Open Thread 16

Matt b, If AGW was codswallop there’s plenty of arguments to just keep on burning our abundant coal supplies etc. Well, I reckon there’s one very big reason to stop burning the stuff for electricity production whether or not climate change, global warming ,AGW are real or not. The confounded stuff has killed millions since the Industrial Revolution and still does .24,000 Americans choke to death on the other toxic muck [not CO2] spewed out every year. That’s a good enough reason for me to stop burning coal and to phase in nuclear, and not just in the west but in every developing country as well. National governments have to ask themselves whether or not they want a secure, emissions-free power supply. If they do, they’ve got one option, NUCLEAR. The renewables and still developing technologies have never, will never cut it. I wish we could get that through to our ignorant [they just do not know] leaders. We keep trying.

LikeLike

Tom Keen, on 9 June 2011 at 12:34 PM — Go ahead and scream…

LikeLike

The renewables and still developing technologies have never, will never cut it.

You know, statements like that annoy me.

I’m not going to try to argue with you that renewables cannot currently cut it – they can’t, and nuclear is our only current real option. (for anything approaching an affordable price, anyway!)

But to categorically state that renewables and other technologies will never cut it? That’s a big call. I’m sure the same was said of many revolutionary technologies back in the day. Take computers for example – that classic quote about there being a worldwide market for maybe 5 computers. Yeah, sure, the type of computer was completely different (valves vs microscopic transistors), but I have three computers sitting on my desk right now (this PC, my mobile, and a VoIP phone).

Before someone leaps in saying that computers are nothing like solar panels, or wind turbines, or whatever – I know that. You’re missing the point, though. I’ll tell you what I think.

I think that human greenhouse emissions are causing one doozy of a problem.

I think that the calls for a complete ban on burning coal for power are right.

I think that nuclear is currently our best option for a rapid conversion to low-CO2 energy, particularly with a transition to IFRs, LFTRs, and other promising options. Mainly because I think the CO2 problem is so serious, and so urgent, that it completely overwhelms legitimate safety concerns about modern reactors (note I said ‘legitimate’ – plenty of anti-nuke crackpots out there).

I also think that we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, and that we should keep researching & developing other alternative energy sources. We might find a breakthrough that means renewables *can* cut it, and significantly cheaper than nuclear. Unlikely, sure, but how likely was the development of the transistor? The laser?

Worth keeping our options open, while making progress with the options we have now.

LikeLike

MattB @ 9 June 2011 at 11:08 AM

Maybe it is a useful anti-tax tool to use on some random on the street in Tony’s big scare campaign but give folks here a tad more credit.

You must be joking. Why should I give those who make the arguments you are making much credit at all? I put them in the boat with the “Progressives”. Your comment reveals that is your persuasion too. Your comment is obviously politically motivated, and reveals you did not get the point I was making. I’d suggest anyone accusing Tony Abbott of scaremongering and not recognising that the entire “Progressives” campaign for a carbon price is based on scaremongering by the CAGW Alarmists, is so engulfed in their political and religious ideology, that they deserve little credit.

I posted this reply to John Newlands a few days ago. I suggest it is a serious argument. It was not given serious responses by anyone. Instead the response has been name-calling (“Denialists” etc): https://bravenewclimate.com/2011/04/16/open-thread-15/#comment-129226

The substantial case is presented on this thread, including in the comments:

Alternative to Carbon Pricing

Unfortunately, this thread was disrupted and closed due to a series of off topic and abusive comments .(inflammatory remark deleted)
There are also a series of questions here that were posted several times and but never addressed seriously:

Alternative to Carbon Pricing

1. How high will the carbon price have to go to achieve the 2020 emissions targets (5% below 2000 emissions levels, which amounts to a cut of 160 Mt/a)?

2. What would be the effect on the economy?

3. Where will the emissions cuts come from (e.g. 12 Mt/a from replacing Hazelwood Power Stations with combined cycle gas turbines (CCGT) and wind power from the total cuts required of 160 Mt/a to achieve the 2020 target)?

4. By how much would world emissions be cut if Australia achieved the 2020 targets?

5. By how much would this change the climate?

6. Would our trajectory of emissions cuts (and other benefits to society) be better served (i.e. deeper emissions cuts attained by 2030 and beyond) by taking the policy decision to remove the impediments to low-cost nuclear now, so we can rollout nuclear earlier, faster and cheaper?

