Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No Definitions Definition Life:

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Comment Search Results

Search for renewables

Comments matching the search renewables:

More than 100 comments found. Only the most recent 100 have been displayed.

New Book - Climate Obstruction: A global Assessment

wilddouglascounty at 00:17 AM on 23 October, 2025

Looks to be an impressive compilation of the climate denial industry. Does it add significantly to the already existing body of evidence, i.e. does it provide any new tools for those in the trenches listening to the new wave of climate denial that seems to be cresting in our political and financial circles? Specifically:

-The divestment from fossil fuels and investments in conservation/renewables movement seems to be hitting a real wall and is being reversed in several circles. Does this compilation provide any effective strategies for managing and reversing this change of direction and getting back on track? Who in the financial and investment circles are doing this and how can we assist them under the current assault coming from so many corporate reversals who are walking away from their sustainable goals?

Dismantling the scientific infrastructure that is providing information collection essential to understanding our climate in publicly funded collected data thru NOAA, EPA, as well as corporate funding for that matter, etc. seems to be going full speed ahead. Does this book provide any defensive bulwarks that can address this horrendous active suppression and dismantling of the scientific endeavor that has provided our current understanding of the dynamics of our climate as it relates to human activities?

I haven't read this book, but it seems like it's a great effort that describes PAST efforts at misinformation and delays. But I'm really worried that our efforts for understanding this obstruction is not what is currently needed. Understanding the type of gasoline used, how it was poured through the house and who brought the match to light it is important in the long run, but what we need now is a fire truck, plenty of water and firefighters to put out that fire, because the house is on fire RIGHT NOW and we are inside that house!

I want to see who the firefighters are right now, who is putting out the most water most effectively, and how we can support the most effective efforts. Like with so many other fronts, we are all shocked at how quickly our efforts have been crumbling under this assault. But unless we can take our understanding and translate it into counteracting and reversing the assault, it will become a largely irrelevant historical exercise.

Bill McKibben has done an admirable job in providing a counter narrative, but he seems to be pretty lonely out there. I'm hoping that Skeptical Science can play a role in actively highlighting successful efforts whereever they can be found and thereby helping us all weather the current storm.

Is this the most embarrassing error in the DOE Climate Working Group Report?

wilddouglascounty at 22:57 PM on 8 October, 2025

Thank you for putting this together and sharing this important document, a concise response to all of the information distortions and misinformation circulating. By putting it out here and in Climate Brink, folks will surely disseminate it far and wide.

My request is that even though public hearings have closed for responses to this deeply flawed document, composed by a "flash committee" that disappeared almost as quick as it was created, I hope that efforts will be made to place this in the hands of relevant Senate and House Committe members as well. Namely, members and staff of the House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee (Bret Guthrie chair), the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs Committee and on the Senate side: members of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

Objections to this flawed rationale for gutting coordinated efforts to reduce carbon emissions, conserve energy, incentivize renewables while removing fossil fuel subsidies should continue to be challenged and protests and objections should be mounted at every step of the way. The current Administration's push to replace a sane energy strategy for the future with short sighted attacks on that strategy in the name of short term gains for the well positioned financial interests should be exposed for what it is at every turn. Trump's handlers need to know that ignoring physics and biology is like tearing up a parking ticket in a big city: the cost only goes up!

Getting climate risk wrong

wilddouglascounty at 01:53 AM on 24 August, 2025

Thank you, nigelj, for exposing the BTI as a kind of apologist aggregator, which, upon a visit to their web page, I'd have to draw that conclusion. It not only downplayed renewables, I noticed several bizarre articles about how we needed to eliminate wilderness because it is so damaged that it causes undue suffering for animals living there, and how energy conservation/efficiency measures cause the famous Jevons rebound effect without looking into how this is a product of the capitalist endless growth pressure, which should be addressed at the same time.

Seems that the line has been crossed from a throughtful consideration of assumptions to an apologist site with an agenda. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Have renewables decreased electricity prices: European edition

michael sweet at 02:13 AM on 23 August, 2025

Cesar Madrid at 16:

In general the cost of transmission is a small fraction (say 10%) of the cost of building out new renewable infrastructure. In practice, the cost of renewables to the grid includes the costs that were paid to transmit the energy. It seems to me that the wholesale price of electricity would include the cost of transmission, although the OP does not state that. If you were buying PV electricity from Morocco in England (which has been proposed) you would look at the delivered price, not the price in Africa. Can you provide a reference that contains data that the cost of renewables does not include the cost of transmission?

In the USA most long distance transmission lines were built decades ago. The cables in the lines can be replaced at very low cost, and no new permits. The lines will then be able to transmit much more power than currently. My understanding is that upgrading the transmission cables will provide half of the transmission capacity required by an all electrical power system.

Have renewables decreased electricity prices: European edition

John Hartz at 13:49 PM on 22 August, 2025

Recommended supplemental reading:

Affordability, Not Volatility: Renewables' Cost Advantage Grows

Renewables’ edge over fossil fuel electricity is growing, recent reports show. In 2024, more than 90 percent of new global renewable energy capacity was cheaper.

by Will Atkinson, RMI Spark Chart, Strategic Insights, Aug 13, 2025

Have renewables decreased electricity prices: European edition

Bob Loblaw at 05:45 AM on 22 August, 2025

Cesar @ 16:

What argument do you want to make that a renewable system needs more infrastructure? Loads on existing infrastructure are already designed to handle peak loads, so if renewables require increased transport during off-peak periods, the system can probably handle it - at a first guess. A system that spreads the load through time is more efficient than a system that is designed for peak loads and sits under-utilized much of the time.

And renewables can do a better job of placing generation close to consumption, reducing transmission requirements, if many small renewable generation sites replace a few very large centralized fossil fuel sites.

Please make your argument.

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

michael sweet at 03:46 AM on 6 August, 2025

Responding to David-acct's off topic comment here:

Your claim that the data from your linked site does not support my statement that French nuclear power plants do not shut down is false on its face.

This data showed that reactors were shut down on the weekend:

date time Power MW
8/10 2:45 31645 Thursday 2023
8/10 13:45 30424
8/5 4:15 28489 Saturday 2023
8/5 16:15 25548

On Saturday at 16::15 6,097 MW less power was generated than on Thursday at 2:45. On 8/14/2023 I posed these questions to you:

"Several question about this raw data occured to me.

1) You state clearly that the data shows no nuclear power stations were shut down. Please explain why the power generated on the weekend is so much less than the power generated on Thursday. How does this show that no power stations were shut down over the weekend? It appears to me that about 6 of 31 power stations (20%) were turned off.

2) On both days they are generating more power at night when power is generated at a loss than they are generating during the day when the price of electricity is much higher. Can you explain why the "always on" nuclear plants generate less power during the most expensive part of the day than they do when electricity is cheapest?

This example proves beyond doubt that examining cherry picked factoids without any analysis is a complete waste of time. Please do not cite raw data any more. You need to cite analysis of data that filter out gross errors."

You refused to answer and stopped posting at SkS for several months. Please answer those questions now.

Looking at the French power link again I found this data for the weekend of August 2 (Saturday) and August 4 2025 (Monday).

date time Power MW

8/2 05:00 39717

8/2 14:15 25091

8/4 04:00 39722

8/4 13:45 24128

On this weekend reactors were shut off during the day. On 8/4 15 MW less power was being generated at 13:45 than at 04:00. Please explain why so many reactors were turned off. Other posters have suggested that they might shut down the reactors because there is not enough cooling water or because they cannot compete with cheaper solar power. In any case, the reactors are turned off since no one wants to purchase their power.

I note that since France has 63 GW of nuclear power the highest capacity factor last weekend was 63% and the lowest was 38%.

If they wasted the nuclear power by turning down the power output that counts as shut down. We cannot tell from the data if 15 reactors were shut off or if 30 reactors were run at half power.

I note that you said here "It would seem the cost of doing so would be prohibitive given the costs of restarts,"

I found this on Bloomburg French power slumps as surging renewables push out atomic plants which suggests that nuclear plants cannot compete with renewables even when they are owned by the government.

I do not care if you are not skilled enough to find resources that state France does not shut down reactors on the weekends. I linked a site that specifically stated that plants close on weekends and provided data (from your link) that showed without doubt that several reactors were closed on the weekend.

Apparently now they are shut down on sunny and/or windy days, in addition to weekends, because they cannot compete with cheaper renewables.

Have renewables decreased electricity prices: European edition

David-acct at 08:54 AM on 2 August, 2025

The OP makes a valid point with this point -

"A better analysis would use the cost of generating power in order to isolate the impact of renewables. We can get a better estimate of that by using the wholesale price of electricity."

That is absolutely true if you are only measuring the cost of generation.

" Beyond LCOE : A systems oriented perspective for evaluating electricity decarbonization pathways which was published here at SkS on June 12, 2025. The study provides a very comprehensive explanation for the total costs of electric generation, transmission, etc.

" While LCOE is a good metric to track historical technology cost evolution, it is not an appropriate tool to use in the context of long-term planning and policymaking for deep decarbonization. This report explains why LCOE fails to reflect the full complexity of electricity systems and can lead to decisions that jeopardize reliability, affordability, and clean generation."

https://www.catf.us/resource/beyond-lcoe/

The PDF attached is at the link

Have renewables decreased electricity prices: European edition

tder2012 at 01:33 AM on 1 August, 2025

Sorry "Meanwhile energy transition to renewables has cost $750 billion euros with steadily increasing electricity costs and negligible decarbonization"

[snip]

"> In 2000 German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder began a phase-out of nuclear power in coalition with the Green Party

> 2005 Gerhard leaves office and gets a position at a Russian gas company

> Decline in Nuclear power capacity almost exactly matched by increase in gas generation

> 2016 Trump criticizes Germany for dependence on Russian gas

> 2021, natural gas accounts for 30% of German power production with half coming from Russia

> Meanwhile energy transition to renewables has cost $750 billion euros with steadily increasing electricity costs and negligible decarbonization

> 2022 Ukraine war breaks out

> Electricity prices in Germany skyrocket

> Massively accelerates decline of energy intensive industries in Germany

> Meanwhile France has 10x cleaner energy for 40% cheaper than Germany

> Renewables energy transition abysmal failure, dirtiest energy in Europe and among the most expensive, overall industrial decline and energy insecurity

Just so everyone knows how completely self inflicted Germanys dire energy predicament was" source

Have renewables decreased electricity prices: European edition

tder2012 at 23:22 PM on 31 July, 2025

Germany should focus mostly on their citizens' health and not as much about cost. They definitely should not be seen as an example to follow to decarbonize the electricity grid. "The German nuclear phaseout may have caused up to thousands of excess deaths annually according to several studies.

[Large snip]

It’s no secret that the phaseout was a disaster. But when you start digging into the real-world consequences, that’s when reality really hits.

Over the past decade, several researchers have tried to quantify the consequences. One topic that keeps coming up is how many people have died as a result of coal replacing nuclear.

Most studies agree that the number is in the hundreds or thousands per year, but they reach that conclusion in different ways.

Some, like Jarvis et al. (2022) and Núñez-Mujica et al. (2025), model the increase in coal emissions, run those through atmospheric dispersion models, and apply dose-response functions to estimate the health impact. Their numbers land around 725 to 800 excess deaths per year.

Neidell et al. (2021) take a different route. They look at reduced electricity consumption following the phaseout and estimate over 1,100 additional deaths per year linked to cold exposure and energy poverty.

Kharecha & Sato (2019) project out to 2035 and estimate a long-run average of around 2,286 annual deaths, based on increased air pollution alone.
Then there’s Kaariaho (2025), whose number (170 deaths per year) is much lower. That’s not because the health impact was smaller, but because the scope was. Kaariaho only looks at respiratory diseases, and only at observed mortality using a synthetic control method. In other words, it’s a very conservative lower bound.

I’ve put these results together in a single graphic. Each dot represents a study. Together, they show a clear pattern: coal replaced nuclear, and people died because of it.

This isn’t about nuclear versus renewables. If you remove clean energy while fossil fuels are still on the grid, guess what fills the gap?

In Germany, it was coal. And it killed people." source

Have renewables decreased electricity prices: European edition

michael sweet at 13:16 PM on 29 July, 2025

I think it is a good idea for Skeptical Science to post articles on how renewables can cheaply power the world.

Most deniers have stopped claiming that it is not warming. They have shifted to claiming renewable energy can't work. Skeptical Science is a good place to address these claims.

The Climate Brink has a lot of good posts on Climate and renewable energy.

2025 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #29

One Planet Only Forever at 08:57 AM on 24 July, 2025

People who deliberately fight against increased awareness and improved understanding of how to be less harmful and more helpful to others deserve to face questions and criticism they dislike. They deserve disrespect and ridicule.

