Imagine a group of 100 fisherman faced with declining stocks and worried about the sustainability of their resource and their livelihoods. One of them works out that the total sustainable catch is about 20% of what everyone is catching now (with some uncertainty of course) but that if current trends of increasing catches (about 2% a year) continue the resource would be depleted in short order. Faced with that prospect, the fishermen gather to decide what to do. The problem is made more complicated because some groups of fishermen are much more efficient than the others. The top 5 catchers, catch 20% of the fish, and the top 20 catch almost 75% of the fish. Meanwhile the least efficient 50 catch only 10% of the fish and barely subsist. Clearly, fairness demands that the top catchers lead the way in moving towards a more sustainable future.
The top 5 do start discussing how to manage the transition. They realise that the continued growth in catches – driven by improved technology and increasing effort – is not sustainable, and make a plan to reduce their catch by 80% over a number of years. But there is opposition – manufacturers of fishing boats, tackle and fish processing plants are worried that this would imply less sales for them in the short term. Strangely, they don’t seem worried that a complete collapse of the fishery would mean no sales at all – preferring to think that the science can’t possibly be correct and that everything will be fine. These manufacturers set up a number of organisations to advocate against any decreases in catch sizes – with catchy names like the Fisherfolk for Sound Science, and Friends of Fish. They then hire people who own an Excel spreadsheet program do “science” for them – and why not? They live after all in a free society.
After spending much energy and money on trying to undermine the science – with claims that the pond is much deeper than it looks, that the fish are just hiding, that the records of fish catches were contaminated by being done near a supermarket – the continued declining stocks and smaller and smaller fish make it harder and harder to sound convincing. So, in a switch of tactics so fast it would impress Najinsky, the manufacturers’ lobby suddenly decides to accept all that science and declares that the ‘fish are hiding’ crowd are just fringe elements. No, they said, we want to help with this transition, but …. we need to be sure that the plans will make sense. So they ask their spreadsheet-wielding “advocacy scientists” to calculate exactly what would happen if the top 5 (and only the top 5) did cut their catches by 80%, but meanwhile everyone else kept increasing their catch at the current (unsustainable rate). Well, the answers were shocking – the total catch would be initially still be 84% of what it is now and would soon catch up with current levels. In fact, the exact same techniques that were used to project the fishery collapse imply that this would only delay the collapse by a few years! and what would be the point of that?
The fact that the other top fishermen are discussing very similar cuts and that the fisherfolk council was trying to coordinate these actions to minimise the problems that might emerge, are of course ignored and the cry goes out that nothing can be done. In reality of course, the correct lesson to draw is that everything must be done.
In case you think that no-one would be so stupid as to think this kind of analysis has any validity, I would ask that you look up the history of the Newfoundland cod fishery. It is indeed a tragedy.
And the connection to climate? Here.
I’ll finish with a quotation attributed to Edmund Burke, one the founders of the original conservative movement:
“Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little.”
See here for a much better picture of what coordinated action could achieve.
James has FINALLY managed to get one thing right — solar is more expensive to deploy (today) than nuclear. However, solar cell prices continue to decline, and are expected to continue to decline for the foreseeable future. The 2.8KW DC array I have cost me $13,600. I could replace it today for $9,800. And that’s retail — wholesale and pallet orders are even cheaper.
SecularAnimist got one thing wrong — an entire electric grid cannot be run on nuclear because nuclear has very poor load-following abilities. That’s the megawatts-per-minute number I mentioned way up-thread.
FurryCatHerder Says (1 juin 2009 at 9:45 PM):
“James has FINALLY managed to get one thing right — solar is more expensive to deploy (today) than nuclear. However, solar cell prices continue to decline, and are expected to continue to decline for the foreseeable future…”
Well, I’m glad someone recognizes that, even though I disagree with your qualifier :-) But I think you may have missed something (which I purposely didn’t mention). Nevada One is a solar thermal plant, not PV, so future decreases in solar cell prices aren’t going to be a factor in its pricing.
I suppose there could be economies of scale in e.g. mirror production, though the articles I see say that it uses 182,000 mirrors, which seems pretty well up on the scale already. I don’t know enough about the details of what goes into producing them to say.
“…an entire electric grid cannot be run on nuclear because nuclear has very poor load-following abilities.”
But I don’t think anyone was suggesting doing that. Even I wouldn’t suggest going much beyond replacing existing coal-fired generation.
” The 2.8KW DC array I have cost me $13,600. I could replace it today for $9,800.”
Question for you: is that just for the panels, or for the whole system – inverter, meter, mounting hardware, &c? IIRC your system is grid tied, with no local storage?
I’m just curious, and this habit of trying to put numbers to things is kicking in. Say there are roughly 100 million houses in the US, maybe a quarter of them in decent solar sites, and you put a 3 KW system on each. You’ve then got 75 GW of midday generation, dropping to zero after sunset – and at today’s prices, have spent about $250 billion. Not cheap, but not an impossible cost, especially if you could also supply each house with some high-speed flywheel storage for an extra thousand or so.
Mark et al, legislating away otherwise potentially costly possible liabilities is not the same as a subsidy.Umut Thank you Famili
“The public isn’t picking up the tab: the operators of nuclear power plants are required by law to pay into a fund (see Price-Anderson act) to cover insurance.”
And the fund is enough to insure?
No, if it were, then the insurance companies would be taking it.
“Solar and wind are not free. In fact, solar is so costly that we have to offer 30% of the cost back to the homeowner as a federal tax credit. ”
Nope, that’s called “an incentive”.
As in “If you bring in your glass bottle cleaned and empty, we’ll give you a quarter for it”.
