Ben ? alaias Roses1,
Well I am certainly not a scientist, so I hope you do not put me down for that.
I have worked in industrial control systems and computers and I am also a self funded retiree.
Having worked on control systems in steel works etc, I know how much energy is
needed to produce a ton of steel, lots ! Then to roll & keep hot.
Now much of this energy comes from coal. Also a lot of coal is used for the coking ovens.
If we cut out coal we will be riding wooden bicycles.
However world peak coal is expected around 2025 to 2035.
Like with oil, it will peak because the seams will be too expensive to mine.
I would like to know how the steel to manufacture wind farms is going to be produced by wind farms ?
Unfortunately I cannot find the article I mentioned, it was a couple of months ago.
It was one that I did not keep.
I cannot see an alternative to nuclear, unless this cold fusion turns out to be real.
Long term, we will have to transition to a semi agrarian economy built around an 18th century model.

Ben,

‘Renewables’ are not sustainable (see links in previous comment). Their low ERoEI means they cannot provide the energy needs of modern society.

They are not cheap - not economically viable - except in small niche applications (see links in previous comments)

They cannot reduce GHG emissions (by substantial amounts) as fast as nuclear (see previous comments and links)

So, why do you continue to advocate for them?

Why do you think you are being objective, rational and unbiased (as a scientist should be)?

What is more important to you – renewable energy or realistically achievable and sustainable programs to reduce global GHG emissions? (as explained previously, any policy that will damage economies and, therefore, impact negatively on human well being is not sustainable economically or politically in the real world. That's a key point to recognise.)

One rather important factor that has not arisen in this discussion is
how do we finance this change over while so many governments have such
large debt burdens ?

The oil industry us in a bind over the debt of the US frackers.
A similar situation could develop for wind & solar farms.
The financial bind that governments are now seeing in their teacups will not go away.
If we don't finance the transition to the alternative energy regime with borrowed money
will there be any left over to pay school teachers etc ?
Has anyone on a VIP jet done a back of envelope calculation ?
Should we abandon the NBN and divert the money into alternatives.

Did you see the 7-30 report tonight ?
At last the ABC is catching up with me, six years too late, one sunken tanker
and Australia starves !
Notice how cock sure our minister for energy was ? Gawd, we are doomed !

Peter (and Bazz)
Peter, do you really understand EROI or are you using biased, poorly substantiated studies to push your case for nuclear?

Firstly, EROI's are misleading, as shown in the example below. An EROI of 50 means 2% of the energy output is used in production of it (i.e. net 98% output). EROI 10 means that 10% of the output is used in production of it (i.e. net 90% output). So EROI of 50 is only 98/90 = 1.09 times as efficient as an EROI of 10; not 5 times as the EROI numbers suggest.

This is explained here: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8625

Secondly, as I explained previously (Oct.1 OLO discussion on EROI), EROI figures vary widely depending on assumed factors such as:
- life of plant
- capacity factor
- 'buffering'

For example if the life of nuclear is reduced from the assumed 60 years (no plant has yet run this long) to a more realistic 40 years (the life at which many plants such as Vermont Yankee are being decommissioned), then the the EROI reduces by a third to 50.
If wind CF is increased from typical Europe (30%) to typical Australia (40%), EROI increases from Weibach's 16 years to 21 years. If lifetime is doubled to 40 years (with replacement of blades and generator components), it would likely increase again by at least 50 % to 33 years.

Your reference (Weibach et al) gives no explanation as to how they arrived at their buffering estimates. It makes absurd assumptions on buffering leading me to believe that it is biased in favor of nuclear. The SEN study shows that overbuild of about 100% is required for 100% renewables (solar thermal, wind and solar PV with about 5-10% pumped hydro), Compared to 50% overbuild with coal/ gas 'business as usual'. Buffering would at most halve the wind EROI in Australia making it 10- 15 not the absurd 4 claimed by Weisbach.
Also, nuclear would need at least 15% over-build (buffering) to allow for plant outages and Weisbach assumes zero.

Bazz,

1/ You are quite right - steel, plastics, glass, fibreglass etc can't be made with wind or PV. Biomass can do these things, but the reality is that fossil fuels will continue to used. Fossil fuels need to be kept for these essential purposes where renewable solutions are limited. The heartening thing is that as economies mature, the majority of metal requirements are recovered from scrap and that can be done with electricity. The US gets > 60% of its steel from scrap.

2/ Yes, finance in particular the cost (interest rate) of it is a major concern. Low interest bonds will be essential - 4-5% not the usual quoted finance rate of 7%; this will make a huge difference to project cost. Also, consumers will pay for the new electricity generation through their electricity bills, which will rise regardless of what technologies are used (as previously discussed. When we pay more for energy, we become more efficient, as is shown be the steadily decline in electricity use in Australia:
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/11/4/energy-markets/power-emissions-continue-rise?utm_source=exact&utm_medium=email&utm_content=983208&utm_campaign=cs_daily&modapt=

Ben,

Your comments suggest an ideological bias, not objectivity. It seems you are guided by your ethical beliefs; however, if everyone shared your beliefs about ethical investing, 5 billion people would die – that’s right, stop fossil fuels and 5 billion people would die. That’s unethical. These ethical beliefs seem to drive irrational beliefs about renewable energy and nuclear power.

Your SEM study of 100% renewables for WA is biased. You haven’t stated the requirements objectively and you haven’t even considered nuclear as an option to meet them. Your LCOE is about twice that of mostly nuclear; it would actually be higher. It would also have higher GHG emissions with any achievable technology proportions.

You clearly don’t understand ERoEI. First you respond to Bazz’s comment by referring to a Wikipedia article that has nothing to do with ERoEI, then you respond with an attempt to dismiss an authoritative, peer reviewed paper on ERoEI and refer me instead to an ‘OilDrum’ post. What a joke.

You made assertions to dismiss the CSIRO ‘MyPower’ calculator, without even checking your facts. You were wrong.

You haven’t addressed the three criteria I laid out for what it would take to change my view. That’s avoidance. I provided links that support for my position on these three criteria. You have not responded. It seems you are attempting to avoid debating the key criteria (three each) we agreed at the beginning.

That’s not displaying intellectual honesty.

Let’s not get diverted into arguing about side issues. Let’s stay focused on the six criteria we nominated. If you want to divert to other issues, please explain how the point you raise is sufficiently significant to change the conclusions. But I strongly urge we deal with the three main criteria we nominated first. Let’s reach closure on them as the first step.