Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[chubbs]

16 hours ago, WolfStock1 said:

 

I think you're generally reinforcing my point, which is that this thing is much harder than most people thought it would be, and we're making less progress than people thought we would even given the increase in the use of renewables that we've seen.

You say "Renewables only began to move the needle in this decade.", but there is no "this decade" in that chart - there is only "this year", which happens to be an extreme outlier w/El Nino, showing anything other than the same trend upward.   I think that's likely the main factor, and not primarily due to energy policy.   Only time will tell though, in the years ahead.    If it's truly due to energy policy then we should see a continued bending-down of the curve.

My additional assertion would be - this is also turning out to be more economically disruptive than anticipated; vis a vis the increases we've seen in electricity prices, and the resulting economic headwinds that have been experienced, in particular by countries that have had more aggressive renewable policies.

 

Nobody thought it would be easy to replace fossil fuels. Ten years ago low carbon emission scenarios depended heavily on carbon capture, nuclear and biofuels. It has proven difficult to advance those technologies. On the other hand solar, batteries and EV have advanced much faster than anticipated and it is easier to replace fossil fuels with those technologies than anticipated.

Your views on the cost of renewables are outdated. The energy cost increases we are seeing are due to fossil fuels. Supply disruptions and the inability to meet increasing demand in a timely manner being the biggest problems. Energy costs would be even higher without renewable, batteries and EV. Countries that have to import fossil fuels are trying to find a cheaper more reliable alternative. Even in Texas, where local natural gas is plentiful, met 80% of new power demand with solar last year. 

[WolfStock1]

1 hour ago, chubbs said:

Nobody thought it would be easy to replace fossil fuels. Ten years ago low carbon emission scenarios depended heavily on carbon capture, nuclear and biofuels. It has proven difficult to advance those technologies. On the other hand solar, batteries and EV have advanced much faster than anticipated and it is easier to replace fossil fuels with those technologies than anticipated.

Your views on the cost of renewables are outdated. The energy cost increases we are seeing are due to fossil fuels. Supply disruptions and the inability to meet increasing demand in a timely manner being the biggest problems. Energy costs would be even higher without renewable, batteries and EV. Countries that have to import fossil fuels are trying to find a cheaper more reliable alternative. Even in Texas, where local natural gas is plentiful, met 80% of new power demand with solar last year. 

 

There are many reasons for our energy cost increases, but the vast majority has been renewables.  There is reams of data and articles on the subject, going back to before the current supply disruptions.

Posting data from ERCOT is cherry picking.  Texas is the one state that has the best blend of geographical conditions for wind and solar.  As I say - low hanging fruit.   Now do the same PJM (largest grid) and others.   

It's kind of like when people point out how Norway is so green with their renewables - well duh; they live in a population-sparse country with tons of mountains - perfect conditions for hydro.  Most of the rest of the world doesn't have that geographical luxury.

 

 

[Brewbeer]

Quote

There are many reasons for our energy cost increases, but the vast majority has been renewables.

false statement

the true drivers of increased energy and electricity costs are increasing costs to maintain and expand an aging grid, the increasing price for fossil fuels, the increase in energy demand, and a general utility regulatory structure that prioritizes investment in massive power plants that have long capital pay-back periods

and let's not forget about the abysmally expensive energy policy choices implemented by the current administration

[WolfStock1]

2 hours ago, Brewbeer said:

false statement

the true drivers of increased energy and electricity costs are increasing costs to maintain and expand an aging grid, the increasing price for fossil fuels, the increase in energy demand, and a general utility regulatory structure that prioritizes investment in massive power plants that have long capital pay-back periods

and let's not forget about the abysmally expensive energy policy choices implemented by the current administration

 

Look at the data.   Europe in general has had a heavier push for renewables, and has seen higher rises in electricity prices than has the US as a result.   It's clear.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/climate-policy-reality-europe-energy-costs-gas-coal-11632754849

https://www.wsj.com/business/energy-oil/europes-green-energy-rush-slashed-emissionsand-crippled-the-economy-e65a1a07

etc. etc.

Don't just look at the costs of individual projects and "peak output" which is what's often widely touted.   Peak output is meaningless by itself.   The problem is that renewables can't exist in a vacuum - they are too unreliable.   Thus *even* if renewables could be less expensive than fossil on a per-KW basis (it generally isn't) - the overall *solution* is more expensive, because the fossil cannot be removed - it has to also stay in place to pick up the slack when unreliable wind and solar aren't present.

Taking a specific case near where I live.   There's an 800-acre 100 MW solar plant being installed right here (northern VA).   Cost is $200 million.   Since the capacity factor of solar here is about 20%, that makes it roughly $10M per MW.   Compare that with a natural gas plant just down the road - 774 MW (about 540 MW w/capacity factor of 70%), and a cost of $778M.    Thus it cost about 4x as much to build - but will be producing about 28x the electricity, and much more reliably so.

Then compare with Kemmerer SMR being built in Wyoming.  Cost is estimated to be $4B; will be putting out about 345 MW.   Thus will be about $11.5M per MW - about the same cost as solar.   And that's the *first* SMR being built - costs of future ones will come down a lot.

Look at the numbers.   Look at the *actual* numbers, not the theoretical ones.

Look at the constant stream of renewable projects that have to be canceled to high costs - either during construction or during maintenance.   Look at the interplay between sources of energy.   Look at geography.   Look at weather.   Look at where people live, and what it takes to get electricity from there to here.  Look at infrastructure.   Look at land space usage.  Look at materials usage (rare earths, silver, etc. etc.).    Look at life spans, cycles, and recycling of materials used for generation.   Etc. etc.   

 

[Brewbeer]

lol at wall street journal opinion articles; everyone has opinions, but just because someone typed their opinion, and you believe it, does not make it true 

here are some facts:  link and link

and if you want to look at "actual" numbers, you need to include operating costs including fuel inputs over the life of the facility, not just cost to build; and for nuclear, you need to include the cost of long term storage and disposal of radioactive components from the plant operations

if you want try again and this time include operational costs to support your opinion, please do so