Or “If you share your car, we’ll give you a lane on the highway to drive on”.
PS even if you do want to call it a subsidy, strange how picking up the tab for insurance of nuclear isn’t a subsidy as well to you…
“Mark et al, legislating away otherwise potentially costly possible liabilities is not the same as a subsidy.”
Yes it is, because if the costly liability were to occur, the one creating the liability isn’t going to have to pay for it.
If there’s a liability, this is what an INSURER is for. If you’re a bad risk, then you don’t get insurance.
So if the insurers won’t insure you as a driver, you can’t drive. If they won’t insure a nuclear power plant, why should they be allowed to go ahead anyway?
James writes:
Who said solar panels? Try solar thermal. And note–costs for nuclear are going UP, costs for solar are going DOWN. Extrapolate.
The Price-Andersen Act.
The latter is fine with me.
bobberger writes:
No, the answer is SEVERAL DIFFERENT SOURCES LINKED BY A WIDE-AREA SMART GRID. Read that over until you can repeat it by heart.
James, justifying his argument that higher background radiation is a good thing, writes:
We don’t consider any of our children expendable. And who the hell wants to “further evolution?” I thought that mentality only existed in followers of the obsolete 20th century religion Creative Evolution (Bergson, L’Evolution Creatrice, 1907 and in the stereotypes of creationists. I don’t care if “the whole thing” works or not. The hell with future species, okay? I want to preserve my friends and neighbors.
James writes:
Capital cost is not the only input to electricity price. Capital cost is not the only input to electricity price. Capital cost is not the only input to electricity price. Capital cost is not the only input to electricity price. Capital cost is not the only input to electricity price.
Maybe you won’t ignore it this time.
Price of wind power in California: 9 cents per kilowatt hour.
Price of coal: 10 cents.
Price of nuclear: 15 cents.
Explain that.
RE: 1102
Hey James,
If we were to compare the actual costs of the current 1 GW power generation designs for nuclear power the average cost runs between $5.7 and $8.0 per watt with an estimated annual operating cost averaging about $4.3 per watt. As to Solar PV the average installation cost runs between $6.8 and $9.4 per watt with an annual estimated operating cost around $0.02 to $0.04 per watt. If you estimate an average life expectancy of around 20 years this demonstrates that life cycle costs of solar are much lower. (Especially when you add in the cost of demolition.) (Note: The estimates for Gen IV nuclear construction is at less the $0.02 per watt.)
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants 6-2-09
Oh and BTW for any that still hold on to the idea of solar storage systems, it is clear that storage is only effective in the case of off the grid installations. In any other case, the “price” (efficiency based) of storage diminishes the potential value of an installation, as the efficiency of Total Storage are generally no more then half of the initial energy potential. (Not withstanding, Furry Cat, if you were to place a watt meter on your installations I/O and measure the generated heat component of your entire system I believe you would find that your total systemic efficiency is well below 90%.)
Cheers!
Dave Cooke
Jim Bullis,
1 June 2009 at 2:46 PM
This is exactly what is happening in Spain. Coal use is decreasing at the expense of ccgt, wind, solar, biomass, chp. It is just a matter of (political) will.
James wrote:
Philips & Sony paid the development of the CD out of their own pockets. Toyota paid the development of the Prius out of their own pockets. Intel paid the development of the 4004 out of their own pockets. In capitalism, it is pretty standard to pay for your own R&D.
“Not withstanding, Furry Cat, if you were to place a watt meter on your installations I/O and measure the generated heat component of your entire system I believe you would find that your total systemic efficiency is well below 90%.)”
A little strange, since most civilian home power needs comes from heating. Kind of stacks the deck to say what you want it to say, really.
RE:1114
Hey Mark,
Hmmm… I am at a loss for your implication?
As to efficiency for a Lead Acid battery bank, this URL appears to spell things out fairly clearly…: http://xtronics.com/reference/batterap.htm 6-2-09
As to Heat as the source of Electricity and the Demand for Electricity, that is mainly on a limited basis and primarily applies to Sun Belt States. I believe most Northern States run either Coal, Oil or Natural Gas and in Rural areas Wood for their heating energy source.
If you ae suggesting that direct combustion rather then across the wire conversion is more efficient, of that there is no question. Especially, if you were to do as Jim suggests and run a Co-Gen system.
The issue is what to do with the heat in Summer? You could always use it to dry out the air the AC has to process; however, that still dumps a lot of heat into the atmosphere and as we all know a distributed energy generation system is soo… in-efficient… Funny though, if the polluting power source was more distributed and involved less combustion it appears to be more efficient….? I am curious which is correct…
Cheers!
Dave Cooke
Barton, your “cost is more than capital” is a good point. But it’s disingenuous (well, at least off kilter) to cite CA rates for electricity, where market/investment forces play little if any part as opposed to the State and PUC deciding what they want, maybe based on economics, maybe based on anal itching. For instance they purposefully generate near nil electricity from coal within the state; all users pay a renewable subsidy in their electric bill; etc. Secondly I read the CA RenewableEnergy Act of 2009 as setting base wind power at 12.5 cents/kWhr, not 9 cents, though it’s unclear how that is applied.
The implication LDC is that your 90% figure is based on an incorrect demand for how the efficiency is measured.
FCH would measure it as the power from his system that gets into his house compared with the power inserted into his system.
Your demand isn’t showing the efficiency of the setup with stored energy but his efficiency in his lifestyle that wants that power. Which has naff all to do with how solar power with storage is efficient or not.
