The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Compact nuclear power units may blow wind away > Comments

Compact nuclear power units may blow wind away : Comments

By Mark S. Lawson, published 4/3/2015

Unsubsidised wind power can compete, on a cost-per-output basis, with the likes of coal and gas, while the other forms of green power - photovoltaics and solar thermal - trail the field by a fair margin.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All
Mark,

I have to humbly disagree with you on this point: "Unsubsidised wind power can compete, on a cost-per-output basis, with the likes of coal and gas, while the other forms of green power - photovoltaics and solar thermal - trail the field by a fair margin."

That is not correct. Levelised Cost of Electricity (LCOE) is for the generator only. It does not include the additional system costs of integrating unreliable, intermittent generators like wind and solar. Nor the many hidden costs that are transferred to the generators that must ramp their power up and down and cycle (shut down and start up) to back up for these intermittent technologies.

This shows a simple estimate of system costs for the NEM fo a system that reduces emissions intensity by 905 (to the same as France's emissions intensity) using either mostly renewables versus mostly nuclear (like France): http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.363.7838&rep=rep1&type=pdf

If wind was competitive, it would not need subsidies of $40/MWh plus a whole hos of other hidden subsidies to make it competitive. But without those subsidies, guaranteed for 20 years or more, there'd be no more wind power built.
Posted by Peter Lang, Wednesday, 4 March 2015 8:06:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark,

I posted my comment based on the quote in the email. My apologies. I posted it too early. Your articles is excellent.

Readers may be interested to compare prices for Australia from two CSIRO calculators: MyPower and EFuture. Both use the BREE AETA LCOE and Emissions Intensities as inputs. Neither includes the costs of transmission and the other hidden costs. Both show that, even without these other costs (which are much higher for wind than for nuclear), nuclear is by far the cheapest option and E Future also shows that nuclear would reduce emissions much more than renewables.

E Future: http://efuture.csiro.au/#scenarios

My Power: http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Energy/MyPower.aspx
Posted by Peter Lang, Wednesday, 4 March 2015 8:19:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
By coincidence another article came out today cautioning against high expectations for SMRs
http://theenergycollective.com/dan-yurman/2199841/be-careful-about-rose-colored-glasses-when-viewing-future-smrs
It seems to me that SMRs would excel when jointly located with desalination plants that could use either all-electrical reverse osmosis or the thermal flash distillation process or some hybrid. For example at one stage is was proposed to have a 280 megalitre a day desal plant at Whyalla SA that would pump water some 320 km to Olympic Dam mine. It was cancelled among other reasons because the SA grid couldn't spare the power.

I believe that between 2025 and 2040 all the large baseload coal fired power stations in the NSW Hunter Valley and Vic Latrobe Valley will need to be replaced. Even without full capacity replacement at the very least you'd think it would come to 10 GW. That's a lot, perhaps requiring dozens of small units which is hard to envisage. Perhaps by then lessons learnt from prefabrication and fast assembly of SMRs could apply to gigawatt sized reactors.
Posted by Taswegian, Wednesday, 4 March 2015 8:53:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An interesting article, but ultimately inadequate. The central generation model is already dead to all intents and purposes. Moreover, there are many other useful technologies than wind or even solar PV. Concentrating solar thermal, gas turbine, micro thermal storage, etc, as well as the rapid reduction in demand through improved efficiencies is going to see the central generation model come to a screaming halt within a decade or two.

On a slightly longer time frame, the decentralisation of manufacturing will see the need for high power reticulation to industrial areas decline to almost zero.

Talk of nuclear is like discussing the virtues of the dodo as a table bird.
Posted by Craig Minns, Wednesday, 4 March 2015 8:56:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark Lawson here.

Peter - as I know you are an ex nuclear power person I am duly flattered by your second post.. I know there have been attempts to compare intermittent and dispatchable costs but its all way too complicated for an article such as this. As you know dispatchable and intermittent sources are just in two different camps.

Using such sources cost extra and that's that..

Taswegian - thanks for that.. I'll look at that link..
Posted by Curmudgeon, Wednesday, 4 March 2015 9:01:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The power generators deal with intermittent supply since generation became modern. There is a bank of gas fired turbines of small scale to do just that. Power regulation is a 24 hour a day job. Supply and demand regulation. You have your base generators which take time to regulate, so short time regulation is done with small turbines which look like jet engines which are turned on and off constantly by a centralized regulator person. So there is no difference in regulation for solar or wind or any other sort of generation.
Posted by 579, Wednesday, 4 March 2015 9:21:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just one other small correction to the article.

Solar PV is now competitive with the cost of new coal power and is rapidly getting cheaper. Concentrating solar thermal ditto, with the added benefit of offering energy storage. Solar PV and CST together can come very close to matching load demand across the diurnal cycle in some areas. Other renewable/recovery technologies, like energy recovery from water reticulation pipelines are valuable adjuncts to meet peak demands, while local generation via gas turbines can both supplement and if necessary, replace renewables when conditions are unfavourable, such as extended overcast or lack of wind.

Distributed generation is massively more power-efficient. The generation efficiency is about the same or better than for central plants, but there is almost no reticulation loss and the maintenance regime for small plants is much less onerous, meaning that there is no need to build enormous redundancy into central plants. In addition, small plants can be wound up and wound down much more rapidly and flexibly, so the need for load banks to maintain turbine output during low demand periods is much reduced.

I could go on for a lot longer about this, Mark. While I recognise that you are in this case acting as an "urger" for nuclear, I'm also sure that as a competent and responsible journalist you'll be interested in seeking out the facts. Please do so.
Posted by Craig Minns, Wednesday, 4 March 2015 9:42:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is interesting but not surprising to see that the pro-renewables team have weighed in with opinion but without references to independently obtained, peer reviewed data and analysis. They have adopted the antiscience methodology of the pro-tobacco lobbies of yesteryear.

It is no surprise to see that inconvenient facts, such as LCOE calculations from organisations such as BREE and CSIRO, are waved away by optimists who remain steadfastly convinced that opinion trumps all else.

Peter Lang's comments are spot on. I agree with the author that this is not the time and place to ram home argument regarding detail of systemic advantages of nuclear (SMR) technologies over less reliable and unschedulable PV and wind, but I must correct one common misconception.

Nuclear power has been operated in load-following mode for at least 4 decades. There is nothing magic about matching the steam rate and pressure at the turbine with the desired load, as has been demonstrated by the French. The concept of Base Load primarily refers to the ABILITY of baseload plant to run continually at or near a planned set point. It has little to do with whether that set point is at 100% or some lower value of the nameplate rating of the generating unit.

Non-baseload units ALWAYS need standby plant such as fossil fuelled gas turbines or large hydro plant in order for the overall system to achieve that level of reliability which is essential for any stable networked system.
Posted by JohnBennetts, Wednesday, 4 March 2015 11:18:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Craig; you seem to be the one needed to reacquaint himself with the facts?

Before you post again, please Google, thorium cheaper than coal.

An authoritative article written by a physicist, describes The 1950's technology.

And informs that small mass produced modules, connected to very local micro grids can reduce industrial energy costs by around 50% or better.

The great white elephant of a national grid, all but doubles the end user cost of energy, given transmission losses; and is extremely vulnerable to attack by miscreants, given one just needs to take out a remote, impossible to defend pylon, to shut down huge swathes of it!

Very localized options don't have that problem, and are not disadvantaged by their distance from a centralized mega unit.

Moreover, and given liquid thorium reactors consume most of their fuel, very little waste is created; and such as is produced, is vastly less toxic and eminently suited as long life space batteries!

Given the largest cost to (ship/sub/car) manufacturing is the energy bill; halving it will bring a lot of it back to this country!

And even more so, when we summon enough courage to finally reform the tax collection model; to eliminate all the unproductive and parasitical practice; and the inevitable compliance costs (7% of the bottom line) they create.

Of course those benefiting from these gravy trains are going to find all the "imaginable reasons" to continue with the, money for jam, status quo!

And advances have allowed economies of scale solar thermal plants, to compete successfully with coal fired options; and as 24/7 suppliers, thanks to the heat retaining abilities of liquid thorium/fluoride salts!

Finally, we could halve yet again the cost of domestic energy, just by converting problematic biological waste into endless energy, and endless free hot water!

It beggars belief, that people want to endlessly argue the respective merits of renewable wind and solar, yet leave this vastly cheaper, endlessly sustainable option off the table!

Why? Maybe because it completely eliminates the middle man profit taker; and provides whisper quiet energy on demand?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Wednesday, 4 March 2015 11:21:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If human beings could be trusted we could have limitless power from tiny batteries that will last for thousands of years.
A tiny tiny piece of Plutonium surrounded by Photoelectric cells will power your mobile phone forever. Same for cars, trains, factories, houses everything.
But.
It would be easy for anyone to gather and combine enough Plutonium to wipe out whole suburbs and make whole cities uninhabitable.

