.png)
Thinking critically about sustainable energy (TCASE series):
TCASE 3: The energy demand equation to 2050
TCASE 4: Energy system build rates and material inputs
TCASE 5: Ocean power I – Pelamis
TCASE 6: Cooling water and thermal power plants
TCASE 7: Scaling up Andasol 1 to baseload
TCASE 8: Estimating EROEI from LCA
TCASE 9: Ocean power II – CETO
TCASE 10: Not all capacity factors are made equal (Part 1)
TCASE 11: Safety, cost and regulation in nuclear electricity generation
TCASE 12: A checklist for renewable energy plans
Thinking Critically about Sustainable Energy (TCASE) – the seminar series
—————————-
Why renewable energy won’t replace coal:
Critique of ‘A path to sustainable energy by 2030′
‘Zero Carbon Australia – Stationary Energy Plan’ – Critique (by Martin Nicholson and Peter Lang)
Another ZCA 2020 Critique – will they respond? (by Ted Trainer)
Key concepts for reliable, small-scale low-carbon energy grids (by Gene Preston)
Put all energy cards on the table to fix climate change fully
Renewable energy cannot sustain an energy intensive society (by Ted Trainer)
The problem with ‘Generating the Future: UK energy systems fit for 2050′
Germany – crunched by the numbers (by Tom Blees)
Danish fairy tales – what can we learn? (by Tom Blees)
Unnatural Gas (by Tom Blees)
Does wind power reduce carbon emissions? (by Peter Lang)
Wind and carbon emissions – Peter Lang responds (by Peter Lang)
Does wind power reduce carbon emissions? Counter-Response (by Michael Goggin)
Solar power realities – supply-demand, storage and costs (by Peter Lang)
Solar realities and transmission costs – addendum (by Peter Lang)
Emission cuts realities for electricity generation – costs and CO2 emissions (by Peter Lang)
Alternative to Carbon Pricing (by Peter Lang)
Pumped-hydro energy storage – cost estimates for a feasible system (by Peter Lang)
Replacing Hazelwood coal-fired power station – Critique of Environment Victoria report (by Peter Lang)
Accuracy of ABARE Energy Projections (by Peter Lang)
CO2 avoidance cost with wind energy in Australia and carbon price implications (by Peter Lang)
Solar thermal questions (by Ted Trainer)
Discussion Thread: Is the EIA forecast of 2016 energy prices realistic?
SA sets a 33% renewables by 2020 target
Climate debate missing the point
—————————-
I am vitally interested in supporting real solutions that permit a rapid transition away from fossil fuels, especially coal (oil will, at least in part, take care of itself). If the conclusion is that wind/solar cannot meaningfully facilitate this transition, why bother to promote them? Now, I should make one thing quite clear. I am not AGAINST renewable energy. If folks want to build them, go for it! If they can find investors, great! Indeed, I’m no NIMBY, and would be happy to have a conga line of huge turbines gracing the hills behind my home, just as I’d be happy to have a brand spanking new nuclear power station in my suburb. But why should I promote something I have come to consider — on a scientific and economic basis — to be a non-solution to the energy and climate crisis? That doesn’t make sense to me. So, to the ‘options’:
1. Coal with CCS — doomed to failure. Why? Because the only thing that is going to be embraced with sufficient vigour, on a global scale, is an energy technology that has the favourable characteristics of coal, but is cheaper than coal. CCS, by virtue of the fact that it is coal + extra costs (capture, compressions, sequestration) axiomatically fails this litmus test. It is therefore of no interest and those who promote it can only do so on the basis of simultaneously promoting such a large carbon price that (a) the developing world is highly unlikely to ever impose it, and (b) if they do, CCS won’t be competitive with nuclear. CCS is a non-solution to the climate and energy crises.
2. Natural gas has no role in baseload generation. It is a high-carbon fossil fuel that releases 500 to 700 kg of CO2 per MWh. If it is used in peaking power only (say at 10% capacity factor), then it is only a tiny piece in the puzzle, because we must displace the coal. It it is used to displace the coal baseload, then it is a counterproductive ’solution’ because it is still high carbon (despite what the Romms of this world will have you believe) and is in shorter supply than coal anyway. Gas is a non-solution to the climate and energy crises.