So your “notwithstanding” is irrelevant and begging the question of why you want the measurement done your way when it will measure nothing about the efficiency of solar power with storage. After all, if he’d used nuclear power he’d have the same measurements. Coal power he’d have the same measurements. Since your demand is measuring how FCH uses his power, not how efficient his system is at collecting it.
Anne, then why don’t Phillips, Sony, Intel, Toyota finance CSS R&D for example?
FurryCatHerder wrote: “SecularAnimist got one thing wrong — an entire electric grid cannot be run on nuclear because nuclear has very poor load-following abilities.”
Where in the world do you think I suggested such a thing?
If anything I have written here suggests that I think “an entire electric grid can be run on nuclear”, then I was communicating very poorly.
As to what to do with heat — dry your incoming air, particularly in crawlspace. Pilot lights used to help with this. Nowadays without intentional effort, humidity goes up. Unless you live in an _extremely_ dry area, you need to attend to humidity and moisture control if you’re maintaining a wood building.
This is generally ignored — there’s profit in replacing and repairing.
But summertime is when people forget that heating and drying incoming air protects the building. Lose the moisture, then let it cool, then bring it inside under the house. Winter cold air has a lot less water in it.
“Once established, the dry rot fungus can survive in wood as dry as 20%. That is why wood is kiln dried to 19%. In the absence of moisture it will hibernate. There is a correlation between the amount of moisture and rate of consumption/growth….”
http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/structural-components-home-inspection-commercial-inspection/678-dry-rot-progressive-absence-moisture.html
Also useful (remember this when you think about using woody material for energy — the fungi know how already)
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~gbarron/MISCELLANEOUS/jan01.htm
James,
That price was just the panels — “all in” is about $25K, which I paid myself, excepting a $2,000 federal tax credit. It’ll mostly be paid for with invention disclosure awards from my former employer — they pay very nicely for things that get turned into patents and I’m very good at it.
I have 25KWh of lead acid storage, which is enough to last several days without the sun. The system would have been much cheaper if I’d designed it (yes, I designed it myself, and wrote the software that manages it as well) to be a pure grid-tie, no battery backup, system. Incremental lifetime cost to add a KWh / day is $0.099 right now (and that’s excluding any credits — actual cost is much lower), given that I have the hardware to add additional capacity without adding additional hardware. My base electric rate is about $0.135 / KWh, though I pay about $0.20 / KWh because the fixed fees (about $9 / month) are so much a part of my bill. The thing with solar is that the first KWh is the most expensive. After a while it just keeps getting cheaper and cheaper.
(And I am for hire, if anyone would like a system designed. I’ve gotten quite good at it.)
Mark @ 1117:
My system is 75% efficient from panels-to-plugs. That’s fairly typical for “grid-interactive” (battery backed grid-tied systems). That includes battery maintenance and conversion losses. The NREL uses a 77% DC-to-AC derating factor standard, so I’m just a little below that on account of having batteries. It takes about 1 or 2 percent of battery capacity to “float” a lead acid battery bank. With a 25KWh bank, between 250 and 500 watts are used to keep the batteries however full they are, or lost as heat to increase the charge.
And I’m a she. Click the link, see a cute picture.
James, the DOE solar program does not provide financing for university research departments. Instead, what we have is this:
Initial funding provided $159 million to U.S. Department of Energy partners
What U.S. DOE partners? DARPA. And why? Well, the cost of boosting a satellite into orbit is immense, and anything that can be done to boost efficiency cuts that cost. All that research is done at NREL, not at public universities. This is really the only reason that high-tech solar has survived anywhere in the U.S. – it’s needed for satellites.
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id=11176
But that’s about it – there are no big commercial solar PV programs financed by DOE, and the current administration so far is refusing to back such projects – projects like Australia’s $1.4 billion solar program. There are no shortage of working solar prototypes to base such a program on.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/17/2572847.htm
Carbon capture for “zero carbon clean coal”, on the other hand, is a fraud. Carbon capture from the atmosphere, driven by solar power – well, that’s called photosynthesis. Regardless, I’m still waiting to see the diesel-powered truck that drives drown the road while capturing all the CO2 from the tailpipe – why do you think they can’t do that, James?
Again, I think it would be a good idea for the President to ask the National Academy of Sciences to conduct an independent review of the scientific plausibility of coal carbon capture schemes.
Let me guess who will be opposed to this – all the lobbyists who are working the halls of Congress on behalf of the coal-electric lobby, for starters.
RodB, Consider the current bill winding through committees in Congress:
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_12411381
“The legislation would set a nationwide cap on pollution and sell or give away allowances to emit greenhouse gas. Companies that pollute less can sell their allowances to companies that need more, creating a pollution market. Over the years, the cap on pollution would drop, spurring industries to find ways to lower their emissions.
Not a bad bill, and it opens the door to future improvements as well – so that’s why the lobbyists have been turned loose on the ‘moderate Democrats’ in an effort to sink the bill:
These moderates “Are like the political fulcrum of the committee,” said Scott Segal, a Washington, D.C. lawyer representing utilities and refineries in the ongoing cap-and-trade negotiations.
Scott Segal’s lobbying records are fairly eye-opening:
http://www.implu.com/lobbyist/5165
Which is probably why he says things like this:
Mr Scott Segal, a lobbyist whose clients include power producers Duke Energy and Southern Company as well as oil refiners said that “Utilities will end up paying a king’s ransom to comply with this statute whether they are allocated credits or not. It’s a way to give them the wherewithal to achieve the objective of the statute.”
