into account existing hydro does not give an accurate idea of complete system costs.
Both Spain and Texas generate way more than 30% renewable energy. Many other countries generate as much as 100% renewable energy. Claiming that is not possible in your post 2 when it is already widely done is beyond misleading. It has been widely documented that Texas would have had blackouts in the past two summers without renewable energy.
Your post claiming high cost of LFSCOE (made on another thread) is simply fossil fuel propaganda. It has been known for years that the last 10-20% of renewable energy will be the most expensive. My link at post 1 of this thread documents how renewables save large amounts of money for the first 80% of generation and addresses the last 20%. It also demonstrates that fossil fuel interests lie and pay think tanks to produce "papers" that are simply false. Perhaps you would be interested in reading it.
We will see if LFSCOE is considered useful by anyone besides fossil fuel interests. The paper you linked was published in 2022 and Lazard has not implemented their analysis. Presumably Lazards experts would have made changes if they thought LFSCOE was a more accurate measure. I note that your link also claimed nuclear provides four times the financial benefits of renewables. It did not discuss the fact there is not enough uranium to generate a significant amount of power world wide.
I suggest you read Bryer et al 2022 and the references theirin for more accurate information. These papers actually calculate the full system costs of completely renewable systems. For example, Jacobson et al 2022 details all the solar panels, wind generators, batteries and other needed materials to generate 100% renewable energy. Jacobson does not find the cheapest route to 100% renewables since he does not use any thermal sources (like waste incineration). Since he considers all sources of renewable energy he does not grossly overestimate the cost of the last 20% of energy (although that is the most expensive energy).
I note that wind and solar compliment each other in 100% systems and result in much lower costs that wind or solar only. LFSCOE costs of solar only or wind only do not reflect 100% renewable system costs. Thermal baseload like nuclear do not compliment renewables and result in higher system costs.
-
tder2012 at 00:29 AM on 8 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
I feel we are in a climate and energy crisis and emergency and therefore, I feel all options should be on the table, should be considered. I have reviewed Fourth Transition and am not nearly ready to rule it out, I have been in direct communications with them. You are entitled to your opinion about them being a grift. After several discussions and readings, I have not yet formed an opinion on that. How do you feel about nuclear power? I don't see much support for nuclear power on this site. "Nuclear Energy Unveiled: Debunking Myths and Revealing Facts"
-
tder2012 at 23:26 PM on 7 May 2025Skeptical Science New Research for Week #18 2025
I find LCOE, as Lazard is open and transparent about, leaves out too many factors to be of much use to me. I have read and researched on this topic extensively. Lazard state it is prices at a moment in time, which is of no value, IMHO. Modern electricity grids need to produce 1. 24x7x365, 2. needs dispatchable generators and 3. generators that provide ancillary services and now a fourth should be added, low GHG emissions and air pollution. Lazard does not account for any of these, LFSCOE at least accounts for the first three. I often see Lazard quoted, but when it is done, it is seemingly done without accounting for the limitations that Lazard openly acknowledges. The originl LFSCOE paper is here https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4028640
-
Eclectic at 18:20 PM on 7 May 2025Skeptical Science New Research for Week #18 2025
Tder2012 @2 :
If you type LCOE into the search box at top-left of page, then you can select one of the related threads, which would allow you to contribute to discussion of that type of topic. (There probably are several such threads).
The SkepticalScience [SkS] website favors that system, to avoid having absolutely every every climate-related topic being endlessly repeated on every thread ~ to the detriment of readers who are trying to discover & focus on particular aspects. It is a sensible system.
Regarding LCOE ; LFSCOE ; and all the other methods of assessment ~ you are quite right in implying that every such method is grossly deficient in making an overall yardstick of usefulness. And each method is open to abuse by "interested" players/propagandists.
-
tder2012 at 14:01 PM on 7 May 2025Skeptical Science New Research for Week #18 2025
I asked the following of Dr. Romm when he posted this on his LinkedIn, he never responded to me, perhaps you could? He quotes WoodMac's LCOE
"Hi Dr. Romm. I asked the following question on Woodmac' LinkedIn page from 5 months ago https://www.linkedin.com/posts/wood-mackenzie_our-five-regional-levelised-cost-of-electricity-activity-7258040109122338816-hJN0/
Do you publish your LCOE assumptions, if any? I ask because I see Lazard's, but I am unable to locate Woodmac's LCOE assumptions. Lazard's assumptions are outlined at the bottom of page 8 here https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024-_vf.pdf
Any assistance would be greatly appreciated, Dr. Romm"
Here are the limitations of Lazard's LCOE, which they openly acknowledge:
"Other factors would also have a potentially significant effect on the results contained herein, but have not been examined in the scope of this current analysis. These additional factors, among others, may include: implementation and interpretation of the full scope of the IRA; economic policy, transmission queue reform, network upgrades and other transmission matters, congestion, curtailment or other integration-related costs; permitting or other development costs, unless otherwise noted; and costs of complying with various environmental regulations (e.g., carbon emissions offsets or emissions control systems). This analysis is intended to represent a snapshot in time and utilizes a wide, but not exhaustive, sample set of Industry data. As such, we recognize and acknowledge the likelihood of results outside of our ranges. Therefore, this analysis is not a forecasting tool and should not be used as such, given the complexities of our evolving Industry, grid and resource needs. Except as illustratively sensitized herein, this analysis does not consider the intermittent nature of selected renewables energy technologies or the related grid impacts of incremental renewable energy deployment. This analysis also does not address potential social and environmental externalities, including, for example, the social costs and rate consequences for those who cannot afford distributed generation solutions, as well as the long-term residual and societal consequences of various conventional generation technologies that are difficult to measure (e.g., airborne pollutants, greenhouse gases, etc."