7. Should all potentially viable alternatives be analysed, in a proper option analysis, before deciding on and committing to a policy and legislation?

These are intended to be sensible, responsible questions, not intended to be rhetorical. I suggest, and I presume you would agree, it would be negligent to support carbon pricing if you cannot answer these questions quantitatively.

These questions have never been answered or even seriously addressed.

I just want to add that actually no one is claiming that reducing Australia’s emissions by 5% will have any noticeable impact on global temperatures.

So why on Earth are people arguing Australia should impose a carbon tax now (see my twoe precursors written on numerous previous comments)? Is it purely from a moral / emotional perspective? Don’t any of these people realise the consequences of damaging the economy, especially when you have admitted it is for no gain? How can people be so irrational? That absolutely baffles me. That is why I give the “Progressives” little credit. They do enormous damage with the policies they inflict on society. It seems they cannot think beyond their single interest to the broader perspective of the consequences of the policies they advocate.

MattB, your comment reveals to me that you have not listened to the message I am trying to send. The Progressives are locked in repeating their mantra to each other. But they are not trying to understand the concerns of the Conservatives. The reaction on BNC is typical. I’d argue that instead of trying to harrangue the Conservatices it would be much more valuable for the Progressives to a) understand the Conservatices’ concerns, because they are rational concerns, and b) put your efforts into trying to convert Labor, the Greens, and the ‘enviornmental NGO’s to support a rapid transition to low-cost nuclear (LCOE cheaper than coal). That will require a deep soul searching about many of the Lefties’ policies and deeply held beliefs. But it is necessary if we are going to implement economically rational policies, low-cost nuclear, and all the benefits for mankind that go with these.

I’ll leave you and the other “Progressives” to ponder the wisdom of my points. Enjoy :)

LikeLike

Quokka said:

This kind of stuff is just a political rant.

Here is an example of a typical argument from a Progressive about what should be done with “Deniers”:

Surely it’s time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies.

Not necessarily on the forehead; I’m a reasonable man. Just something along their arm or across their chest so their grandchildren could say, ”Really? You were one of the ones who tried to stop the world doing something? And why exactly was that, granddad?”

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/the-dangers-of-boneheaded-beliefs-20110602-1fijg.html#ixzz1OQ1Upj12

Sound’s familiar. Isn’t that rather like what the Nazis did, before taking the next step?

LikeLike

MattB,

I’m still thinking about your comment:

Maybe it is a useful anti-tax tool to use on some random on the street in Tony’s big scare campaign but give folks here a tad more credit.

I wonder just how much credit you (and the other Progressives) give to those who do not agree with your beliefs and policy prescriptions?

Judging by by the tone of many of the comments on this thread, I’d say not much.

It shouldn’t be hard to join the dots and see why Conservatives react the way they do to the Progressives’ continual name calling, irrational policy prescriptions, and demands for legislation to force their beliefs on everyone else.

LikeLike

Peter Lang
Progressives (thanks for the label – like that one) may indulge in a little satire as with your quote re tattooing CC deniers but surely threatening to kill/injure/maim scientists for their research, when it doesn’t accord with Conservatives/Denialist opinions, is far more sinister and dangerous.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/australian-national-university-scientists-moved-to-safe-location-after-threats/story-e6frg6nf-1226069184389

I know Barry has received these threats too.

LikeLike

Peter Lang said:

It shouldn’t be hard to join the dots and see why Conservatives react the way they do to the Progressives’ continual name calling, irrational policy prescriptions, and demands for legislation to force their beliefs on everyone else.

I suggest you re-read your own comments – talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Surely government policy is predicated on the understanding that you are producing legislation which is approved by the majority. As things stand in Australia at the moment the majority elected what has effectively turned out to be a Labor/Greens/Independents coalition. That’s democracy – live with it!

LikeLike

MODERATOR
I posted the link as well as embedding the video, as it was my first attempt at embedding and I wasn’t sure it would work. You can delete the link if you wish.
MODERATOR
I left the link as it shows that it did come via Climate Crock of the Week.