The UN News report “World Court says countries are legally obligated to curb emissions, protect climate” makes it abundantly clear that regional governments with histories of acting in ways that delay the transition from undeniably harmful fossil fuels to less harmful alternatives deserve to face serious penalties. The UN News report includes the following "Reasoning of the Court":

The Court used Member States’ commitments to both environmental and human rights treaties to justify this decision.

Firstly, Member States are parties to a variety of environmental treaties, including ozone layer treaties, the Biodiversity Convention, the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement and many more, which oblige them to protect the environment for people worldwide and in future generations.

But, also because “a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a precondition for the enjoyment of many human rights,” since Member States are parties to numerous human rights treaties, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they are required to guarantee the enjoyment of such rights by addressing climate change.

So, in addition to the good questions proposed by wilddouglascounty @2, the fundamentals of the ruling raise questions about US government actions that have harmful impacts other than climate change impacts. An example would be Trump administration shuts down EPA's scientific research arm as reported by NPR which includes the following:

The agency is closing the Office of Research and Development, which analyzes dangers posed by a variety of hazards, including toxic chemicals, climate change, smog, wildfires, indoor air contaminants, water pollution, watershed destruction and drinking water pollutants. The office also manages grant programs that fund universities and private companies.

Under President Trump's leadership, EPA has taken a close look at our operations to ensure the agency is better equipped than ever to deliver on our core mission of protecting human health and the environment while powering the great American comeback," said EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin in a statement announcing the plan Friday. "This reduction in force will ensure we can better fulfill that mission while being responsible stewards of your hard-earned tax dollars.

The US government has also stopping funding NPR (Recently completing an action demanded by Trump in May of this year - NPR report: President Trump has issued an executive order to pull federal funds from NPR and PBS) to ‘selectively save tax dollars’.

The choice to stop supporting NPR is likely because NPR has a News section dedicated to Climate Change and it also reports many things like the above report.

An interesting related item is the CBC report “Green energy has passed 'positive tipping point,' and cost will come down, UN says”. That story about the UN report on renewable energy systems includes the following:

Renewables are booming despite fossil fuels getting nearly nine times the government consumption subsidies as they do, Guterres and the reports said. In 2023, global fossil fuel subsidies amounted to $620 billion US, compared with $70 billion US for renewables, the UN said.

A clear understanding of Taxes is important. I would argue that any negative consequences of government actions, and lack of action, are “Taxes’ (someone somewhere sometime pays a price). The massive subsidies for fossil fuels are clearly “Taxes”. But the harms resulting from insufficient investigation into and regulation of the harm done by economic pursuits are also Taxes.

One of the most damaging misunderstandings today is the belief that competition for perceptions of superiority will effectively self-regulate to minimize the harm done (limit the Taxes caused) by competitors and make harmful competitors adequately make amends for harm done.

It is clear that more freedom for competitors for perceptions of superiority results in dominance by people who believe they are the winners if they can be more threatening and more harmful to Others than Others can be to them.

There are no winners in a competition that allows perceptions of superiority to be obtained by ‘being more harmful or more unjustifiably threatening'.

People pursuing more benefit by being more harmful are the only ones who deserve to feel, and actually be, threatened with serious negative consequences.

Rebutting 33 False Claims About Solar, Wind, and Electric Vehicles - Recap

tder2012 at 23:32 PM on 2 July, 2025

Here is a report you may want to consider

[snip]

"The Growth & Future of Small Modular Reactors" by Arthur D. Little group. It starts with

"Bridging the Green Energy Gap

Decarbonizing energy supply is central to achieving net zero targets. However, once fossil fuel power plants are decommissioned, wind and solar generation alone will not be sufficient to fill the resulting gap, despite the rapid rise in renewables. The intermittent nature of wind and solar — and the lack of viable energy storage mechanisms — highlights the urgent need for low-carbon sources of continuous baseload generation to power an increasingly electrified world. Nuclear power should be the primary option for filling this need, but the combination of an aging fleet of reactors, substantial cost and time overruns on new plants, and safety fears have held back its widespread deployment. Small modular reactors (SMRs) provide a potential opportunity to overcome the challenges faced by nuclear power, though their cost competitiveness compared to large nuclear power plants (LNPPs) is still being proven." I don't see "baseload" defined anywhere in the report. I've seen baseload defined as minimum load or demand, which usually occurs on an electricity grid early in the morning when most everyone is asleep. For example, in California the minimum demand today occurred at 4:05am local time, 23,242MW.

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

tder2012 at 06:02 AM on 2 July, 2025

Keep in mind the following:

nuclear 1GW x80% capacity factor x80 years = 560,640GWh lifetime
solar 1GW x25% capacity factor x30 years = 67,500GWh lifetime
wind 1GW x45% capacity factor x35 years = 137,970 lifetime

A recent SKS article identified a report released in June 2025 "Beyond LCOE" "This report explains why LCOE fails to reflect the full complexity of electricity systems and can lead to decisions that jeopardize reliability, affordability, and clean generation."

Keep in mind that Lazard's LCOE reports have many factors that they don't examine, which Lazard themselves clearly acknowledge.See the bottom of page 7 in the 2025 report (it was page 8 in 2024) "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.)"

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

michael sweet at 01:09 AM on 1 July, 2025

tder2012

You have simply not looked for renewable grids that have low CO2 emissions. You require me to do all of your homework. Your claim that no grids that are more than 30% wind and solar have low CO2 emissions can be easily checked at the website you linked.

I find that while Lithuania has too few people to meet your cherry picked standards (after you moved the goalposts twice), the regional grid of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia generate all of their electricity using wind and solar and have less than 100 g CO2/kWh. North-east Brazil generates about 80% wind and solar, 20% hydro. Uruguay generates about 50% of electricity with wind and solar, the remainder hydro. Central Brazil generates primarily with wind and solar, no hydro or nuclear, at 107 gCO2/kWh.

Searching your previous posts on SkS here (offtopic) you previously claimed the five grids of France, Ontario (not a country), Switzerland, Finland and Sweden as "nuclear sucesses". According to your website in 2024:

country	nuclear	renewable
France	67	29
Ontario	51	33
Switzerland	32	65
Finland	37	56
Sweden	31	69

I note that three of the five "nuclear successes" generate way more electricity using renewable power than nuclear and one is not a country. Canada as a whole generates only 14% nuclear and 61% renewable. Both Switzerland and Sweden generated less than 30% nuclear in May, 2025 and are disqualified by your 30% standard. I would count Finland, Sweden and Switzerland as renewable successes and not nuclear successes. None would meet the standard without renewables.

Meanwhile, I have named two grids that meet your standards using only wind and solar just 5-10 years after they became economic to install. In 20 years essentially the entire grid will be renewable since they are the cheapest electricity.

Since you keep changing the goal posts I will set them at over 75% of the successful generating strategy. By that standard my two grids using only wind and solar without hydro are successful and no grid worldwide is successful using nuclear. Adding hydro makes about 25 grids worldwide successful using only renewable sources of electricity. About 20 renewable grids are close to 100g/CO2-kWh and no nuclear grids.

After 70 years building out nuclear only one country in the entire world, France, generates enough nuclear power to claim success (unachievable without renewables) and they lose money on nuclear power.

Your claims about "nuclear success" while wind and solar fail are simply ignorant ranting.

All pro nuclear arguments are based on false claims and fall apart when they are carefully exmained.

I have already told you that it is a waste of my time lobbying against nuclear, these are all paper schemes that will fall apart on their own. I note that there has never been a nuclear plant built worldwide without enormous government subsidies.

You have still not provided any any data or references to support your wild claim that a renewables plus nuclear grid can be built out faster than a renewables only grid. As you demanded, I provided several peer reviewed papers to support my position. When you demand data you must provide data to back up your position.

Nuclear is too expensive, takes too long to build and there is not enough uranium to build a significant amount of nuclear power.

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

michael sweet at 22:42 PM on 30 June, 2025

Moderator:

td2012 is not providing any data to support their absurd claims and is now taunting others who try to respond to their nonsensical posts.

They have not provided any information to support their wild claim that a nuclear plus renewable grid could be built faster and cheaper than a renewable only grid in spite of demanding that I provide data to show that renewables only was cheaper and faster (which I provided).

They have not listed three nations successfully using nuclear to reduce carbon emissions despite demanding that I provide names of nations using renewable energy to reduce carbon.

They are simply repeating posts made several months ago at SkS that several other posters responded to pointing out their contradictions, mistakes and deliberate lies.

I am tired of responding to these insulting taunts and deliberate lies. It is time for the moderators to take action and require tder2012 to conform to the comments policy.

The comments policy requires that data be provided, especially when the poster has demanded others to provide data. The comments policy does not allow reposting the same comments repeatedly without any new information. The comments policy does not allow evidence free and knowledge free taunting of other posters.

It is a waste of everyones time reading and responding to repeated misinformation, taunts and lies that fill up the comments thread with garbage. I do not like to see misinformation and deliberate lies left unrefuted at SkS. I do not have unlimited time to respond to posters who are not required to adhere to the comments policy.

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

michael sweet at 07:02 AM on 30 June, 2025

tder2012:

You are simply repeating the posts you previously made at SkS here. It is against the comments policy to regurgitate arguments that others have previously showed have no merit.

I note that after 70 years on your web site only France has over 50% nuclear and less than 100 g CO2 per kwh. And France generates 34% of power with renewables. Hardly a shining example of nuclear successs after 70 years.

I have already provided at least 10 countries that meet your requirements. Stop changing the goal posts every time I show that your claims are false. You have not given a single country that generates over 70% of power using nuclear.

It is a waste of my time to lobby against nuclear power. All I have to do is wait and nuclear will collapse under its own wieght again. For the past 50 years every 5-10 years nuclear supporters claim another renaissance is starting. They all fail. In 2006 modular reactor supporters and developers said they would have running reactors by 2020. They are about 20 years late and have not delevered any reactors to date.

Nuclear is too expensive, takes too long to build and there is not enough uranium to build a significant amount of nuclear power.

moderator: it is very time consuming for me to have to repeat answers to tder2012 when the answers have previously been posted to them on SkS. tder2012 has not added any new information or given a new argument in support of nuclear recently.

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

michael sweet at 06:19 AM on 29 June, 2025

tder2012:

Most of the green countries on your map provide their electricity with renewable energy. Many produce over 100% renewable energy. For Example Paraguay, most of the Canadian states (only Ontario appears to have significant nuclear capacity), many countries in Africa. Most of these countries have lots of hydro electricity, but so does Ontario. I could list countries with high solar and wind but your source does not show that data.

Florida alone has over 18.6 GW of solar installed at the end of 2024 even though solar has only been cheapest energy for about 4 years. After 75 years only 3 GW of nuclear power exist in Florida. Adjusting for 20% capacity of solar and 90% capacity of nuclear, there are about 3.7 GW generated by solar and only 2.7 GW of nuclear. I note that in 2024 alone over 4.7 GW of solar was installed and more is expected to come online in 2025.

Please list three countries that generate over 75% of their electricity using nuclear power.

You are simply repeating the same incorrect claims that you posted upthread and I have already addressed. Repeating the same incorrect claims does not make them correct.

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

tder2012 at 03:59 AM on 29 June, 2025

Micheal Sweet,

"Apples and oranges: Comparing nuclear construction costs across nations, time periods, and technologies"

Could you please provide a link for a renewables grid that achieve a Paris climate target of less 100 grams of CO2 released per kilowatt-hour, averaged on an annual basis. I don't see any at the global electricitymaps site

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

michael sweet at 03:53 AM on 29 June, 2025

tder2012,

Sorry I left off part of your handle above.

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

michael sweet at 03:47 AM on 29 June, 2025

Tder

A lot of "pledges to" and "planning" and few breaking ground. I note that there are zero reactors worldwide that are being built by investors, all are being built by governments for political reasons. Even France has only announced building 8 reactors to replace the 55 reactors they have that are nearing end of life. Obviously they will depend more on renewables in the future.

They will build more solar in China this year alone than the amount of nuclear planned to be built worldwide by 2050.

Nuclear is too expensive, takes too long to build and there is not enough uranium to build a significant amount of nuclear power.

Sabin 33 #28 - How reliable is wind energy?

David-acct at 08:47 AM on 17 May, 2025

Quite a bit of useful information in the Electricmaps.com which you can dial in most every country .

Thanks for providing

I have previously used the EIA grid monitor for the US (also quite informative) along with the German version. The link provides the source data which helps understanding the stability and reliability issues.

For those countries that periodically achieve 100% or near 100% electric generation from wind and solar also have frequent periods of 10-30 days where fossil fuel electric generation comprises more than 50% of total electric generation. This points to the need for significant redundancy of renewable capacity and storage capacity necessary to achieve stability and reliability with wind and other renewables.

