But there aren’t any fixes. They are potential solutions, but they are potential solutions that haven’t been realized yet. They have merely being tested at small scales. Solutions would be, well, nuclear…we know it works, we know it scales, we know how to do it and we know, approximately, what it would cost to do. Or natural gas…we know that works, it scales, and we know what it costs. Even hydro electric…we know all that stuff. We’ve done it after all, many times and at continent scales for large groups of people in the real world. Energy storage? No, it’s not here and we don’t know what that will entail, or if what we are looking at today will actually work in the market and be viable solutions. It might. It might not. Again, come back when this is being deployed (not conceptually but they gots engineers and workers building the thing) for 300,000 homes somewhere. THAT will be a realistic view of a solution that will be grounded enough and show costs enough to say there is a ‘fix’ for the issue.
Once again, there are fixes. And again I have to point out that a lot of the delay seen in deployment of batteries is because energy producers just see the bottom line and use Natural Gas as a way now to deal with the intermittent issue regarding wind and solar power. With regulations and fees to add the real price to using our atmosphere as a sewer then the economics will tell the energy producers that batteries make more sense. They actually make sense already but the incentives are just getting there.
Point being that the solution here depends also on tossing all the republican rascals out of power.
Well, I definitely agree that tossing the Republicans out of power would be helpful. Just going to leave it there…we shall see what happens. If this thread is revived down the road we’ll see where we are at that point. I hope it’s in a better place than today, all around.
Instead of demanding a battery that can power 300,000 homes, why not install 10 batteries that can support 30,000? Yes, I realize this doesn’t address every point in the thread, but one nice thing about renewables is they can be far more modular than traditional methods. Batteries in houses, batteries in buildings, a few giant ones scattered around downtown… why not?
Well, because these aren’t just batteries but facilities, so you are talking 10 facilities for 300,000, 100, perhaps, for 3 million, 1000 for 30 million and 10,000 for kind of everything. That, perhaps, seems reasonable (though this handwaves away the infrastructure and logistics and a host of other things) until you consider…that’s more battery backup facilities than there are power plants in total than the US has. There are only around 8,000 power plants in the whole US. Also, that is for 24 hours…figure, instead, that if we were to go whole hog with this you’d probably want a week, so scale that up accordingly. GIGO’s point was that there are alternatives, and that’s true enough…you COULD, for example, have, I guess, natural gas facilities on standby, though I don’t know how that would work out economically. I mean, you’d have plants that would have, presumably, crews and materials on standby not generating any revenue but just in case I guess. Or…well, the reality is probably that they would be in use and producing power and CO2 and that’s what we would actually get. That’s almost certainly the reality.
As for batteries in every house, that would be fine though VERY expensive, but also it would be a very distributed system. Let’s say we go that route. What happens to the poor people who can’t afford the good batteries if there is some event that causes, oh, say a few days of rain? Remember, the cite was talking about 30,000 houses for 24 hours, and I can tell you my Tesla Wall is good for less than 24 hours of my main household power usage during most months. Really, what it’s good for is for overnight in mild weather. It also cost quite a bit (along with the solar power system I have on my house), but it’s really cool and…well, I wanted it. I used to have a cobbled together system I basically built, but this one is…well, it’s cool. But, it’s not for everyone because of the total costs for the whole system, hook up and the pain in the ass wait for the power company to certify it or whatever the hell they were doing.
It does sound at least in the realm of the theoretically do-able. If we’d like to keep the number of ‘facilities’ the same as the current number of power plants, the batteries we’re talking about only have to be scaled up a little more. Now, actually deploying a system like this would present a host of practical problems, but what if the project were kickstarted with $1T in ‘infrastructure’ funding. No social engineering. No welfare or socialism. Just green power and grid stuff, because climate change is going to kill us all if we don’t. Maybe these are only at the prototype stage now, but how long ago did the smart phone debut? 15 years ago? And now everyone on the planet has one?