Instead of using LCOE, we should be using Dr. Robert Idel's work at Rice University, Levelized Full System Cost of Electricity Move over, LCOE. LFSCOE is the new metric in town
-
Eclectic at 11:45 AM on 7 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
[ My apologies, Moderator ~
if you have time, please correct my typo in @6 :
"FOUTH TRANSITION LTD"
. . . should read "FOURTH TRANSITION LTD".
I would not wish keen investors to send money to the wrong LTD . ]
-
Eclectic at 11:35 AM on 7 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
Tder2012 @4 :-
At risk of being a Cassandra, please allow me to say that your last two references ( 'About' and 'The Energy Seneca' both themselves linking to FOUTH TRANSITION LTD )
. . . are wordy but quite nebulous in actual content.
We Cassandras smell a grift.
Please keep your money in your wallet.
-
Eclectic at 10:37 AM on 7 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
Tder202 @4 :-
Thank you for the video titled: "Net Zero and Other Delusions" by Nate Hagens.
In essence, he says that Net Zero [of fossil carbon emissions] cannot happen by 2050. I suspect that every realist would agree that such a target ~ in only 25 years' time ~ is completely impracticable, with today's politics & today's technology. (But is half a loaf not better than none?)
Perhaps possible by 2070 or 2080? That would require cheap & durable solar panels plus cheap & durable storage batteries. Even the pre-2050 invention of practical & economic Boron-Proton fusion generation of electricity . . . would take decades to roll out for worldwide usage.
Big advances in solar/battery manufacture are a very much better "Bayesian bet" (as Hagens would say).
And yet now is the time to roll up metaphorical sleeves and get to work on the future problems.
# So the question remains: Why is Nate Hagens such a hopeless pessimist? Is he the sort of pessimist who will refuse to plant a sapling for a shade-tree (while bemoaning today's lack of sufficient shade)??
.
btw, tder2012, if you have any influence with Nate Hagens ~ please ask him to shorten his 20-minute video down to about one-third the length (which would not degrade his message! ). There is an old ecclesiastical saying: "An excellent sermon should need less than 10 minutes to best deliver its message."
-
tder2012 at 09:07 AM on 7 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
I agree, when will wind, solar and batteries be ready to be deployed and be able to readily supply their share of critical and required services such as synchronous inertia is completely unknown, therefore extremely risky to go down this path, considering we are in a climate and energy crisis and emergency. I am curious why you would ask about my assessments of future developments, as I am not an expert and predictions are difficult, especially about the future. However, I will share some links, one by Nate Hagens youtube channel Net Zero and Other Delusions: What Can't, Won't and Might Happen and from Fourth Energy Transition, About and The Energy Seneca.
-
Eclectic at 08:29 AM on 7 May 2025Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Dick van der Wateren @ 273 / 274 :-
Your third reference (the Nature paper) leads off by saying: "The Antarctic landscape is one of the most stable environments on Earth ... [for] approximately 14 million years"
Which is what you would rather expect, seeing that the Antarctic ice-sheet is simply a super-colossal block of ice. The 14 million year period is not an intuitive matter ~ but the task of finding a slight variation of temperature (probably less than 1 degree) occurring at some stage during recent millennia . . . would be a daunting and ultimately pointless task.
I ran into a "blockage" seeking your earlier references, and will therefore fall back on my old memories of a study of coastal temperatures on a portion of (eastern) South America. That study was (IIRC) rather unimpressive in validity ~ especially since it covered only a tiny part of the planet. Can you supply a detailed discussion of those earlier papers you mentioned?
-
Eclectic at 08:03 AM on 7 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
Tder2012 @2 :-
You ask: "When can we expect for BESS [battery storage] to make a meaningful contribution, for example, at least 1% of global electricity consumption?"