Sabin 33 #28 - How reliable is wind energy?

nigelj at 05:55 AM on 16 May, 2025

Drax in the United Kingdom use carbon neutral thermal turbines burning wood pellets to contribute to grid stability (voltage and frequency). Read something on it years ago. They have a great article in laypersons language on the whole issue of grid stability here:

www.drax.com/power-generation/great-balancing-act-takes-keep-power-grid-stable/

Blackouts attributable to renewables in places like the UK with considerable renewables in the mix are uncommon. This is quite impressive with new technology. So the doubters claims of disaster have consistently failed to materialise. Spain has just had a big blackout that might have something to do with renewables but its rather unclear what caused it. But its the first such event. These things are clearly very uncommon.

There are obvious known technologies that help renewables grids remain stable. They will be added as required as renewables expand. Grid operators are not actually complete idiots. The public wont tolerate significant numbers of blackouts and neither will politicians so there will also be lots of pressure to make the system work seamlessly. Dont panic.

Sabin 33 #28 - How reliable is wind energy?

Eclectic at 22:39 PM on 15 May, 2025

Tder2012 @5 :-

Thank you for the "electricitymaps.com".

That shows Tasmania State as leading the nearby states by a country mile, so to speak. But Tasmania uses a colossal amount of hydro + a bit of wind power. Almost totally "renewables".

The South Australia State is doing fairly well, without hydro ~ but I see from other sources that the State's renewable electricity is usually in the 20-90% renewables range. Though sometimes poor [mid-evening with low wind . . . and yet sometimes around 90% with wind, mid-evening]. Daytimes well carried by solar. That State also has several synchronous condensers. My impression is that they would do well by doubling solar capacity, and quadrupling battery storage. Which sounds quite feasible over 10-20 years ~ since we can reasonably expect sodium-type storage batteries to become much cheaper during that time. (And nuclear plants remaining quite unnecessary.)

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

michael sweet at 03:47 AM on 15 May, 2025

tder2012:

Responding to post 424: so for you a higher capacity number is more important than the cost of production. New nuclear power currently costs ten times more than new solar power.

Nuclear power is not economic, takes too long to buid and there is not enough uranium.

You have still not provided any data to support your wild claim that a renewables plus nuclear grid can be built out faster than a renewables only grid.

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

michael sweet at 00:38 AM on 15 May, 2025

tder2012:

Your graph uses arcane units (ten year average MWh per capatia) designed to make nuclear power look good and stops at 2020 before most of renewable energy was installed. A single nuclear plant opened in a small country like Sweden appears to be a lot of nuclear.

Let us look at terrawatt hours of power produced in the entire world.

In 2024, according to Ember, wind produced 2494 TWH of electricity, solar 2131 TWh, and nuclear 2768 TWh. Since you like 10 year results in 2014 solar produced 198 TWh, wind 706 TWh, and nuclear 2499 TWh. I note that nuclear has been flat for 20 years while solar increased 1,100% and wind increased 350% over 10 years.

Wind and solar combined produced approximately 650 TWH more in 2024 than in 2023. The largest increase in nuclear power was in 1985 when 234 TWh were added (Our World in data) Wind and solar will increase more this year since more factories are being built. In the 1980's people realized that nuclear is not economic and stopped building most new plants.

Nuclear power is not economic, takes too long to buid and there is not enough uranium.

You have still not pprovided any data to support your wild claimm that a renewables plus nuclear grid can be built out faster than a renewables only grid.

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

michael sweet at 00:23 AM on 14 May, 2025

tdder2012 at 410:

Regarding The Solutions Project claiming that in 2050 societies will use much less energy and you being unwilling to use less energy.

Nuclear power plants waste 70% of the energy they generate as thermal pollution of the environment. This pollution is very distructive to the environment. If we switch to renewable energy no waste heat is generated. That means if we switch from nuclear to solar power we reduce energy usage by 70%.

Likewise electric cars save 80% of the energy since ICE engines are so inefficient that most of the energy goes out the tailpipe. Heat pumps are 3-4 tmes more efficient than thermal furnaces saving 60-70 percent of the energy. Overall energy savings from more efficient renewable energy are about 40% when you count the storage costs of renewables.

I think it is interesting that you prefer to pollute the environment with heat than to save money.

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

michael sweet at 08:25 AM on 12 May, 2025

tder2012,

Mark Jacobson has over 47,352 citations according to Google Scholar. Your assertions that his work has been discredited are false, deliberate misinformation, but you usually post misinformation.

I have already linked at least two articles for you that show that renewable energy systems are cheaper and faster to build than systems containing nuclear. I note that, according to your link, if enough nuclear plants were built to provide 10% of all power there is only enough uranium for 60 years, less than the claimed lifetime of the plants. One plant would have to be installed approximately every 10 days starting today. For the last ten years there have not been enough plants opened worldwide to keep up with lost capacity from closed plants.

Provide an up to date reference suggesting that it would be more rapid to build out a nuclear plus renewable grid than a renewable only grid. Jacobson 2009 conclusively shows that building out nuclear at any level increases the amount of carbon emitted. Lund et al, linked above also show nuclear results in increased emissions. Your previous quote, (no link), included no data or analysis to support your wild claim. it was simply idle speculation. Why do you ask me for more creditable evidence when you have offered no evidence at all? The last researchers who supported adding nuclear to renewables announced in 2022 that renewables were so much cheaper than nuclear that nuclear is not economic under any plan. (linked upthread, do your homework)

You are simply repeating your previous false claims. That wastes everyones time. You have had your say and I have had mine. The other readers can evaluate what we have both posted. Move on to another subject.

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

tder2012 at 06:10 AM on 12 May, 2025

I don't read Jacobson at all. He has been thoroughly discredited and debunked. He has a scientific debate through the court system and loses that as well. But he claims "victory" because Stanford, and not him, have to pay all the legal fees, good grief. https://retractionwatch.com/2024/02/15/stanford-prof-who-sued-critics-loses-appeal-against-500000-in-legal-fees/

Do you have any creditable evidence for your claim "It is a false pproposition that is more rapid to decarbonize using renewables and nuclear than to use nuclear alone. It is faster and releases less carbon to build out a completely renewable system."

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

michael sweet at 03:30 AM on 12 May, 2025

tder2012:

It is a false pproposition that is more rapid to decarbonize using renewables and nuclear than to use nuclear alone. It is faster and releases less carbon to build out a completely renewable system. I note that your question was asked in 2012. Since then the cost of a compeltely renewable system has decreased greatly in cost and the storage isssue has been resolved completely. Meanwhile, modular reactor proposals that promised working reactors by 2020 are decades behind schedule. The money spent on nuclear is wasted.

If you had read Jacobson et al 2009 you would know that the emissions generated by the extreme long time manufacturing nuclear plants results in much more carbon release than building out a complete renewable system.

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

tder2012 at 00:20 AM on 12 May, 2025

every energy source has its pros and cons. Anyone who said there is a miracle solution is a fool, in my opinion. Based on this chart, I feel its to risky to take low emitting energy sources off the table, we need all we got as soon as possible https://robbieandrew.github.io/GCB2024/PNG/s64_2024_LinearPathways.png

Dr. John Morgan asked the following question at a nuclear energy debate in Australia in 2012
"Question to those against (nuclear energy). Given that the rate at which we decarbonize will determine how much warming the planet ultimately experiences and given that we can decarbonize more rapidly if we use both renewables and nuclear power, how many degrees of planetary warming do you feel it's worth to avoid the use of nuclear energy"

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

Philippe Chantreau at 09:42 AM on 11 May, 2025

I understood the first time why you didn't count hydro. It not necessary to repeat it, and repetition does not make it valid to leave it out. First, how tapped out it is remains to be fully quantified. Second, excluding it from the total share of renewables only because of that reason is not justifiable. A resource is renewable or it is not. Renewable and amenable to scaling up are not synonymous.

Nuclear, for example, is not renewable in its current, most common, form. I don't discount nuclear as a solution because it does give a lot of bang for the buck in terms of how much energy is produced per kg of fuel. In addition, the breeder reactor idea certainly has merit, since it has the potential to in fact be semi-renewable.

Unfortunately, as we have seen, the latest breeder reactor, a prototype, took 21 years to build and is not yet operational. Olkiluoto 3 (not a breeder type of reactor) took 18 years and ended up costing almost 400% of the original estimate. So yes, the bang was there, eventually, for beaucoup beaucoup bucks. These are serious issues.

Nuclear is not geography independent, since most designs need water for cooling. In France, where there is a large scale program that has been mostly successful in reaching its goals, the outlet water temperature problem is an issue that seasonally threatens freshwater ecosystems downstream of some plants.

There is no free lunch, there is no miracle solution.

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

Philippe Chantreau at 04:34 AM on 11 May, 2025

tder 2012 says " I did not falsely claim, I errored." Subtle distinction if there was ever one, amounting to playing on words.

Earlier on the other thread, it was shown that the E.U. as a whole drew more than 50% of its electricity from renewables, in total opposition with an earlier claim of yours that was also "errored." On this one, you corrected your position by clarifying that you did not consider hydro to deserve to be counted;. There is no justification for that. The fact that hydro is, according to you, "tapped out" does not make its current production less renewable. You did not specify that renewables qualified as such only if they exceeded a threshold of future potential or what that potential should be.

Then you went on about the amount of concrete and metal necessary; not entirely vacuous but equally applicable to nuclear. I have been in nuclear plants: most of what one sees is pipes. All diameters of them, miles of pipes, and innumerable soldering junctions. If your true argument was full life cycle analysis, then, again, you should have stated so initially. Otherwise, it is getting very close to arguing in bad faith.

The fast breeder prototype reactor nearing completion in India is expected to be operational at the end of 2025. Construction was started in 2004. Olkiluoto 3 took 18 years to complete. The time to get nuclear online is a real problem. These plants also need power lines to carry electricity, that is not unique to hydro plants.

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

tder2012 at 06:25 AM on 10 May, 2025

I didn't "falsely claim", as I stated, I errored, most, not all, reactors today use 5% enriched, also I neglected to mention CANDU's which use natural uranium.

"All your arguments against renewables are simply false." I have not made any arguments against renewables, I have presented the data and evidence. Which are you are referring to specifically that are "simply false"? Do you have evidence to support your "simply false" claims?

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

michael sweet at 03:57 AM on 10 May, 2025

Tser2012:

The World Nuclear Association estimates 90 years at current rates of use. If that were even tripled that would reduce to 30 years, less than the life of the reactors.

If you have no problem with 20% enrichment why did you falsely claim only 5%??? The USA wants Iran to surrender all of its 20% material. If Iran shouldn't have something I don't think profit seekers should be allowed to have it.

You keep shifting your goal posts to evade the facts I post. If you had a strong argument you would not need to shift goal posts so often.

All your arguments against renewables are simply false.

Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?

Philippe Chantreau at 13:40 PM on 9 May, 2025

Personally, I don't think that excluding hydro from the renewables makes sense. In fact, I think that stored hydro deserves to be further explored. I also don't think that skimping on safety for a nuclear power plant makes sense either. Nuclear is very expensive and takes a long time to deploy.

Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?

michael sweet at 05:59 AM on 9 May, 2025

tder2012: I noticed that you did not include the country I identified which was Lithuania. An interesting mistake.

According to your link in April 2025 Lithuania got got 26.1% of electricity from wind, 16.6 % from solar and 6.9% from biomas for a total of 49.6% renewables not including hydro (hydro is small in Lithaunia). Eyeballing their yearly data I see that April had an unusualy large amount of gas usage and the entire yearly percentage of renewables was over 60%.

From the data at Our World in Data Lithuania produced 76% of electricity from renewables including hydro in 2023. They produced 3.8 TW from renewables and 0.5 TW from hydro so about 67% of all electricity was from renewables not including hydro in 2023. Undoubtedly that went up in 2024 as more renewables were installed.

They got zero nuclear. Most countries in the world get zero nuclear. Most countries get a significant amount of electricity from renewables.

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

tder2012 at 05:24 AM on 9 May, 2025

"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.

Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?

tder2012 at 04:51 AM on 9 May, 2025

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

Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?

Philippe Chantreau at 03:42 AM on 9 May, 2025

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.

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

michael sweet at 02:45 AM on 9 May, 2025

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.

I responded

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.

Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?

michael sweet at 00:15 AM on 9 May, 2025

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 your claim of a maximum of 30% renewables is completely false.

Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?

michael sweet at 00:09 AM on 9 May, 2025

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.

Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?

michael sweet at 05:02 AM on 8 May, 2025

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!

Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?

michael sweet at 04:41 AM on 8 May, 2025

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.

Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?

tder2012 at 02:13 AM on 8 May, 2025

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."

Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?

michael sweet at 01:58 AM on 8 May, 2025

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.

Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?

michael sweet at 00:57 AM on 8 May, 2025

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.

Skeptical Science New Research for Week #18 2025

tder2012 at 14:01 PM on 7 May, 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

Sabin 33 #26 - Is wind energy good or bad for jobs?

Bob Loblaw at 00:17 AM on 5 May, 2025

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).

Sabin 33 #26 - Is wind energy good or bad for jobs?

Eric (skeptic) at 09:42 AM on 4 May, 2025

Bob, thanks for your reply in #11. I agree automation can boil down to increasing capital expenditures to reduce labor costs. Automation might be coming down in cost but certainly not cheap yet.

I also agree with your point about installation versus O&M. Some renewables have very low O&M cost since the fuel is free and the equipment (e.g. photovoltaic) has no mechanical wear. But I believe any time we do things offshore, the O&M costs such as wear and tear will increase along with labor costs.

Sabin 33 #26 - Is wind energy good or bad for jobs?

nigelj at 07:25 AM on 3 May, 2025

David-acct

"A) Under every economic theory, labor is a cost , just the same as capital is a cost. "

Correct. Good to be reminded of basic accounting, not my area of expertise that's for sure.

"Attempts to claim that Jobs / labor is not a cost is simply inane."

Nobody here has claimed that jobs are not a cost. BL said "Jobs are not a "cost" to the people that do the work. It is a source of income, which allows them to purchase goods and services. Like food, housing, clothing, etc." Emphasis mine.

"While the op is whether more jobs are gained than lost, the more important question is whether total costs are increased or decreased. "

Total costs of wind and solar power seem to be decreased compared to coal fired power. Wind power and solar power appear to now be cheaper than coal power using the Lazard Energy Analysis. Total costs using such analysis are a function of capital +labour + running costs. Although renewables have higher labour costs than coal and possibly higher capital costs they have a big advantage in low running costs that gives them an edge.

But such an analysis is narrow. There are the other costs to consider such as health and stability of society that Eclectic mentions Eclectic is right that renewables job creation while reducing efficiency in certain cases by requiring more labour than the alternatives, can add other benefits. The health costs of renewables are considerably lower than with burning coal with its nasty particulate emissions. Studies attest to this. Then there are the environmental costs of renewables are considerably lower overall than coal because it reduces the global warming problem. Add all this into the equation and total costs of renewables are considerably less than costs of burning coal. I know there are other minor factors and renewables do have some downsides but renewables look very cost effective in the wider sense of the term.

No, renewables don't need expensive backup power on today's grids

libertador at 23:30 PM on 19 February, 2025

@Riduna

There are different ways to achieve enough generating capacity for times, when renewables are low.

1. simply bear the possibility of very high prices in cases of scarcity. These prices could make it profitable to have generators, which are very rarely used. The overall prices can still be low as high prices are rare.

2. Some capacity market: back-up power is paid for staying or load is paid for being able to reduce demand in case of scarcity.

Climate Adam: Is it Game Over for the 1.5 Degree Climate Limit?

nigelj at 07:13 AM on 12 February, 2025

Napalm doesnt look like a great idea for backing up renewables. Napalm is a mixture of petrol or diesel and a gelling agent and burns much hotter than petrol. But its not providing more energy than petrol would just by adding a gelling agent. I assume it burns hotter but not for as long as petrol (?) so has no advantage in power as a fuel source for generating electricity. And dealing with that high temperature and flammability would be a nightmare.

Its also higher carbon than gas fired backup power so its even worse for the climate. It looks like it would be higher cost than petrol or diesel, due to the manufacturing process.

Napalm might have more stable availability than gas, but this looks like it would be negated by the downsides. I just think its a classic example of a crank solution, where people see "higher temperatures" but fail to look at all the related issues.

Fact brief - Can CO2 be ignored because it’s just a trace gas?

nigelj at 06:03 AM on 29 January, 2025

Evan @8, and OPOF @9

Interesting. I agree with OPOFs views on the climate issue, in a theoretical sense. For example, it is obvious to me high income people can mostly cut their consumption significantly and still have a decent enough life, and that leaders of society should set an example. However I share Evans concern that greed and self interest get in the way, and human nature is unlikely to change.

But the situation is quite nuanced because most people are not hugely greedy. They clearly make personal sacrifices for a good cause, up to a limit, on average over the population. For example they donate to charity and help others. The majority of people have accepted things like carbon taxes or emissions trading schemes up to a certain extent, knowing this is ultimately a personal sacrifice. This has helped build renewable energy.

I think our job is to persuade people to make as much sacrifice as possible in terms of things like accepting carbon taxes or government subsidy schemes. But it seems unlikely we would get people to make huge personal sacrifices of the type where they stop flying, or turn thermostats down low in the middle of winter and cycle everywhere. These things can become very uncomfortable and have various downsides. This is all why I tend to promote the renewables and electric cars side of the equation. I dont fly much myself , but for many people travel is viewed almost as an essential of life.

The energy consumption issue has another dimension as well. If we cut our levels of energy use too much and too fast it could cause a severe recession and unemployment, as demand is sucked out of the economy. And this means its unlikely such a policy would gain traction. This is why I tend to think we are mostly or almost completely reliant on an energy substitiution process of building renewables and EV's. Im not saying this is the ideal perfect solution - just that is likely the only workable solution in the real world.

I think the misinformation thing is a different issue, although it is used to make greed sound acceptable.

OPOF: "My more global concern is that we could be witnessing the early days of a powerful resurgence leading to many decades, possibly centuries, of global humanity being dominated by extremely harmful misunderstandings."

It has shocked me how 50% of people could support a leader who spreads huge volumes of misinformation. Its really a bit depressing and shows how thin the veneer of civilisation is. However its hard to say how long harmful misunderstandings would last. If a harmful misunderstanding causes a global trajedy like a nuclear war the pendulum might quickly swing back to the need to truth and accuracy. Or maybe people will just tire of all the misinformation and normality will be restored quite quickly. But in the medieval period of human history, the middle ages, people believed in complete nonsense and it was a dark time that lasted over 1000 years. It kind of self corrected as people slowly realised their lack of accurate information was holding them back and science emerged to promote accurate information. But that was a slow process. Maybe a centuries long period of misinformation could happen again especially if there is a huge drop in trust in science. We must do all we can to counter that.

Sabin 33 #12 - Do solar panels work in cold or cloudy climates?

David-acct at 10:21 AM on 24 January, 2025

Nigelj
Thanks for the comment - you actually hit the nail on the head with the best observation with the core issue.

Your comment " The capacity factor drops by about half. Could you not compensate by installing twice the number of panels? "

Yes you can compensate by installing twice the number of panels. That is exactly what has to be done to make a renewable system work.

The more important is the impact with utility solar.

First EIA website is a great source to cross check the data and provides a wealth of information.

The combined decrease in electric generation from wind and solar during the winter months is approx 30%-40% lower during the winter months vs the spring and fall (even before taking into account the frequent 2-5 day wind doldrums that occur during the winter).

Electric demand during the winter is approximately 30%-40 higher than during the spring and fall. As heating is converted to electric, the demand from the spring/fall vs winter demand will continue to widen. As such, gross capacity of renewables for the winter needs to be approx 2x of the needed capacity during spring and fall to cover the winter demand.

Further the idled capacity during 6 or so months of the spring and fall due to the redundancy needed for the winter months wrecks havoc on the math used in the LCOE computations. Guess what happens to the LCOE computation when significant amounts of redundancy is needed to generate sufficient electricity during the winter.

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

Philippe Chantreau at 03:40 AM on 11 January, 2025

I also noted an inconsistency between posts #365 and 367 above:

In # 365, the following quote from Wikipedia is cited: "France's nuclear reactors comprise 90 per cent of EDFs capacity and so they are used in load-following mode and some reactors close at weekends because there is no market for the electricity."

In # 367, this comes back as: "the plants shut down during the highest demand periods during the summer and on weekends. Fossil fuels make up what nuclear fails to generate." That would be the very opposite of what the previous quote says: not following the load.

The reason why some plants are tuned down and/or taken off line is indeed the one in #367, i.e. they are used in load following mode. They are not "shut down" during the highest demand period, they are ramped up, that much is clearly visible in the data. As I have pointed before, the eCO2mix data shows that peak demand is, in the vast majority of cases, associated with peak nuclear production.

Furthermore, fossil fuel use in the generation mix in France is very limited. Oil and coal are almost negligible. Gas is marginal and, to my knowledge, used because of its very fast reaction time. Wind is very well developed: on the morning of January 1st, gas was at 1.8GW, when total wind production was close to 19GW (more than 10 times higher). Compare that to Texas, a leader in the US for wind electricity, where production peaks around 10GW on windy summer days.

Looking at the end of December and the beginning of January so far, I see that the share of gas is lower than wind, and the total amount exported is greater than the share of gas. Looking at longer periods, it is apparent that the overall share of wind power over time is larger than gas. France certainly can't be accused of being a bad actor in limiting the carbon emissions of electricity production in Europe. The European grid is highly interconnected and synchronous (except for the UK), even extending into North Africa; there are a lot of international factors involved in France's total production and level of export. I am skeptical of the claim that the exploitation of their nuclear plants is uneconomical.

In any case, achieving a carbon intensity per kWh that is a factor of 10 lower than neighboring countries, while retaining affordable rates is not a bad result. Despite high amounts of fuels used for road transportation, France has per capita CO2 emissions lower than Denmark, Germany, Finland or Italy. Sweden does better but, like Norway or Quebec, they are in a very privileged position for hydro generation; still, about 30% of their production is from nuclear.

That being said, the long term future needs serious planning. France's existing nuclear power plants can not last for ever. Much has been said of the outages of 2021/22. Some of it was valid, and some of it was spin. One could say that they showed a safety system that works, a grid resilient enough to withstand the outages, and problems that could be detected and solved.

Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that the 30-50 year horizon demands solutions. I don't know that renewables can be increased to the 50+GW they would have to produce. That is way above my pay grade.

Climate news to watch in 2025

Evan at 07:35 AM on 7 January, 2025

nigelj, there is another way to look at this. Not based on temperature, but looking at what atmospheric CO2 concentrations are doing. It is no secret that CO2 concentrations have been accelerating upwards since David Keeling started measurements in the late 1950's. Accelerating is the term his son, Ralph Keeling, uses to describe the trend.

But CO2 may be more than accelerating upwards. If you take 10 year moving averages of CO2 from 1970 to 2005, it forms a smooth, upward curve depicting the upward acceleration. If you then use that curve to extrapolate forward to see where we should end up if the upward acceleration continued, what actually happens is that the concentrations for 2010, 2015, and 2020 lay above that already upward-accelerating curve!

Keeling curve depicting perhaps more than upward acceleration

This despite the Great Recession, the Covid Pandemic, and the recent, rapid growth of renewables and EVs. People focus on the rapid growth of renewable energy and the increasing deployment of EVs, but neglect to notice that fossil-fuel use continues to increase. Plus other second-order effects likely driven by environmental feedbacks.

Bob's reference is likely far more authoritative than my comments, but the graph I provide hints (there is too little data in the CO2 record to prove that CO2 is accelerating upwards) that the third derivative of CO2 concentration could be positive. CO2 would then not just be accelerating upwards, but the acceleration rate would be increasing.

The forgotten story of Jimmy Carter’s White House solar panels

nigelj at 05:27 AM on 6 January, 2025

Eric (sceptic)

"Reagan cut all of it, nuclear, fossil, and renewables. That's the actual symbology of the removal of those particular panels in my opinion. "

No he didnt: From The New York Times in 1981. "Nuclear power is the only major program the Reagan Administration has completely spared during its campaign to reduce Federal spending. And yesterday the President made clear his intention to bail out the ailing nuclear power industry. No energy program less deserves such favoritism.Growing public opposition, faltering Wall Street support, and mounting evidence that other energy sources will better promote the national welfare make nuclear power unworthy of Presidential rescue efforts.The special place that nuclear power occupies in President Reagan's heart was made abundantly clear during the first round of budget cuts this spring. Nuclear development was the only program - besides the military, of course - to receive a major funding increase for fiscal 1982."

www.nytimes.com/1981/10/09/opinion/nuclear-reaganomics.html

www.csmonitor.com/1981/0826/082634.html

Nobody really knows why Reagon removed the solar panels from the whitehouse roof. Reagon never said and there are no surviviing documents giving a reason. It was done quietly during roof repairs, so this isnt a very public symbolic gesture. But he didnt appear to hate solar power either.

"They were an experiment, not very successful, but much more cost effective than photovoltaic at that time. It pointed the way to more R&D which was critical at that time. It's still critical today as always."