Compact nuclear plants have the same, and more, problems.
Posted by mikk, Wednesday, 4 March 2015 11:25:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How long will it be before those small reactors have the ability to do that? It's been promised for decades but still seems as far away as ever. Once we see how well they work in Europe, they might be worth considering here, but renewable energy technology will have moved on by then.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Rhosty, why not improve the efficiency of those micro grids by linking them together to form a national grid? Electricity transmission is more efficient than battery storage.
Posted by Aidan, Wednesday, 4 March 2015 12:01:04 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We do not need to play around with toxic materials to generate power. Household battery banks will be on the market at the end of this year, from Japan already to plug and play.

2 % of electricity goes missing from distribution which the consumer pays for, plus over generation which can’t be payd for.

Solar, wind and hydro take precedence over coal as the former can not be switched off. This is why the generators of coal power are feeling the pinch. Consumers will go by way of storage and disconnect from grid power. Solar panels are cheap and effective, it won’t be long we will have power producing paint.

Individuals like the fact they can have control of their power supply and sell excess to neighbors. Solar has opened a gigantic kan of wormies
Posted by 579, Wednesday, 4 March 2015 12:07:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mikk began off-topic and then descended into farce.

Anybody who is even slightly familiar with small modular reactors (SMR's) knows that the radioactive components are extremely well secured. Anybody trying to gain entry will be dead long before he reaches his objective. The chance of an SMR somehow wiping out a suburb is way below that of an asteroid doing the same... approximately zero, zip, nada.

This kind of apocalyptic vision is faulty - as faulty as the fossil fuel industry's tendency to ignore the global annual death count that is a consequence of their businesses. These deaths are real, happening now and are arguably in the hundreds of thousands.
Posted by JohnBennetts, Wednesday, 4 March 2015 12:11:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhrosty, it has nothing to do with thorium vs coal, but with distributed vs central distribution.

I have no problem with the idea of nuclear, especially in the short term, but ultimately we need to decouple from the fossil sources, whether organic or metallic.

JohnBennet, I'm not interested in having a silly renewables vs fossil fuels quasi-religious discussion. All I'm interested in is how to create the most efficient system that will be sustainable into the future on as many vectors as possible.

On that basis, the central generation model fails, whatever the source of power for the generators is.

PV and other photosensitive technologies will become ubiquitous and by ubiquitous I mean that there will be almost no part of the built environment that does not generate electricity via a coating or as part of its structure.

Nuclear or any other generation mode will be a relatively short-term stop-gap and perhaps a needed adjunct in areas of especially poor suitability for PV.
Posted by Craig Minns, Wednesday, 4 March 2015 12:11:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Readers wanting to dig a little deeper into this topic, plus a spirited discussion string may wish to do so at http://bravenewclimate.com/2015/02/25/the-argument-for-nuclear-energy-in-australia/#more-6598.

Brave New Climate is a well-known climate/nuclear/environmental Australian site with an international readership.
Posted by JohnBennetts, Wednesday, 4 March 2015 12:19:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark Lawson here

Craig Minns - where did you get the idea that the central general model is dead? Sorry, it isn't. You point to mainly micro-generation, renewable technologies backed by small gas turbines as an alternative.. now that might work, if anyone is going to do it that way and they have enough small gas turbines (and a gas supply), but it would be very expensive. One reason you have the big base-load plants is because they're cost effective.

You also say PVs are now cost competitive with other technologies. Sorry but that's also wrong. You must be quoting activist material. The material I quote in the story is clear. On a levelised cost basis PVs lag way behind, even before you take intermittency into account.

I saw last year a newspaper article claiming that PVs had a similar cost per installed megawatt to coal in NSW. If that's true then it actually means that PVs are five times more expensive than coal power on a capital basis, once you take capacity factors (average output) into account.

Mikk - so you want to get rid of toxic material by introducing more toxic material - PVs and batteries, which have to be recycled eventually. Interesting approach.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Wednesday, 4 March 2015 12:38:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Those who think solar and batteries will save us should look at some near realtime electricity consumption data for the eastern states
http://empowerme.org.au/market.html#
The lowest consumption is typically around 2-4 a.m. when the sun doesn't shine. When I add today's minimum demand for Qld, NSW, Vic, SA and Tas it comes to 17,000 MW. Given that Australia's total solar generation is thought to be 4,000 MW which works bests in the middle of sunny days and not at night I'd say we have a way to go. That's before even considering the battery requirement. Think harder about how we can replace coal and gas for electricity and oil for transport.
Posted by Taswegian, Wednesday, 4 March 2015 1:12:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark,
I attended a very good seminar given by Engineers Australia on precisely that among some other things only a week or so ago.

The consensus view, among electricity generating firms and among engineers generally, is that within 10 years we will see the last central generation plant built in the West. I could look up the references if you're interested. They include the power generation and distribution companies themselves. Government organisations are not good sources, because they use lagging data, which is simply not much use in a field which is experiencing rapid and even exponential change.

For a really clear example of the impact of efficiencies, bear in mind that the UK has closed several central power plants over the past couple of years as demand has dropped and will not be replacing them. We here have seen declining demand as well.

PV costs are rapidly dropping and will see a step change with the commercialisation of dye-sensitised and organic cells. Even silicon is becoming competitive with new coal on a lifetime cost basis. Old coal plants, which are already fully amortised are in a different position, but this will rapidly change, especially in a political regime that properly treats waste emissions, whatever the nucleotide.

Battery storage will become widespread with the adoption of electric vehicle technologies and with really ubiquitous PV generation the impact of weather variability is readily mitigated by adoption of an efficient HV DC "ring main" system.

The point I have been making is that there are a number of sources that will become important, possibly including nuclear, but by no means necessarily. Gas turbines and other on-site "instant-on" systems will be much more likely.
Posted by Craig Minns, Wednesday, 4 March 2015 1:26:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Craig, thanks for offering to provide references to support your opinions, which run contrary to my experiences gained through decades as an engineer in the power industry. Please do so.
Posted by JohnBennetts, Wednesday, 4 March 2015 1:51:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Craig, what branch of EA was it?
And does the West in this context mean the western world? Or does it mean WA? I could easily believe the latter (considering its low population density) but extraordinary evidence would be required to convince me of the former.
The UK is looking to build more nuclear power stations to replace those that are closing down. Or more specifically, England is. Scotland, with its lower population density, plans to rely on wind instead.
Posted by Aidan, Wednesday, 4 March 2015 2:08:55 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
IT’s interesting to note that solar panels can be activated with LED OR Flouro lighting .
It should be a requirement of building regulations that solar hot water and electricity comes with the construction of a house.
Posted by 579, Wednesday, 4 March 2015 3:55:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark Lawson here
Craig - I'd have to join with the others who have commented and note that I think what's happened is that you've misunderstood one of the presentations at this conference. Go back and look at the exact wording. You may well find that it says IF when went down this path then it could happen in 10 years. No-one else in the market is doing this - not even Denmark or California who are much further along the renewable path than we are - and no hint that anyone is going to.

So you've misunderstood something. You'd better go back and re-read the material. Leave it with you.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Wednesday, 4 March 2015 4:07:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Look at Slide 10 on this presentation. Also notice the irony in Slide 14:

http://canadianenergyissues.com/2014/01/29/how-much-does-it-cost-to-reduce-carbon-emissions-a-primer-on-electricity-infrastructure-planning-in-the-age-of-climate-change/

Slide 10 shows the price of electricity on the horizontal axis and the CO2 emissions intensity of electricity per country/state on the vertical axix. The numbers in the circles are the emissions intensity of each country/state.
Posted by Peter Lang, Wednesday, 4 March 2015 6:27:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Deutshe Bank has produced another major report that suggests solar will become the dominant electricity source around the world as it beats conventional fuels, generates $5 trillion in revenue over the next 15 years, and displaces large amounts of fossil fuels.

In a detailed, 175-page report, the Deutsche analysts led by Vishal Shah say the market potential for solar is massive. Even now, with 130GW of solar installed, it accounts for just 1 per cent of the 6,000GW, or $2 trillion electricity market (that is an annual figure)
The case for solar will be boosted by the emergence of cost-competitive storage, which Deutsche describes as the “next killer app” because it will overcome difficulties in either accessing the grid or net metering policies.

“We believe reduction(a) in solar storage costs could act as a significant catalyst for global solar adoption, particularly in high electricity markets such as Europe,” it writes.

“As we look out over the next 5 years, we believe the industry is set to experience the final piece of cost reduction – customer acquisition costs for distributed generation are set to decline by more than half as customer awareness increases, soft costs come down and more supportive policies are announced.
Posted by 579, Thursday, 5 March 2015 7:06:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
579
The reports of the type you refer to are legion. There are any number of trained analysts pumping out hopeful projections about solar and PVs, as that's what their customers want to hear. Some states (California, Denmark, South Australia) are aiming for or have attained a 30 per cent green power penetration. Denmark and SA might even be able to increase this but for the larger systems of which they are a part 10 per cent maybe. They're aiming for 25 per cent in Aus but that's being hopeful and requires the full conventional network to be in place. Legislation and subsidies will prop up these immense green enthusiasms, but if the public should lose interest in for paying for it all, the whole thing will collapse.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 5 March 2015 9:37:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It shows the diversity of solar not being restricted to any sort of pattern or location. If people start disconnecting houses from the grid where does that leave gigantic power generation.