It won't happen by next year [2026]. Probably it will take decades ~ since it will require a much greater level of advance in battery technology & production economics.
Asking when it will happen, is a bit like asking the Wright Brothers when their amazing new-fangled flying machine would result in 1% of the world's population using aviation for routine transport.
But what are your own assessments of future developments?
-
tder2012 at 02:29 AM on 7 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
I've heard flywheels, synchronous condensers and grid forming inverters could be solutions, but I don't know how much we would need, how much they would cost, etc. for the critical service on the grid of synchronous inertia, see this post. Do you know the quantities and costs? This professional power engineer recommends to not exceed 30% of wind, solar and batteries for electricity generation on a grid https://www.linkedin.com/posts/cristian-paduraru-p-e-3434b23a_impact-of-ibrs-over-cct-study-by-gridx-activity-7324915294445936640-lx_r
Electricity grids must operate reliably 24x7x365 for modern societies to function. Electricity generators need to provide ancillary services such as black starts and synchronous inertia. Wind and solar are not capable of doing these on their own. BESS can do fast frequency response, but cannot assist with synchronous inertia. In 2021, Bloomberg New Energy Finance reported they expect BESS to provide 1 terawatt-hour of electricity generation globally by the year 2030 at a cost of $262 billion over this nine year period. The Volta Foundation reported that in 2024, BESS generated 0.363 terawatt-hours globally. In 2024, 30,000 terawatt-hours were consumed globally.BESS contributed 0.00121% of global electricity consumption in 2024. When can we expect for BESS to make a meaningful contribution, for example, at least 1% of global electricity consumption?
Moderator Response:[PS] Links activated. Please learn how to do this yourself using the link tool in the comment editor. Our software does not automatically create links.
-
Dick van der Wateren at 21:29 PM on 6 May 2025Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Another paper by some of the same authors shows evidence of MCA warming in Antarctica. See https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031018219303190.
A more problematice paper stating evidence of Antarctic medieval warming appeared in Nature https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-025-02259-4. It has already been picked up by denialists.
So, where does that leave us? Are there any good recent reports of the global temperature distribution during the MWP?
Moderator Response:[PS] Links activated. Please learn how to do this yourself using the link tool in the comment editor. Our software does not automatically create links.
-
GwsB at 21:00 PM on 6 May 2025Visualizing daily global temperature - part 2
The top picture showing the increase in the daily temperatures over the days of the year from 1940 up to 2025 is formidable. Spring and autumn have become part of summer, and now winter seems on the point of being squeezed out. The impact of this illustration may be due to one's intuitive feeling that temperature is essentially a day to day experience. Here we are presented with a direct link to this experience, and how it has changed over the past 85 years.
Second thoughts: In the tropics one cannot speak of summer and winter. On the equator the sun will cast no shadow on the 21st of March and of September. So when is winter, when summer?
-
Dick van der Wateren at 20:53 PM on 6 May 2025Medieval Warm Period was warmer
There appears to be evidence of higher temperatures during the Medieval Climate Anomaly in South America. See Lüning et al. (2019) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618218308322 Would this disprove the view of this SkS piece that the Medieval Warm Period was not a global phenomenon?
Moderator Response:[PS] Links activated. Please learn how to do this yourself using the link tool in the comment editor. Our software does not automatically create links.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:33 AM on 6 May 2025Sabin 33 #26 - Is wind energy good or bad for jobs?
There is another economic consideration regarding the pros and cons of the transition from unsustainable harmful fossil fuel energy systems to more renewable, more sustainable, systems. Note that to be sustainable the renewable systems need to be understandably less harmful than the system they are replacing.
The ‘costs’ should not govern the decision making. The costs of the diversity of ways to achieve the transition would matter when choosing the corrective actions. But the transition has to happen to limit the costs of the harm done. The transition does not have to be ‘more profitable or less expensive’. Doing things less harmfully and more sustainably are likely to be more expensive or harder work than developed less sustainable activities.
It is important to understand that, depending on the perspective of interest:
- the transition will be costly compared to not transitioning or transitioning slower (a narrow short-term view of parts of the system)
- and slower transitioning will be costly compared to more rapid transition (a holistic view of the future of the total system).
Another way of saying this is that a system that is already in motion may need correction to develop more sustainable, improved, conditions. Learning about harms being done and risks of harm is the only way to develop helpful corrections. But making corrections in ways that minimize disruptions to the developed system may be so slow that significant harmful results will be produced before the system is significantly corrected to be more sustainable.
An example of this understanding would be a large ship that requires a course correction to avoid an increasingly harmful situation. By the time the harmful situation the ship is headed towards is well understood the required course correction may cause some things on the ship to move around and potentially be damaged (costs of the correction). Delaying the course correction, because of a desire to avoid disruptive costs, will likely develop the need for more disruptive, more costly, course correction. And too much delay in the course correction, or a correction that is too gradual, can result in serious damage to the total system.
