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Your views on the cost of renewables are outdated.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Your views on the cost of renewables are outdated.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

[WolfStock1]

1 hour ago, Brewbeer said:

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

 

Yes perhaps, but one would also need to include the costs for lower lifespan of solar and wind, the costs for recycling the very hard-to-recycle materials, the environmental costs of the things that can't be recycled (e.g. carbon-fiber blades),  the costs for acquiring the land (including the huge amount of community-by-community fights that inevitably happens), the environmental costs of dead and disturbed wildlife - birds, whales, etc. (how to quantify?), and of cleared balsa forests, the cost for additional land and steel required for additional transmission lines, etc. etc.

Also keeping in mind that this does not scale linearly.  As the scale of projects get larger and larger (e.g. Spanberger's proposal for 277,000 acres of solar in Virginia), it drives the costs of material - e.g. silver for solar panels - up, due to their relative scarcity.

These things are not nearly as simple as people make them out to be, due to the immense amount of factors, which is why you have to look at the bigger picture, such as what's been happening in Europe (and to a smaller extent the US).

I mean - just step back and think about it.   Electricity prices (especially in Europe) have been rising - faster than inflation.   Is it because of rising oil prices?   No - it can't be, because we don't use oil for generating electricity.   Is it because of the price of coal?   No - that's generally been flat (save for a big spike in 2022) since 2008 https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/coal-prices.     Is it because of the price of Natural gas?   No - that's been *down* the last couple of decades:  https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdm.htm.    Why then?   Why have electricity prices been going up so much?   Is it just coincidence that it happens to be happening at the same time as we've pushing for replacement of fossil plants with renewable?   No.

Keep in mind that this is *despite* the money that's been flowing into the renewable energy industry, vis a vis our taxes.   Without that electricity prices would be even higher.

(and lest one be tempted to blame the price increase on increased demand from AI and data centers - keep in mind that the electricity prices started getting higher long before that recent demand spike)

P.S. that Fresh Energy link is from what is essentially a renewable energy lobbying organization - extremely biased.   The EIA link doesn't really provide any useful information for the conversation.

[chubbs]

19 hours ago, WolfStock1 said:

 

Yes perhaps, but one would also need to include the costs for lower lifespan of solar and wind, the costs for recycling the very hard-to-recycle materials, the environmental costs of the things that can't be recycled (e.g. carbon-fiber blades),  the costs for acquiring the land (including the huge amount of community-by-community fights that inevitably happens), the environmental costs of dead and disturbed wildlife - birds, whales, etc. (how to quantify?), and of cleared balsa forests, the cost for additional land and steel required for additional transmission lines, etc. etc.

Also keeping in mind that this does not scale linearly.  As the scale of projects get larger and larger (e.g. Spanberger's proposal for 277,000 acres of solar in Virginia), it drives the costs of material - e.g. silver for solar panels - up, due to their relative scarcity.

These things are not nearly as simple as people make them out to be, due to the immense amount of factors, which is why you have to look at the bigger picture, such as what's been happening in Europe (and to a smaller extent the US).

I mean - just step back and think about it.   Electricity prices (especially in Europe) have been rising - faster than inflation.   Is it because of rising oil prices?   No - it can't be, because we don't use oil for generating electricity.   Is it because of the price of coal?   No - that's generally been flat (save for a big spike in 2022) since 2008 https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/coal-prices.     Is it because of the price of Natural gas?   No - that's been *down* the last couple of decades:  https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdm.htm.    Why then?   Why have electricity prices been going up so much?   Is it just coincidence that it happens to be happening at the same time as we've pushing for replacement of fossil plants with renewable?   No.

Keep in mind that this is *despite* the money that's been flowing into the renewable energy industry, vis a vis our taxes.   Without that electricity prices would be even higher.

(and lest one be tempted to blame the price increase on increased demand from AI and data centers - keep in mind that the electricity prices started getting higher long before that recent demand spike)

P.S. that Fresh Energy link is from what is essentially a renewable energy lobbying organization - extremely biased.   The EIA link doesn't really provide any useful information for the conversation.

Your viewpoint on renewables is outdated and misinformed. Yes,renewables were not competitive in the past and required subsidies. Now however they are fully competitive in many markets, without considering climate and energy security benefits. Renewable/EV competitiveness vs fossil fuels will only improve in the future as fossil fuels deplete, renewable and battery technology improves, and climate impacts compound. 