It will become that expensive that it will price itself out of contention. A lot of people are going to become power sufficient and they really like the idea, of having control of your own expenses. More and more solar is being installed on hospital and industrial roof space. It makes good sense and generation is free.

It may make more sense for industry to use grid power to drive a generator + solar.
With battery banking coming onto the market later this year from Japan a whole new equation could be on the verge of happening, for household.
Posted by 579, Thursday, 5 March 2015 10:35:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
579,

Apart from being very expensive, solar is not sustainable:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/
Posted by Peter Lang, Thursday, 5 March 2015 10:40:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The 13.4 MW plant is the latest in a growing number of swimming solar projects.

Julia Pyper
December 24, 2014
Solar PV is rapidly expanding its footprint. Panels are coming to more rooftops, industrial parks, carports and even backpacks. It’s also, increasingly, being installed on top of water.

Kyocera Corporation and Century Tokyo Leasing Corporation announced this week that Kyocera TCL Solar, a joint venture between the two companies, will develop a 13.4-megawatt floating solar power plant in Japan’s Yamakura Dam reservoir near Tokyo. The plant will become the largest floating solar installation in the world.

It’s 38 °C on the Atsumi Peninsula southwest of Tokyo: a deadly heat wave has been gripping much of Japan late this summer. Inside the offices of a newly built power plant operated by the plastics company Mitsui Chemicals, the AC is blasting. Outside, 215,000 solar panels are converting the blistering sunlight into 50 megawatts of electricity for the local grid. Three 118-meter-high wind turbines erected at the site add six megawatts of generation capacity to back up the solar panels during the winter.

Chris Marshalk • a year ago
At least the Japanese are trying to be innovative. Unlike the Backwards Australian Government destroying the car industry and butchering the economy.

Solar and wind is a work in progress unlike other would be projects which have not started.
You are selling solar short of it’s potential, but as far as household solar + storage go it is on track.
Posted by 579, Thursday, 5 March 2015 12:29:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
579,

You've already been told, you can quote a virtually unlimited number of articles by enthusiasts and gullible believers in the RE dogma. What you need to do is to think for yourself. Challenge your beliefs and what you read. Do your own reality checks.

Solar power is very expensive, very high cost way to save CO2 emissions, and most important of all it is not sustainable. It does not have a high enough EROEI to provide the energy for modern society. This means it cannot provide much of the world's energy and is totally dependent on fossil fuels for its operation.

I doubt you'll understand any of this. So be it. They are the facts.
Posted by Peter Lang, Thursday, 5 March 2015 12:48:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Lang,

Solar power is not very expensive. Indeed solar PV has lower ongoing costs than any other electricity source. The claim that it does not have a high enough EROEI to provide the energy for modern society is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the significance of EROEI. And the claim that it's not sustainable is nothing more than a lie.
Posted by Aidan, Thursday, 5 March 2015 1:12:37 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I thought there would be some sort of denier logic going on here. It took a while to come out. He would rather back something that could take another fifty years to come to fruition, than something we have now. Some people should wear tags.
Solar is alive and well, expanding by the day, and with an incredible lifespan, not to mention free generation
Posted by 579, Friday, 6 March 2015 7:03:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
579,

It ius you that is the denier. You make unsubstantiated claims and claims from advocacy web sites about your beliefs. But you haven't a clue what you are talking about. You clearly haven't assimilated the cost comparisons I've provided and simply don't understand that you have to compare the system costs not the LCOE of the individual technologies.

Aiden,

The latest and largest solar thermal plants in the world cost about $19/W average power delivered. Compare that with about three to four times for nuclear.

Did you read the post by Professor John Morgan, and the underlying authoritative paper? Did you understand therm. Do you have any serious error that would significantly change the conclusions - i.e. a new one that hasn't been raised and debated at length in the literature already?

"Denier" describes your comments, 579 and Aiden. You might want to consider that others will interpret such comments as saying more about you than the person(s) you are addressing them to.
Posted by Peter Lang, Friday, 6 March 2015 7:48:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JohnBennett, I'm still chasing up those references. They were presented during the seminar, but I didn't note them, so I've got to get in touch with the speakers. I hope to have some time today to do that, but it may be next week.

Aidan, the seminar was at the EA offices in Brisbane.
http://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/events/sustainability-practical-engineering-series-2-energy-manufacturing-and-infrastructure?utm_medium=email&utm_source=ExactTarget&utm_campaign=EPevents_NCAM_210115

Mark, yes, there was an element of extrapolation from existing technology in the predictions, but in my view these were not unreasonable. In the fields of turbine power, fuel cell storage and particularly solar technology there are rapid advances being made in both structural and chemical/metallurgical aspects of design. Similarly, storage technologies are rapidly maturing. In my view we are at the bottom inflection point of the development curve for all of these technologies, meaning that the rate of improvement and of adoption is going to become close to exponential very quickly.

PeterLang, The argument about ROE for rooftop PV and perhaps for some wind technologies, depending on siting, is partially valid, but only for silicon modules produced using standard smelting techniques. It quickly breaks down for silicon produced using additive manufacturing techniques and is not even close to valid for other technologies.

All, as rollout of PV becomes ubiquitous, the focus on maximal solar conversion efficiency which has driven development to date is likely to be replaced with a cost-of-implementation model and on getting power from areas that are currently not regarded as suitable, such as shaded areas where technologies like dye-sensitised titanate will start to become more important.

Similarly, the problems with AC grid stabilisation will be eliminated by implementation of HVDC grids and local inversion to AC where needed. There is no need to reticulate highly inductive AC, which requires use of statcoms and other corrective mechanisms, this is only a hangover from an historical marketing campaign. There are no devices that MUST use AC and in the case of electronics it is usually rectified internally anyway.
Posted by Craig Minns, Friday, 6 March 2015 8:40:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Lang,
The cost of solar thermal doesn't alter the fact that solar PV has a much lower operating cost than nuclear.

Yes, I read John Morgan's post, and I responded to it. Except when it's VERY low, EROEI is never itself the limiting factor for what can be done. Human effort is a far bigger constraint, and although the "underlying authoritative paper" attempts to do this in section 6, it fails dismally! Two fundamental errors it makes are treating labour costs as a constant rather than a variable (ignoring scope for increased mechanization) and assuming the current situation to be the minimum threshold required. And while it notes that cost structures differ considerably, it does not attempt to quantify this difference even though it's more likely than EROEI to be the deciding factor.

So what is it you think I'm a denier of?
Posted by Aidan, Friday, 6 March 2015 10:33:03 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Being selective wanting to talk only about operating cost is simply cherry picking. It's minleading, disingenuous, intellectually dishonest. It is not the full cost of electricity from the installation. You still have to replace them (e.g when the house is renovated). The full cost includes:

capital cost
financing cost
O&M costs (cleaning, repairs, inverter replacement, insurance, etc)
hidden costs (many; some but not all of which which are estimated to be around $36/MWh at 10% penetration
Posted by Peter Lang, Saturday, 7 March 2015 10:23:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Lang

I'm glad you realise there's a lot more to it than just one measure. I hope now you'll permanently cease those disingenuous arguments based on EROEI!

I am of course well aware that operating cost is not the full cost, and I didn't for a single second imagine you'd think it is. I certainly wasn't trying to mislead anyone.

Comparisons are based on assumptions, and using a single cost figure to compare things with very different cost structures is intellectually dishonest. Solar PV and wind have high capital costs and very low ongoing costs, so how well it will compare financially will depend VERY heavily on the discount rate used. At the moment most countries have low interest rates, and that strongly favours renewables.

Since interest rates are set to control inflation, and renewable energy has a strong deflationary effect (lowering electricity prices) it is my view that governments should fund renewable energy with concessional loans which take this into account.

A similar argument could be made for nuclear power in places currently reliant on fossil fuels, but the high ongoing costs of nuclear make that argument weaker than it would be for renewables.
Posted by Aidan, Saturday, 7 March 2015 5:40:49 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aiadn,

You are clearly not concerned about intellectual dishonesty. perhaps you should read about the 10 signs of intellectual dishonesty: http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/20/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/

Consider my comments and your responses above.

I said solar power is much high cost than nuclear. That statement is correct, for both solar PV and solar thermal. I provided several references,

Your disingenuous response was to say the operating cost of PV is cheaper than nuclear. So what? That's irrelevant.

Regarding EROEI, you clearly have nothing to offer or you would have explained what you believe is wrong with the analysis. I invited you (ore someone) in an earlier comment to point out any errors in the analysis, but first read up on the many critiques that have attempted to discredit the analysis, They amount to no more than nit-picking about trivialities. Nothing has been pointed out that makes any significant change to the conclusions. So as of now they stand. And this is becoming more widely understood as time progresses.

The fact, as it stands now is that solar power is not sustainable. It can't produce sufficient energy to power modern society and reproduce itself. Therefore, it can't make a significant contribution to world energy supplies and therefore only a negligible contribution to abating global emissions. These are the facts (as we understand them now).