Notice that this fossil fuel lobbyist (one of the top-ranked in Washington, most frequently quoted in the press) is in charge of “government relations” at his firm:
Scott Segal is a partner in the Government Relations and Strategy Section of the law firm of Bracewell & Patterson, LLP. For the last thirteen years, Scott has focused on environmental and energy policy development in Washington, D.C.
So, yes, you can buy access to Congress, and that’s how decisions are disproportionately influenced by small groups of people with vested interests, and that’s why the democratic process has failed to generate meaningful solutions to the fossil CO2 problem.
In order to make the democratic process work, you have to remove the disproportionate influence of vested interests. In other words, if the only people that Congress hears from are fossil fuel lobbyists with special access, they will make decisions based on bad information.
Unfortunately, bad information is all they get from the fossil fuel lobbyists and neoclassical-Marxist economists – and from people like RodB. Do we really need to go into the rigged electricity markets in California, 2000-2001, Duke, Reliant, Enron, etc? All carried out with the collusion of the Bush energy team? Remember Enron?
What this all shows is just how closely the electricity system is tied to both the national government (especially the DOE) and to larger networks of rail and coal and finance industries who are all reluctant to change the status quo. Their rationale for this behavior is supported by bogus ‘electricity demand forecasts’ based on worthless econometric modeling and outright lies about the ability of renewable energy to replace coal as a power source for the national electric grid. Notice that entrenched neoclassical economic departments are as deeply involved in this as were Marxist economists in the old Soviet Union – you need priestly justification for such irrational nonsense. At least priests don’t pretend to be scientists – so scientists shouldn’t pretend to be priests, nor should they pretend that economic utility is the same thing as physical energy.
Is the behavior of the vested interests going to change? It will cost them more, and their shareholders will protest that their dividends are dropping, and fire the CEOs. So, no. Thus, the government needs to switch subsidies away from fossil fuels and toward renewables, across the board – and that means a real R&D program, plus full-scale solar and wind projects. Look at China, Australia, Germany, Japan, Spain, Israel, the UAE, etc. if you need examples of how to go about it.
That creates a situation where ALL utilities are then given a financial advantage if they agree to switch to renewables. For example, large tax incentives and direct subsidies should be offered to utilities that replace their coal plants with wind and solar facilities – plus, think of all the jobs that would create.
Barton Paul Levenson Says (2 juin 2009 at 7:14 AM):
“James, justifying his argument that higher background radiation is a good thing, writes:”
Now when have I ever made that argument? Good is not the same as less bad.
“We don’t consider any of our children expendable.”
No? Yet it seems that you will go on blindly creating a future in which they will BE expendable; one in which, if they are to survive at all, it will be crammed into cities. But that’s ok, apparently, as long as the dangers they face don’t have a little atom symbol applied.
“I want to preserve my friends and neighbors.”
And I want to preserve the chance for them, and for me and any possible offspring, to enjoy a decent life.
Barton Paul Levenson Says (2 juin 2009 at 7:20 AM):
“Capital cost is not the only input to electricity price.”
Yes, I know that. But I can fairly easily come up with estimates of capital costs for various things. If you want other factors considered, why not try to put some figures on them instead of having a tantrum?
“Price of wind power in California: 9 cents per kilowatt hour. Price of coal: 10 cents. Price of nuclear: 15 cents.
Explain that.”
A link to your source would be appreciated :-) But you might consider the role of the California Public Utilities Commision in setting prices. And remember that price is not cost. Indeed, I’d expect the price of wind to be above nuclear, regardless of cost, since there are people willing to pay a premium for “green” power.
L. David Cooke Says (2 juin 2009 at 8:10 AM):
“If we were to compare the actual costs of the current 1 GW power generation designs for nuclear power the average cost runs between $5.7 and $8.0 per watt with an estimated annual operating cost averaging about $4.3 per watt. As to Solar PV the average installation cost runs between $6.8 and $9.4 per watt with an annual estimated operating cost around $0.02 to $0.04 per watt.”
I think your operating cost for nuclear is way off. This link http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/analysis/nuclearpower.html gives about 1.8 cents per kW (graph a couple of pages down). To make a fair comparison, though, you’d also need to factor in a cost for storage for the PV system. The assumption is that solar PV is a significant fraction of generation, too large to be buffered by the grid as it is now, no?
“If you estimate an average life expectancy of around 20 years this demonstrates that life cycle costs of solar are much lower. (Especially when you add in the cost of demolition.)”
Err… And why would you assume that? That same link shows that about half of the operating reactors in the US are over 30 years old. Furthermore, there doesn’t seem to be any reason why, with proper design & periodic refurbishment, the basic structures shouldn’t last for centuries.
“Oh and BTW for any that still hold on to the idea of solar storage systems, it is clear that storage is only effective in the case of off the grid installations.”
But doesn’t necessarily have to be, if you get away from the idea of storage as banks of lead-acid batteries, and use say high-speed flywheels.
Anne van der Bom Says (2 juin 2009 at 8:48 AM):
“Philips & Sony paid the development of the CD out of their own pockets. Toyota paid the development of the Prius out of their own pockets. Intel paid the development of the 4004 out of their own pockets. In capitalism, it is pretty standard to pay for your own R&D.”
Not if you think about it. There’s some argument about whether Toyota got government research financing to develop the Prius. (And US automakers certainly did get government support for a similar program – the Partnership for New Generation of Vehicles, IIRC – but never brought their prototypes to market.)
Regardless of that, there was and is a lot of government-financed research into basic components, such as advanced batteries. Could Phillips & Sony have developed the CD if it weren’t for previous research developing compact solid-state lasers? Could Intel have developed the 4004 without previous semiconductor research?
Paying for basic R&D is not the way most companies operate (through there are some exceptions). Usually they take university/government basic research, and do the development needed to make a commercial product.