3. The developing world lives in Ted Trainer’s power-down society already, and they are going to do everything possible to get the hell out of it. The developed world will fight tooth an nail, and will burn the planet to a soot-laden crisp, rather than embrace Trainer’s simpler way. Power down is a non-solution to the climate and energy crises.
4. It is nice to imagine that renewables will have a niche role in the future. But actually, will they? They don’t have any meaningful role now, when pitted in competition with fossil fuels, so why will that be different when pitted fairly against a nuclear-powered world? I don’t know the answer, and I don’t frankly care, because even if renewable energy can manage to maintain various niche energy supply roles in the future, it won’t meet most of the current or future power demand. So niche applications or not, renewables are peripheral to the big picture because they are a non-solution to the climate and energy crises.
5. Smart grids will provide better energy supply and demand management. Fine, great, that will help irrespective of what source the energy comes from (nuclear, gas, coal, renewables, whatever). Smarter grids are inevitable and welcome. But they are not some white knight that will miraculously allow renewable energy to achieve any significant penetration into meeting world energy demand in the future. Smart grids are sensible, but they are not a solution to the climate and energy crises.
So, it’s down to nuclear, as detailed here. To some, the above may sound rather dogmatic. To me, it’s the emergent property of trying my damnedest to be ruthlessly pragmatic about the energy problem. I have no barrow to push, I don’t get anything out of it — other than I want this problem fixed. I don’t earn a red cent if nuclear turns out be the primary solution. I don’t win by renewables failing. The bottom line is this — if this website is looking more and more like a nuclear advocacy site, then you ought to consider why. It might just be because I’ve come to the conclusion that nuclear power is the only realistic solution to this problem, and that’s why I’m ever more stridently advocating it. This is a ‘game’ we cannot afford to lose, and the longer we dither about with ultimately worthless solutions, the closer we come to endgame, with no pawn left to move to the back row and Queen.
Barry, I like the choice of topic categories in the new set of tabs at the top of the page.
I think you should add your ‘Necessary Interlude’ post to the list above, as your response to ‘Mark’ in it is possibly the most concise and direct statement of why renewable energy will not replace coal that I’ve seen on this blog. Maybe even break it out as a summary for this tab.
Done, thanks for the suggestion John.
Incidentally, these pages have been there for a long while, it’s just that the old theme tended to bury them rather than highlight them like the new theme does.
[…] Renewable Limits […]
I agree basically with what you’re saying: we want electricity. but your power down comment is a bit one sided:
there is power down afghanistan and there is power down cuba or kerala-with life expectancy ranging from 44 to 80, great differences in education of population, women’s rights, etc.
“Renewable energy cannot sustain a consumer society”. True. So can anything sustain a consumer society ?
Consumerism and economic growth are inextricably linked, if we massively reduce our fossil fuel consumption ( which is clearly required ) and replace it with a similar capacity of nuclear generated electricity. What then ?
Still growing at 2 -3 % annually, ( doubling in 25 – 35 years ) – that’s without popultaion growth and increasing 3rd world demand ( and the 3rd world has every bit as much of a right to consume the same ).
There is a problem with this and nuclear power won’t fix it.
If you look at a future with significantly less consumption, energy efficiency and sensible resource use, then renewable enrgy becomes a more attractive, affordable and sustainable solution.
[…] Renewable Limits […]
cant find a emailadress or a contact field here so this is my only way to make myself heard. though its totally off topic, hope you dont mind…
In the autumn I have been working together on a project with KSU (nuclear safety and education) which aims to make YouTube videos of their brochures, first out is “ionizing radiation”. Swedes target audience is between 13 to 35. The goal with movies is to spread knowledge about the subject in a simple, flexible format that is easy to absorb.
We are so happy with the result that we now want to get them to the public, in my search for pages that would fit, I turned on your. I thought it might fit.
anyway. This is the result http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=DE82FF9404E57FF3 Swedish version
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=2F32241381ECC3E7 English version
Best wishes, George
[…] Renewable Limits […]
This may end up being the biggest renewable limit of all, especially if we want to have a lot of electric cars:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/09/china-tightens-control-over-rare-earth-metals-vital-for-green-technology.php
97% of the global supply of ‘rare earths’ is in China, and making a single windmill requires over one ton of rare earth elements such as neodymium.