Agreed, and that is what I was trying to say in my comment above thread. Experiments are usefull and often lead to amazing things eventually. The solar industry has certainly developed considerably. Carter was a visionary ahead of his time.

The forgotten story of Jimmy Carter’s White House solar panels

Eric (skeptic) at 04:23 AM on 6 January, 2025

Michael Sweet, need energy numbers (GWh or TWh) for solar hot water. For example China has 7.5% capacity factor (2022 numbers) for photovoltaic solar so their GW of capacity are about half as effective as ours. Also the regions mentioned for solar hot water are more sunny than Washington DC.

Bob, yes, solar thermal collects a lot more energy from the sun than solar voltaic. Despite that it needs to be deployed cost effectively, and it is throughout the Mediterranean region, desert and west coast of the US, etc.

One Planet, thanks for the carbon price perspective. I suspect Carter, who is now being reconsidered in historical context, knew more about the costs but had to be politically pragmatic and put money into synfuel and other fossil interests. But also his Navy speciality of nuclear power, plus renewables.

Reagan cut all of it, nuclear, fossil, and renewables. That's the actual symbology of the removal of those particular panels in my opinion. They were an experiment, not very successful, but much more cost effective than photovoltaic at that time. It pointed the way to more R&D which was critical at that time. It's still critical today as always.

Sabin 33 #8 - Will solar development destroy jobs?

nigelj at 06:17 AM on 1 January, 2025

David-acct said: "My statement was that more jobs per unit of production is an indication of less economic efficiency...."

This is only potentially true looking at labour productivity alone as BL points out. This doesnt mean renewables have poor overall economic efficiency. In fact we know renewables have higher overall economic efficiency than fossil fuels. This is because (simply put) while renewables require more labour inputs than fossil fuels, they have much lower running costs, that more than offsets the higher labour costs. We know this because renewables are lower cost per mwatt hour than fossil fuels.

I assume the high labour costs of solar power are related to installing all those panels. No problem. It gives people useful work, and this is important in economies facing high unemployment from automation and AI.

Sabin 33 #8 - Will solar development destroy jobs?

michael sweet at 08:31 AM on 28 December, 2024

David-acct,

The op cites publications by acknowledged authorities that support the claim that renewables end up with many more jobs at the same time they have lower energy costs. Your unsupported response "I doubt it" is out of order. If you want to claim the op is incorrect you must provide references that support your claim.

I note that many peer reviewed papers like Jacobson et al 2022 make the same claim. I have never seen an analysis that finds less jobs from renewables. Fossil supporters simply say they disagree without any analysis or data Opinions without supporting data are worthless on a scientific site like Skeptical Science. The fact that there are already more renewable jobs than coal when we must dramatically enlarge renewables tells the whole story!

Sabin 33 #5 - Is solar energy worse for the climate than burning fossil fuels?

walschuler at 05:06 AM on 5 December, 2024

This is a very important summary of information and extremely useful, but I think certain points need more emphasis or examination: First I think it ought to be emphasized that the co2 advantage of solar pvs and the other renewable tech is based on current average use of fossil energy to make them, a part of their current embodied footprint. If these energy sources become renewable, say PVs, then the advantage grows. In fact, all renewable equipment makers should be using their own or others' renewable equipment to make more of them- a zero carbon bootstrap. To make this bootstrap complete the renewables makers need to iron out fossil fuel use down their whole supply chain.

Second, the statement below from the last reference posted above needs examination: "in addition to having smaller greenhouse gas emissions, solar power likewise outperforms fossil fuels in minimizing direct heat emissions. A 2019 Stanford publication notes that, for solar PV and CSP, net heat emissions are in fact negative, because these technologies “reduce sunlight to the surface by converting it to electricity,” ultimately cooling “the ground or a building below the PV panels.”4 The study found that rooftop and utility-scale solar PV have heat emissions equivalent to negative 2.2 g-CO2e/kWh-electricity, compared to the positive heat emissions associated with natural gas, nuclear, coal, and biomass."

This statement is true in certain circumstances and not in others. In the case of PVs in the desert in Arizona, the blackness of the collectors absorbs more sunlight than the desert would absorb. It isn't as reflective as snow, but the difference is significant. Of the absorbed sunlight today's PVs convert about 20% to electricity. The other 80% heats the PVs and is either radiated to the sky and ground or convected to the air. This could lead to a net addition to solar input to the climate energy balance at such a site. If the PVs replace grass or trees, the reflectivity issue more or less goes away but so does the latter's co2 trapping. This is however still in favor of PVs with respect to carbon balance, as another of your posts makes clear. In the case of PVs on buildings, the provided shade lowers air conditioning loads which is a clear advantage along with generating carbon free energy, and the reflectivity for most roofs is low. If the roof is highly reflective before PVs are installed, a part of the advantage is lost.

I think the last of your linked references is wrong in part. There we find:

"Use solar panels with reflective coatings. These coatings can help to reflect sunlight away from the panels, reducing
heat absorption.
Plant vegetation around solar panels. Vegetation can help to shade the panels and keep them cool." The first point, unless it means use selective surface coatings that reflect IR solar wavelengths the the PV can't convert to electricity, makes no sense. The second makes no sense. If the vegetation shades the panels the panels lose access to sunlight. For maximum benefit the panels need unrestricted access to sunlight.

Jobs in wind, solar, and energy storage are booming. Is your state keeping up?

michael sweet at 01:34 AM on 30 October, 2024

Nigelj,

This wind map shows more detail than the statewide averages you linked. There is a lot of wind in West Texas. California has windy areas in the southeast part of the state. Florida has little wind and the state recently passed a law forbiding offshore wind.

There are other sources of renewable jobs. A lot of solar panel manufacturing plants and wind turbine suppliers have been or are in the process of being built, primarily in republician areas, using money ftom Biden's Inflation Reduction Act. Other political issues cause uneven distribution of renewable energy. The OP points out that Montana, West Virginia, Wyoming and Alaska do not have much renewable energy, undoubtedly for political reasons. California has encouraged renewable energy so they have a lot of it.

Texas is an interesting case. They have their own grid to avoid federal regulations. In the past they have always gone with the cheapest producer to lower costs. Now that wind, solar and batteries are cheaper than gas they are changing their rules to protect the gas industry. It will be interesting to see how long Texas pays more for gas power instead of installing cheaper renewable energy. Since gas power plants take longer to build than renewable plants and they need power soon they will have to make some hard choices.

Renewables are now cheaper virtually everywhere so political reasons are the main reason they are not built out faster. It costs less to build a new renewable plant (including the mortgage) than to run a coal plant with no mortgage. If utility executives want to charge less for power they build renewables. Almost all new build power in the USA (and the world) is renewable because it is cheapest.

I remember in Australia several years ago the government supported building more coal plants. More recently solar was supported. Now Australia has a lot of renewable solar from those installations and coal is struggling to compete.

Jobs in wind, solar, and energy storage are booming. Is your state keeping up?

nigelj at 06:19 AM on 29 October, 2024

Great to see this jobs growth driven by renewables. Good for the economy.

I was curious how the states with high renewables penetration correlated with favourable wind speeds and solar irradiance levels. Texas, California and Florida have high renewables penetration. Curiously all three have quite low average wind speeds for the states as a whole, so I assume the wind farms must be coastal and / or offshore where winds would be highest. All three states have high average solar irradiance.

The western states towards the middle and south generally tend to have high average wind speeds and high average solar irradiance but generally low renewables penetration. I wonder if that is due to political factors, or good coal resources, or its because there are some local conditions that just dont suit renewables. Relevant maps:

worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/windiest-states

www.nrel.gov/gis/assets/images/solar-annual-ghi-2018-usa-scale-01.jpg

Climate Risk

nigelj at 11:08 AM on 24 October, 2024

Jess Scarlett, I appreciate your concerns, but the amount of CO2 released by drilling holes is totally insignificant. Even volcanic eruptions have not released enough CO2 to explain the recent warming trend. Scientists have spent thousands of hours researching these issues and every possible cause of warming and every possible source source of CO2 before ruling them out. You can find this material with a simple google search and by scanning through the information in the "climate myths" box on the left hand side of this page.

If you are suspicious of the temperature record in Australia then I suggest please look at the global surface temperature record over land. Look at the global temperature in the oceans. Look at the ballon temperature record. look at the upper atmosphere temperature record. They all show roughly the same warming trend. Urban and rural areas show the same warming trend. One set of data might be in error, but it seems very unlikely to me several would be.

Also sometimes the raw data has problems, so needs adjustments. For example data from early last century from ships were found to be in error, and the raw data was adjusted DOWN so actually reduced the warming record. This is hardly a sign of people wanting to exagerate the warming trend. If you are still sceptical about temperature data, look at the UAH satellite temperature record compiled by Roy Spencer a scientist and a climate change sceptic, but even his temperature record shows robust warming.

If you still dont believe the global temperature records, and that the world is warming, you are beyond being reasoned with.

Your comments do suggest you may have been persuaded by conspiracy theories. The idea that there is an international movement by tens of thousands of meterologists and scientists to deliberately exaggerate warming is just insanity. There is no rational motivation for such a thing. No government wants expensive problems to deal with and is certainly not going to invent them when it gets plenty dumped on its plate anyway. It would be impossible to have a giant conspiracy like this and keep it quiet. Some of these guys would leak the truth. Its like the idea that NASA faked the moon landings. This doesn't stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.

Yes the renewables have their downsides and require a lot of mining. And yes the corporate sector benefit from building renewables and sometimes the business world is a dirty affair. But what is your better solution to the climate problem? Because its a huge environmental problem that is affecting not just human society, but the natural world, and you say you are a greenie, right?

Lots of your statements are false at PC points out. And evidence free. I suggest don't let any concerns you might have that we are potentially neglecting our various other environmental problems bias you against the climate issue. I don't see evidence we are neglecting other problems. Personally I think we have to deal with both the climate problem and other environmental problems together , and humanity is obviously able to deal with several problems at the same time.

Skeptical Science News: The Rebuttal Update Project

Cedders at 19:44 PM on 6 October, 2024

I would also welcome any expansion of the 'it's too hard' section of myths, as this has been such a boom area since about 2015. Generally industry and society has moved from denial that climate change is a human-caused threat, to delay and sometimes fatalism ('it's too late' could be a whole new top level of the taxonomy). While there are a small rump of people with 'dismissive' attitudes to climate science, a majority of people accept there is a major problem, but are helped to feel powerless to do anything (per Michael Mann's The New Climate War).

Addressing this trand could be seen as straying into technological and economic and policy questions, but objectivity is still possible (eg citing whichever economic opinions are expressed and a range of informed views where there are no scientific facts).

This would be very helpful to deal with in the same format as there are certainly a lot of myths circulating in political circles and media. Typically the misguided arguments concern technology and what can be permitted within remaining carbon budgets, but also sometimes groups of scientists and activists. For example in the context of a climate mitigation conversation, policy-makers can express a preference for hydrogen cars over EVs or even public transport. At that point someone lie Auke Hoekstra or Michael Liebreich can explain simple facts about energy losses in electrolysis and fuels cells or combustion engines. This makes it clear that the most efficient use of renewables will not be hydrogen cars or heating, so investmeet in some hydrogen infrastructure would be a misguided dead end, rather like 'low tar' cigarettes or diesel engines. This is also a consequence of understanding from about 2009 that carbon pollution has to be cut to ('net') zero.

Essentially to get a major policy through needs people to agree it is fair, effective and beneficial. Incumbent industries want to preserve their business model and deny access to new entrants by influencing regulation. So they need to suggest clean technology uptake is inherently unfair, or that it has inherent environmental costs. Informing people about not just why stopping fossil fuels is fundamental but that the transition can generally improve equity and have environmental co-benefits is the hard task ahead.

I hope this take wasn't too off-topic. My thanks to all the SkS authors and editors for their continuing work.

Correcting myths about the cost of clean energy

michael sweet at 06:12 AM on 6 October, 2024

David-acct at 8:

I do not need you to explain how electricity was generated in the 20th centuary. We are now replacing obsolete, polluting energy sources with cheaper, cleaner renewable sources. We need to evaluate how energy resources will contribute to a future renewable system. At the same time we want to keep prices down.

We currently have a hybrid system while the renewable system is being built. Renewable wind and solar can generate most needed power using existing peaker plants as storage. Old baseload plants cannot compete economically with cheap renewable energy. As more wind and solar is built obsolete plants are closing. Expensive coal and nuclear have closed first.

Batteries are now cheaper, more versatile and provide more grid support services than peaker plants. Batteries store extra power on sunny, windy days. As demonstrated by the EIA report you cited, (I note the EIA has always been biased against renewable energy in he past) the market is planning on building a lot of wind, solar and batteries in the next four years. Very litle, heavily subsidized, gas is planned. Everyone in the market can see the handwriting on the wall. The market is building out cheap renewables virtually everywhere in the world.