Now I know, you said scale up for a week of backup and I’m posting like you didn’t. Because, consider- instead of building out the battery capacity in that way, instead, what if every 10th or 5th battery facility were hydrogen fuel cells instead? We need to solve the intermittency problem, we need to solve the surplus problem, and to tackle both I’m suggesting building out the generating capacity enough to reliably top off the batteries and generate a lot of hydrogen via hydrolysis (I need input on what to do with the oxygen generated by this process). The hydrogen is a fuel that allows the fuel cell facilities to run 24/7 if need be, for base load, to recharge the other batteries, whatever. Countries like Germany and the US could store up hydrogen all summer and draw it down all winter. Sunny countries could produce large amounts of hydrogen and export it in giant globes like LNG. It could eventually take the place of natural gas.
I know. You’re thinking it isn’t very efficient to produce hydrogen this way. But the point is using green energy to produce green fuel, for the sake of a stable green energy system. Because, like it or not, the public has a perhaps irrational fear of nuclear power. We could call this entire project the Not A Nuclear Accident Power Supply System. We could sell this to the public with, “We all need to be more woke about energy consumption, but at least the next generation won’t have two heads and glow in the dark. Promise.” I know, the public is not a bunch of engineers. Then again, you gotta admit the bunch of engineers over at TEPCO got caught off guard and are facing a perhaps trillion dollar disaster that is potentially, if statistically very unlikely, the downside of every nuclear reactor.
The green way is really the only option, and so we have to make it work. Fusion would be cool, too.
In the olden days, when giants like LBJ and Richard Nixon walked the Earth, some Americans had integrity. In those days, the comments about nuclear energy by an expert on nuclear energy might have been worth reading for their merits.
I’m not sure “businessman’s integrity” is even a word in the dictionary anymore. Paid pimp for an industry opposed to nuclear power has comments about nuclear power? 
Wow!
Pull the other one, it’s got bells on.
I just want to put this in some perspective. Currently, the US has 60 nuclear power plants that produce around 19% of our energy needs. For $1 trillion dollars we could build…200. This is where I always scratch my head when anti-nukes bring up cost. For $1 trillion we might be able to build a green energy system including a smart grid and some sort of energy storage system (it might be hydrogen…I’m not opposed to that idea, though there are some steep engineering challenges storing the stuff as it’s quite corrosive) and all the huge number of solar panels and wind turbines and make it all work. Maybe. If you say we are shooting for, oh, say 50% green with this figure I’d say, yeah…we could do that. But 100%? I don’t think so, but maybe. I also don’t know what the time scale would be.
But, spend $300 billion and we could double our green energy with nuclear from 19% to, say, 40%…and we could do it in maybe 10 years. THAT is a major GhG savings. For an addition $300 billion we could get that up to 60%…alone with the presumed actual and realistic scale of wind/solar that would get us to nearly 100%…and we could do it. It’s not only possible, we KNOW it can be done. And this presumes we build the same old same old reactor designs. Some of the newer designs that, for some odd reason can’t be ratified in our system are actually cheaper…and safer too. But even building the old designs that are available and ratified we could basically be 100% or close to it in, oh, say 20 years. Tops (assuming any of the nuclear plants could actually be built and wouldn’t be held up endlessly in protests, red tape and general fear).
But then reality sets in. We aren’t going to spend $1 trillion on new infrastructure, batteries and massive wind and solar plants…at least, not on any sort of time scale that would lower our CO2 to the levels we need them to be at to avert the cliff. And we aren’t going to build 1 new nuclear power plant, let alone 60…let alone 200. What we are going to do is what we have been doing…we’ll build some wind and solar (we have built a ton, despite what people seem to think), and companies will work on energy storage systems that, maybe, will pan out an be something we can use in 20 or so years. And we will replace coal plants with natural gas, by and large, with some of that production being done when it can by wind and solar. And we’ll replace our nuclear as the last reactor is decommissioned with natural gas, with some of the production done by wind and solar. That’s what will actually happen. It’s not what many in this thread seem to think will happen, but I say someone revive the thread in 10 years and we take a look at where we are. Has natural gas fallen from 36%…or risen? Coal almost certainly will have fallen. So will nuclear. But will wind and solar have risen to fill that void? :dubious: I have my doubts since I don’t see anything that is ready for primetime to do the energy storage needed. I have my doubts because I don’t think a massive rebuild of our grid will happen that would allow power to be shunted back and forth across the country, instead I think that it will be something that’s done organically, sort of like how fiber was run through the country. Companies will start by replacing some of their infrastructure in some places where it’s needed, or if they are putting in new it might be the newer technology. And this might take 20 or 30 years to complete…or longer.