And don't forget the latest solar thermal plant in the us is $19/w average power delivered. The wholesale price of electricity for the new 20 MW, 13 MW and 7 MW commercial solar PV stations in the ACT is $180 to $190/MWh (plus hidden costs). That's around 5 times the cost from conventional baseload plants and about 2-3 times the cost from intermediate load plants.
Posted by Peter Lang, Saturday, 7 March 2015 6:24:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sheesh, what a great way to ruin an interesting discussion.

Nothing worse than a zealot with an axe to grind.
Posted by Craig Minns, Saturday, 7 March 2015 6:29:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Craig Minns,

I presume your comment was directed to me. Pity you didn't provide any argument. nor evidence to show my statements are incorrect, nor address any of the comments I've provided above and the links (to authoritative sources).

You could also benefit from seriously considering the 10 signs of intellectual dishonesty, linked above.
Posted by Peter Lang, Saturday, 7 March 2015 6:52:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nuclear cheaper and lower emissions than renewables

The CSIRO ‘MyPower’ calculator shows that, even in Australia where we have cheap, high quality coal close to the main population centres and where nuclear power is strongly opposed, nuclear power would be the cheapest way to reduce emissions: http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Energy/MyPower.aspx
“MyPower is an online tool created by CSIRO that allows you to see the effect of changing the national ‘electricity mix’ (technologies that generate Australia’s electricity) on future electricity costs and Australia's carbon emissions.”

Below is a comparison of options with different proportions of electricity generation technologies (move the sliders to change the proportions of each technology). The results below show the change in real electricity prices and CO2 emissions in 2050 compared with now.

Change to 2050 in electricity price and emissions by technology mix:
1. 80% coal, 10% gas, 10% renewables, 0% nuclear:
electricity bills increase = 15% and emissions increase = 21%

2. 0% coal, 50% gas, 50% renewables, 0% nuclear:
electricity bills increase = 19% and emissions decrease = 62%.

3. 0% coal, 30% gas, 10% renewables, 60% nuclear:
electricity bills increase = 15% and emissions decrease = 77%.

4. 0% coal, 20% gas, 10% renewables, 70% nuclear:
electricity bills increase = 17% and emissions decrease = 84%.

5. 0% coal, 10% gas, 10% renewables, 80% nuclear:
electricity bills increase = 20% and emissions decrease = 91%.

Source: CSIRO 'MyPower' calculator

Points to note:

• For the same real cost increase to 2050 (i.e. 15%), BAU gives a 21% increase in emissions c.f. the nuclear option a 77% decrease in emissions (compare scenarios 1 and 3)

• For a ~20% real cost increase, the renewables option gives 62% decrease c.f. nuclear 91% decrease.

• These costs do not include the additional transmission and grid costs. If they did, the cost of renewables would be substantially higher.

Conclusion: nuclear is the least cost way to make significant reductions in the emissions intensity of electricity.

The difference is stark. Nuclear is far better.

But progress to reduce emissions at least cost is being thwarted by the anti-nuclear activists.
Posted by Peter Lang, Saturday, 7 March 2015 7:00:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yeah, Peter, my comment was directed at you.

It's a shame you aren't able to interact with people in any way other than trying to bludgeon them into submission.

You see, as it stands, all that you're doing is making it completely impossible for yourself to learn anything new, because nobody is going to bother trying to discuss the topic with you. Not because your argument is unassailable, but because it's not worth the effort of showing you why your limited and poorly framed argument is wrong, since you will never accept that it could be.

That is the nature of zealotry.
Posted by Craig Minns, Saturday, 7 March 2015 7:09:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Craig Minns, after promising to dig up some references to substantiate his point, has returned not with substantiation, but with personal attack of another contributor.

We all occasionally have issues with other contributors - that is the nature of OLO-type online discussions. However, it would help mightily if discussion was (a)courteous and (b)based on demonstrated sources and lines of reasoning other than mere personal conviction.

Unfortunately, the expected has happened. Anti-nuclear activists have dragged this discussion, as so many others, off topic to a discussion of PV and wind Nirvana which might, just might, eventually be reached if all the stars in the believers' firmament align.

Mark Lawson was correct when he wrote:
"The very vocal green community is not about to accept assurances...". Yet that same community is represented here by those who demand that the discussion proceed only on the basis of their own unsubstantiable assurances.

Mark was right.

A Royal Commission type enquiry, as has been proposed is certainly appropriate for in a RC claimed facts will be be tested and supposed expertise challenged. It is probably not the ideal way to determine the best technical way forward, but at least there is hope that the RC will separate mere beliefs from substantiated fact. Bring it on!
Posted by JohnBennetts, Saturday, 7 March 2015 7:40:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
John Bennets, you're being dishonest. I told you in an earlier post that I would need to contact the speakers of the seminar in question and I have taken steps to do so.

I also provided a link to the Engineers Australia web page listing the speakers and the topic. If I'm not being prompt enough to suit you, perhaps you might like to contact them yourself.

I am not personally attacking Mr Lang, I am criticising his approach to the discussion and to the topic generally. As I said in an earlier comment, I am not interested in this sort of quasi-religious debate. It suits noone but zealots of either stripe.

I do not insist the discussion proceed in any direction at all. As I said earlier, my only interest is in seeking a solution which is maximally sustainable on as many vectors as possible.

You are only interested in trying to "win" a limited argument, not to hold a wide-ranging discussion. To that extent you and Mr Lang are peas in a pod - proselytes, not inquirers.

That, after all, is the nature of zealotry.
Posted by Craig Minns, Saturday, 7 March 2015 7:53:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Lang, I suggest you have another read of the intellectual honesty link you supplied, paying particularly attention to the first five.

You said solar power has a much higher cost than nuclear. That statement is correct in some situations and incorrect in others. In both cases the total cost depends on many variables.

The operating cost being cheaper for solar PV is a major factor in the cost, and is a big part of the reason that under certain conditions, solar PV can work out cheaper than nuclear. And it's far more relevant than EROEI. And again I emphasise the intellectual dishonesty of your double standard here.

Regarding EROEI, I have already explained what I believe is wrong with the analysis!
As I posted on Friday, 6 March 2015 10:33:03 AM:
"...Except when it's VERY low, EROEI is never itself the limiting factor for what can be done. Human effort is a far bigger constraint, and although the "underlying authoritative paper" attempts to do this in section 6, it fails dismally! Two fundamental errors it makes are treating labour costs as a constant rather than a variable (ignoring scope for increased mechanization) and assuming the current situation to be the minimum threshold required. And while it notes that cost structures differ considerably, it does not attempt to quantify this difference even though it's more likely than EROEI to be the deciding factor."

With costs so highly dependent on many variables, comparing costs without reasons is almost as useless as comparing projections without assumptions.
Posted by Aidan, Saturday, 7 March 2015 11:35:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Till there are effective batteries solar and wind are mere Green mumbo-jumbo. Stateigicly a mixture wit a core of high capacity generation with major secondary sources (eg solar and wind) offers resilience plus strength through diversity but the green dreams are still technically bankrupt.

A volcano could cloud out solar, a super typhoon blot out wind and terrorists take out a core station but any one effect is unlikely to do all.
Posted by McCackie, Sunday, 8 March 2015 9:21:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sure, storage is important and so are backup generation sources. Redundancy is a basic engineering concept.
Posted by Craig Minns, Sunday, 8 March 2015 9:38:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aidan,

Arguing that solar PV is sometimes cheaper than nuclear is a diversionary tactic – i.e.avoiding dealing with the important issue and instead attempting to divdert discussion diverting to looking at irrelevant exceptions. That’s not honest, and not good faith.

I did not imply solar is never cheaper than nuclear (clearly it is for off grid). But at the scale required to address global emissions, solar can play only a negligible role. So, we should not spend so much time talking about the exceptions, and instead focus our energies on technologies that can make a significant difference – e.g. 75% of electricity generation near emissions free.

The principal justification given for the massive subsidies for renewables is to reduce global GHG emissions. Solar can have negligible effect at cutting global GHG emissions and only at very high cost – e.g. $200-$600/t CO2-e avoided. That’s up to 100 times the international price for carbon credits.

Remember that PV has virtually no capacity value. So, all it's doing is replacing fuel.
Ref. Graham Palmer, 2013, 'Household Solar Photovoltaics: Supplier of Marginal Abatement, or Primary Source of Low-Emission Power?' http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/5/4/1406

Nuclear has been supplying 75% to 85% of electricity in an industrial economy (France) for over 30 years - at nearly the lowest cost electricity in EU and with emissions intensity of about 10% of Australia’s.

Furthermore, solar is not sustainable as explained in the links I provided earlier. So, it cannot supply a sufficient proportion of global energy to have a significant impact on reducing global emissions.

Your belief about ERoEI is not supported by the evidence. But you can always raise it on the sites or with the journals where the scientific and engineering debate is carried on.

The zealots and deniers are those who deny the relevant facts and continue to try to argue for renewable energy when the facst show so clearly it is a very high cost way to reduce emissions and can't have much effect (compared with what is required. On the contrary, nuclear can.
Posted by Peter Lang, Sunday, 8 March 2015 12:23:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Lang,

I guess it could in some circumstances be used as a diversionary tactic, but that's not what I'm doing here. The exceptions are highly relevant, particularly in sunny countries like Australia.