LikeLike

Have just been reading the following paper: “Environmental and economic effects of the Copenhagen pledges and more ambitious emission reduction targets”, by Petersen et al, in Energy Policy 39 (2011) 3697–3708
( http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151100276X )

It states that Annex I countries (of which Australia is one, I believe) will experience a reduction in 2020 GDP of 0.13%, if they adopt a blanket CO2 reduction target of 30% w.r.t. 1990 levels, when compared to BAU 2020 GDP. The figure increases to 0.48% when you look at all countries.

If we assume that Australia would experience a 0.5% reduction in GDP compared to BAU, by adopting a 30% cut in emissions, then, using Productivity Commission projections for GDP, that would mean Australia would go from a GDP of $971B in 2011, to $1,204B in 2020. That compares with a BAU figure of $1,210B in 2020. So the net ‘cost’ in GDP would be a mere $6B, to cut CO2 emissions by 30%. And even that figure represents a growth of 24.0% over 2011 GDP, or 2.42% per year. Compared to 24.6% in the BAU case, or 2.47% per year.

Now, Australia’s ‘drop’ in GDP growth might be much larger, due to the reliance on coal mining for both domestic use & exports. I’m sure I saw a number somewhere (perhaps in Garnaut’s recent publications?) of 0.1% per year, which is twice the 0.05% difference above. That would put 2020 GDP at $1,199B, or only 23.5% higher than in 2011.

Maybe it’s just me, but that looks affordable, if it means preserving a climate that we can live with. “Only” 2.37% growth per year, instead of 2.47%.

Thoughts? Comments?
(Yes, I know that this kind of work relies on a lot of assumptions, which may differ substantially from one economist to the next)

LikeLike

Also Peter if no one listened to conservatives and the loony left progressives ran the roost then the target would be zero emissions by 2020 and total conversion to solar power and wind. I think you fail to see just how middle of the road a 5% target is… it is a sensible 1st step, as they say it is like driving a bit slower in poor visibility conditions, or taking out insurance. It is not going to cripple the economy.

Unless of course you think AGW is codswallop – then of course why would we make any cuts whether alone or as part of a global treaty. I get that but I am confident it is not codswallop… at which stage we move to solutions… and a tax/ets is a sound solution, as is nuclear power (the latter making the former much more sensible and lower cost but I think maybe it is just a necessary step and sooner or later people will realise what afolly it is to try and do it without nuclear).

LikeLike

Quokka,

No it isn’t. You spend too much time reading The Australian.

What a silly comment.

And the Progressives spend too much time reading, listening to, and quoting the Progressive media outlets – e.g. ABC, BBC, Fairfax press, Get up!, Crickey, the Drum, and a host of Alarmist web sites.

LikeLike

Peter: “The cost of the 5% emissions cuts, before the main emitters have reached an international agreement and while we are still opposed to the most important technology (nuclear) for cutting emissions at least cost is, in my opinion, reckless and grossly irresponsible. The costs are enormous, and few Progressives seem prepared to even discuss it.”

to be honest there is enough debate about this in the general political arena and media that I’m not interested in debating this here other than to say that I stuggle to believe that the Australian treasury and productivity commission have been so duped as to miss the fact that this is reckless and grossly irresponsible, with enormous costs. Nor do I see that it is not being discussed. I certainly don’t support any grossly irresponsible policies and would appreciate you linking to the material that leads you to this conclusion so I can consider them alongside Garnaut, Productivity Commission and Treasury, and general economic theory re: low cost abatement via pricing.

That said I don’t disagree with your post in Open Thread 15, but maybe this tax is the step towards public realisation that the way to avoid costs is nuclear power.

LikeLike

links are appreciated Peter – I’m interested but I’m just not interested in getting in an economic debate. I agree with your preferred solution, we just disagree with the current proposal. I’m entirely comfortable with a price on emissions and think it is perfectly mainstream economics. I agree (if I’ve got you right) that given the state of our energy infrastructure a tax/ets is a strange thing to apply when there are simple yes significant decisions to be made on baseload power… ie you don;t need a price signal to shift from coal to nuclear. I tend to think that an ets/tax now, however, will accelerate the realisation that nuclear is something that is so bloody obvious and doable (ie people will soon be looking for a power source that avoids the cost of carbon).

I just don’t see the demons that you do, sorry.

LikeLike

livinginabox

Thanks for those links – exactly what I was seeking.