I am Septimus G. Stevens VII and I endorse this message. I’ve taken the liberty of bold-facing key sentences.
UIAM I think even some of the infamous left-wing lb**ds of the SDMB might also endorse this message.
Are any note-worthy D contenders endorsing such a message? What must we do? Promise to build the plants — big employment opportunities — in Penns & Michigan? (Or is fear of nuclear power so intense, voters would NOT want them in their state?)
Ok I mostly agree with this. I wanted to interject two key facts, both of which you will probably agree with.
Nuclear has several obstacles blocking it. It’s not just one.
a. Red tape
b. Capital costs
c. liability costs
So hypothetically, in your scenario, Uncle SAM/the EU government/the government of China all simultaneously reduce (a) to zero, essentially just front the money for the capital in the form of low interest loans or grants, and assume the liability.
What happens now? Well, the problem is that the uranium mines, the waste handling plants, even the plants able to weld reactor vessels aren’t sized for 200 more nuclear plants. So there’s going to be some bottlenecks. Even with no obstacles it’s going to take longer than the linear time to build 5 more reactors to build 200.
But these bottlenecks are all solvable if there’s enough money. So, fine.
The trouble is a/b/c depend on public opinion in democracies and willingness to take risks in autocracies like China. And if one of the 3 major powers keeps polluting it negates most of the progress by the other 2. (especially if going nuclear raises costs, which it will, or the free market would already select it, while the major power that decides to stick with coal or natural gas has an industrial and manufacturing cost advantage and takes all the business)
So while you’re correct in that nuclear could potentially solve the problem, it won’t. Public opinion has inertia and cannot be changed quickly. There is no possible future where your scenario occurs.
So, ok? I guess all we can do is hope for the best. You make these grandiose ‘doubter’ claims and maybe you’re right.
This avoids again that (and evidence was presented many times before) protests, red tape and general fear are not the main reasons why power companies are not seeing nuclear as economical nowadays.
Again, it would had started yesterday but by the incompetent deniers that are in the White House and the Senate.
But besides what should be done at the polls, there is still a lot that is projected to be done by the power companies.
That is what is going on in the UK, and the situation in the USA is similar but worse in what the incentives are going, and once again, thanks to the current sorry leadership.
As experts in the matter see it, quick progress is seen to be coming:
Mind you, that is looking mostly at what business are likely to do, as others reported, that rate of change is still likely to not be enough, because regulation and other incentives are not much assumed there from the government.
The weakest link in all this still remains the leadership that we have that has the power to make the deployment of new nuclear*, solar, wind and other renewables supported with batteries to become deployed at a faster rate.
- Yes, again it is interesting to me that many are not noticing that if Trump would not had been a climate change denier, chances are that he would had done the deployment of new nuclear (like in military installations) and with less opposition than the opposition to his useless wall.
Well, first off, we don’t need 200 plants. I pointed out that, today, we only have 60 plants, and not all of them are running at capacity.
I agree there are more obstacles than just red tape. But the biggest one is fear. Fear of the public who has been told for decades nuclear is bad. Fear from the investor who have seen money poured into plants that were halted, or delayed, or put in production only to be killed before they were end of life. Fear from the government, afraid of voter backlash, especially local NIMBY effects, but even at a national level.
All of your engineering objectives are within the scope of being technically do-able on a 20 year timeframe for the scale we are talking about…IF you could do it at all, which you can’t. That’s the rub. I’m well aware of the fact that you can’t. You can’t get the funding, you can’t get the support, and you can’t sway the public. If you actually tried, then the pretty much dormant anti-nuclear folks out there (why should they be active now? They already won) would come out of the woodwork. Fear of global warming and the consequences aren’t enough to mitigate the fear of nuclear that many have. It always was an irrational fear, but that doesn’t make it less real.