Your conjecture that "at the scale required to address global emissions, solar can play only a negligible role" is absolute rubbish! There's no good reason why solar can't play a huge role.

As I have said, I am opposed to the way renewables are currently subsidised. I think they should be funded with concessional loans instead; this has the advantage of ultimately being self financing.

PV has significant capacity value in the situations where demand has traditionally been highest. But even where it is replacing fuel, that's a very important role. Even in France there is still some electricity generated from fossil fuels.

Your claim about solar not being sustainable relies on incorrect assumptions and logical fallacies. YOUR belief about EROEI is not supported by the evidence – I have explained why.

What the anti nuclear zealots and deniers do is irrelevant to this discussion. Your pro nuclear zealotry, assuming it to be the best solution practically everywhere just because it's the best solution in some circumstances, is equally deplorable.
Posted by Aidan, Sunday, 8 March 2015 3:10:25 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aidan,

You are offering nothing other than restating your beliefs, but with nothing to back them up. You can’t show that solar can provide a sufficiently large proportion of electricity to make any significant impact on global GHG emissions. You’ve provided nothing. I’ve provided links to authoritative sources. You haven’t shown any flaws in them, for example in the CSIRO calculators.

If you want to support your points, you need to 1) define the requirements of the electricity system, 2) describe the system you advocate, 3) state the time period for implementation and 4) estimate the costs of it compared with the cost of a largely nuclear system to meet the same requirements.

You’re repeating yourself with your assertions “I believe … EROEI … ). Clearly you haven’t followed the debate, the critiques, etc. and don’t understand what you are talking about.

Furthermore, you are clearly the denier and zealot. Because you hang onto your dogmatic beliefs without being able to present any rational argument to support them. Just beliefs. Just dogma.

>“What the anti nuclear zealots and deniers do is irrelevant to this discussion. Your pro nuclear zealotry, assuming it to be the best solution practically everywhere just because it's the best solution in some circumstances, is equally deplorable.”

Strawman, intellectually dishonest! What’s deplorable is that you seem to be obstinately innumerate. You don’t seem to understand scale. Nuclear has been supplying over 75% of a large industrial economy’s electricity for over 30 years (France). That can be repeated across the countries that contribute 80% of the world’s GHG emissions from electricity (over 5 decades or so). The costs of nuclear can come down enormously for many reasons, including by raising the radiation limits and reducing the cost and time required for licensing designs. All this is blocked by irrational zealots like yourself. You’d prefer to talk endlessly about technologies that can make only a trivial effect on GHG emissions and want to avoid talking about those that can make a huge difference. You’re comments suggest you are irrational and a denier of the relevant facts.
Posted by Peter Lang, Sunday, 8 March 2015 6:30:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nuclear is Already the least cost way to make large reductions to global GHG emissions - around 1/3 the abatement cost of renewables. It could, and inevitably will, become much cheaper.

The USA has the capacity to enable large GHG emissions reductions globally over the next four or five decades. USA could reduce the cost of nuclear power massively for the whole world. Regulatory ratcheting raised the cost of nuclear generated electricity by a factor of four up to 1990 and at least doubled that since – to a factor of eight increase in cost of nuclear power. There are some 50 small modular (factory) build nuclear power plant designs. But it costs about $1 billion and 10 years delay to get licencing approval. This causes huge risks for potential investors. It is irrational that the safest way of generating electricity by far is prevented from being rolled out to the world. The USA is best placed to lead this. But Obama has done next to nothing other than blame others (like India, and Australia) for not doing enough. The first step should be to get IAEA started on raising the allowable radiation limits for the public. This would lead to major cost reductions (of accidents and insurance) and also be a catalyst to get the public rethinking the nuclear power option. Once the public realises how much safer nuclear is than any other form of electricity generation, the culture change could progress quite rapidly. Then the costs can come down. The USA is by far the most influential and could lead the way to make it a reality.

Once nuclear is cheaper than fossil fuels, including for medium sized electricity grids, and people realise it is the safest way to generate electricity, there will be no need for centrally controlled, top down UN agreements. Low emissions will be rolled out across the world, just as happened in France starting in the 1970’s.
Posted by Peter Lang, Sunday, 8 March 2015 7:06:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Lang,

Pinting out logical errors is not merely restating my beliefs. And the reason I'm having to restate what I posted before is that you previously ignored it and falsely accused me of having nothing to offer. I suspect the reason for that was because you overlooked it the first time and subsequently chose to dismiss it in order to cover up that error.

Alternatively, perhaps you could provide an explanation of why you think an EROEI of about 7 would be the minimum needed for sustainability... taking into account scope for increased mechanisation and without just assuming the current situation to be the minimum threshold required?

I don't think that lowering nuclear safety standards is a good way of increasing public acceptance of nuclear power, and I resent pseudorational zealots like yourself telling me this makes me an irrational zealot!

You're correct in saying "The costs of nuclear can come down enormously for many reasons". But you seem to have missed the fact that this is also true of renewables, and the cost of solar PV has been falling much faster than that of nuclear. And for thin film PV technology, an EROEI of up to 60 has been estimated – see...
http://www.clca.columbia.edu/7B_SolarToday%20June12_c.pdf
...so even with the use of batteries and accepting the specious minimum of 7, your claims of unsustainability look pretty far fetched.

Titanate solar cells seem to show the most promise, though the first generation of them weren't as durable as expected. We can expect to see far more of them around once those problems are overcome.

You've correctly identified being cheaper than fossil fuels as being the greatest driver of widespread implementation, but you seem to have failed to understand that this is true of renewables as well as nuclear. The same arguments apply, albeit with different figures. And while, obviously, there's a greater need for storage where renewables reach a high market share, storage technology's also something that's rapidly improving.

So with renewable power generation cheaper than fossil fuel, why do you think renewables could make only a trivial effect on GHG emissions?
Posted by Aidan, Monday, 9 March 2015 1:51:17 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Responses to your assertions:

1. You haven’t pointed out any logical fallacies. The logical falsies have been yours. You don’t understand that 75% emissions free electricity reduces emissions much more than 2% to 10% emissions free electricity. 75% nuclear is proven to be feasible; renewables cannot achieve that for many reasons: e.g. ERoEI, 10 times more material per MWh produced through life, 10 times more mining, processing, fabricating, manufacturing and transport between all stages of the process, low energy density, high cost transmission or storage.

2. “why is EROEI of about 7 needed for sustainability?” - shows you didn’t read the link. Furthermore, that’s now; the figure increases with time – human’s per capita energy consumption will continue to increase forever, as we’ve been doing since we first learnt to control fire (Primitive Man 8 MJ per day, Technological Man 900 MJ/d.

3. You believe raising the allowable radiation limits is harmful. Raising the limits from As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) to As High As Relatively Safe (AHARS) would lead to cost reductions and roll out of nuclear over the decades ahead http://home.comcast.net/~robert.hargraves/public_html/RadiationSafety26SixPage.pdf . If nuclear replaced coal electricity generation it would save over a million lives per year now, and over 2 million per year by 2050.

4. “the cost of solar PV has been falling much faster than that of nuclear.”. 1) The cost of nuclear is blocked by the irrational, dishonest scaremongering of the ‘Progressives’ blocking progress. 2) Renewables are many times higher cost than nuclear and not sustainable. So, they cannot increase their proportion of electricity by much, whereas, nuclear can provide all our power and transport fuels as well.

5. Renewables cannot get to be a cheap source of power when supplying a large proportion of the grid. Study the CSIRO eFuture and MyPower calculators. They use optimistic learning curves for renewables and none for nuclear, and still nuclear is far cheaper all the way 2050. And these calculators do not include the $20-$35/MWh higher network costs for renewables.

6. There is negligible chance of renewables becoming cheaper than nuclear or fossil fuels.
Posted by Peter Lang, Monday, 9 March 2015 8:45:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nineteen countries contributed 80% of global emission in 2013. Of these, only four don’t have nuclear power, and three of them are getting it. Guess which country is the laggard. And guess which ideological group is blocking progress … that’s right, those who think they are ‘Progressives’.