The professionals at Lazard. have chosen LCOE as the best metric to compare different technologies. The EIA report does not support your claim that obsolete technologies are cheaper than renewable energy. You have cited no authoritative sources to support your argument that Lazard is incorrect. Your argument that obsolete technology should be promoted is simply wrong.

In any case, the website Oil Price says all the best fracking sites in he USA have been tapped. Fracked wells decline in production very rapidly (just two or three years). Oil, gas and coal are finite resources that are declining. We have to build out a renewable system now before those nonrenewable sources run out.

I am surprised that someone with a background in cost accounting is so supportive of expensive, polluting, obsolete technologies when cheaper alternative sources are readily svailable.

Correcting myths about the cost of clean energy

nigelj at 04:38 AM on 4 October, 2024

David-acct @7

"Nuccitelli as you noted, uses the after tax credit LCOE cost for renewables. Those tax credits get paid by the consumer in the form of higher income taxes to cover the subsidy.

Yes but it should be noted that gas and coal fired powered generation and nuclear power also get very substantial tax credits or subsidies with costs passed onto consumers. All effects their LOCE numbers as well.

David-acct 8

I think M Sweets point about the electricity system might have been that criticising renewables based on the reliance on gas peaker plants is ultimately flawed because a fully renewables system would be generation and storage without a need for gas peaker plants. So your response quoting baseload and peaker plants doesnt address the point. We are talking about two completely different operating systems. Interesting though how the current system operates so good information in that respect.

Correcting myths about the cost of clean energy

David-acct at 11:00 AM on 3 October, 2024

The point of the article is "correcting myths about the cost of clean energy"

When compare costs of each type electric generation it is important to compare apples to apples.

Nuccitelli as you noted, uses the after tax credit LCOE cost for renewables. Those tax credits get paid by the consumer in the form of higher income taxes to cover the subsidy (subsidies arent free in macro economics) or paid by the consumer in the form of higher prices due to inflation which is the result of deficit spending. Thus using the after credit LCOE cost is hiding the full LCOE cost.

How mismanagement, not wind and solar energy, causes blackouts

nigelj at 06:19 AM on 14 September, 2024

David acct @8, I agree there is a lot of misinformation by both sides. However I didn't say or imply wind provided plenty of output in other states. Much of the country had low levels of wind. I didnt dispute that.

The point I was trying to make is that other states did not have big problems with generation because their system is better managed than Texas, and has better de-icing equipment. The reason Texas had a disaster was not renewables, or intermittency of renewables, or fossil fules per se. It was lack of de-icing equipment reflecting bad management by Ercot.

How mismanagement, not wind and solar energy, causes blackouts

David-acct at 21:34 PM on 13 September, 2024

Nigelj
Thanks for the comment.
As I stated, there is tremendous amount of misinformation being pushed by both sides who try to affix blame for the Texas fiasco on only fossil fuels or only renewables. The reality is that all forms of electric generation performed very poorly in the ERCOT grid. The major difference is that ERCOT was heavily dependent on natural gas because it was known 3-4 days in advance that wind was going to produce very little over the next 8-10 days due to the lack of wind . Unfortunately, electric generation from natural gas had a catastrophic failure at a time when it was known that wind could not perform.

I am always surprised by the claim that wind did perform on the other grids. That claim is easily debunked by reviewing the electric generation by source at the EIA grid monitor site. Both the performance of the SWPP and the MISO grids of electric generation from wind very similar to the performance of the ERCOT grid over that same time period.

regarding the icing, less than 10% of the wind loss was due to blades icing up, (probably less than 5%), in summary, the icing was a very minor factor with the loss of wind generation. The loss of wind generation due to icing is a common denier talking point, sounds good, but it is false.

Again thanks for your comments

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

michael sweet at 08:11 AM on 3 June, 2024

An organization called Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) just released a report on small modular reactors. The title of the report is "Small Modular Reactors: Still too expensive, too slow and too risky". It says that small nuclear reactors will not be able to contribute significantly to the energy transition and the money spent on them is being wasted.

Key Findings;

1) Small modular reactors still look to be too expensive, too slow to build, and too risky to play a significant role in transitioning from fossil fuels in the coming 10-15 years.

2) Investment in SMRs will take resources away from carbon-free and lower-cost renewable technologies that are available today and can push the transition from fossil fuels forward significantly in the coming 10 years.

3) Experience with operating and proposed SMRs shows that the reactors will continue to cost far more and take much longer to build than promised by proponents.

4) Regulators, utilities, investors and government officials should embrace the reality that renewables, not SMRs, are the near-term solution to the energy transition.

Follow the link above to read the full report. The IEEFA apparently is a left leaning think tank that opposes nuclear power.

The science isn't settled

scaddenp at 07:40 AM on 9 May, 2024

"a five gallon bucket of sand tossed upon your acre of oceanfront property every day will keep up with 8" of sea level rise over the next century."

I think that example is problematic.

8" = 200mm -> 2mm per year. Global sealevel rate is currently 3.4mm and accelerating.

Check your maths on the 5gal of sand. I make that 19L or 19,000 cubic cms. 1 acre = 40470000 cm2 19,000/40470000 isnt remotely keeping up with 2mm/year of sealevel. Out of curiousity, where did you find this statement about the 5gal bucket? Sounds like a source bent on misinformation.

Where do you get your sand? At a sustained 4mm/year of sealevel rise, your beachs vanish.

Sand or any other easily mined material is also highly erodable - without an expensive seawall, wave action will take it away.

And finally, the real point. Adaption is not free. It costs to make those changes. Why are you so confident that adaption is cheaper than just converting energy sources to renewables, especially as renewables+storage has better LCOE than FF?

Skeptical Science News: The Rebuttal Update Project

michael sweet at 05:39 AM on 4 May, 2024

Ichinitz:

The problem with George Wills argument is that he only states the cost of one side of the equation and then concludes that it will be cheaper to just go on using fossil fuels. The current fossil fuel industry is about 10% of global gross gdp. If a renewable system only costs 2% than it will be much cheaper than the existing system. Many scientific papers (for example Jacobson et al) show that it will be much cheaper to switch to a completely renewable energy system.

I think your suggestion that you write a rebuttal to the myth "it's bad but it is cheaper than renewables" is a good one. The deniers make this type of absurd claim all the time.

Welcome to Skeptical Science

Eclectic at 15:40 PM on 1 May, 2024

Brtipton @123 :

Bob, you are correct. As you know, roughly 83% of society's energy use is coming from fossil fuels. And total energy use is continuing to increase. And it is unhelpful & misleading, when "renewable" wind & solar gets reported not as actual production, but as the potential maximum production (the real production being about 70% lower, on average, than the so-called "installed capacity").

However, the biggest need is for more technological advancement of the renewables sector (and especially in the economics of batteries). Maybe in 15-20 years, the picture will look much brighter. And maybe there will be progress in crop-waste fermentation to produce liquid hydrocarbon fuel for airplanes & other uses where the (doubtless expensive) liquid fuels will still be an attractive choice.

Carbon Tax (plus "dividend" repayment to citizens generally) would be helpful ~ if political opposition can be toned down. But technological advancement is the big requirement, for now. There is political opposition to more-than-slight subsidies to private corporations . . . but surely there is scope for re-directing "research money" into both private and non-profit research ~ so long as it can avoid being labelled as "a subsidy". Wording is important, in these things.

With the best will in the world, it will all take time.

Welcome to Skeptical Science

brtipton at 10:41 AM on 1 May, 2024

I spent a large part of my career investigating, exposing and debunking scientific and engineering boondoggles or fraud within US DOD.

The SCIENCE behind climate change as about as well done as humanly possible. I have found zero politically motivated exaggeration of the situation on the part of climate the climate scientists. If anything, many reports have been watered down somewhat on the positive side.

Unfortunately, the opposite is true on the climate SOLUTIONS side of the coin. While all of the statements I can find are legally, and scientifically accurate; they are highly misleading creating a false sense of progress.

This became painfully evident during the 2022 meeting of the World Climate Coalition's conference on finance when the ONE climatologist who spoke correctly pointed out that ALL efforts to date have had no measurable effect on reducing atmospheric CO2 levels. In fact, atmospheric CO levels are accelerating upward. The MC followed up with "well, that's unfortunate. Let's move on to the good news." Followed by that session not being published on conference website.

Examples:

US Energy Information Administration (EIA) data states that about 2/3 of planned new generating capacity is green (correct.) They omit that new generating capacity if 1.2% of US total consumption and 2/3 of 1.2% is 0.8% PER YEAR for US conversion from fossil fuels to renewables.

The same source correctly states that about 25% of US sustainable energy comes from wind, but obscures that only 11% of total consumption is sustainable. This results in installed wind accounting for 4% of US total consumption. Note: That is INSTALLED wind, not ACTIVELY operating wind. A casual drive or fly by usually shows a large percentage of wind turbines are inactive. I have been unable to find data documenting the actual operating levels.

An article in the UK Guardian, about a year ago, reported that the first UK offshore wind turbine was operating. Based on their reported number and size of turbines, the entire installation, when completed, would generate about 1.9% of UK total consumption.

This linked in articles further digs into the state of affairs on "solutions." - https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/when-does-megwatt-114-watts-bob-tipton-asdfc/?trackingId=8eOLtQUcTwizRZ8AN%2Fe4Pg%3D%3D

All of these are observations and attempts to discover core facts and are in need of skeptical review. As a skeptical reviewer, I welcome this.

There is an engineering adage - you cannot control what you cannot sense. If our leaders do not know the true state of affairs it is not possible for them to make effective decisions. It's not enough to put laser focus on the accuracy of the risk reports from the climatologists while ignoring the over exaggerating capabilities of the solutions we are staking our success on.

In my OPINION, the tools we have are not adequate to win this battle. There are few to know effective efforts to develop new tools. The vast majority of out best and brightest minds are bogged down adding more volume to a case which is already well proven. Further documentation of our impending mass extinction is a poor use of strategic resources.
The true battlefield we are on is one of COST to the consumer and TAXATION of the taxpayers. Until we have solutions where the green way is the cheap way, we will be pushing a boulder up a mountain. When we achieve that point, progress will be rapid and viral.

Bob Tipton
Cofounder [Howard] Hughes Skunkworks

A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change

scaddenp at 06:19 AM on 15 April, 2024

William,I have been away.

The risk is : we try and transition aways from fossil fuels without a better alternative - all previous significant energy changes have occurred naturally - when we have had a better alternative.

I don't think you have provided any evidence that alternative energy systems are not a better alternative. Especially when considering all factors like climate change, health impacts of pollutions, etc

One day we likely will have a better cheaper alternative to fossil fuels - at the moment we don't . Renewables cannot replace fossil fuels they are too unreliable and expensive ,

Constantly repeating this does not make it true. You have been provided with peer-reviewed evidence to the contrary. The Lazard analysis of levelized energy costs is putting unsubsidized wind+storage and solar+storage ahead of all but fully depreciated FF stations.

Fossil fuels have brought untold benefits.

I don't dispute this for a second, but I fail to see why it is relevant. FF are now doing a great deal of harm and we have alternatives. We don't "owe" FF any loyalty for past benefits. That would be absurb.

What puzzles me is why you obviously dont believe peer-reviewed analysis of alternatives but instead opt for what seems to me to be either uninformed opinion or worse, FF propoganda. You seem to be deeply commited to the status quo, and trying to find arguments to defend that. Why do you think that is and how do go about evaluating competing claims?

A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change

William24205 at 03:36 AM on 13 April, 2024

Can renewables provide baseload power?

No , because we do not have the battery storage capacity . the USA currently has 7 minutes of storage capacity . - they need at least 3 months. So we are not even remotely close.

Is renewable energy too expensive?

Yes - because of the above - Renewables are cheap in theory but not in practice - not in practice because they don’ t do the job required . It is the equivalent of buying an expensive electric car and still having to use petrol.
From source to the end user they are expensive - which is why the Germany despite having spent billions on subsidies for renewables have one of if not the highest energy costs in Europe. And why they had to rely on Putin's gas. You have to pay twice.

A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change

William24205 at 02:59 AM on 13 April, 2024

William, it isn't clear what you meaning by risk. Financial risk, increased mortality? or what? I would say that in any case, how you transition would be relevant - and that varies country to country, region to region. Suddenly dropping fossil fuels without replacing with other energy sources or better efficiency would indeed be damaging but I am not seeing advocates for that.