It’s the great irony of all this. Neither side takes global warming as seriously as it is. If they REALLY thought it was as dangerous as it is, then we would be building nuclear power plants like mad, and we would have been doing this starting a decade or more ago. Instead, one side wants to pretend it’s not happening, the other side that technology that clearly can’t meet our needs is the savior of all and focuses everything on getting pushing that, despite the clear fact it can’t be the solution, just a small part of a spectrum of solutions. I don’t think there is anything wrong with wind and solar…it just can’t be our main energy production system. It’s a niche system, and it always will be, at least for the foreseeable future. Nuclear could be a big piece of that solution. It could be, say, 50% or more of our electrical production mix, smoothing out the issues with wind and solar, and combining them into a solution that would dramatically drop our CO2 emissions. Couple that with the seeming rise of electric vehicles and we are talking a game changer that could offset countries like China in a big way, and would probably have a cascade effect.
But it’s pie in the sky. It is not going to happen. We wont’ build 1 new nuclear power plant (I have my doubts the one currently under construction in the US will ever be finished or produce anything). We will continue to screw around with wind and solar exactly as we have been, which means we’ll build a ton more, but the fundamental issue with them will remain. We will experiment with energy storage systems, and maybe down the road one will emerge that can be scaled to use…several decades from now. And we will cross the threshold wrt CO2 levels in the atmosphere and the 2 degree C limit in the next 12 years or so. And we’ll then have to deal with the consequences together. So long, and thanks for all the coral.
Or, I’m totally wrong and it will be unicorns all around. It’s why I suggested someone revive this thread in 10 years. Of course, what I expect to see if someone does (assuming I live that long :p) is both sides pointing at the other that it’s all the other guys fault, if only we’d have built more solar/wind or ‘who knew climate change was real??’, blah blah blah. We shall see. Hope I’m wrong and you guys are right…for all our sakes.
By definition, “several” applies to more than 3 items, so it is a bit underwhelming that there is talk there about needing “several decades from now” to find a solution with renewables and batteries (when there are already demonstrated ways to do so) and then demanding that someone opens this thread in 10 years to see if there is a big change… :dubious:
Of course if a change will be done in less than 10 years (and it is not the green new deal as it was voted down) then one has to notice that there will be a significant change by then. As it is part of the projections already cited in my previous post.
Besides a very, very significant change in about 30 years, the change can be done in less time if one other solution is applied next year: vote the denier Republican rascals out of office and specify that their denial was a big part of the reason why.
Nitpick.
Two things. First, there have been solutions to many things done in prototype or small scale that never get implemented at full scale for a variety of reasons, and battery backups for entire cities could very well be one of them. You seem to always miss this…something that is done as a prototype or on a small scale is NOT a solution…it’s a potential solution.
Second, I’m not demanding 10 years, I suggested the thread be revived in 10 years to see where we are at. I liken this to the Peak Oil debates with folks making predictions that we would run out of oil in some number of years. You are making predictions that wind and solar is going to become a major part of our infrastructure in a few years. You have the word of a power generation company on it and they made claims in that time frame. I’m skeptical. We could continue this dance, but seems reasonable to me we wait and see as you are convinced of your evidence, and I’m skeptical, as I noted in the last thread you brought all this into. I think that in a 10 year time frame we’ll know…either wind and solar are at, oh, say 30-40% of our total power generation, having replaced coal and the dwindling nuclear…or they aren’t. If they are moving towards that goal, if we are deploying an energy storage system on large scales and it’s just a matter of time before it’s ubiquitous, then you were correct and my skepticism was misplaced. I’ll be happy with that result, frankly.
Yeah, and that’s why we should wait and see where it goes. I gave my objections to your cites the last time you used them, and you basically discounted them and said they were meaningless, then brought them back up as if it was settled. It’s settled in YOUR mind, but not mine…I’m skeptical of the claims and skeptical that wind and solar can take the place of coal, natural gas and nuclear given the current state of deployments and where we are actually at wrt an energy storage system that can be built and deployed on the scales we’d need. I think healthy skepticism is warranted. YMMV of course…obviously it does.