The investment in renewables has paid off in spades. Now we have additional low cost energy supply at a time when fossil fuels are struggling to meet increased demand. Per study linked below, Europe saved 100 billion euros due to renewables in 2021-2023 when energy prices spiked due to the Russia/Ukraine war. That cost saving has only increased since.

https://www.iea.org/reports/renewable-energy-market-update-june-2023/how-much-money-are-european-consumers-saving-thanks-to-renewables

[Typhoon Tip]

Plus... if fossil fuel really is that impossible to get away from then we are assured of two world destinies:

an ontological death

an actual die-off

I suspect though that folks just enjoy the sport of the argument...? fine.  But while that ball-game is being played, those overarching ultimatums are objectively looming.  In other words, do it!  tough shit.  But of course, the problem with that is that people do not believe that the proverbial pistol is actually pointed at the head.

For the rest, look ... no one is insinuating any of this is going to be easy.  It is going to be hard, very hard.  In fact, so much so that it is of higher likelihood that humanity won't be able to get off the oil-heroin without transferring violent withdraw frustrations, unilaterally.  That's rhetorical euphemism for destructive conflicts.

I just wanna point out couple aspects for muse/thought:

The first is ... the problem with Global Warming is not warming of the globe.  That was a mistake of the early science ambit when this issue of humanity's industrial flatulence become abundantly clear to the very small population that is really even capable of understanding the future peril.  When that become obvious to those that know, the 99.9999999% of the world that finds all this "math" as mentally untenable, simply were ill-equipped so... denial was going to be inevitable after sociological forces worked it over.   The way GW should have been exposed was to say - it's species adaptation rate, more importantly .... being slower than the changes to the environments within which they were evolved prior to the arrival anthropomorphic forcing.

Resources become challenged ?   But that's a separate issue...   We are inexorably dependent upon the interconnected species of the global "Gaia" - for lack of better word.  When those relationships sever - because keystone bacteria ...say etc...- undermines the foundation of food and resource pyramids...  tick tick tick

The 2nd is that innovation in our species as tool makers has outpaced the normal checks-n-balances that intertwine use with the surrounding ecology.  There are probably better ways to formulate that sentence/phrase out that sentiment, relative to the reader's comprehension, in hopes that they really understand what is trying to be conveyed. Look at it this way... in the Darwinian machinery, all other species mutate enough to survive, and those mutations thus live on so that the next generation has that ability built in. Human have a unique power, to innovate beyond that species requirement.  If you sum-up the quotient that is over the top of the species basal requirement, that surplus is probably 1::1 equal with problems that are being defined.  I've been saying for years that the moment in antiquity that the early hominid picked up the burning stick, we were doomed. It was just a matter thousands of years...  a time span - by the way - that is an instant cataclysm relative to the geological ages.

At a minimum, that same mutation, innovation, will have to become our savior.   

 

 

[LongBeachSurfFreak]

 
Yes perhaps, but one would also need to include the costs for lower lifespan of solar and wind, the costs for recycling the very hard-to-recycle materials, the environmental costs of the things that can't be recycled (e.g. carbon-fiber blades),  the costs for acquiring the land (including the huge amount of community-by-community fights that inevitably happens), the environmental costs of dead and disturbed wildlife - birds, whales, etc. (how to quantify?), and of cleared balsa forests, the cost for additional land and steel required for additional transmission lines, etc. etc.
Also keeping in mind that this does not scale linearly.  As the scale of projects get larger and larger (e.g. Spanberger's proposal for 277,000 acres of solar in Virginia), it drives the costs of material - e.g. silver for solar panels - up, due to their relative scarcity.
These things are not nearly as simple as people make them out to be, due to the immense amount of factors, which is why you have to look at the bigger picture, such as what's been happening in Europe (and to a smaller extent the US).
I mean - just step back and think about it.   Electricity prices (especially in Europe) have been rising - faster than inflation.   Is it because of rising oil prices?   No - it can't be, because we don't use oil for generating electricity.   Is it because of the price of coal?   No - that's generally been flat (save for a big spike in 2022) since 2008 https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/coal-prices.     Is it because of the price of Natural gas?   No - that's been *down* the last couple of decades:  https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdm.htm.    Why then?   Why have electricity prices been going up so much?   Is it just coincidence that it happens to be happening at the same time as we've pushing for replacement of fossil plants with renewable?   No.
Keep in mind that this is *despite* the money that's been flowing into the renewable energy industry, vis a vis our taxes.   Without that electricity prices would be even higher.
(and lest one be tempted to blame the price increase on increased demand from AI and data centers - keep in mind that the electricity prices started getting higher long before that recent demand spike)
P.S. that Fresh Energy link is from what is essentially a renewable energy lobbying organization - extremely biased.   The EIA link doesn't really provide any useful information for the conversation.

Explain to me how a windmill kills whales. This is complete nonsense. We just had an enormous wind farm built off the coast here on Long Island, and the amount of actual whale activity had increased by orders of magnitude in the last decade. I have never in 28 years of ocean life gaurding spotted more whales then I did this summer.


.