(BTW I didn’t say that I had read Carter’s book)

LikeLike

@Mrs. Peps. The point to shut down coal plants is to shut them down. Weather or not the prices of the replacements are favorable, or if there are any replacement plants under construction is not the point. When you know that coal plants will be shut down, then replacements will be found. The problem with a carbon tax is it still allows a country to run 75% coal, but pay a whole lot more for it. When you simply ban coal power plants the only options are to run out of electricity or to build something else. You also have to be realistic. I’m not advocating shutting down 50% of the coal plants next year. But the governments of the world need to control coal power the same way they do many other aspects of or lives, with laws, permits and limits. They don’t need to go scheming around with taxes so they can funnel the money out of the energy sector into what ever else they want to waste our money on.

LikeLike

According to Wiki there was 335.8 GW of coal power in the U.S. in 2006. If you reduce this number by 1% per year for 100 years. That is 3.4GW per year. This is a manageable number. The economy is not going to crash if over the course of the next 5 years 17 Gw of coal is shut down and replaced by a combination of nuclear, gas, wind, solar, hydro or other tech. The biggest reason why we use coal is that it is cheaper than everything else. This does not mean that all the other options are expensive. They are more expensive than coal, but when view relative to what else people spend money on some are still relatively cheap.

The reality is if you want to eat cheap low quality food then you can. If you want better tasting higher quality food it will cost more. The same goes for electricity. If you want to use fuels that are cleaner than coal and oil you will have to pay more. Electricity has to get more expensive. Either governments have to allow the consumer to choose their power source, or they have to tell the suppliers what they can and can not use. My view is the regulation the industry will provide better results than taxation. Simply because history shows that countries where nuclear is banned, there are no nuclear plants. Countries where cigarettes are taxed into absurdity smoking is still prevalent.

LikeLike

Well DW, when you say the only thing holding up a rapid nuclear build in the u.s. is politics, I would agree with you, except for your adverb “only,” as if this is a small issue.

Is the difference between France and the U.S. here “only” politics?

Where is class interest in all this? or what is the connection between class interests and “only politics”? if you’re a marxist (me too david), you should say that the ruling classes in the two countries had different interests, such that a nuclear build in one country (France) was more likely than a massive nuclear build in the other.

These different interests might connect to a far more powerful fossil fuel lobby in the U.S., different resource endownments, and thus different potentials for “energy independence.” [in many ways a bogus notion as Robert Bryce shows though it certainly motivated France].

Most green progressives in the U.S. are green capitalists (Robert Kennedy Jr., Van Jones, etc.) but they are contradictory, melding anti consumerist, conservationist rhetoric with gushing tributes to green profits and green jobs (whose multipllicity is as you noted connected to all the inefficiencies of renewables).

I don’t know why you call the French socialists. More accurately, they would be called social democrats. Nationalization and socialism are not the same thing.

BTW, I’m for nuclear energy because it’s the only energy source that is for all practical purposes renewable, clean, and reliable. And I share your distrust of “de-development,” but on the other hand, I would not equate development with exponential growth or even necessarily growth (not saying you do either necessarily).

LikeLike

Re Bern,on 9 June at 4.20 PM.

You missed the point of my brief comment.I will rephrase it.

Many (but not all) things are possible.A considerably lesser number are probable.
While energy storage on the scale required for base load renewables is possible the technology for this to be built on an economical,let alone an environmentally friendly scale does not presently exist and it is highly debateable whether it ever will be.

There is an urgent requirement for a carbon free energy system to replace coal fired generation in Australia and elsewhere.Regardless of all the smoke screen arguments from various parties(some on this site) re carbon trading,carbon tax,what renewables can/can’t do etc ad nauseum this is the basic fact. Nuclear power is that energy system and it is the only proven one we presently have.

Here is a little analogy – you need to get from Brisbane to Sydney ASAP.There is a viable direct road.Would you advocate driving via Darwin,Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne as an alternative?

If you think the direct route is the way to go then cease floating dreams about the alternative.There is no time for such nonsense.

LikeLike

Test.