James @ 1127:
Uh, no. The radiation inside a nuclear reactor gradually weakens many of the parts in a reactor.
Well, both of y’all are wrong on this point — both load shifting and balancing energy are very useful. Just about any inexpensive storage technology will work. Right now, because my utility is trying to rip me off, I only connect to the grid between about 3AM and 10AM. If they’d charge me by peak / off-peak consumption, my bills would be smaller.
re 1123: you know that “man” was the gender neutral that we lost? That (IIRC) it was “mer man” for the male man and “wo man” (or “wer man”, depending on how you read the oggam) for the female man?
Ergo, “he” is far better than “it” and I would hope you’d prefer your gender was considered unimportant when it comes to mere conversation. Your significant other is probably glad you have a specific gender, but that is not really going to change how I treat you. As it should, I hope you agree!
James, what do you consder LANL? Wasn’t that a MASSIVE subsidy for nuclear?
I mean, a whole freaking WAR DEPARTMENT?!?!?!!?!
> SEVERAL DIFFERENT SOURCES…
Like solar, wind, geothermal, bio-energy, water, waves, tidal … Yes, sounds familiar.
> Look at … Germany …
Yes, look at us. The posterchild of renewable energy. 14 percent renewables – oh yes – and a whole bunch of brandnew, coal fired powerplants, thanks to the greens who phased out nuclear after coming to power in 1998 – a full 10 years after “Hansen”. Kyoto here we come. Our chances to meet the targets are almost zero and would be much worse, if they hadn’t somehow put the (now conveniently collapsed) industry emissions of the former German Democratic Republic into the equation. How anyone can still believe in Cap and Trade after the Kyoto experience is beyond me.
Why do so many people insist on doing it with renewables? If Climate Change is such an issue and there’s so little time left – why waste most of it hoping for some miracle? (Oh yes, I forgot: SEVERAL DIFFERENT SOURCES… *repeat the mantra – there’s a peer peviewed paper out there somewhere, proving its not only possible but so cheap, that all energy supplyers must be stupid or on big coal curruption money or both for not using it anyway*)
> doesn’t seem to be any reason why …
neutron embrittlement
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0107/Odette-0107.html#ToC6
You’ll be pleased to see that the uncertainty is being addressed through advanced computer modeling techniques.
#1067 Anne van der Bom and re mine #1089 etc,
I think the case can be made that the cogeneration system using natural gas can displace coal fired generation on a free market basis. The CO2 reduction by such a coal displacing system would be 83%.
It is conditioned on there being hybrid cars with machinery already contained therein for generating electricity using a heat engine. It also is conditioned on there being uses for the discharged heat.
For a given unit of produced electricity from this system, X BTUs of heat is required. Three times X would be the amount of heat required if that unit of produced electricity had been produced using coal. For rough numbers lets assume that delivered coal costs are $1.50 per million BTU and delivered natural gas costs are $4.50 per million BTU. The factor of three in efficiency for the cogeneration system makes the fuel costs the same for these alternative sources.
The fact that the major hardware for the cogeneration system is free mean that there is no charge for amortization of the equipment. Although coal fired facilities are long lived, they are very big capital investments, so there would be a substantial charge for this amortization included in the price at which coal produced electricity would be offered to the market. Now it would seem that cogeneration would be a true price competitive source for electricity.
This could put the home owner in position to compete with the coal power plants in a way that would even leave a profit for the home owner. Sound good?
As to the CO2, the three times improvement in efficiency means that a third as much heat in BTUs would be required to make that unit of electricity and since only about half as much CO2 is released per BTU from natural gas as is released per BTU from coal, we have only released a sixth of the CO2 as formerly would have come from the coal fired central power plant. This is 83% CO2 reduction.
An 83% reduction in CO2 from an economically viable, even economically compelling, system sounds like progress to me.
The real pesky detail is the stated condition that would require that people would adapt to efficient cars similar to those I am suggesting or other efficient forms having hybrid machinery already included as a necessary part of their operation.
bobberger – energy storage on a large scale is a non-trivial challenge.
Ladies & Gentlemen, I give you;
The coal heap
The oil depot
The gas pipeline
and the petrol station.
Large scale energy storage doesn’t seem to be a problem.
Now replace all of them with sodium sulphur batteries.
James
2 June 2009 at 1:01 PM
government research financing = subsidy
government support = subsidy
Call it what you like, it was exactly the point Ike was making: that the money for research into clean coal counts as ‘subsidy’.
RodB
2 June 2009 at 10:1 AM
Uuuuh….. because they’re not coal companies?
btw, its CCS, not CSS
Germany started with a huge level of emissions. But still, percentage wise they don’t look to be doing too bad, to me.
Latest update on Kyoto progress – http://www.eea.europa.eu/pressroom/newsreleases/2009-greenhouse-inventory-report
Ike, I have no problem and in fact little disagreement with your desire to decrease fossil fuel subsidies and increase renewable subsidies. I was simply taking umbrage with your excessive hyperbole in stating the current fossil fuel subsidies you want cut. I think it actually detracts from your message
bobberger @1132:
Because it’s already being done? Or did you miss the comment upthread that 42% of the newly installed generating capacity in the State was renewables? Or that renewable energy installations are growing at double digits, and expected to keep doing that?