So, what you are saying is that a hostile political group is blocking a technology that could make a real difference and stifling the deployment of said technology and keeping us back?
…
…
To paraphrase John Wick, I get it…
A very underwhelming reply after I quoted experts in the matter about what they see and project.
As the recent cite showed, 30%-35% is already the situation in the UK, showing that, once again the weakest link are the lack of regulations coming from the current deniers in congress and the White House.
Only that that shows to all that you do not read the cites. **The ones I posted recently are from other sources. ** Point being is that I do not rely on just a few (or the same) experts.
Based on what experts report, the bulk of the skepticism is only warranted on the likelihood of useless politicians not doing what is right.
Not quite, as the latest cite from the situation in the UK is, you have to realize that** with lukewarm support**, solar and wind are reaching 30% of the current electricity needs, 35% by 2020. By contrast, with the hostile congress that does not even declare this an issue (and with the Republicans keeping the Senate this is still ongoing) wind and solar in the US does not get to 10%, however, even with little help, that level is coming soon.
Since the technology available is the same in the USA and the UK, I still have to say that yes, politics is a big part of the solution because unlike the UK and other countries the US does not yet add a price to pay for industry treating our atmosphere as a sewer.
Well, my long ranting post just got eaten by the board and, frankly, I’m too tired of this horseshit to rewrite it. I’m just going to discuss one part of your post that, to me, shows how either disingenuous you are on this subject or the fact that you don’t dig into it or know as much as you portray.
So, instead of the sarcastic and cutting reply to this I originally had, I’m just going to lay it out. The UK is, currently, at levels of energy usage lower than at any point since the 90’s. In addition, the UK has a rather unique combination of geography that allows them to produce an inordinate amount of wind energy close enough to their large population centers to make it viable. Finally, the UK is also up about 15% in biomass use (i.e. they are burning wood pellets for energy, IIRC) to smooth things out. All of this means, basically, that they can’t be held up as a model that the US or, really, anyone else could use to get to that 35% renewable energy level you are touting. Also, there isn’t much room for them to expand from there…so, how do they get rid of roughly 36% natural gas and, still, 6% coal (along with the afore mentioned biomass)? They probably have a bit more wind available, but then what? Also, they haven’t solved the energy storage issue…they simply have more consistent winds. How do other countries get the winds to blow consistently for them, and also have a small island with populations concentrated in coastal areas that allow it to be used? Oh, and the UK? They get 20% of their energy from nuclear (well, as of 2017…perhaps it’s less today).
You didn’t, though. You quoted news articles. Oh, and I guess you are saying Greg Clark, the UK business secretary is an expert?
I didn’t post this in my now eaten rant post, but I found this article interesting. It is a Pros and Cons article asking ‘experts’ the question Can Alternative Energy Effectively Replace Fossil Fuels? It is a bit dated, to be sure, but I found it interesting anyway. Anyway, going to just quote a few of the replies. I found this one on the Pro side interesting:
Here is one on the Con side I found interesting:
There are plenty of replies in there, so feel free to take a look. Many are, as I said, a bit dated. What struck me though is that most on the Pro side are saying similar things to the first guy…namely, that it IS possible to do mainly CO2 free energy production in the US. But…they are all talking about time frames of 30, 40 or more years. Most seem to think mid-century is do-able. I think that’s reasonable…I expect that, by mid-century, it WILL be do-able and I expect that we might see that. I’ll be closing in on my 90’s by the mid-century, so I might or might not see it, but I expect it will happen.