LikeLike

The surest path to eternal energy provision is from Nuclear Fusion! Containment and control are the biggest problems in harnessing nuclear fusion on Earth, but why overlook the biggest fusion reactor in our vicinity, our sun, and all of the ways to provide more than adequate energy from it? I know that it is diffuse and dispersed, but having pondered the problem in the year after my heart had stopped for 10 minutes while having surgery to repair a gashed forehead while under a general anesthetic, I would like you to view my conclusions at http://www.greenmillennium.eu

I recovered the abilities to walk, speak, remember and do all that we first learn as infants by staggering, walking and jogging more than 330 miles, the 3.6 miles home from work 92 times, in that first year. Along the way, my mind was very infantile, so it both imagined and accepted many new ideas, which now form the basis of my website.

The components of our genes have always existed in different combinations and recombinations, and will continue to exist as long as our descendents have children, making sex and the roles of women far more important than they are at present! And, we must begin to design a 100% sustainable infrastructure, or better, for those components in the Years 4000, 20000 and 20000000 as the Earth will certainly continue to exist at least that long!

Please get in touch if you would like to discuss the implications of the above and the material on my website!

Mr. Kim Gyr
Director, Green Millennium, humansolutions@greenmillennium.eu

LikeLike

Living off grid is what I’d like to do. I realize its not at all practical for all situations, but I think it will become more popular as energy rates climb. I’d like to see legislation requiring large corporations to cleanly produce some percentage of their own energy, and that required percentage grow over decade-timescales until it is saturated. In the meantime, I’m supporting celebate priests and homosexuals… as the energy problem and the climate problem is in reality a population problem in disguise. (deleted pejorative)

LikeLike

EN given the dead money that has been thrown at geothermal and CCS I think some of the carbon tax billions could be spend on a pumped seawater trial, neither too small nor too large. Say 300 MW (as per the Hawaii proposal) for 10 hours or 3 Gwh. A 7km diameter tank would take too long to build and the doubters would be in hysterics after a few months. A smaller reservoir with higher elevation may be the trick. I think it would have to be near existing transmission which rules out the desert coast.

If the reliability was good and the average cost was acceptable (under 10c per stored kwh?) others could follow. Seawater pumped hydro has the advantages of not requiring rainy mountain geography and it could just as easily store surplus nuclear output as renewable energy.

LikeLike

Re current electricity pricing – a quick look at the AEMO site reveals annual averages for many states are often above $50/MWh, with SA having a particularly bad year in 98-99 with $156/MWh, but hitting $73/MWh in 07/08. No wonder that they’re so keen on wind in SA, combine the RECs with a wholesale price of $70+ and wind is better than break even… (and that’s the annual average, mind you – there would have been periods when it was significantly higher, although I’d almost be willing to put money on that being the periods when the wind wasn’t blowing and they had a shortage of capacity as a result! :-)

Podargus: no, I’m not ignoring your point. I know that nuclear represents the best current path. I’m just saying you shouldn’t ignore the possibility that a *better* path does exist, we just haven’t found it yet. If you do, you’re in “why would anyone want to replace sail?” territory.

Note that I’m not saying that we should avoid building nukes because a better option will come along. I’m saying we should build nukes now to reduce GHG emissions, while keeping an eye out for other options that might get the job done as effectively, without the potential downside of nuclear (though the risk is small, it nevertheless is a real risk).

I’m also in complete agreement with this comment by Peter Lang:

If we want the underdeveloped and developing countries to build clean instead of FF generators, we, in the developing countries, must develop low cost clean electricity generation.

If the only option developing nations can afford is coal, that’s what they’ll use, no matter the environmental cost. After all, that’s what the developed nations are still using, despite being able to afford better.

LikeLike

Peter – yes I have a belief. Just like you, I believe what I think is backed up by credible science and economics. My unwillingness to get in to an economic debate is not that I’m not prepared to challenge my beliefs, and believe something else if I see warranted. I’m simply not an economist and would take too long to see your post, follow sources, review them, and post a reply. But I will do it if the argument is well made and referenced. Regardless economics is not a science in that there are genuine truths to be discovered, and I tend to think that whatever your ideology there is an economic model that suits the ideology and actually works (rather than science where there is a scienitific argument that suits all ideologies but only one can be correct, although both can be wrong).

I have yet to see any what I would consider to be credible or persuasive economic argument that a carbon price will demolish the Australian economy. Where is it?

LikeLike

Pumped seawater storage now,eh? No wonder Jesus wept.

I happen to live within a few kilometres of a major pumped storage power station which uses Wivenhoe Dam on the Brisbane River as the lower storage.The pumped storage reservoir is about 100 metres above the twin unit power station on the shore of the lake.Each unit has an approximately 3 metre diameter tunnel leading to the inlet in the pumped storage.