The desire to limit harm to elements in an operating system can delay correction to the point of creating a situation where even the most disruptive possible correction will not avoid damage to the overall system.
Trying to protect elements of the developed system can result in a failure to avoid future harmful circumstance that damage the overall system.
Elements within the system will have had their ‘disruptions’ limited ... to the detriment of all parts of the system.
Very harmful leadership action would be ‘protecting developed undeniably harmful interests’ by undoing corrective harm reduction and avoidance actions.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:24 AM on 5 May 2025Skeptical Science New Research for Week #18 2025
This week I read a few news items that were related to the problem presented in this week’s introduction regarding Silencing Science Tracker. Only one of them, White House dismisses authors of major climate report, from NPR, by Rebecca Hersher, Apr 29, 2025, was directly related to climate science (I submitted it to SkS and it is shared in 2025 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #18). The others are not about climate science, nor are they regarding ‘Research Reporting’. But I think they supplement the point about the escalation of efforts in the US by the Trump Republicans to silence science.
Scientists reel as turmoil roils National Science Foundation – NPR includes the following:
Eliminating so much of this agency's budget would be "a crisis, just a catastrophe for U.S. science," says Sudip Parikh, chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, one of the largest scientific societies in the world.
He's optimistic that Congress wouldn't go along with it, but the budgetary process would likely take months.
Meanwhile, the uncertainty would leave scientists fretting over how to support their labs and the students and early-career researchers who work there.
"That's created this paralysis that I think is hurting us already," says Parikh, who says that when he talks to scientists, he's starting to hear them express an interest in having an "exit plan from these jobs."
Medical journals hit with threatening letters from Justice Department – NPR includes the following quote:
"It's pretty unprecedented," says J.T. Morris, a lawyer at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a free speech advocacy group. He says the First Amendment protects medical journals.
"Who knows? We've seen this administration take all sorts of action that doesn't have a legal basis and it hasn't stopped them," Morris says. And so there's always a concern that the federal government and its officials like Ed Martin will step outside and abuse their authority and try to use the legal process and abuse the court system into compelling scientific journals and medical professionals and anybody else they disagree with into silence."
Trump says he's ending federal funding for NPR and PBS. They say he can't – NPR includes the following:
President Trump issued an executive order late Thursday directing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's board of directors to "cease federal funding for NPR and PBS," the nation's primary public broadcasters, claiming ideological bias.
"Neither entity presents a fair, accurate or unbiased portrayal of current events to tax-paying citizens," the order says. "The CPB Board shall cancel existing direct funding to the maximum extent allowed by law and shall decline to provide future funding."
It is not clear that the president has the authority to make such orders to CPB under the law.
PBS President and CEO Paula Kerger called it a "blatantly unlawful Executive Order, issued in the middle of the night."
A common theme is the Trump Republican claims of bias (against them). It is becoming increasingly certain that ‘learning’ is biased against the interests of the Trump Republican misleading marketing machinery.
The Trump Republicans are attempting to restrict ‘research and reporting funding’, especially if it contradicts ‘their interests’. That will not produce lasting improvements. Increased awareness and improved understanding is not achieved by ‘restricting the pursuit of learning’. Lasting improvements are actually achieved by people being ‘more woke’.
Some people undeniably try to keep other people from learning. People who are less aware and misunderstand things are the basis for the popularity of unjustified beliefs supporting and excusing undeserved perceptions of superiority. Less awareness and more misunderstanding is ‘never a good thing for any group’, regardless of how beneficial it can be for people who are perceived to be the ‘winners – leaders’.
-
Bob Loblaw at 00:17 AM on 5 May 2025Sabin 33 #26 - Is wind energy good or bad for jobs?
One follow-up to my comment #12, talking about costs. Economic theory includes the concept of opportunity cost. This is a hidden cost, that will not show up on the accounting statements. To quote the Wikipedia link I gave,
The opportunity cost of a choice is the value of the best alternative forgone where, given limited resources, a choice needs to be made between several mutually exclusive alternatives.
The "cost" need not be financial, but it is easiest to illustrate using a financial example. If I decide to invest $1000 in a GIC that returns 2% for a year, simple accounting says "great! I'm up $200 by the end of the year!" But if I also had an opportunity to put $1000 into a bond that returned 4%, that investment would have returned $400 at the end of the year. Making the choice to buy the GIC has cost me $200.
The choice between capital costs and labour costs, discussed in several comments here, is an obvious example where "opportunity cost" is relevant. Eclectic's comment 9 and nigelj's comment 10 touch on more intangible costs at a society level. From a society viewpoint, there are "opportunity costs" involved in choices to follow one path or another (e.g., renewables vs. fossil fuels).