The sad part though is, we COULD be at the same place now, or maybe in 10 years, if we could do nuclear. All of the issues with wind and solar, all of the drawbacks and gaps in it’s ability could be solved by nuclear. Combined, we COULD have a grid that basically doesn’t need any fossil fuels at all. But we won’t do it. So, instead, we have the promise of wind and solar, but look at the arguments used…GIGO is a good example. The examples are deceptive. I don’t know if HE is, but the argument is. You can’t hold up the UK and say ‘Look! If only the White House wasn’t in the way, we could do the same thing!’, because we can’t. Pretty much no one can. If, Japan, say, could do the same thing, they would. They WANT to give up nuclear. They want to use wind and solar. But they aren’t at the same levels as the UK either. Why? Big Oil? Perhaps they aren’t as smart as our genius UK brethren and sistren? Or, perhaps, there are more complex factors involved than it’s all Trump’s/Republicans fault. Not that I don’t blame both of those, but they aren’t the primary reasons wind and solar isn’t doing the same thing in the US that they are doing in the UK.
Last thing:
So, since you missed the irony, I’ll just say…it was a joke. A joke on trying to set the stage for possible failure by pointing at hostile politics as the cause. See, we are in a thread about nuclear energy…a system that WAS, absolutely, killed by hostile politics as well as systematic attack. Oh, I know you think you’ve proved it wasn’t, but pretty much it’s like a lot of this stuff…you’ve proved it to the faithful who already believed, such as yourself. Me? I’m unconvinced, as I’m unconvinced by the rest of your arguments. Kind of like you are unconvinced by my own. C’est la vie. I will say that I hope you are right and I am wrong, and that we do manage to reduce our GhG emissions to levels that allow us to avoid the 2 degree C cliff. I hope you are right and I am wrong about wind and solar too, and that we can indeed do it without nuclear. Time will tell.
Well you are right, that was a rant :), and really, so much for being a bit agnostic on this when declaring that we should wait. BTW do not say that I say that, I defer to the ones I cited.
Anyone can read that I was concentrating with solar and wind power, going to talk about biomass and other renewables is not what the point was. It was only to show that a lot of what we see regarding solar and wind got help from the government and thanks to the addition of the costs of releasing CO2 into the atmosphere with a tool like cap-and-trade.
Basically, I included solar (with wind) to point out that indeed there is a big factor that is being denied here. Government helps. And the current one in the USA is the pits.
Oh well, the point I made of you not reading cites stands then. From Post #71 (not a news article indeed):
Regarding your shooting the messanger fallacy against Greg Clark, he pointed at several other sources and this government study:
As for the Forbes article that you found interesting, it is, but as you said, a bit dated and only talking about solar; as it has been mentioned many times before, more than just one source such as solar will be needed to deal with the issue.
How much battery capacity is needed to run manufacturing plants in Alberta in winter?
What are the expected transmission losses in sending power from New Mexico to Alberta?
Of what will these huge battery arrays be made? How much will costs rise as more are made?
And you keep handwaving away technologies that will solve these problems. Nevermind that most of them (pumped hydro, batteries, grid upgrades) are already being successfully used, and many of the remaining ones (solid-phase gravity storage, compressed air, flow batteries, etc.) are based on solid physical principles and are close to deployment.
12 years isn’t happening. And 30 isn’t enough for a complete changeover. But in 30 we can get maybe 80% of the way there. Again, avoiding the worst is the best we can do at this point.
That’s false. Big batteries exist. Pumped hydro exists. Grid interties exist. They aren’t enough, now, but if we upgrade as we go, the grid will stay more or less stable.
You keep saying these are just prototypes or can’t scale or whatever, and that’s also false. Batteries in particular are easy to just pump out. The natural resources are there, and factories can be slapped together in a few years. Tesla has a big one, and it only cost a few billion dollars. Building a hundred or a thousand of them is chump change, but someone has to get serious first.
This just reinforces my point. If we can’t even slow the rate of nuclear plant closures, even for sites that aren’t at EOL, then is there even the remotest hope of opening new plants?
Ridiculous. The Pacific DC Intertie only took 7 years to build, is over 800 miles, and moves >3 GW between Washington and LA. In the 60s. We’re much better at this kind of thing now, and grid upgrades are one of those trivially parallelizable tasks, like road-building, where you can basically build the whole thing all at once and don’t even have to worry about moving your workers around much. They can go in the middle of nowhere and hardly have a NIMBY problem at all. We can and should be doing much more here.