The pumped storage reservoir was a major engineering task with a long rock fill dam on the principal original watercourse and several smaller rock fills on saddles.Because of the terrain this storage has minimal surface area relative to capacity.There are not many sites in Australia with these advantages.

Folks,these structures cost a lot to build.They invariably have a large footprint like all dams.The Wivenhoe power station has the advantage of being within 50 km of of the market (Brisbane) and is close to HVAC transmission lines from the Tarong coal burner to the North West.

Where,in your wildest dreams,are you going to build a facility as efficient as this for storage of renewable energy? As for storage of nuclear excess capacity,why bother? I get the impression that modern nuclear plants of even Gen 2 vintage can load follow to some extent. Gen 3 & 4 are presumably much better at this.

LikeLike

Podargus the 1st such facility is described here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okinawa_Yanbaru_Seawater_Pumped_Storage_Power_Station
but curiously omits the interesting images of the octagonal upper tank. The lower reservoir is the sea which costs nothing to build, is unaffected by drought and doesn’t leak.

LikeLike

While most countries claim to support huge carbon caps, in practice they have resisted implementing them. The reason is simple: fossil fuels provide nearly 90% of the energy we use–the cheap, abundant fuel that powers modern farming, manufacturing, construction, transportation, and hospitals. The use of fossil fuels is directly correlated to quality and quantity of life, particularly through the generation of electricity ; in the past two decades, hundreds of millions of people have risen out of poverty because energy production has tripled in India and quadrupled in China, almost exclusively from carbon-based fuels. To drastically restrict carbon-based fuels, countries have conceded in practice, would be an economic disaster.

The world demand for energy is rapidly increasing. We need energy to warm our homes, to cook our meals, to travel and communicate, and to power our factories. The amount of energy available to us determines not only our standard of living, but also how long we live. Detailed statistics from many counties show that in countries where the available energy is 0.15 tons of coal equivalent per person per year the average life expectancy is about forty years, whereas countries in Europe and America where the available energy is a hundred times greater have an average life expectancy of about seventy-five years. It is well to remember that a shortage of energy is a minor inconvenience to us, but for people in poorer countries it is a matter of life and death.

The world energy demand is increasing due to population growth and to rising living standards. World population in doubling about every thirty-five years, though the rate of growth is very different in different countries. The world energy use is doubling every fourteen years and the need is increasing faster still. One of the main energy sources is oil and the rate of production is expected to peak in the next few years. There are still plentiful supplies of coal, the other principal energy source, but it is even more seriously polluting than oil, leading to acid rain and climate change. This combination of increasing need and diminishing supply constitutes the energy crisis. The world urgently needs a clean energy source that is able to meet world energy needs.

The people who are suffering and dying from the effects of the energy crisis and climate change are billions of the poorer people in Africa and many other countries elsewhere. Drought due to climate change is leading to destitution and widespread starvation. Even if the rains come, they have no money to buy seeds and livestock. With more energy available they could begin to rebuild their lives. The imposition of worldwide controls on greenhouse gas emissions is understandably resented by the underdeveloped countries. They point out that the developed countries industrialized without caring about the pollution they caused, and so it is unjust to prevent the poorer nations from developing in the same way.

It is pointless to rehash the renewables argument here: those that believe in these sources do so out of faith, those that reject them do so because of math. Real-word data, from projects already in place, demonstrate clearly that these diffuse and intermittent supplies simply have not met initial expectations. Nor is there any evidence that they can overcome their inherent handicaps in the time that is left.

The criteria used to assess viability of various energy sources are their capacity, reliability, cost, safety, and effects on the environment. One single source satisfies all these criteria: nuclear energy. It is the only technology that is currently available that can meet the twin demands of high potential growth, and low environmental impact, and it can be designed and built to meet the others.

I wrote the last two paragraphs, not to present the facts, since most reading this will be familiar with this position, but to to strip the argument down to the fundamentals to show how simple it is. Our choices are limited: we poison the planet, destabilizing various sub-systems resulting in what will certainly be negative impacts, we free ourselves form our dependency on high energy technologies, manumitting the majority of the population to starvation, exposure, and death, our we face the fact that the only other thing we can do is embrace nuclear fission.