As for there being a “peer reviewed paper out there”, there doesn’t have to be. You can go price the stuff yourself — especially if you displace gasoline with electricity from solar, it gets to be pretty damned cheap. 30KWh, based on what I wrote above, is about $2.70 to install. That will move most electric cars somewhere around 60 miles or so (it will move my motorcycle 320 miles …). That’s $0.045 / mile and 55MPG equivalent at $2.50 per gallon. Think gasoline is going to stay that cheap? (my motorcycle would then cost $0.0084 per mile, or about 300MPG equivalent)
Do you know what I see as the greatest “Tragedy of the Climate Commons”? All of the stupid posts explaining why something I do every day can’t be done. Why something I spent the last several years of my life working on doesn’t work. Most of y’all are just guessing about renewable energy or smart grids or whatever.
Mark @ 1130:
It was “werman” and “wifman”. And women view the use of “man” as the default very differently, I assure you. As for its importance, I consider it to be very important in a world in which women’s accomplishments are erased when people just assume someone is a man. If it doesn’t matter so much, how do you think all the men here would feel if everyone started referring to them as “She”?
[Response: Any more diversions and this thread gets closed! – gavin]
You know, the way to approach this is to consider the case where all fossil fuels vanish over a time period of 20 years, a straight linear decline – just as a thought experiment. What would happen to all the fossil-energy-dependent activities – agriculture, industry, transportation & trade, residential power, etc?
In each case, there are are at least three or four means to replace fossil energy sources with renewable energy sources – all feasible, all with working prototypes. You can power Arizona with solar power, and you can store solar in various forms (plants store sunlight as starch, for example) – indeed, fossil fuels are just stored solar energy from millions of years ago.
FCH your gender doesn’t change a thing about what you say.
Or do you think it should?
And Richard C, good examples.
Worse, you have to move that coal heap from Australia to Japan (or wherever). Which takes more storage.
Lucky us, we get sun distributed about the globe, so no need to move that junk about, eh?
http://www.interacademies.net/
OCEAN ACIDIFICATION …
Link to Press release and Statement by IAP Member Academies
http://www.interacademies.net/CMS/8900.aspx
The warning is made in a joint statement published today, 1 June 2009, by the InterAcademy Panel on International Issues (IAP).
70 national science academies signed the statement.
Signatories of the IAP Statement
• TWAS, the academy of sciences for the developing world
• Albanian Academy of Sciences
• National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural
Sciences, Argentina
• Australian Academy of Science
• Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
• The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of
Belgium
• Brazilian Academy of Sciences
• Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
• Cameroon Academy of Sciences
• RSC: The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences
of Canada
• Academia Chilena de Ciencias
• Chinese Academy of Sciences
• Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural
Sciences
• Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
• Cuban Academy of Sciences
• Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
• Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
• Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
• Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
• The Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science
and Letters
• Académie des Sciences, France
• Georgian Academy of Sciences
• Union der Deutschen Akademien der Wissenschaften
• Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina
• The Academy of Athens
• Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales
de Guatemala
• Indian National Science Academy
• Indonesian Academy of Sciences
• Academy of Sciences of the Islamic
Republic of Iran
• Royal Irish Academy
• Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
• Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei
• Science Council of Japan
• Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
• Islamic World Academy of Sciences
• African Academy of Sciences
• Kenya National Academy of Sciences
• The Korean Academy of Science and Technology
• Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
• National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
• Akademi Sains Malaysia
• Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
• Academia Mexicana de Ciencias
• Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
• The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
• Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
• Nigerian Academy of Sciences
• Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
• Pakistan Academy of Sciences
• Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
• Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
• Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa
• Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
• Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
• Slovak Academy of Sciences
• Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
• Academy of Science of South Africa
• Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
of Spain
• National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
• Sudanese National Academy of Science
• Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
• Academia Sinica, Taiwan, China
• Tanzania Academy of Sciences
• The Caribbean Academy of Sciences
• Turkish Academy of Sciences
• The Uganda National Academy of Sciences
• The Royal Society, UK
• US National Academy of Sciences
• Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales
de Venezuela
• Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
• Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
• Islamic World Academy of Sciences
• African Academy of Sciences
• Kenya National Academy of Sciences
• The Korean Academy of Science and Technology
• Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
• National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
• Akademi Sains Malaysia
• Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
• Academia Mexicana de Ciencias
• Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
• The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
• Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
• Nigerian Academy of Sciences
• Norwegian Academy of Scie
Revisiting fisheries, it’s discouraging to see complete failure of the political process. What’s happening seems like a mad rush to harvest everything and wipe out the resource, and turn it all into money, before the ocean pH changes.
If some alien invader were stripmining the planet, we’d all want it stopped.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/01/george-monbiot-marine-fisheries-law
“… “the precautionary principle is a vague term, and we don’t really know how we define it”
“The story is the same all over the world. Next week, on 8 June, The End of the Line will be released in British cinemas. It’s an excoriating, shocking film about the collapse of global fisheries, and the utter uselessness of the people who are supposed to protect them. It follows the journalist Charles Clover as he struggles to understand why no one is prepared to act.” http://endoftheline.com/
“the European Union’s scientists recommend a bluefin catch one and a half times as big as it should be; the European commission then doubles it, and the fishermen then take twice as much as the commission allows. The Mediterranean fleet now catches one third of that sea’s entire bluefin tuna population every year: at current catch rates, the species will be extinct by 2012.”
“… 88% of European fish stocks are overexploited and 30% have collapsed. Its quota system encourages the dumping of millions of tonnes of dead fish at sea, while its efforts to reduce the fishing fleet’s capacity haven’t kept pace with technology. “In several member states … the cost of fishing to the public budgets exceeds the total value of the catches.” Last week, European fisheries ministers agreed a radical reform of the common fisheries policy by 2012, just in time for the extinction of the bluefin tuna.”
scienceblogs.com/deepseanews/2008/08/this_post_might_make_you_cry.php
Old familiar story — scientists warning about wiping out the fishery, other scientists warming about the ocean pH changing so the fish won’t recover.