I just noticed the comment at the end of this article by Stephen Gloor. Some here who followed the earlier discussion on BNC threads might be interested.
http://theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/56159
Zachary, on 21 February 2010 at 22.40 — Newer turbine designs won’t require that.
[…] Renewable Limits […]
Battle is rejoined – Mark Diesendorf has a piece ‘Time to bust some myths about renewable energy’ in today’s Crikey (unfortunately behind the subscription wall, but you can get a 21-day free trial).
Yeah, saw that. He pushes the ‘renewable energy deniers’ line hard. Unstable stuff.
In the opening paragraphs, Mark Diesnedorf asserts:
I’d assert that these statements are applicable to the renewable energy advocates rather than to the critics of renewable energy and the proponents of nuclear energy (which are often not the same).
My concerns with wind and solar power are that they are totally uneconomic, require huge subsidies, distort the market, do not cut emissions significantly if at all, and they are diverting our focus from what are the most ecomically viable ways to provide clean electricity.
I made the following comment over at Crikey, reproduced here for those without the benefit of a subscription:
I do wonder where Diesendorf gets his data from. I have read this “in Australia a square 30km by 30km, filled with solar collectors and installed on marginal land, could provide all of current electricity” before but just let it go as clearly impractical. But it is also wrong. Even Desertec said it was 50km x 50km and I thought they were being optimistic about future conversion efficiency. This is mastery of 0% truth.
The wind cost he refers to does not include grid connection, transmission and firming (standing reserve requirements). He likes to say the firming requirements will be supplied “with a little intermittent back-up from gas turbines” By his own admission in his book, a little is 25% of the wind installed capacity. So 1,000 MW of wind needs 250 MW of gas back-up standing around in case it is needed. But the 1,000 MW of wind power could have been supplied by 300 MW of gas in the first place so we have invested in 1,000 MW of wind to save 50 MW of gas. Sure the gas will not be needed all the time so there will be GHG savings but at considerable cost. Of course the other response is if wind is truly cost competitive why do we need a RET scheme?
“The prices of more expensive forms of renewable electricity, solar photovoltaics and concentrated solar thermal, are declining steadily as their markets expand, and are likely to become competitive with nuclear (whose capital cost has been escalating rapidly) by 2020.”
Isn’t that phrase “are likely to become” one of those “misleading assertions [that] are repeated, as if repetition of a falsehood somehow makes it true”?
The 20% wind energy for Denmark might be formally true, but the deeper question you should be asking is: Has this additional generating capacity actually displaced any baseload coal-fired power stations? I’ll leave you to work out the answer.
I’ll crosspost my missive here, as well:
—————————————————-
Mark refers to those who have critically and quantitatively analysed our possible carbon free energy futures and come to the conclusion, without prejudice, that renewable power generation systems simply can not meet Australia or the world’s energy demands, as “renewable energy deniers”. This is a transparent ploy to associate thoughtful quantitative analysis with the cranks denying climate change. It is an underhanded and rather dishonest tactic, in my opinion, which I doubt will wash with many readers. Its name calling, when the issue demands quantitative analysis and integrity t what the data is saying.
Far from being ‘myths’, the four problems Mark identifies are real problems, serious problems, with the engineering of a practical renewable generation system. The engineering shortcomings of renewable energy flows and the systems designed to harvest them are glossed over in the various plans proposed to get us to a renewable-only future. The gaps that are glossed over inevitably get plugged with fossil fuels, as in the example Barry Brook gives above.
We simply cannot commit to a one time infrastructure investment of tens of billions of dollars over decades, only to discover that we’ve wound up with a power system that is still critically dependent on fossil fuels and is a savage greenhouse emitter. That is where renewable energy will take us.
Fortunately we have a choice. The nuclear power plants China is now punching out by the dozens, quickly and cheaply, are safe, clean, carbon free power. We need them here, now. Or we could follow the Indian model, taking us to a virtually inexhaustible thorium fuel cycle. And Generation IV designs, such as the integral fast reactor or the liquid fluoride thorium reactor, will give more and better options in the future.
Ideas in science and engineering often seem very unlikely at their genesis. They often need strong willed, determined advocates to see their development through the difficult early development phase. Mark has been this advocate for renewable power, and is to be applauded for his efforts.