In fact the only real question, is why we haven’t already.

The logic for a rapid adoption of nuclear energy is so simple, the shortcomings of the other options so clear, that it beggars the imagination that those in the halls of power are unaware of them. We can also dismiss out of hand the suite of imaginary issues that have been fabricated as objections to nuclear energy, it can, and has been shown that these are at best overreactions, and at worst false.

So what is standing in the way?

LikeLike

Bloody hell DV8 and Doug what a couple of doozies to end my working week on! Just need an inspirational sound track playing:)

LikeLike

My problem with hydro storage (or all renewable+storage strategies) is that I can’t imagine 6 hours being a relevant amount. Imagine a Capacity Factor time series. For any target CF below the long-time average, you can find the time interval over which the power generation deficit is maximized. That largest integrated deficit (with a healthy safety factor) is then your target storage capacity.

For example, if Germany’s Solar CF yearly average is about 10%, producing at about 2% in winter, then the target storage capacity if we want the Solar to be generating at near 10% is on the order of 2000 hours. I did not randomly add a 0.
On the other hand, we could accept a CF of .02, at which point the target storage capacity would drop to time spans of heavy cloud cover, probably on the order of a week or 3 (300-500 hours). I don’t begin to have a handle on the numbers for wind, although the 10 day gap noted in the videos above is, shall we say, not confidence inducing.

There probably are 2 local optimums: low CF (massive generator overbuild)+low storage or high CF+high storage. Once a reasonable statistical model for renewable output is in hand, one could take renewable costs, storage costs, gas plant costs and a target CO2 reduction-compared-to-coal and find the optimum mix and its cost (and finally, produce a cost/CO2 reduction plot, /drool). I really, really want to see such an analysis, and find it… problematic… that I haven’t seen one.

LikeLike

EN:

You are correct in pointing out that it was remiss of me not to explain why I considered your link had no bearing on the point you were trying to make, which, crudely, appeared to be an attempt to demonstrate that, because quality of life was not well correlated with tax rate at a national level in rich nations, a carbon tax might be benign. As I really don’t want to get dragged into this sterile debate, perhaps it would be easier to apologise than to go into a lengthy explanation as to why I don’t think your link was as helpful to your argument than you thought it was. All I’ll say is that nations compete and those that handicap themselves with taxes that are not applied by their competitors are, all other things being equal – which,of course, they aren’t- unlikely to thrive long term. The rise of China and the fall of the West (relatively) can be taken as an example.

On your second point, that, given Australia wastes money on museums and sport, there is no reason why it shouldn’t waste money on having an inefficient and costly energy infrastructure so long as it comes with a feel-good factor, I’m not sure, as a non Australian, how to respond. I can see why a small and unindebted population sitting on a lot of resources might justify this view, certainly in the short term. However, I’m a UK citizen. Our public and private debt are three times greater than our annual GDP. This debt is made possible by loans from other nations and is largely used to fund unaffordable lifestyles (health, education, welfare) apart from past debt servicing. This is unsustainable. The situation in the States and in many other European nations isn’t much different. It hardly behoves us to adopt profligate energy policies while we attempt to wriggle out of trouble by debauching our currencies before creditor nations wise up.

LikeLike

@Eclipse Now – The point I am trying to make is that this is not anyone’s local issue. There is a world of people out there living on the edge that are going to be more severely impacted, and impacted sooner than most of the West. However decisions that they make now, in these poorer regions will ultimately have a much more profound impact on us than is being considered.

This debate needs to be widened to encompass the fact that there are no islands anymore, and that we in the West have farther to fall if these pending issues are not addressed with more than what people believe, or what appeals to some ascetic. It is just not ethical on any level to continue to demand that the poor of this world pay such a high price for our dithering on nuclear energy and dilettantism with unworkable renewables.

***

Frankly I have little patience with white-bread middle-class posers living ‘off-grid.’ My sister-in-law and her husband were one of those, and were insufferable about how superior their lifestyle was compared to ours. Pointing out that their solar array was the product of a modern factory, and that both it and the aluminium and other metals in their wind generator would not exist without the sort of energy that only comes from major sources, fell on deaf ears.

However the real hypocrisy came when they turned sixty and their health started to decay. Using their government pensions (they were both public employees) they have moved to a townhouse, near medical facilities, proving that their minimalist philosophy was one of convenience, not commitment.