Watch for it in the news. Be very surprised if you see it mentioned anywhere.
RE:1127
Hey James,
Apparently your browser must not have been able to access my earlier URL link… The estimated values I was tossing blithely about was an average estimate of capital and operating costs from Conception to Demolition.
Note: The data below is to be directly referenced from the site below and according to the distribution limitations stated there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants 6-2-09
If you can point your browser to the referenced URL above please review the data under these headings and then proceed to the text under the “Cost per kW-hr” heading.
“Recent construction cost estimates”
“Waste disposal”
“Decommissioning”
As to operating costs you are probably within striking range with your reference. See Below; again from the reference above…
“Cost per kW·h”
“Factoring in all these issues, various groups have attempted to calculate a true economic cost for electricity generated by the most modern designs proposed. Because if an actual cost per kW·h can be calculated, then it is possible to compare it to other power sources to determine if such an investment is economically sound.”
“In 2003, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) issued a report entitled, “The Future of Nuclear Power”. They estimated that new nuclear power in the US would cost 6.7 cents per kW·h.[1] However, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 includes a tax credit that should reduce that cost slightly.”
“The lifetime cost of new generating capacity in the United States was estimated in 2006 by the U.S. government (the 2007 report did not estimate costs). Nuclear power was estimated at 5.93 cents per kW·h. However, the “total overnight cost” for new nuclear was assumed to be $1,984 per kWe[35] — as seen above in Capital Costs, this figure is subject to debate.”
“A 2008 study based on historical outcomes in the U.S. said costs for nuclear power can be expected to run $0.25-.30 per kW·h.[36]”
“A 2008 study concluded that if carbon capture and storage was required then nuclear power would be the cheapest source of electricity even at $4,038/kW in overnight capital cost.[14]”
“In 2009, MIT updated its 2003 study, concluding that inflation and rising construction costs had increased the overnight cost of nuclear power plants to about $4,000/kWe, and thus increased the power cost to 8.4¢/kW·h.[37][38]”
“(1) The Future of Nuclear Power, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2003, ISBN 0-615-12420-8, http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/, retrieved on 2006-11-10″
“(14)”The Economics of Nuclear Power”. Information and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Association. 2009. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html. Retrieved on 2009-04-01″
“(35)Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook 2006 – see p.73” (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/forecasting/0554(2006).pdf on page 77 of 169 at 75% portrait)
“(36)Severance, C. (2009) “Business Risks and Costs of New Nuclear Power”; for critiques and replies from the study’s author, see http://climateprogress.org/2009/01/05/study-cost-risks-new-nuclear-power-plants/”
“(37)John M. Deutch; et al (2009). “Update of the MIT 2003 Future of Nuclear Power Study” (PDF). Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/nuclearpower-update2009.pdf. Retrieved on 2009-05-18″
“(38)Yangbo Du; John E. Parsons (May 2009). “Update on the Cost of Nuclear Power” (PDF). MIT. http://web.mit.edu/ceepr/www/publications/workingpapers/2009-004.pdf. Retrieved on 2009-05-19″
I suspect the cost per kW-hr everyone is quoting here relates primarily to operating cost only. The capital cost appears to only be considered the “cost of doing business”. That would be appropriate if there were assets at the end of life of these systems. If anything, there are not assets left; but, debits, and some that will run on for centuries…, using the current technology.
(BTW most of the fissionables at Chernobyl were likely buried in the detritus and dust of time, removing them from the immediate biosphere. However, the poison likely lingers inches below the surface or in the bottoms of the rivers and seas of the Chernobyl region…)
Hey Furry Cat,
As to both of us getting it wrong, whereas I understand your point regarding load balancing. The fact remains with solar you would output a minimum during off peak and output maximum during peak. The Peak off set provided by your Solar tie into the Grid would reduce the fossil fuels necessary to Peak the Circuits, where as the Nuclear would maintain a steady state at near the daily minimum demand. (Additional savings could be achieved by adding in the Nat. Gas capability to Load Balance the Off Peak demand when it exceeds the Nuclear steady state.)
If your utility would allow you to run your meter backwards at the differing (Peak/Min) rates you are correct you could end up net positive. However, most utilities do not want this, as that removes their ability to manage the load levels and control the power quality when you add privately installed systems out there. If however there was a phase angle matching swinging choke transformer, added to your drop and a remotely operated grid block relay, several of the issues could be resolved.
The issue remains either local storage or the lack of smart grids/substations are the primary roadblocks to a distributed solar future. The question is how to remove the roadblocks. If you give the control to the Utility they would simply turn off your grid tie as they fired up their systems. Though you may think they would rather not fire up their systems they need to be able to control the the Source/Load balance to control the power quality. (Coal like nuclear, has to be a 7×24 operation. You simply cannot easily shut down a coal plant and then start it up again on short notice (generally it is a 12 to 16 hour process at best) only Diesel Oil and Nat Gas offer the microsecond load balancing response capability necessary, without the Utility having to generating a buffer balance.) (As an aside, have you ever seen a buffer load?)
Cheers!
Dave Cooke
Hey James,
Apparently you must have missed my link earlier where they were discussing the total cost from Conception to Demolition and beyond.
The estimated values I was so blithely tossing about were supposed to be Total Life Cycle Capital and Operating estimates and not annual capital and operating estimates, my error. Specifically the estimated operating values on the URL below run roughly from between $0.35 to $0.04, not far from your reference; however, that is based on operating costs alone, if you add in the capital costs my numbers are much closer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants retrieved 6-2-09
Pay particular attention to these sections.