But there also comes a point where its clear the problems are real, they’re not going away, and that its time to let go. Renewable energy is at that point now, and this is becoming clear to people who have an investment in solving the climate (or peak oil problem), but no investment in the technology used to do so. The renewable dream officially died with the failure of Danish and German wind, Spanish solar, Ausra, and other large scale attempts that confirmed the validity of these critiques of renewable systems.
Mark, its time to stop spoiling our real hopes for a carbon free future – nuclear power.
For consistency, I’ll cross post my comment as well.
I still can’t believe that people who care about climate change can still, with a straight face suggest that ‘nuclear is the only way’.
Central to the concept of caring about climate change is the consequence of Intergenerational Equity; not wanting to stuff things up so that those that come after us have a harder time of it.
Nuclear power flat out fails on this count. The levellised costing numbers produced by the IEA that Mr Duffet quotes so religiously have a serious methodological flaw; they are based on Net Present Value calculations, and they ‘include decomissioning’.
NPV calculations are at direct odds with intergenerational eqity. The NPV methodology is based on the fact that money is worth more now than in the future and dinishes future costs compared to holding that money as an investment until then. Using the discount rate that the IEA uses a cost in 30 years of 1 billion dollars becomes just $63m. Make it 60 years and the future decomissioning cost of a nuclear power plant is $3million dollars. Does that sound reasonable to you?
If cost is so important, I need nuclear advocates to answer 3 questions:
1. What is the future cost of decomissioning? How can you be certain of this? How many plants have been decomissioned to date?
2. What is the future cost of long term storage?
1 and 2 are strongly linked as the radioactive waste from the desomissioning will need to be stored soewhere.
3. Explain to me how nuclear power can lower greenhouse emissions in the next 10 years; next 20 years. Ziggy Switkowski, nuclear energy fan-boy to the stars doesn’t think 1 plant, thats 1 plant, could be built before 2030. Why is Ziggy wrong?
Barry; I think it would be more honest if rather than saying ‘the awesome and totally objective Brave New Climate’ you said ‘my website’. Just a thought.
Further, I’ve looked at your TCASE series and I find it a load of crap and have pointed out flaws in it previously. If you are serious about peer review, I will do a full analysis of all your numbers and state why I disagree with them. Only if you promise to publish my rebuttal on your website. Somewhere where people can see it.
Eponymous, I’m not aware that you’ve commented here before – perhaps you did so under a different alias beforehand. You are most welcome to post comments/critics of my calculations and/or assumptions in the relevant TCASE posts.
Intergenerational equity is already addressed in nuclear power by considering how tiny the waste stream is compared to other energy sources. This is already true with thermal reactors, and absurdly true with fast reactors and LFTRs. Decommissioning is a standard industrial process, albeit with some unique complexities, and there is plenty of experience in doing this, for many research reactors and a fair number of commercial power reactors.
As to your point about how lower power will lower emissions within the next 10 or 20 years, it will worldwide, and won’t do much if anything for Australia. But what, pray tell, will?
Yeah Barry, I have had some discussions with you before, under my real name. For reasons of employment security I can only comment on this stuff under a pseudonym. I’m not happy about it either.
Just to make sure we’re not dodging questions of each other, I don’t think you’ve answered my criticisms.
‘Tiny waste stream’ is not a helpful answer. How much waste per reactor, per year and price per unit mass would be an instructive start. All I want is to create a level playing field in the levellised costing. I know of no waste stream from either geothermal or solar thermal power plants. Am I missing something?
I want to know of current waste storage facilities, how much they cost to run and how ongoing security issues are addressed.
WRT decommisioning, I want to know of previous examples of plants that have been decomissioned, how much that cost and how the waste was stored.
I don’t know how your final statement is helpful, nor do I understand what your point is. You agree that nuclear will make no contribution in the next 10-20 years. Surely this is a problem if you’re concerned about lowering emissions?
In Australia, despite how much people hate it, wind is likely to be the biggest contributor in the foreseeable future. It is mature thanks to European investment and just about cost effective, even without a price on carbon. I also expect that domestic solar will make a contribution of sorts, geothermal could make a significant contribution before 2020 and I hope some solar thermal plants are built by then.