LikeLike

A general appeal…I make this once every few months to pro-nuclear climate activists: you need to go to the where the antis are…

I’ve had one turn up in my backyard. See the contributions of Geoff:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Nucleus-92/217013372725

I’m in two minds whether I should engage with him. He seems unwell.

LikeLike

“Because of the terrain this storage has minimal surface area relative to capacity.There are not many sites in Australia with these advantages.”

Really? these sites are nowhere near developed, if in the entire world there was sufficient sites for 20% of all electricity being hydro, I am sure there is enough sites for the needed storage that needs NO reservoirs built.

Not to mention the capacity factors of current existing dams would drop, allowing for more storage potential of a 777GW storage plant.

Still the argument asked is if was perfectly scalable and it is, seawater pumped hydro is, the question is the price since it does have to build one reservoir.

Storage is now beginning to be considered a solution for the NW US and Hawaii, states that are going for wind.

“As for storage of nuclear excess capacity,why bother? I get the impression that modern nuclear plants of even Gen 2 vintage can load follow to some extent. Gen 3 & 4 are presumably much better at this.”

If you use peak following plants you are making nuclear much more expensive, you would need plants rated for certain peak power operating for most of the day to a percentage of peak. The capacity factor would easily reach .6 or .7 instead of the commonly refereed to .9.

Pumped hydro is married to baseloads and renewables, there is no avoiding each other, it competes today with NG peakers and that is it, and probably an unfair competition because of LCOE calculations that completely discards infrastructure that lasts for hundreds of years, in favor of miopic operating costs.

@Peter Lang

The libertarian argument against governemnt is inherently unatural, human beings want well moderated governement and it is inscribed in their biology, and they want renewable energies even if the costs are higher than FF because it makes them happy
http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2011/05/27/aps-study-shows-customers-willing-to.html,

and even though there are a few libertarian stragglers that will always opposed even the slightly more expensive solution, they will eventually be shamed into falling in line, no doubt they will argue they were correct but in a soft tone.

STILL I still think 24/7 Solar energy in places with seasonal stability is the cheapest solution, but it follows this formula.

(Price per panel/capacity factor + grid related infrastructure (inverters, lines etc) + storage)/watt

Now you can argue that the later is too expensive, but it really is not! inverters are generally 0.6 dollars of peak watts,

http://www.google.com/products/catalog?hl=en&client=ubuntu&hs=JGP&channel=cs&q=SOLAR+INVERTERS&um=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&biw=809&bih=440&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=559602075817212043&sa=X&ei=5zjyTeepMtO4tgeLq-CRBg&ved=0CIIBEPMCMAI

lines can be minimized if on rooftops (nuclear needs lines too not everything is a perfect location for a NPP) and last but not least Storage 36 hour storage could be as low as 1.25 dollars a peak watt.

http://www.sustainablebusinessoregon.com/articles/2011/04/gridflex-plans-grid-scale-power.html

SO in the end solar could look like this using todays technology

(0.75 $/watt from first solar / 0.19 capacity factor) + 0.6 $/watt inverters + 1.25 $/watt in storage =>

(3.94 + 0.6 + 1.25) $/watt =>

5.79 $/watt FULLY NORMALIZED (ie you do not need to divide by the capacity factor I am sure some will inmediately claim)

Compared to Oilkuliotto which is 5.55 $/watt FULLY NORMALIZED.

So what prevents this from happening today? obviously First Solar is still in it to make a profit so their prices currently shaddows its more expensive competitors, but this is just a market imbalance once competitors use the same technology there will be progress for final price per panel to comoditize, Still you can clearly see that it is the price of the panels that DRIVE the price of solar, everything else is actually cheap and could be made cheaper (avoiding inverters and just using DC water pumps from local panels) depending just how low solar panels gets cheaper per watt.

In the future (perhaps 20 years) you could very well see, in places with seasonal stability, highly distributed pumped hydro plants being the ONLY source of power, with very cheap solar panels simulating the rain with DC pumps. (aka perfectly scalable hydropower) This would be perfect for poor countries like India in that it would limit the need for power lines reaching the rural poor. Since the reservoirs are small (compared to high scale hydro) and marine life is protected with grates the environmental impact is minimal only taking up land really.

LikeLike