Country and cumulative proportion of total global GHG emissions in 2013:
China 29%
USA 45%
India 52%
Russian Federation 57%
Japan 61%
Germany 63%
South Korea 65%
Iran 66%
Saudi Arabia 68%
Canada 69%
Indonesia 71%
Brazil 72%
Mexico 74%
UK 75%
South Africa 76%
Italy 77%
France 78%
Australia 79%
Thailand 80%

Source: Global Carbon Atlas: http://www.globalcarbonatlas.org/?q=en/emissions

The countries that contribute 80% of the world’s emissions are all (except Australia) nuclear capable already or planning to build plants. So nuclear’s proportion of electricity can be ramped up, over time, if it costs less than fossil fuels. If nuclear’s proportion of electricity ramps up to the equivalent of France (i.e. 75%-80%) over the next 5 decades, emissions intensity of electricity could be cut by around the same as France (i.e. 10% of Australia’s). Furthermore, more emissions will be saved as cheap electricity will displace some gas for heating and some petroleum for transport (both as electric vehicles and by producing low emissions liquid fuels http://bravenewclimate.com/2013/01/16/zero-emission-synfuel-from-seawater/ ).
Posted by Peter Lang, Monday, 9 March 2015 12:29:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aidan,

If you re interested to learn about nuclear power, and especially the cost comparisons with renewables and fossil fuels, you may find these sources of interest:

Renewable Limits http://bravenewclimate.com/renewable-limits/

Sustainable Nuclear http://bravenewclimate.com/integral-fast-reactor-ifr-nuclear-power/

Unlimited transport fuels from sea water: http://bravenewclimate.com/2013/01/16/zero-emission-synfuel-from-seawater/

Why renewables are not sustainable:
John Morgan, ‘Catch 22 of Energy Storage’: http://bravenewclimate.com/renewable-limits/

John Morgan’s response to serious critiques: http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/#comment-350520

David Mackay, ‘Sustainable Energy without the hot air’: http://www.withouthotair.com/

BREE, AETA reports and models: http://industry.gov.au/industry/Office-of-the-Chief-Economist/Publications/Pages/Australian-energy-technology-assessments.aspx

CSIRO eFuture: http://efuture.csiro.au/#scenarios

CSIRO MyPower: http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Energy/MyPower.aspx

‘Zero Carbon Australia – Stationary Energy Plan – critique’: http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/08/12/zca2020-critique/

‘100% renewables for Australia – the cost’ (see summary in Figure 6, and download the spreadsheet to run your own scenarios and sensitivity analyses): http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/02/09/100-renewable-electricity-for-australia-the-cost/

‘Renewables of Nuclear Electricity for Australia – the costs’ (See summary in Figure 6): http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.363.7838&rep=rep1&type=pdf

‘Solar power realities – supply-demand, storage and costs’: http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/08/16/solar-power-realities-supply-demand-storage-and-costs/

‘Solar realities and transmission costs – addendum’: http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/01/09/emission-cuts-realities/

Graham Palmer, 2013, 'Household Solar Photovoltaics: Supplier of Marginal Abatement, or Primary Source of Low-Emission Power?': http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/5/4/1406

System costs for renewables v nuclear:
OECD/NEA ‘System Effects in Low-carbon Electricity Systems’ http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2012/system-effects-exec-sum.pdf

Martin Nicholson and Barry Brook, 2013, ‘Counting the hidden costs of energy’ http://www.energyinachangingclimate.info/Counting%20the%20hidden%20costs%20of%20energy.pdf

Nuclear is the safest way to generate electricity (10 times safer than rooftop PV, 4 times safer than wind):

Forbes: ‘Deaths by energy source’: http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/deaths-by-energy-source-in-forbes.html

Allowable radiation levels are set too low:
http://home.comcast.net/~robert.hargraves/public_html/RadiationSafety26SixPage.pdf

Video by Wade Allison, Oxford Uni Professor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ6aL3wv4v0

Wade Allison, OLO, ‘Nuclear Radiation is Relatively Harmless’: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=15900&page=0

Regulatory Ratcheting increased the cost of nuclear power by a factor of four by 1990: Bernard Cohen, 1991, ‘Costs of nuclear power plants – what went wrong’: http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html

Slide 10 compares the price of electricity versus the CO2 emissions intensity of electricity for selected countries with high proportions of nuclear or high proportions of renewable energy. The numbers in the circles are the emissions intensity of each country/state. Also notice the irony in Slide 14:
http://canadianenergyissues.com/2014/01/29/how-much-does-it-cost-to-reduce-carbon-emissions-a-primer-on-electricity-infrastructure-planning-in-the-age-of-climate-change/

I’ve posted these links so you and other readers can read them and follow the references to original sources if you want to.
Posted by Peter Lang, Monday, 9 March 2015 6:33:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter,
Thanks for going to the trouble of putting up those links, I'll have a look at them.

From previous experience though, it seems likely that there are some significant assumptions made that are based on linear extrapolations which are not necessarily reasonably supportable.

We need to be willing to embrace all of the available technologies if we are to properly address the challenges of a post-fossil carbon future.
Posted by Craig Minns, Monday, 9 March 2015 6:45:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Craig Minns,

“We need to be willing to embrace all of the available technologies if we are to properly address the challenges of a post-fossil carbon future.”

Yes. Of course. No rational person would disagree. The decision must be made on the basis of meeting the requirements of the electricity system. The principal requirements are:

1. Security of energy supply (over years and decades)
2. Supply reliability (seconds to days)
3. Cost of delivered energy

Secondary requirements are:
4. Health and safety
5. Environmental impacts

I’ve presented evidence that nuclear is superior to renewables on all five requirements, especially on cost of electricity and CO2 abatement cost. It’s also the fastest way to make large reductions to global GHG emissions.

I’d suggest you need to be prepared to challenge your beliefs about nuclear and renewables and let go of your irrational support for renewable energy and opposition to nuclear.

I accept renewables have a small role to play in providing electricity to remote communities before the electricity grid reaches them. But this is a small component of global energy and a small component of GHG emissions reductions.

If you are aware of the Pareto Principal (sometimes called the 80:20 rule) you’ll understand that our efforts, resources and discussions like on this thread should be predominantly focused on the technologies that can meet the requirements at least cost. That means we should be focused on nuclear, not renewables. And we should focus on how to educate the population, and unwind the impediments that are blocking progress.
Posted by Peter Lang, Monday, 9 March 2015 7:10:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Peter,
I am not "opposed" to nuclear; I have never suggested that at any point in this discussion. I suspect nuclear will have a role at some point, although I doubt it will be as extensive as you are advocating. Distributed generation and storage is going to be the paradigm for future energy and small nuclear plants may be significant in supporting that, but central generation using nuclear is unlikely to be a very signicant contributor.
Posted by Craig Minns, Tuesday, 10 March 2015 7:17:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Craig,

In an early comment you accused me of being a zealot. You said:

“Sheesh, what a great way to ruin an interesting discussion.

Nothing worse than a zealot with an axe to grind.”

Which I interpret to mean, if you can’t divert the thread to your off topic agenda – your beliefs about renewable energy - you want to torpedo the discussion and accuse others of being what you yourself are.

You haven’t even begun to read the links, and objectively considered and weighed the evidence, before you write comments repeating your unsubstantiated beliefs and giving your reasons for rejecting the evidence provided.

Your last comment is more evidence of you dogmatism, zealotry and denialism. You demonstrate dogmatic beliefs without attempting to understand and weigh the evidence – you just accept dogma without investigating its veracity.

You give the impression you do not have an open mind and are unwilling or incapable of challenging your beliefs.

Your beliefs about distributed networks demonstrate ignorance. You don’t understand the costs, yet believe the dogma of the renewable energy industry and its advocates.

Here’s some more relevant references for you:

Myths and realities of renewable energy: http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/22/myths-and-realities-of-renewable-energy/

More renewables? Watch out for the Duck Curve: http://judithcurry.com/2014/11/05/more-renewables-watch-out-for-the-duck-curve/

All megawatts are not equal: http://judithcurry.com/2014/12/11/all-megawatts-are-not-equal/

The case for baseload: http://mydigimag.rrd.com/display_article.php?id=500086

If you want to argue that electricity from distributed renewable energy is cheaper than from networks with centralized power stations for powering a modern industrial society, you need to produce properly costed options analyses. If you can’t do that yourself and justify all assumptions and inputs, then refer to a range of authoritative sources – not just the renewable energy industry and its proponents.

The reason nuclear is highly likely to be the main source of energy for the future is that no other energy source is sustainable. Solar, wind and other renewables certainly cannot provide the world’s energy needs now, let alone in the future as per capita energy demand continues to grow forever. Conversely, nuclear fuel is effectively unlimited.
Posted by Peter Lang, Tuesday, 10 March 2015 10:05:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Lang,

Regarding your six points, the last one is key. You seem to be under the impression that solar and wind technology is still where it was in the 20th century! You've failed to notice the huge technological advances which already make solar and wind power competitive for some on grid applications. And the technology is continuing to advance at a very rapid pace.

Bjørn Lomborg famously thought that economic growth would itself be enough to drive a lot of the cost improvements for renewable energy generation. I don't agree. The biggest three drivers IMO are scientific research, low interest rates and economies of scale. And most people don't seem to comprehend the significance of low interest rates: they make long term investment far more economically viable.

As for your other points:
1. I pointed out the fallacies regarding EROEI (see my response to point 2). And with renewables producing power more cheaply than fossil fuels, there's nothing to prevent them reaching a high market share. There are obvious technical obstacles, of course, but those can be overcome.

2. Claiming I didn't read the link shows you didn't properly read my posts, for I not only read the link but informed you of the logical fallacies it was based on. As I said on Friday: Except when it's VERY low, EROEI is never itself the limiting factor for what can be done. Human effort is a far bigger constraint, and although the "underlying authoritative paper" attempts to do this in section 6, it fails dismally! Two fundamental errors it makes are treating labour costs as a constant rather than a variable (ignoring scope for increased mechanization) and assuming the current situation to be the minimum threshold required. And while it notes that cost structures differ considerably, it does not attempt to quantify this difference even though it's more likely than EROEI to be the deciding factor.