I am not opposed to nuclear per se. But, I think you’re wasting your time and even being a bit silly trying to hold out hope for it in Australia. We have no nuclear expertise nor industry in Australia at the moment. The whole, complicated business needs to be built from the ground up. Also, Federal laws need to be changed. Why so much love for nuclear when there is almost no chance it will make a contribution in the next 20 years? Why not just move to France and see your dream become a reality?
Eponymous, if you are dissatisfied with my very brief response above, then I strongly suggest that you read other posts on this blog, in which I and others have taken pains to answer your queries above, in detail. The search box is helpful for locating relevant information.
If you do want to continue this discussion, it’s probably best to do it in the Open Thread or in a relevant TCASE post.
NPV calculations are at direct odds with intergenerational eqity. The NPV methodology is based on the fact that money is worth more now than in the future and dinishes future costs compared to holding that money as an investment until then. Using the discount rate that the IEA uses a cost in 30 years of 1 billion dollars becomes just $63m. Make it 60 years and the future decomissioning cost of a nuclear power plant is $3million dollars. Does that sound reasonable to you?
What do you think utilities do with the money set aside for decommisioning costs, Eponymous? Hide it under the matress?
Finrod, I strongly suspect, and I believe this was a recommendation/likely outcome from the Switkowski/UMPNER report, that the Government would underwrite the cost of decomissioning as part of the sweetener to encourage investment in nuclear.
Further, the Govt would definitely have to accept the insurance risk as part of the package.
Finrod, I strongly suspect, and I believe this was a recommendation/likely outcome from the Switkowski/UMPNER report, that the Government would underwrite the cost of decomissioning as part of the sweetener to encourage investment in nuclear.
Further, the Govt would definitely have to accept the insurance risk as part of the package.
Well that sounds reasonable.
Well that sounds reasonable.
I suppose I should clarify that I would imagine those recommendations to be a public confidence building measure which can be relaxed as experience is gained in the nuclear power sector.
Eponymous, you posted to Crikey:
Further, I’ve looked at your TCASE series and I find it a load of crap
OK. Can you please state what precisely you think is crap?
The figures in the TCASE series are clearly stated. Do you think any of the figures in error? Which ones?
The reasoning and logic in these articles are also clearly stated. Do you think any of these arguments are wrong? Which ones? Why?
You’ve made a very strong statement. I hope you will back it up with your reasons for making it. Posting in the appropriate TCASE article comment stream would be a good idea.
Personally, I’d like a levy based on the pro-rata decomissioning and waste treatment cost to be levied on each unti of output. The costs of disposal deemed for each grade of waste sould be separated out, meaning that high level waste would be a lot more expensive than other grades of waste. There would also be a bond to cover liability for damage up to something like the Price-Anderson levels and also to cover the possible failure of the company to comply with the existing regulatory regime.
The money would be set aside in capital guaranteed funds controlled by a state-based trust
Should changes be required the company could be ordered to make them and if they were unable to do so, the state could step in and make the changes using the resources in the bond. The company would then have to repay the trust with interest. If it failed to do so, the plant could be forfeit and offerd through tender to others.
Once the plant reached its specified lifetime output — say 40 years at 90% CF — the decommissioning cost could be waived and they would pay the cumulative waste cost only. If the company chose to decommission the plant at this point then the decommissioning funds could be used by the company to support this or build a replacement plant.
Why is this discussion starting up on this thread that is intended as a summary of the threads under ‘Renewable Limits’? To avoid discupting the layout of BNC, can I suggest the authors of these posts move them to the current active thread, or perhaps Barry could open a new Open Tread. Perhaps autjhores could copy an paste their comments to the new thread and then Barry could delete the posts from here. The problem with opening a discussion here is not only does it distroy the purpose of this thread, but it also misses the wealth of other information. A new reader coming here would think that this is THE discussion thread on Renewable Limits. Thwe current discussion on this thread is just one tiny aspect of what has been discussed.
Awesome Peter, creativity police. Way to kill a conversation.
Peter, I’ve got an interesting article here on geothermal. Where am I allowed to put it?
http://www.gizmag.com/raser-low-temperature-binary-geothermal-plant-goes-online/11612/
I’d suggest Open Thread 3. I’ll look forward to it.
[…] Renewable Limits […]
[…] […]