The risk is : we try and transition aways from fossil fuels without a better alternative - all previous significant energy changes have occurred naturally - when we have had a better alternative.
One day we likely will have a better cheaper alternative to fossil fuels - at the moment we don't . Renewables cannot replace fossil fuels they are too unreliable and expensive ,

Spend money on R&D and keep investing in fossil fuels at the same time.
To answer your question directly .
Fossil fuels have brought untold benefits.
So by definition the inverse could unwind some of those benefits.
Fossil fuels are the main reason we are safer from the climate than ever before - it seems pointless to risk throwing all the gains or somehow the gains away.
Increased poverty brings many problems - expensive energy has inherent risks.

Renewable energy is too expensive

Just Dean at 22:15 PM on 5 April, 2024

I have now posted a reply to the Energy Bad Boys, EBB , with references to my Notes at Substack that include graphics. Here is a copy of that reply.

--------------------

A thorough review of electricity prices for the 48 contiguous states suggests that there is no correlation between increased use of wind and solar and higher electricity prices. If anything, the opposite appears to be true.

Using data available at the EIA electricity data browser, a comparison of the increase in average electricity prices from 2002 to 2022 for the contiguous U.S. as a function of the percentage of renewable electricity generated suggests that more renewables lead to lower electricity prices, not higher.

Note1

A comparison of the retail price of electricity for 2022 for the 48 states as a function of percentage of renewable electricity also shows a similar trend, states with more renewables tend to have lower electricity prices.

Note2

------------------

Renewable energy is too expensive

Just Dean at 03:36 AM on 4 April, 2024

I came across a recent substack post by Energy Bad Boys, EBB, claiming that wind and solar make for expensive electricity. They used a very limited example of California and their home state of Minnesota to make that claim. I countered with Iowa and South Dakota that have very high percentages of wind and cheaper electricity, which they dismissed.

This motivated a more complete analysis using data from EIA, EIA electricity data browser , for 2022 for all 48 contiguous states comparing average retail electricity prices to the percentage of renewable electricity generation - wind plus all solar, i.e., utility solar plus small solar. The data for 2022 extends the percentage of renewables out to greater than 60%, Hosted images . (Sorry, I could not get the image insert function to work.)

The conclusion is still the same. There is no correlation between state electricity prices and percentage of renewables. If anything there is a slight trend towards lower prices with increased penetration.

A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change

Bob Loblaw at 05:09 AM on 3 April, 2024

lchinitz @ 32:

Fossil fuels look a lot cheaper than they should, because of externalities.

Energy transition considers how costs will change. Production by renewables is already cheaper in may cases; storage to cover lulls is still an issue.

A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change

michael sweet at 23:01 PM on 2 April, 2024

William,

Once you build the wind and solar generators you don't have to buy fuel to run them every day so they are cheaper than fossil fuels. You continue to only measure the cost of the renewable side. Who cares if it costs L1.4 trl to build out renewables if the cost of fuel is L3 trl? The article I linked included storage for enough power so that there would be no shortages, you just didn't read it. Fossil or nuclear backup are not necessary.

I remember 10 years ago the IPCC report suggested that Global Warming would eventually cause sea level rise that endangered houses near the sea, wildfires and droughts that caused massive relocations of people. I wondered if I would see these damages in my lifetime. I expected to live about 25 years.

We see all these things happening now, only 10 years later. They are no longer future projections. Wildfires are destroying entire towns and massive amounts of forrest. Unprecedented droughts and floods are making it harder for farmers to turn a profit. Millions of climate refugees are already trying to access the Global North because they can no longer make a living due to climate change. The damages we currently see are much, much higher than scientists projected only 10 years ago. 40 years ago they thought the great ice sheets would take thousands of years to melt as much as they have already melted now. No-one thought that all the coral reefs worldwide would be dying off as we see today.

We do not need to wait 40 years to see these problems. You are blind to what is happening before your eyes.

A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change

William24205 at 22:36 PM on 2 April, 2024

Michael,
The £1.4trl ( likely an underestimate ) is amongst other things the cost of changing the grid.

As you also know ( without going into the whole thing ) renewables are intermittent you need fossil fuel or nuclear back up. So you pay twice.
Hopefully there will be a cheaper and cleaner alternative to fossil fuels , pretending renewables are - helps no one. They are part of the mix and a welcome one - but they are not a replacement

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

michael sweet at 23:50 PM on 24 February, 2024

John Oneill at 357:

I note that you have made another post without a single cite to suport your wild claims.

Brandolini's Law certainly pertains to this exchange so I will be as brief as possible.

"Nuclear is not economic": All of the reactors currently being built are financed almost entirely by governments. The market has completely rejected nuclear power because it is not economic.

"Takes too long to build": According to the World Nuclear Industry Status report 2023 "For the 58 reactors being built, an average of 6 years has passed since construction start—slightly lower than the mid-2022 average of 6.8 years—and many remain far from completion." while "The mean time from construction start to grid connection for the seven reactors started up in 2022 was nine years," (my emphasis) This includes only construction time. The additional planning time, time to obtain construction permits etc is many years. Typical timeframes for nuclear are 10-15 years. By contrast, wind and solar projects typically take 2-4 years from proposal to completion.

"There is not enough uranium": According to Abbott (2012) as of 2012 there is only enough uranium in known deposits to power the world for 5 years. Nuclear supporters would not be attempting to obtain uranium from the ocean if there was enough uranium on land. You provide no references to support your wild claim that enough uranium exists. Frankly, this is common knowledge among informed people.

Your comments on renewable power are contradicted by experience. Educated readers here will not be fooled. Obviously in the 70's to the 2000's renewable sources did not contribute much because they were not economic at that time. Now they are the cheapest power in the world and are reducing carbon emissions more every day.

According to the World Nuclear Industry Status report, at least Italy, Japan and Sweden currently have no plans to build new reactors. Bertolini's Law applies, I have not checked the rest of your list. I note that France's much heralded announcement about building 6 new reactors will not replace their current 56 reactors that are at the end of their useful life. I note that over 50% of Frances nuclear fleet was offline in the past few years for unplanned repairs due to age. In addition, no money has been budgeted to build the announced reactors.

Meanwhile, according to the IEA:

"Over the coming five years, several renewable energy milestones are expected to be achieved:

In 2024, wind and solar PV together generate more electricity than hydropower.
In 2025, renewables surpass coal to become the largest source of electricity generation.
Wind and solar PV each surpass nuclear electricity generation in 2025 and 2026 respectively.
In 2028, renewable energy sources account for over 42% of global electricity generation, with the share of wind and solar PV doubling to 25%."

I note that the IEA has historically severely underestimated the amount of renewable energy that would be constructed in the future.

Whenever I examine nuclear supporters claims closely I find that they are not supported by the data.

Nuclear is not economic, takes too long to build and there is not enough uranium.

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

John ONeill at 06:59 AM on 3 February, 2024

Electricity is a natural monopoly, and its supply is a service, not a commodity. The introduction of the auction system for supply was pushed by Enron, which expanded like a cancer through the natural gas markets during the 90s, got a foothold in power through Oregon-based West Power, and proceeded to game the industry till a series of blackouts, massive power price increases, and financial scandals lead to its downfall. Enron also introduced large-scale wind into the US - after its bankruptcy, Enron Wind was the only surviving American wind manufacturer, and was bought by GE. Wind's erratic fluctuations are a natural partner for gas. Its alleged low price is for the developer - the power user pays it the same price as whatever supplier was needed to produce the last watt on the grid. Wind often bids negative prices, secure in the income from production tax credits and renewables mandates certificates. The increasingly-frequent negative wholesale prices seen, usually around midday, on high wind and solar grids are not shared by the customer at the end of the month.

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

michael sweet at 04:26 AM on 2 February, 2024

It is difficult to reply to a post filled with so many half-truths and mistakes. All your claims have been shown to be false upthread.

1) As you pointed out, Jacobson and hundreds of other researchers have shown that an all renewable energy system (primarily wind and solar) can support the entire economy. It will cost trillions of dollars less than fossil fuels and save millions of lives. Your mentioning a few days with low wind is simply fake news. Since you provide no links to support your wild claims I will not link any either. There are several countries that generate essentially all of their electricity using renewables, a technology that has only been installed widely for less than10 years. France had to purchase a boatload of expensive electricity from its neighbors during the electricity crisis because their reactors failed. I note that no energy researchers support using nuclear power as the primary energy to power the world. Few or no researchers support using even a small amount of new nuclear energy in the future.

2) Your claim that nuclear power "is already larger than wind and solar combined" is deliberately false. According to Our World in Data, in 2021 wind and solar produced 2900 TWH of electricity and in 2022 wind and solar produced 3422 TWH of power world wide. That will increase by at least 15% in 2023. In 2021 nuclear produced 2750 TWH of power and in 2022 nuclear power produced only 2632 TWH of power. The amount of power produced by nuclear has not increased significantly for over 20 years. It is unlikely that the amount of nuclear power will increase for at least 10 years and it is more likely to decrease substantially as old reactors are shut down.

3) Why would a sane person suggest pouring more public money into a failed technology like nuclear? The "new" modular reactor proposals are old designs that were rejected in the 1950's and 1960's as uneconomic or simply too difficlut ot build.

4) Projections of 2024 energy use are that renewable energy will be built at a fast enough rate to reduce world wide carbon dioxide emissions. After 70 years nuclear provides less than 4% of all energy in the world and has not helped reduce carbon emissions for over 20 years. I note that 70% of primary power produced by nuclear is wasted heating the surroundings versus essentially zero waste heat using renewables.

5) Your claim work on using renewables for "transport, steel and fertilisers has hardly even begun" is simply false. Nuclear has not done anything to address these technologies. I, and millions of other people, already drive an electric car. More electric cars are sold every year. Electric trains are widespread. Electric heavy trucks are being manufactured. It is easy to make ammonia fertilizer from renewable energy. Steel is being made with electric furnaces and using green hydrogen. As more and more renewable energy is built it will be used for those purposes since renewable energy is cheaper than fosil fuels. Since renewable energy has only been the cheapest energy for about 5 years there has not yet been time to build out a completely new power system yet. After 70 years nuclear cannot even keep up with its current production as old reactors are retired.

6) Nuclear power in France was down by 50% last year. At all times in a system with nuclear power they require at least enough spinning reserve to cover for the sudden shut down of the reactors because nuclear reactors are prone to unplanned shutdowns at any time. This is not needed for renewables since they do not shut down with no notice. Ways to control for down transmission lines are still required.

7) Nuclear is a failed technology. It is too expensive and takes way too long to build. Due to economies of scale, smaller, modular reactors will be more expensive than big reactors that are already too expensive to compete with renewable energy. Since reactors take so long to build, the entire electrical system will be renewable before new nuclear designs are ready to be widely built. I do not even need to mention that there is not enough uranium in the world to power more than 5% of all power, an insignificant amount.

Whenever I examine nuclear supporters claims closely I find that they are not supported by the data.

Nuclear is not economic, takes too long to build and there are not enough rare minerals.

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

scaddenp at 11:01 AM on 1 February, 2024

John, to my mind you are still not addressing the key - why would you invest money in expensive nuclear rather than cheap renewables with storage? What wind and solar are producing now isn't the relative no. The question is what could they produce for the same money spent on the nuclear plant?

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

Rob Honeycutt at 03:59 AM on 1 February, 2024

I would add, at least battery storage has the benefit of arbitrage (storing cheap renewables during peak generation to sell back later), whereas, nuclear is just expensive. Period. The only benefit I can see is relative to overall demand, where battery storage may run into deployment problems at full scale. Perhaps there nuclear can take up some of the available slack.

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

michael sweet at 01:11 AM on 29 January, 2024

Sekwisniewski,

Perhaps I should have said there is no approved method of disposal of the sodium waste. Given that there is no approved repository for the existing high level waste either, perhaps that is no reason to worry about.

I note that Terrapower originally had a completely different design that they gave up on. Terrapower has not applied for a design certification yet. Design certifications normally take 2 years or more. How does that fit into Terrapowers' plan to start construction this year? Where are they going to get the 16.5% enriched uranium now that Russia (the only current supplier) is constrained due to the Ukraine war? It takes many years to develop a new fuel chain.

According to your link the Natrium reactor would generate 345 MWE. SMR's are generally described as under 300 MWE.

I would prefer to delay any discussion of modular reactors until they have at least applied for design certification.

My first argument is always that nuclear is not economic. I am waiting for a cost estimate for the first natrium reactor. Bill Gates will be able to foot the cost, but that does not mean it will compete with renewables.

Nuclear is not economic, takes too long to build and there are not enough rare minerals.

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

michael sweet at 03:33 AM on 25 January, 2024

John ONeil:

Are you addressing my link at 334? If you read the link it describes all modular reactors as costing at least twice as much as large reactors. This is due to economies of scale. Modular reactor supporters claim that by manufacturing thousands of reactors they will be able to learn by doing and reduce the cost of manufacture. I note that this does not happen most of the time in the nuclear industry.

The link provides analysis that shows it is virtually imposssible for modular reactors to be produced at the low prices that supporters claim. In addition, the costs of renewable energy continue to rapidly decrease. Modular reactors are trying to compete with coal. Coal is already too expensive compared to renewables.

I note that Terrapower claimed they would have operating reactors by 2020. They have not yet submittd a design to the regulators.

I note that there is no process for disposing of the sodium coolant after it becomes radioactive.

Nuclear power is too expensive, too slow to build and the materials do not exist.

Cranky Uncle with Dr. John Cook

Rob Honeycutt at 08:09 AM on 7 January, 2024

Ben... I think crashing the economy wouldn't be a wise approach to avoiding disaster. You can't rationally trade one form of human catastrophe for another. Crashing the economy would potentially be as bad or even worse than the path we're currently on.

I would note there are no researchers (that I am aware of) suggesting crashing the economy as a solution to the climate change crisis. My suggestion for you is to consider the idea that deployment of carbon-free energy is operating on a exponential scale. That could actually bring us in line with zero carbon goals, if we can achieve that. Probably the bigger concern is resource limitations to carry out exponential deployment of renewables.

I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned

nigelj at 05:37 AM on 29 December, 2023

Prove we are smart @5

Regarding the video:

.www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiRzpKWshwU

Its just more material from the same guy. Again I'm not going to tolerate that incessant stream of foul language and insults so I didn't watch it in full. I skipped though it very, very quickly stopping at a few random points:

He talked about "entitled twats" driving Ev's. Its just an unsubstantiated, empty appeal to hate, emotion and envy. Plenty of ordinary people are driving EVs and who cares who drives them, since its reducing emissions that matters. The same entitled twats would be driving ICE cars.

He stated that building smaller houses would reduce emissions more than taking an ICE car off the road. This is not good argument not to build EVs, because just building smaller homes wont fully solve the climate problem.

He complained about extra tire wear due to the weight of EVs. But its is a trivial issue. "A Tesla Model 3 Performance with AWD weighs 4,065 pounds — 379 pounds more than a BMW 330i XDrive.". Yes the EV is heavier but not hugely so therefore extra tire wear is trivial and pollutants from the tire wear are trivial. Refer for weight comparisons:

www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/americas-new-weight-problem-electric-cars/He

He mentioned that cars are only a small part of the transport fleet so why bother with Ev's. It's illogical reasoning along the same lines as his comments about houses. And we are starting to develop electric trucks etc,etc (eg Tesla)

These sorts of talking points have been long since debunked, so Im not prepared to go through the entire video for probabaly more of the same in a giant gish gallop.

I agreed with a couple of his criticisms of EV's and his factual statements about how much of the grid is renewables, etc,etc, seem correct, but his arguments agains't renewables and EV's I listed above lack basic logic and understanding.

I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned

nigelj at 04:44 AM on 29 December, 2023

Prove we are smart @5. Thank's for the comments and links. Looks like useful information.

"Nigelj@3 Sorry you only lasted 4minutes longer, I suppose that was a lot considering you said " I already know the downsides of EVs, and I doubt some motor repair mechanic will add anything."

The entire first five minutes of the video (might have been a bit less, I wasnt timing it) was devoted to sarcastic, insulting, generalised comments about EVs and their drivers. There was not one specific factual claim about the actual technology. I decided I wasn't going to risk yet more of this.

"We need more renewable wholesale electric to support clean electric cars. This is where some detractors have valid points when they argue that electric cars are shifting the problem..."

Ok, but they are stating the obvious about needing more renewables. The same EV critics who say the problem is that renewables aren't expanding fast enough are sometimes the same people who criticise or oppose renewables. They contradict themselves. Their aim in most cases doesn't seem like true scepticism. It is just to throw mud at anything to mitigate the climate problem.

"Every electric car is forcing these electricity generators to work harder. In Australia thats 68% worth from fossil fuels.

Yes ok, but this is better than cars burning petrol which is 100% fossil fuels. The grid will also have to expand due to the extra demands, but thats obvious.

IMO its also a logistical exercise like this: Would you deploy millions of EVs In Australia at day one when the grid is all fossil fuels? No this wouldn't make sense because it would put too much demand on the grid and there is no benefit.

Do you wait until the grid is entirely renewables before deploying any EV's? No because you then have a long delay while Evs are scaled up and with climate change time is an issue and you miss out on some benefits of Evs.

So you phase EV's in gradually while the grid gradually moves to renewables and gets larger (but preferably faster than it is) . So the critics dont have much of a point.

Will get back to you on the video.

Can we still avoid 1.5 degrees C of global warming?

nigelj at 06:31 AM on 14 November, 2023

"The report found that the net greenhouse gas emissions from human activity would need to be 43% lower by 2030 compared to 2019 to maintain a two-thirds chance of either meeting the long-term 1.5°C goal or only briefly overshooting it."

This looks technically and economically possible to me as follows.

"A new study by Stanford engineer Mark Jacobson and his team published in the journal Energy & Environmental Science calculates that the world would need to spend around $62 trillion to build up the wind, solar, and hydro power generating capacity to fully meet demand and completely replace fossil fuels. That looks like a huge number, even spread out across the 145 countries cited in the study. But after crunching the numbers, estimates show that countries would make the money back in cost-savings in a relatively short period of time: Between one to five years."

adventure.com/global-cost-of-renewable-energy/#:~:text=A%20new%20study%20by%20Stanford,and%20completely%20replace%20fossil%20fuels.

My view: To meet this goal of cutting emissions 43% by 2030, lets assume that we spend half the required 62 trillion, thus 30 trillion on renewables over the period 2023 - 2030 . That is 4.2 trillion dollars each year. Total global gdp (economic output) each year is currently about $100 trillion, so 4.2 trillion is about 4% of global gdp per year.

This looks a feasible amount of money to me if we really wanted. Its not going to impoverish the world. Its about what the USA spends on the military each year as a % of its own gdp. It would require cutting about 4% from other budgets including probably government spending and consumer goods spending. 4% is not a massive number.

It would mean a huge engineering effort to transfer capacity into renewables but America and other countries did a similar sort of thing producing military hardware in WW2. And we are already partly there with renewables growing fast.

Of course electricity generation is just one component but its the big issue, and the highest cost issue we need to address.

It's really a question of whether the world can find the motivation to do all this. There are just several impediments in the way 1) The denialist campaign 2) Our brains are hardwired to priortise massive immediate threats like covid or wars, not insidious longer term problems like climate change even although they are a larger threat, 3) Lots of resistance to lifestyle change for various reasons, 4) politics.

So I alternate between hope and despair.

2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44

Just Dean at 00:30 AM on 7 November, 2023

Evan@5, I understand. I prefer to look to the moderate voices in almost any circumstance. To quote Zeke, I am cautiously optimistic about our future and getting to net zero. We have bent the curve on global emissions and according to the IEA and others, e.g. Rystad energy, we may well hit peak emissons this year or at least by 2025.

I follow the progress of the U.S. electrical sector emissions. Here are three positive facts about our progress.

1. Renewable generation surpassed coal and nuclear in the U.S. electric power sector in 2022, link.

2. Add nuclear to the renewables and emission-free carbon sources account for almost 40% of the generation in the U.S.

3. The specific carbon intensity of the US electrical sector has decreased by 40% between 2000 and 2022, falling from 650 kg/MWh to 390 MWh.

New report has terrific news for the climate

nigelj at 10:08 AM on 21 October, 2023

Fred Torssander @5

"It's great - in a way - to have my suspicions and my amateurish comparisions between reported emissions of GHG and measured atmospheric CO2 confirmed by Washington Post no less!"

Yes although I think we all had those suspicions. However IMO while the under measurement of emissions is very concerning, for our purposes it isn't the big issue, because its been reasonably constant going well back. As I stated the big issue is the trend in emissions whether increasing or declining over time, and that trend is likely to be roughly accurate and the growth in emissions looks like it is nearing a plateau from data I've seen.

"Variations in atmospheric CO2, when and if such changes appear, will be hard or even impossible to claim this as an effect of human political (democratic?!) activity. "

Not really. Fistly atmopsheric CO2 levels have been increasing reasonably steadily except that the trend includes a lot of short term wiggles up and down, but those wiggles only last a year or two. They are a result of such things as the yearly seasonal growth cycle, el nino, and the occasional volcanic activity. But these all have very short term effects and known causes.

Once we see something like a change in this atmospheric CO2 trend that lasts at least ten years we could be pretty confident its because of reducing human emissions. It's very difficult to see what else it could be, because no natural cause of emissions is likely to cause a ten year effect on the trend. And if it did it would have to be massive, unprecedented volcanic / geothermal activity of some sort and we would certainly notice that.

"Even in the case that the figures and charts showing temperature confirmed the good news, they would have a margin of error +23%, -0%(!) depending on what the reporting parties (states/nations) pleases."

Temperatures will not be 100% accurately measured, but I doubt temperatures would be that innacurate as 23% out. Where did you get the number?

However I would say atmospheric CO2 levels would be a bit more accurate than temperatures (or emissions trends) and would be the most compelling proof we have made a difference provided we see a decent 5 - 10 year difference in the trend. CO2 levels are quite accurately measured.

"And worse. The emissions of type iii in my first comment, will be compleatly hidden!"

You mentioned el nino and volcanoes. But el nino is not hidden. It is a well known cycle and we know approximately what effect it has on CO2 emissions and its a very short term effect of a couple of years. El nino does not explain long term (greater than five years) trends in CO2 levels.

And volcanic activity is not hidden. Scientists monitor this activity. Unless there is a massive krakatoa sized eruption it is not a significant generator of CO2. Its more significant related to aerosols.

"Lastly: More power produced by "significant solar and wind power" does not neccesarily result in less power produced by burning fossil fuels.Remember Jevons Paradox!"

Jevons paradox says (roughly) that making energy use more efficient does not decrease total energy use, and this has proven to be true, unless you actively fight against the paradox. Germany has had some moderate success making energy use more efficient and also decreasing total energy use, but its required some tight government lead incentives and programmes. And Germany is very disciplined as a people, so other countries might struggle to emulate their modest success.

Regarding the wind and solar power issue, I'm not sure its strictly a Jevons paradox issue because we are not trying to achieve more efficent energy use "per se". We are substituting renewables for fossil fuels. So far those efforts have only stopped the growth in fossil fuels, but as wind and solar power uptake improves in scale, fossil fuel use will fall in absolute terms and has already done in some places. For example, Paraguay, Iceland, Sweden, and Uruguay and France get something like 90% of their electricity from low carbon sources.

John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist

Eclectic at 08:37 AM on 9 September, 2023

Nigelj @12 ,

Agreed. Michaux seems determined to assert that "renewables" are an impossibility, or at least a cul-de-sac, on the path to electricity generation of the non-fossil-fuel type. But the adage is :- half a loaf is better than none . . . it would be foolish not to go the path of wind/solar, while we are gradually developing newer technologies.

@13 : Clauser appears to be a climate neophyte, suffering from the Happer-Giaever syndrome. One wonders at his choice of ignoring the rich lode of information available per the IPCC.

John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist

nigelj at 06:10 AM on 9 September, 2023

Eclectic

"In comparison, Simon Michaux [referred to briefly in a different SkS thread, recently] does know what path we should be taking towards a wind-turbine & solar-panel powered economy . . . but says we cannot reach that goal, owing to inevitability of materials supply shortfalls. (We can't get there from here.)"

IMO Michaux is taking a very doomy, pessimistic approach to the materials issue. The crowd who wrote the limits to growth in around the 1970s were the same and proclaimed the world would run out of key metals like lead, zinc etc,etc, by the 1990s and of course that never happened. Lets explore why.

Now firstly obviously materials are a finite resource. Some of the elements are quite rare and so scattered in the crust they cant be extraced economically. Even the concentrated mineral despots of those elements are not common in the earths crust. So we have a problem and are at risk of running out of some things longer term.

But Michaux takes a particularly doomy view of the situation. He looks at known current high grade / medium grade reserves and says red alert we are running out. But he is basing his warnings on known reserves of good grade ore depoits. He makes insufficient allowance for our ingenuity in extracting low grade deposits, making new discoveries, mining the sea bed, extracting minerals from sea water (there are trillions of tons), high levels of recycling. And its highly likely we will get better at doing these things and in energy efficient ways.

Im not talking techno hype where anything is possible and we will conquer all problems. Im just taking the view that its very likely we will find ways of finding more materials.

If we do run into severe shortages of materials we will have to reduce our energy use. Michaux concerns do not seem a good enough reason to give up on renewables completely, and he doesnt provide an alternative if we did do that.

More than 100 comments found. Only the most recent 100 have been displayed.

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Comment Search Results