And regardless of whether or not per capita energy consumption will continue to rise for ever, rising EROEI is not a requirement, but rather a likely product of technological progress.

(TBC)
Posted by Aidan, Wednesday, 11 March 2015 9:31:52 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(continued)

3. Cost reductions alone are not enough. Accidents create a huge backlash against nuclear that would do more to prevent its uptake – it's not the cost that turned Germany away from nuclear energy. Nuclear needs to stay safe.

4.1 Safety standards are very unlikely to be responsible for the lower rate at which the cost of nuclear power is falling.
4.2 I've already addressed your "higher cost" and "not sustainable" criticisms of renewables. I would also like to point out that fuel synthesis could be one of the activities timed to exploit excess renewable output.

I will address point 5 later when I've examined the assumptions the calculators are based on.
Posted by Aidan, Wednesday, 11 March 2015 9:32:39 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aidan,

You showed your colours on yesterday's thread about ERoEI by John Morgan 'Catch 22 of Energy Storage'.

You didn't address the issue. Instead you preferred to argue about the Opera House. Your avoidance of the ERoEI issue shows clearly you are intellectually dishonest, weren't game to make your point about ERoEI when you had the opportunity to test your beliefs and point with a person who is highly qualified and highly competent to explain your misunderstandings to you. An earlier comment by you on this tread showed you either hadn't read the link I gave, to the ERoEI article by John Morgan on BNC or the source documents, or if you had you hadn't understood. It's clear you don't have any in-depth understanding about ERoEI, or you would have been game to ask questions of John Morgan,

Furthermore, it is clear you are not interested in honest debate. You use the intellectually dishonest tactics that the zealots, deniers and ideologues use. You have provided plenty of evidence demonstrating this is a fair description of you. There is no point me trying to discuss these issues with a RE ideologue / zealot. So, I've dismissed you as not honest and not capable of debating in good faith.
Posted by Peter Lang, Wednesday, 11 March 2015 10:21:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Lang,

Choosing not to write a lengthy response there does not show anything about my true colours. The issue was being discussed in depth here and I saw no benefit in splitting our discussion of it over two threads. Plus I was using my iPad, which isn't very well suited to long responses.

However I did choose to write brief responses to three of the comments, one of which was about the Sydney Opera House. Do you have a problem with that?
Posted by Aidan, Wednesday, 11 March 2015 10:36:16 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BTW your assumption that I'm not game to ask questions of John Morgan is also wrong. But on what do you base your assumption that he'd answer them? He hasn't participated in any discussions n this site, and it's been over a month since he last participated in the Catch22 discussion on BNC.
Posted by Aidan, Wednesday, 11 March 2015 10:50:08 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why would he bother to respond to your silly, ignorant, trivial, dishonest comments of which there are 99 on that thread on BNC? He knows full well there is no point debating a zealot, and you clearly are one.

You also demonstrated you colours elsewhere - you quote sources such as Climate Spectator - an Green extremist's website edited by Green Extremist Tristan Edis, and where only Green Extremists are welcome. Previous Editor was Giles Parkinson, an other RE zealot, nuke denier and Green extremist. And commonly publishes posts by Matthew Wright and Mark Diesendorf, more of the RE zealots, anti-nuke zealots, Green extremists and haters of rational economic policies.

What a joke you are Aidan. Thanks for continually making it clearer what you trust for your sources.
Posted by Peter Lang, Wednesday, 11 March 2015 11:01:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sheesh, Peter, speaking of zealots...

Congratulations, you win, you can rant away to your heart's content, safe in the knowledge that one less person can be bothered reading what you write or reading the clickbait you substitute for reasoning. Well done.
Posted by Craig Minns, Wednesday, 11 March 2015 11:16:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PL's exasperation is understandable. All there is out there against him is wishful thinking and the inability or unwillingness to grapple with his analysis.

For example, Craig Minns, you opine, "Distributed generation and storage is going to be the paradigm for future energy and small nuclear plants may be significant in supporting that, but central generation using nuclear is unlikely to be a very significant contributor." Really? Why? Is this what you wish for or is it where we should head regardless of cost or comparison? Support the assertion or counter PL's analysis, especially on EROEI, hopefully without sweeping it away, as has Aiden, with, "There are obvious technical obstacles, of course, but those can be overcome."

There is no time for faith-based assertions.
Posted by Luciferase, Wednesday, 11 March 2015 9:13:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Lang,
99 is not the number of my comments in that thread, but rather the sum of that and the replies others have made to them. Some of those were my disputing others' claims that nuclear was never the best option! And if my comments were silly, ignorant, trivial and dishonest, a good reason for John Morgan to reply is to show that they're silly, ignorant, trivial and dishonest. But he didn't. He responded to my first post, and when I pointed out why his argument would not apply to nuclear, he left the discussion.

So do you think pointing out the flaw in someone's argument makes me a zealot? Seriously, what definition is there that includes me but not you? Or do you consider yourself a zealot too?

Meanwhile, thanks to ppp251 on that thread, we can see that as well as the thin film solar cell production methods that don't use so much energy, new much more efficient ways of producing silicon solar cells are now here, making those EROEI requirements moot. http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/sunedison-begins-production-of-electronic-grade-polysilicon-using-fluidized-bed-reactor-technology_100016659/#axzz3TSIHgplE

As for Climate Spectator, your comment looks very much like shooting the messenger. It's not where I originally heard that the increased supply of renewable energy was cutting electricity prices more than the RET itself was increasing them. But that particular report (found from a Google search) seemed to explain it clearly enough. And Business Spectator, a site run by Alan Kohler and published by News Limited, doesn't appear to be at all extremist, though I admit I haven't studied the views of its climate editors!

Would you prefer it if I linked to someone else's report saying much the same thing?
Posted by Aidan, Thursday, 12 March 2015 10:39:40 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry, just noticed an error in my above post: John Morgan left the discussion when I pointed out his argument would not apply to RENEWABLES (not nuclear as I'd previously typed).

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Luciferase, the reason that I say technical obstacles can be overcome is that as a civil engineer I have a fair idea of how they can be overcome, and it annoys me when others treat them as insurmountable.
Posted by Aidan, Thursday, 12 March 2015 10:44:02 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
John Morgan replied to the comments that were serious and worth addressing. Yours were not. They were trivial, silly, showed a lack of understanding of basics, and importantly are clearly those of a zealot and ideologue who is not interested in facts unless they support the dogma he believes in. That is clear from a reading of your comments. You have nothing serious or constructive to offer. And you are clearly intellectually dishonest: http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/20/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/

John gave an excellent summary response to the serious questions and critiques he'd received on other web sites.
He begins:

"This blog post has been picked up in a quite a few places. One of them is the blog of physics professor Micha Tomckiewicz, Climate Change Fork. Micha posted my article, then wrote another three posts detailing what he saw as problems with it.

My article has proven quite difficult for a lot of people to grasp or accept, in places, and has resulted in a lot of intellectual gymnastics in trying to find ways out of the Catch-22. Micha’s three articles include a number of the common misunderstandings. I wrote this comment to address them. For some reason the comment is not showing up on his blog, so I will post it here, as the misconceptions I address are not just confined to the Climate Change Fork blog.

Micha has responded to my EROI article in three posts; I’ll consolidate a response here.

The core thesis of my article is that: energy storage cannot back up wind and solar for primary energy supply, because storage degrades EROI below a viable level.

In his three posts, Micha discusses a range of issues, but does not challenge that core thesis about storage, which I believe stands. There are now over 500 comments on this piece at The Energy Collective and Brave New Climate that directly interrogate that conclusion at a range of technical levels, and while many qualifications can be elaborated the conclusion appears robust.

... "

Read his full response here: http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/#comment-350520
Posted by Peter Lang, Thursday, 12 March 2015 12:08:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'll assume that same philosophy applies to nuclear, Aidan.

An engineer should have something to say on "base-load" in relation to efficacy and cost of renewables vs nuclear. All things considered, and with the view that, hypothetically, nothing is technically insurmountable, but is so financially and/or in the scale required, I see baseload renewables in urban areas as a dream on the time-scale needed to mitigate climate change.

Why should I think otherwise?
Posted by Luciferase, Thursday, 12 March 2015 12:36:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Lang, you should take another look at the intellectual honesty link, because you're not complying with them at all well, and you're very clearly showing the signs of intellectual dishonesty. For example you claim my opinions are worthless because I'm a zealot, yet you're the one who is not interested in facts unless they support the dogma he believes in: that nuclear's always the best option and renewables will never be competitive.

John's "excellent" summary, which he posted over two months before I joined the discussion, shows two very deep flaws: firstly he's underestimating the EROEI of renewables, and secondly his statement that " That there exists some threshold above 1 that is a minimum requirement for a given mode of organization of society is also physical" is incorrect.

Except at very low values, EROEI is never itself the limiting factor. It can contribute to making electricity viable or unviable, but the ultimate constraint is either land availability or the cost of human labour - and the latter can be overcome by increased automation.