“Recent construction cost estimates”
“Waste disposal”
“Decommissioning”
“Cost per kW·h”
Hey FurryCat,
I had a great effort laid out to describe the basics of load balancing and how your solar panels would actually help remove CO2 by offsetting peak demand, by removing the need for utilities to generate a fossil fueled peak buffer and wham, “502 Gateway error”. So I guess I will offer an abridged version. Oh and yes, if your Utility would offer Peak/Min metering you could end up being net positive.
However, there is the issue, the Utility is no longer in control of supply to meet their responsibility for demand. What ends up is that either a good storage technology or a smart grid/substation are going to be a requirement if private power will be added to the grid. Managing the load due to a cloud bank passing over head wil just add to their worries. The other issue is the use of coal. Coal is similar to Nuclear in that it is not a fast power up/down solution. (Also, generally you never want it to shut down as that is when things break or fail.) Hence, they would sooner shut down your connection to the grid, then to shut down their coal plant. That was the reason for looking at Oil or Natural Gas as the Load Buffer Offset source with a stead state Nuclear source. Battery Storage is no better, in that all of that energy you could be producing to offset fossil fuels ends up going in to wasted heat. However, at least if everyone else lost power you would still have a ready reserve…
Hey All,
As to someone else’s earlier comment regarding energy demand versus supply, the measures of efficiency are straight forward and defined in DOE/NREL/EIA documentation, it is not worth while to pursue the differences in opinion, as opinions really do not matter too the regulators… and they are who you have to prove your figures to.
Cheers!
Dave Cooke
FurryCatHerder Says (2 juin 2009 at 1:18 PM):
“Uh, no. The radiation inside a nuclear reactor gradually weakens many of the parts in a reactor.”
Did you notice that I wrote “basic structure”? By which I meant all that expensive concrete containment building, and all the other incidental structures. You have neutron embrittlement and similar in the reactor itself, so you replace the affected parts whenever necessary, just as (if you’re like me) you might replace the bearings & rings in your car’s engine instead of junking the whole car. Maybe you even replace the whole reactor, but even then, that’s a lot cheaper than tearing down a whole plant and building another. Concrete lasts, if it’s done right: if you’ve spent any time in the old Roman parts of Europe, you’ll likely have seen concrete structures still in use after nearly 2000 years.
“Well, both of y’all are wrong on this point — both load shifting and balancing energy are very useful. Just about any inexpensive storage technology will work.”
Different frame of reference, perhaps? I just can’t think of your stack of lead-acid batteries (I’m guessing about $10K worth from the figures you gave) as inexpensive. But a flywheel system – and I admit I’m guessing again – should be much cheaper once mass-produced, and should last essentially forever.
Mark Says (2 juin 2009 at 1:27 PM):
“James, what do you consder LANL? Wasn’t that a MASSIVE subsidy for nuclear?
I mean, a whole freaking WAR DEPARTMENT?!?!?!!?!”
Huh? You want to consider the nuclear weapons program as a subsidy for nuclear power? That’s a big dog being wagged by a pretty small tail :-)
I suppose by that logic, the Army Air Corps and all those B-17s and such were nothing more than a subsidy for the airlines :-)
Anne van der Bom Says (2 juin 2009 at 2:50 PM)
“government research financing = subsidy
government support = subsidy
Call it what you like, it was exactly the point Ike was making: that the money for research into clean coal counts as ’subsidy’.”
Not at all. Perhaps it’s just a shade of meaning, but it’s a subsidy only if it reduces the price of the product – in this case, electricity. Research into CCS doesn’t affect the price of coal-generated electricty now, and it’s nothing the companies involved have to do as part of their business.
FurryCatHerder Says (2 juin 2009 at 3:36 PM):
“Because it’s already being done? Or did you miss the comment upthread that 42% of the newly installed generating capacity in the State was renewables? Or that renewable energy installations are growing at double digits, and expected to keep doing that?”
The problem there is that the way it’s stated, as percentage growth, is very open to misinterpretation. If your home solar system was the only renewable generation in Texas last year, and this year you install an identical system for your neighbor, guess what? Renewable generation increased 100% in a year! Likewise, if no major power plants were completed last year, it’d be easy to get a wrong impression from that 42%.
How about actual number of megawatts (adjusted for capacity factor) against the power generated from coal? And projecting current rates of growth, how long does it take to replace all coal-fired generation?
FurryCatHerder
Look, I don’t doubt that YOU can do it for yourself as I suppose you’re living in your own home and you’re not running a factory. But the 42% of newly installed capacity (and you know what “capacity” means for wind and solar) is no more than 8.5 GW. You will be able so easily tripple that before you’ll run into the problems we now have in Germany (with an already much “smarter” grid than your’s and overall much less consumption, backup from countries around us etc.). With an area as big as the US, where the wind-carpet is more reliable and solar is much more of an option than when you’re as far away from the euqator as we are and deserts and mountains and long coastlines, you’ll probably overtake us by 2030. And what will you have achieved then? What about your giant baseload? I think your EIA has it about right:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/excel/figure3over_data.xls
Even if you are extremely optimistic, your miracle happens and you double these figures – will it (and there we come back to Chip Knappenberger’s argument) really help? How many degrees C will it make up in 2100? How much will sealevel not rise, even if you can somehow do it on a global scale? Renewables are fine up to a point but trying to go beyond that is, imho, a waste of time and effort we should rather invest into something that really works (unless somebody can show me an affordable, working storage technology to buffer at least two or three calm, windless nights followed by two or three cloudy days for an entire economy).