Failure to comprehend that, instead assuming (as Weißbach and others did) that an observed value is somehow a minimum threshold, shows a lack of understanding of the basics. And when I pointed out that flaw in his reasoning, John Morgan left the discussion and never returned.
Posted by Aidan, Thursday, 12 March 2015 2:26:33 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Luciferase, with the benefit of hindsight I think we should have opted for nuclear power twenty years ago, but with the huge fall in the cost of renewables I really think Australia's left it too late to be worth starting now. Despite our demand per person being high, our demand per square km is very low. We're a very sunny country with plenty of room for wind turbines, so renewable power will be cheap. There is plenty of unrealised scope for load balancing, particularly if we can attract heavy industry to take advantage of our cheap power (which shouldn't be difficult as so much mining is done locally). And there are plenty of opportunities for dispatchable renewables as well: geothermal, solar thermal, and increased hydro output capacity. And I'm sure the fluctuating price of electricity will make batteries viable too.

How quickly it can be done depends on the political will, as it does for nuclear. Concessional loans are the best way to fund it, but convincing the government of that may be difficult.
Posted by Aidan, Thursday, 12 March 2015 2:27:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aiden, to even get the barest toe-hold, The EROEI of RE has to first get above 7 while that for nuclear has to stand still at 75 as a point of comparison. How can you simply assert that automation and land availability will dissolve this gap. How much "can do" must we accept on faith?

Where you say, "That there exists some threshold above 1 that is a minimum requirement for a given mode of organization of society is also physical is incorrect.", what is your argument? The third world is aspiring to emulate the first world, and in its progress overwhelming any efficiencies the first world might achieve. Look at all the coal-fired power being built in China alone. The EROEI of renewables can't and wont cut it in the face of such hunger for energy.

Boundless faith is a poor substitute for rationality in trying to mitigate climate change.
Posted by Luciferase, Thursday, 12 March 2015 4:56:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aidan doesn't understand what he's talking about. He has provided no authoritative support for his beliefs, just bold assertions. He's not capable of presenting his arguments in a coherent manner on the sites where the people who have done the work would certainly debate his beliefs if he could present them cogently. So he keeps bleating away repeating his beliefs here. If he'd had anything rational to offer he'd have been given a fair hearing on BNC. Many people tried to debate with him, but he wasn't capable of presenting a case. They dismissed him and ignored him. He has made it quite clear he's an ideologue, zealot, and denier of relevant facts. It's impossible to have a rational discussion with such people.

I'd like to clarify a point about "[ERoEI of ] nuclear has to stand still at 75"

ERoEI of 75 applies to the current breed of PWR reactors - i.e light water, thermal reactors. When it becomes cheaper to used fast reactors than once through, thermal reactors which we use now, the reactors will utilise most of the remaining 99% of the energy in the fuel that is not used in the light water reactors. That can be expected to increase the EROEI by perhaps a factor of around 100 (I haven't checked, so that may not be correct). That would make the EROEI of nuclear 7500. That's an example of what the future holds.

An interesting post "a life time of energy in the palm of your hand" http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/04/22/ifr-fad-4/ explains that a golf ball sized sphere of uranium contains all the energy needed to provide all the energy consumed by a human in their whole life - that's all the energy embodied in everything they use and consume through their life.

It'll be fun to watch Aidan and Craig try to dismiss that wee factoid : )
Posted by Peter Lang, Thursday, 12 March 2015 6:11:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Lang and Luciferase,

Hypothetically if EROEI itself was the limiting factor
and a minimum of 7 was needed to support a society
why could the society not be supported by twice as much infrastructure with an EROEI of 4?
The net energy would be the same.

Are you starting to understand yet?
The idea that EROEI is the limiting factor is utterly absurd!

Solar PV has for a long time had a lower EROEI than solar thermal, but solar thermal works out more expensive because it has higher operating costs.
Nuclear has much higher operating costs. That doesn't make it a bad option, but they're a much more significant consideration than its EROEI.

And Peter, the energy density of uranium is not something I've ever disputed, but your trying to make it the issue does seem to resemble the fourth sign of intellectual dishonesty.
Posted by Aidan, Friday, 13 March 2015 10:55:39 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aiden, that's like assuming two people of IQ 80 can solve a problem requiring IQ 160. More brains do not increase brain-power.

More RE of insufficient EROEI does not meet society's needs.
Posted by Luciferase, Friday, 13 March 2015 2:03:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Another analogy, a rocket engine of insufficient thrust will not lift the rocket even if it burns all day long.

EROEI, like thrust, matters immensely.
Posted by Luciferase, Friday, 13 March 2015 2:17:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Luciferase, your second analogy is wrong. It's not like burning the rocket engine for longer, it's like achieving sufficient thrust by adding a second engine.

Your first analogy invalid except insofar as it highlights how real requirements can differ from perceived requirements. Solutions to problems tend to require ideas, not IQ, to solve them. Higher IQ can certainly help people reach a solution, but it's the solution, not the IQ, that is required.

EROEI is one of the factors that help energy infrastructure meet society's needs, but it is not itself one of society's needs.
Posted by Aidan, Friday, 13 March 2015 2:37:58 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I thought an engineer would appreciate small force x long time = large force x short time. Carbon abatement won't get off the ground under your scenario.
Posted by Luciferase, Friday, 13 March 2015 6:42:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Isn't it so typically hypocritical of the RE proponents that they spent many years trying to assert the importance of considering ERoEI because they thought it supported their advocacy of their passionate but irrational and unjustifiable support for RE. However, now that's it turned around and bitten them hard on the back side - by demonstrating that RE is not sustainable - they want to try to dismiss its relevance. Typical!
Posted by Peter Lang, Friday, 13 March 2015 6:51:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Luciferase, an engineer would appreciate small force x long time only has the same effect as large force x short time when no other forces are involved.

My scenario was not about getting carbon abatement off the ground, but rather to alert you and Peter to the absolute idiocy of the claim about minimum EROEI requirements. You seem remarkably eager to avoid thinking about the real implications of the scenario I supplied. Why do you have so much blind faith in the overwhelming importance of EROEI?

____________________________________________________________________________

Peter Lang, I see you're exhibiting more signs of intellectual dishonesty, ignoring my explanation of why the claims about minimum EROEI requirements are so idiotic, and instead taking a swipe at renewable energy advocates. But that too appears very dishonest for multiple reasons.

Who are these RE proponents who "spent many years trying to assert the importance of considering ERoEI because they thought it supported their advocacy of their passionate but irrational and unjustifiable support for RE"? It's not something that I've ever encountered. EROEI has been very important for renewable enery advocates for precisely the opposite reason: they knew the very low EROEI of early solar panels limited their ability to address the problem. But those problems have been overcome; the technology's rapidly advancing and their EROEI's much higher and rising. And now that it's no longer a problem you make bogus claims of unsustainability based on dubiously alleged inability to meet standards that were never genuine requirements anyway!
Posted by Aidan, Friday, 13 March 2015 9:13:57 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"My scenario was not about getting carbon abatement off the ground...". That's clear, it doesn't.

"Why do you have so much blind faith...." You have no grasp of the impact of EROEI, as all you have said about it demonstrates. Clearly my analogies haven't helped, so here's another go.

If there existed only RE and its storage systems, it would not meet the minimum EROEI needed for first world civilization, nor meet the growth of the third world towards emulating the first. How could adding more RE infrastructure alter this incontrovertible fact?

This being so, why should we invest now in RE and its storage? Shouldn't we wait, while trusting in the advancement of the technology to raise its EROEI to the necessary minimum before investing? Investing now is money down the drain. Meeting RET targets is just a pointless, luxury expense. Early adopters always pay dearly for the feeling of superiority.

We already have the answer at hand, nuclear, which you said should have been pursued twenty years ago, but not now because of your faith that RE and its storage will quickly overcome all obstacles, which must necessarily include reaching the minimum EROEI target. In what is that faith based?

The same faith should extend to overcoming nuclear's man-made obstacles, which are all that is holding up progress.
Posted by Luciferase, Friday, 13 March 2015 11:22:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Incontrovertible fact, huh? You could say "the moon's incontrovertibly made of green cheese" but that doesn't make it true. I say it's incontrovertibly false!

And if you still think otherwise, I'll ask you again:
Hypothetically if EROEI itself was the limiting factor
and a minimum of 7 was needed to support a society
why could the society not be supported by twice as much infrastructure with an EROEI of 4?
The net energy would be the same.

And remember, if you can't provide an answer that's true in all circumstances, the claim can not possibly be incontrovertible.

The real purpose of this scenario is to get you to realise how ludicrous your claim is. Society's demands are constrained by cost and sometimes by land use. A higher EROEI helps overcome those constraints, but there is no possible mechanism for the EROEI itself to be the constraint.

To a very large extent we HAVE waited, trusting in the advancement of the technology to make renewable energy more economically viable. That's why its market share is so low. But the time for waiting is over! The best thing we could do now is to remove the systemic economic barriers that are holding it back.

Renewable energy technology that greatly exceeds your irrelevant target has already been invented and will soon be ubiquitous. And there is no evidence to suggest the technological advances will suddenly stop.

Nuclear obstacles should be overcome too, but not to the extent they compromise safety.
Posted by Aidan, Saturday, 14 March 2015 1:34:24 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy