The line you hear about renewable energy, over and over again, is that “renewables like solar and wind are intermittent” and therefore need a back up.
Hello?
All sources of energy are intermittent, and all need a back up, – that’s why you have a grid.
Above, retired Austin Energy exec Michael Osborne was instrumental in negotiating the lowest price for utility scale solar ever.
He describes how Austin Energy, the municipal utility in Texas’ capital city, keeps the lights on with multiple sources of energy, including “intermittent” nuclear power.
One difference between renewables and traditional power sources is that you can lose a whole lot of power, unexpectedly, when something goes wrong with a large centralized power plant, like when a nuclear power plant trips offline, or as happened recently with a fire in a UK gas generator.
Carbon Brief:
What happens when a major gas power station catches on fire? Well, it certainly looks spectacular. But it appears the short term impact on the UK’s power generation is pretty minimal.
Energy company RWE npower had to unexpectedly shut down one of the Dicot B power station’s 700 megawatt units last night after a fire broke out in one of the cooling towers.
Didcot’s shutdown is the latest in a series of unexpected outages which National Grid has had to cope with in recent months. This has led to a spate of headlines questioning whether National Grid will have enough power stations available to cope with high demand over the winter months.
We take a look at how National Grid copes with such unexpected events, and why it remains confident the UK will have enough power this winter.
Where does the UK’s power come from?
National Grid is legally required to make sure there’s always enough power to meet demand. The UK’s peak demand – at around 6pm on weekdays – is currently around 45 gigawatts. This is expected to rise to about 55 gigawatts over the winter, as people spend more time indoors and use more electricity.
Big coal, gas, and nuclear power stations are responsible for meeting most of this demand. The government’s latest statistics show 30 per cent of the UK’s electricity comes from gas, with 28 per cent coming from coal. Nuclear power provides about 20 per cent.
When one of these power stations has to be taken offline, it’s big news. Earlier this year, the Heysham 1 and Hartlepool nuclear reactors with a total capacity of 2.3 gigawatts shut down after engineers discovered cracks in their boiler casings. Both power stations are due to come back online before Christmas, although they will only be operating at 70 to 80 per cent of their normal output, the Telegraph reports.
Two coal power plants – at Ferrybridge and Ironbridge – also caught fire over the summer, meaning National Grid has had to do without their combined 1.4 gigawatts of capacity in recent months.
_
The real challenge came this morning, when everyone got out of bed and made a cup of tea – and demand spiked.
So what filled the gap?
Last week’s electricity demand was fairly similar to this week’s. Using this time last week as a reference point, we can roughly estimate how much coal, gas, nuclear and renewables National Grid would have expected to call on this morning if Didcot B hadn’t closed.
If Didcot B’s outage had a major affect on the UK’s gas power supply, you’d expect to see gas providing much less of the UK’s demand this morning than on Monday morning last week. The graph below shows that wasn’t really the case.
The graph shows the percentage change in the proportion of demand each energy source accounted for last night and this morning, compared to the same time a week ago:
It shows National Grid was able to call on other fossil fuelled power plants to fill the gap left by Didcot B’s shutdown. The fact that most of the energy sources only provided a couple of per cent more or less power to the grid this morning shows the impact of Didcot B closing was very short term.
The main thing driving National Grid’s technology choices seems today is the fact there was less wind available this morning than the same time last week, rather than Didcot B’s outage.
When Didcot B was shut yesterday, National Grid called on a whole range of energy sources to make up the difference.
Within a couple of hours, gas generation had been ramped up to the extent that it was providing for about the same share of the UK’s electricity demand as last week. National Grid also called on companies to ramp up coal power generation, as you can see from the rising light blue line.
The UK also imported slightly more electricity (the dark blue line), and National Grid used some stored power to balance the grid (the purple line).
National Grid has spare capacity to draw on because many of the UK’s fossil fuelled power plants aren’t running at full capacity – gas plants are generally producing only about a third of the electricity they could provide.
Coal plants are currently only producing about two-thirds of the electricity they could. So when there’s a big outage, as there was yesterday, it’s relatively straightforward for National Grid to ask companies to increase the amount of electricity those power stations are producing.
One reason coal and gas plants are running at less than full-power is that the UK has been building lots of renewables. That allows energy companies to rely on renewable power, save money on fuel, and leave some power spare for when National Grid needs it.
How on Earth does a concrete hyperboloid containing permanent ‘rain’ catch fire?
Maybe because it looks like it was made of wood (?)
Or careless smokers? Or overloaded extension cords? Or lightning?
Looks like wooden construction to me. Overheat a motor, throw burning stuff at wood in a spot that gets good airflow… fire.
Here are the basic trends:
1) We have an aging infrastructure falling apart at the same time that we have a reduced budgetary ability to maintain it.
2) The problem is not localized in a few small areas, but is widespread amongst many nations all over the world.
3) 80% of the activity in the world’s economy and infrastructure is reliant on fossil carbon.
4) The economic system and infrastructure grows each year – doubling in total size roughly every 20 years.
5) The percent of reliance on fossil carbon in this infrastructure hasn’t changed in a decade, and shows no sign of changing:
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.COMM.FO.ZS/countries?display=graph
6) At some point, and probably not in the too distant future, fossil production will plateau and fall.
7) For renewables and alternative energy to prevent this, it will need to meet all growth demand, provide for the decline in fossil carbon production, AND support all the necessary infrastructural maintenance. (And that’s WITHOUT a plan of rapid fossil carbon replacement to mitigate climate change, but just to keep the system running smoothly.)
8) There is no clear sign of this happening as yet:
http://www.carbonbrief.org/media/106046/screen_shot_2012-08-13_at_10.34.23.png
It’s hard to see how intermittency isn’t our future no matter what we do. There are strong signs that it’s not just our future, but our immediate future:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4242741.ece
Perhaps a better strategy to keeping everything running 24/7 permanently would be to figure out how to voluntarily scale down total power usage and how to better manage inevitable intermittency? This would also yield the benefit of tangibly reducing carbon emissions.
I know we won’t actually do that. I’m just sayin’.
Posted one too many links, awaiting moderation.
#7 should really read: “For renewables and alternative energy to prevent intermittency problems from declining fossil carbon production”….
I’ll also add that at that point that renewables would have to have a storage solution in place, too, raising the costs and difficulties.
No sign?
“Electricity demand growth is slowing. As the Energy Information Administration writes: “Although electricity demand fell in only three years between 1950 and 2007, it declined in four of the five years between 2008 and 2012.”
http://blog.opower.com/2014/06/3-game-changing-trends-that-defined-the-electricity-industrys-annual-convention-this-week-in-las-vegas/
There are many signs of change.
Conventional oil has already peaked. The switch to more expensive unconventional sources is already accelerating change. High oil prices have already stalled car sales and driving miles. One would expect this.
The issue is global, and must be viewed that way. Global car sales:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101321938
Global electricity demand:
http://yearbook.enerdata.net/electricity-domestic-consumption-data-by-region.html
There is no sign as yet of either lowering energy consumption or alternative energy taking over fossil carbon use on the global scale. Sorry.
World oil production has certainly slowed, but it hasn’t stopped, despite trends in conventional oil:
http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?product=oil&graph=production
World coal:
http://www.worldcoal.org/resources/coal-statistics/
Natural gas:
http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/about-bp/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy/review-by-energy-type/natural-gas/natural-gas-production.html
I avoided the EIA and IEA, because I know you don’t trust them, but they say the same thing.
My post here was about how we should expect energy shortages, blackouts, brownouts, forced end of service to individuals (search about Detroit’s water supply for a foreshadowing), etc., when we do actually peak, and so we should be preparing for that instead of assuming we’ll keep the lights on 24/7 everywhere forever. It would seem a far more productive use of our time to lower energy consumption voluntarily and design ways to handle intermittent supply without too much damage, because faltering supply seems unavoidable. But there’s no sign of that as yet, nor of alternatives taking over from fossil carbon use.
A little beyond the pale. I do agree there are consequences looming, but I gently remind you that blackouts and brown outs are a thing of the past where solar is introduced. This may evolve quickly to another reality, I suspect, as EVs are introduced in the 20s. It seems like the only real certainty in the coming decades is change. I think where we differ is in the view of singular catastrophism. I used to fear and think the clash between growth and consequences would be sudden. But the two are more in constant contact than I realized. I despaired that renewables and EVs would never happen in my lifetime. I suspect the differences are that I already went to that level of pessimism and beyond, so seeing anything positive happen is a confounding surprise. I have always felt it would be more productive to foresee events and respond rationally. I saw that didn’t happen in the 70 s and 80 s. There was a personal effort. But the culture, with its brainwashing commercials, clashed with that. There needs to be a fundamental culture change away from growth and consumption. It then has to be encoded in the societal mechanism. It cannot coexist with banking and compound interest rates. We are all slaves to consumption and growth. We need to find a better way. It has to start by changing institutions to favor a different set of values.’ Its actually good to hold both pessimistic and optimistic points of view. We need some fear to motivate us. We need some optimism to respond.
China and India are trying to gobble up the rest of the oil and coal we failed to burn. But they are getting seconds from the party. We got there first. In the end, all that restrains them is pollution and the high cost of depleted resources. We still have to get off the growth habit. I think there are some references to the carrying capacity of the earth. As you may know, Ehrlich lost a bet, so we have concluded that he and Malthus are wrong and endless growth aided by limitless fusion is just around the corner. If only we could just leave some of it (FF) in the ground. Is the answer that resource depletion slows growth? It seems to be in the US, with the economy more oil dependent. It did not seem to limit growth in China with a coal dependent economy. That’s starting to change as China imports coal from Australia. I think we see resource depletion crises now. Food vs ethanol. Food vs population. Food vs GW. The biggest problem is that FF and unsustainable practices have allowed us to borrow too much debt and the payback comes later. I think we are done messing around with Kyoto style conferences. We have reached a tipping point with the 400,000 strong climate March. When the first politicians fail to get elected because they are too soft on global warming, we will see a me too tipping point. This realization wil come fast and become a new status quo while the old is quickly forgotten. It’s nearing even as we despair over a stubbornly backward congress. Today’s reality is an ugly mess. But the force and speed of change will run roughshod over those that cling to the nostalgic past. It already has and it is the dawning realization that prods the nostalgic to cling harder.
Christopher – you have so many clashing thoughts here, and I can’t grasp the exact point, so I’ll just address one, and then I’ll say that I’m signing out of this particular blog post.
“but I gently remind you that blackouts and brown outs are a thing of the past where solar is introduced.”
So, what, we put 5% solar somewhere and blackouts just magically go away? Please point to relevant studies showing this. There are no countries with 100% solar/wind, so I’ll assume there isn’t solid data for that as yet.
I’ve seen this, but this is still largely theoretical:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/linked-renewables-could-help-germany-avoid-blackouts/
But that’s missing the point. What I was saying was that as fossil carbon peaks, we’re going to see increasing power losses. On the global scale (some countries may manage to avoid or lessen the impacts), this looks inevitable, so I think a better use of our resources would be to spend them on reducing energy usage and figuring out how to handle sporadic power. Again, we won’t do that – I’m just sayin’.
Jimbills – brownouts. blackouts. Yes. They do just go away. Not magically. But if you look up the reports from Germany, Australia, and right here in California, guess what? No blackouts. There were in Australia and California a decade ago. Gone. Why is that? Solar is highest during peak demand of summer air conditioning. No magic. Sun shines. Earth heats. Solar electric output increases.
Wholesale electric prices vary all day long. Used to be higher during the day. Solar comes. Price drops. Germany is now experiencing so much low cost energy during the day that base load is having a hard time. Its the merit order effect. Solar is dragging rates down. So base load plants get less payback during the lucrative daytime. RWE and EON in Germany are requesting the government allow them to shut 10GW down.
Again, it’s missing the point I was making, but….
Past (2011):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/08/major-power-outage-california_n_954909.html
Present:
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-ladwp-power-demand-heat-wave-20140916-story.html
Future:
http://www.smartgridnews.com/artman/publish/Business_Policy_Regulation/WSJ-says-what-we-re-all-thinking-CA-will-soon-have-grid-problems-5557.html#.VEhpFct0xaQ
jimbills – The blackout was due to power lines not generation. Southern California, not all of California, has a temporary shortage due to nuclear, SONGS, not solar.
Solar and conservation is helping to help keep power during the crisis. Sorry, your statements are a miss. The problems in SoCal right now are nothing compared the the statewide rolling daily blackouts and brownouts around the millennia. Those were due to generation and market manipulation. Frankly, a lot more blackouts and brownouts were expected in SoCal following SONGS departure. Its fairly ironic, unusually germane considering all the off topic here, that your picked this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/02/07/solar-shifted-peak-sa-heat-wave/
jimbills – adelady tipped me to South Australia.
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/10/23/negative-electricity-prices-middle-of-day-south-australia-renewables/
And? Your point is? South Australia has the 5th. smallest population of the 6 Australian states (1.6 million), has the lowest population growth rate of any of them, and is an irrelevancy.
If you want to talk about energy issues in Australia, you should talk about coal. How much they mine, how much they burn, how much they export.
Christopher – you said when solar is introduced, then blackouts go away. I found far more than just those three articles, especially in California and Australia, but I didn’t post them to avoid being obnoxious and because this IS a tangent, and a rather silly one.
I frankly don’t care whether solar does/does not improve grid stability. Logically, it makes sense that it would improve stability during peak demand on hot, sunny days. It also makes sense that it would not help during peak demand during very cold, grey days (and nights).
Yes, I saw how this tangent is germane to the original post.
My original point was that we’re highly likely to get blackouts as fossil carbon peaks hit. I personally think we’d be better off preparing for that, and lowering power usage would certainly help.
However, let’s mentally play this out. Solar and wind come online, and cause higher grid stability. Fossil carbon plateaus and peaks, and numerous places experience high rising costs and blackouts. In some places, enough renewables come online to dramatically reduce the number of blackouts. They also experience lower energy costs.
Are they more, or less, likely to conserve their energy? Are they more, or less, likely to decide on the urgency to stop growing?
This is one of the avenues where I think renewables will actually foster continued fossil carbon use. It’s not a pretty picture, by any means, but to me technology only fosters growth. It allows us to continue the patterns that are undermining our environment long-term.
I know you agree with me that growth must stop. But it WON’T stop unless it’s forced on us. Grid stability sounds great. What if it isn’t?
jimbills – you are either lost or have not been paying attention to Peters videos. Solar and wind do not cause higher grid instability. Thats a myth. You are wrong about there being no sign that solar and wind are taking over from fossil carbon use. If, for the first time ever, this year in the US new renewables generation so far is over 50%, thats a sign. Stop overlooking it. Your view is overly pessimistic. A clue should be your wording. “No sign”.
jimbills – part of my problem is that I sprinkle sarcasm liberally. Peter has the same problem as people take the sarcasm literally. Sorry about that. I expect people to pick up on it, but its not the best communication style for readability. Noted.
Christopher – my meaning is either completely going over your head or is being willfully ignored, so fine.
Going on the tangent of what I mean by “no sign” – there is no sign of renewables decreasing fossil carbon use as yet, either globally or here in the United States. We’re a LONG way from that happening. This is not being pessimistic, it’s being realistic.
Pardon me for butting in, but there is no “either-or” there. It is both going over his head AND being willfully ignored, and I do think there is ample precedent for making that judgement.
Jimbills – you have valid point. Amend it to
Blackouts and brown outs caused by generation are reduced on ordinary power systems.
Where power systems have unusually large generation losses, solar and wind help. Both this article, The SONGS outage, and many others are examples.
Just as Peter says, large central power plants, especially nuclear are a problem during power outages. A nuclear power plant requires a long time to restart, thus worsening the problem of outages. Loss of outside power is a big deal for them. Coal and steam operated plants have a time lag, but no special safety issues related to LOOP.
Jimbills – you may have noticed I am a stickler, and I apologize if that offends. It’s not meant to. It’s my nature. It’s almost universally true that a statement using the words always or never is false. The word no has connotations of zero which is another extreme. If you said almost no sign, I would agree, and you would be arguably and demonstrably correct. It’s that ” no ” that people are responding to. Probably the use of the word sign has a bearing also. This is not a criticism of you personally or your style. Ironically, we have another, more significant example of a contradiction to the ” no sign” statement.
China may be showing signs of reducing carbon. It’s too early to tell yet. China is acutely sensitive to its public image, so an announcement from them might not be accompanied by a real change. If change is motivated by image, we know what to do to get China to change.
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/10/24/china-sees-coal-use-fall-first-time-century/
Jimbills – oil is expensive. When the price rose from 16 to 33/bl , up to 100/ bl. Utilities and businesses dropped oil consumption almost to zero. The only consumption remaining in large amounts is transportation because there is a lock on the market with ICE vehicles. US is by far the largest consumer of oil although China has increased its use, copying US patterns. By now, China should be learning that to covet the U.S. means to covet its ills, not just its blessings. What we have is the developed countries lowering consumption and the undeveloped countries trying to expand. Kopits has outlined the new pattern. Supply driven, not demand driven consumption. These cross factors have to converge somewhere. While China and India have their billionaires driving Ferraris and Teslas, the average consumer can’t afford long frequent trips. Kopits details that China and US exchange places bidding for oil and are limited by the high price. Places like Iran and Venezuela are reconsidering or halting subsidies for domestic oil consumption. This pattern repeats in countries. They start out self consumers and exporters until they gradually no longer export. Iran has significant smog problems. What is revealed is the same pattern of evolution ending in the situation like the US and EU, with low population growth and a decoupling of energy use from GNP. China has started that. So what we have is the undeveloped countries starting that process in the middle of oil and other resource depletion. They are not doing this voluntarily or virtuously, we are all simply sipping on an increasingly emptier glass through a straw. Capitalism and our drive for growth is doing what it does best. Pushing to the limit. We are running into resource difficulties as we encounter GW. So much of this is in flux right now, that a study of recent EIA figures (and flawed projections ) will lead to wrong conclusions. Example:
“oil-demand growth, on the other hand, remains uncertain, with a large portion of its imports this year going into strategic stockpiling instead of consumption. Its oil demand fell into negative territory in July and its oil imports declined for the first time this year.”
Make no mistake. It’s not good news. Its not pretty. But consumption is starting to be crimped by supply globally. China is importing coal and oil as is India. They are poorer, but more populous countries competing with the U.S. carbon is rising not because of any one country, but because every last lump of coal and drop of oil is being burned. In the process, FF are ever more expensive, and alternatives are increasing. The crisis is that no matter how much better tech like EVs or solar is developed, the culture of consumption continues. That must stop. On that we agree. I just find that resource depletion is happening faster than expected. Another crisis.
http://damnthematrix.wordpress.com/2014/02/27/oil-supply-and-demand-forecasting-with-steven-kopits/
Are there some cogent points in there?
I thought you read? Do you watch videos? Watch Kopits. He says we have switched to supply driven economics. Some disagree. It’s not simple. OPEC still has lower cost, but can no longer supply enough volume. Tar sands and Bakken oil has a price floor. IEA curves show conventional quantities heading down, unconventional up. The tension is between those two factors. Saudi Arabia just moved their chess piece. If you could spend more time responding to content and less aping and personal remarks, the dialogue would be better. You are turning everyone off. It’s a strange way to solve an intellectual problem. Like that TV Washington politics talk show where everyone heaps abuse and yells and talks at once. Not even adult behavior..Not the picture of rational scientific or even philosophic discussion. Some even discourage the use of caps. Unless this is just street wrestling…. Is that what Peter and the readership want ? I don’t see the downside to a little more decorum on these pages.
Yes, I do read—a lot—sometimes 3 books a week and on diverse topics. And I watch videos and visit websites and read magazines and newspapers—a lot—I’m retired and have the time. I also have a lot of science training and over 5 decades of involvement in and study of environmental issues. What did you do on the First Earth Day? I was the faculty advisor to a Students for Environmental Action group on that day and coordinated a day long action that involved a couple of thousand students and faculty. I have been involved in these issues a LONG time, and you simply make me crazy with your lack of knowledge on so many topics, your indiscriminate looking up of “references” that have nice titles (and which you consistently cherry pick and misinterpret), your logic fails, and your convoluted reasoning and writing. And that’s ignoring your mindless bright-sidedness on renewables, your knee-jerk negativism on nuclear power, and your apparent inability to interpret graphs..
Here you go AGAIN, meandering off into some tidbit of knowledge that you have picked up somewhere and babbling on about Saudi Arabia moving their “chess piece”? And then you have the nerve to lecture me about “how to solve an intellectual problem”?
ALL I EVER DO is respond to content, and if your “content” is such that it appears to be eliciting “personal” remarks, that is merely a reflection of what I said in my first paragraph. I look at ALL of your “sources” and “references”, and often find that you are confused about what they say, misinterpret them to us, and fail to respond when that is pointed out to you. The dialogue would be better if YOU paid attention to those of us who are trying to help you be a better contributor to Crock (I am not alone in doing that), and you again display considerable nerve by presuming to speak for everyone here with “You are turning everyone off”. I would suggest you let them speak for themselves.
You say, “Not even adult behavior..Not the picture of rational scientific or even philosophic discussion. Is that what Peter and the readership want ? I don’t see the downside to a little more decorum on these pages”.
Speaking of “not adult”, that’s just rather childish whining and evasion on your part. You and some others may not like my tone and style at times—-I can be blunt and combative—-but stop slinging BS and making better sense and you will find that I am on your side. I spent a 30 year professional career dealing with those who slung BS, and I’m too old to stop now. Shape up yourself, or you will continue to find me ripping you new anal orifices every time YOU disturb the “decorum” on Crock with BS, which is far more “downside” than I bring here.
Peter knows who I am and can tell me privately if he is dissatisfied with my contributions to Crock—-it’s his site and I am a guest here, as are you. The readership can do the same here with thumbs and comments.
Look again dog. You have mindless bright sidedness on nuclear. But that’s just an opinion. I have a feeling you did not advance in scientific circles by engaging in debate and opinion instead of careful fact finding and reference. That is my bent. And it’s real. Then I have my opinions and conclusions. But they are not given sans reference. You come to far too many conclusions regarding me and my opinions with too little knowledge for my taste. Try supporting your aspirations for nuclear power with a few more calculations and facts, not just opinion. Calculations matter, too, not just books and references. It sounds too much to me like you are trying to slide out if some uncomfortable realities of nuclear power just to suit your emotional need for a solution to global warming. But I could be wrong.
“But I could be wrong”, you say. Could be, but more likely your BAC has risen to levels that are impairing your thinking, to say nothing of your ability to drive.
(Mrs. Arcus! Hide the car keys!)
I was hoping you would watch Kopits and respond. Nothing?
Peter doesn’t police these pages. He lets the participants to themselves. Only a very few obnoxious ones have been tossed and only then after excessive carnage. Thats his way. Nothing like the rules at Skeptical Science. We all would have been moderated out there for off topic.
I won’t presume to speak for Peter, as you so easily so by declaring “Peter doesn’t police these pages”, but I WILL say that your comment is just another example of conjecture based on lack of knowledge or misinterpreted and misunderstood data. (See—-You’ve done it yet again).
YOU would have been moderated off SkS for being a troll, NOT the rest of us. By their definition, a troll is one who consistently does not understand what he’s talking about, misuses and misinterprets data, and (most importantly) refuses to acknowledge his failings and mend his ways when others point them out to him. I think that SkS first values intelligent and knowledgable commentary that has some relevancy, and worries less about how OT it may be.
PS Your two comments here today are more “sober” sounding than those at the close of the day yesterday. Congratulations.
I see you are awake and still grumpy and arguing for arguments sake. You really are an old salty dog, aren’t you? Have you given up the “I aint grumpy” cry yet?
I see you are awake and still grumpy and arguing for arguments sake. You really are an old salty dog, aren’t you? Have you given up the “I aint grumpy” cry yet?
So I’m a grumpy old dog, huh? That characterization of me is just more of your whining because you are unable to “argue” with me because of your deficits in both knowledge and reasoning ability.. And it IS accurate in that context—-I get frustrated when I rip you countless new anal orifices and you just smile and continue to spout ignorant BS, and that leads to me saying things that you childishly perceive are “grumpy” because you can;’t face the reality. A somewhat vicious circle (for YOU).
Since we are characterizing each other here, let me ask you this. “Are you still imitating the Straw Man on the road to Oz who is hoping the Wizard will give him a brain”?
That’s doubly appropriate since there seems to be so much straw (and straw men) in your comments. I am still waiting for you to say something of substance rather than these feeble and inane little jibes that you (alone) think are scoring any points.
Was all that “salty and grumpy” enough for you? (Or perhaps I should first ask how much of it went right over your head?)
PS Telling an old Marine DOG that he is “salty and grumpy” is no insult. We take pride in it, and it’s also related to the “no better friend, no worse enemy” motto of the 1st. Marine Division. Since we’re OT here, and talking about the USMC, General James “Mad Dog” Mattis popularized that motto when he commanded 1MarDiv in the 2003 Iraq invasion. He is also remembered for later saying this:
“You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them. Actually, it’s a lot of fun to fight. You know, it’s a hell of a hoot. It’s fun to shoot some people. I’ll be right upfront with you, I like brawling.”
Mattis’s remarks sparked controversy and General Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps, issued a statement suggesting that Mattis should have chosen his words more carefully, but would not be disciplined. Pay attention to what Mattis said and to those last few words of Hagee’s. It all has relevance to the discourse on Crock and your place in it.
dog – thats what I mean. You complain about references, but thats how science and even good journalism works. And yes, you can disagree with me and add to the discussion. I welcome it. But you have not yet commented on Kopits video. You are a little to eager to engage in argument.. Skip the disagreement with me and just engage in some fact finding and research.
You ARE exasperating!
Science and good journalism rely on seeking out the most relevant FACTS and properly interpreting them. You on the other hand tap dance around on the outer fringes of the best information and cherry pick out and misrepresent tidbits that support your ill-informed and half-assed opinions.
I don’t “disagree” with you here, I merely point out that you all too often abuse the truth and mislead people who may not have the science understanding to see what you are doing. You are all too often just plain WRONG (and you may note that I do NOT get very much involved in any of your “grid” discussions—-do you understand why?).
I don’t “argue” with you either. When I comment, it is to point out that you HAVE NO argument to be countered, that you are just plain wrong and are misleading people. As far as “engaging in fact finding and research”, where do you think I get the opinions and info that are contained in my comments? PFTA? I will not engage you in a “battle of the citations” that proves nothing and wastes everyone’s time “looking stuff up” and comparing it, especially considering the second rate quality of many of your references.. Looking stuff up and misrepresenting it as you do is not “fact finding and research”, it’s simply dishonest spreading of horsepucky.
dog – Maybe you are not up to date on what is going on, so you did not realize what my reference to Saudi Arabia moving their chess piece meant. There has been a recent notable decline in gas prices. This is due to Saudi Arabia attempting to gain back market share. Apparently, the recent US drill, baby, drill in the Bakken, and tar sands have had an effect that the Saudis woke up to. Thus, Saudis chess move. This relates to Kopits vid. Its a possible opposing view to Kopits supply side market argument.
The arrogance pf your ignorance is awesome. YOU are the one who doesn’t understand what is going on. You have done some superficial “research”, found something you like the sound of but don’t really understand, and now you’re spouting “Saudi Arabia” just as you always spout “Germany”.
Let me bring YOU up to date. You probably didn’t notice the turmoil in the stock markets recently. Lots of things happening on many fronts, and Saudi Arabia is only a part of the picture.
Are you aware that fossil fuel supplies and prices are linked? That TOTAL supply and demand for oil, natural gas, and coal is what impacts prices. Are you aware that the U.S. is in the top three producers of all three fossil fuels, that Russia is in the top three for oil and natural gas, that Saudi Arabia ranks second behind Russia and ahead of the U.S. in oil production (and has no coal)? And that Saudi Arabia is 10th. in natural gas production? Probably not, or you would know that Russia and Venezuela are two countries that are probably more impacted by recent events and “the US drill, baby, drill in the Bakken” than Saudi Arabia, and in turn have taken steps that have perhaps affected fossil fuel prices more than what the Saudis did.
Stop looking up crap and spouting nonsense.
As usual, you have no idea what I know or don’t know. FYI, these are not my ideas about Saudi Arabia and the price of oil. But you are too argumentative to know that. When I prompt a look at Kopits and offer a bit of information about the recent changes in the price of oil, you assume they are my opinion. They are not. Don’t you get it yet? They are points of discussion. Kopits has something to say. Why do you confuse source material with my point of view? You seem to be stuck on some kind of emotional countering. Its not there. You are boxing shadows. When I say, watch the Koptis vid, I mean there is something interesting there. I even mentioned that there is an interesting discussion about wether oil prices are Supply driven or whether the market continues to be demand driven. The thing is, you can’t even tell what Kopits is talking about or what the subject is, because you have not even seen the video.
“As usual, you have no idea what I know or don’t know”.
I most certainly DO. I have spoken many times to the fact that “what you know” about many topics is superficial, misinterpretation of the facts, and misused by you. That holds for this comment as well.
“FYI, these are not my ideas about Saudi Arabia and the price of oil”.
Obviously, since one of your areas of NON expertise is global macroeconomics. All you can do is say “look at this” rather than offer substantial analysis. Instead of more whining about how your genius is misunderstood, you should do some research about what I said re: Russia, the U.S. and Venezuela being more important than Saudi Arabia and comment on that.
What I assume is “your opinion” is first reflected in your biased choice of “research” tidbits, and second in the way you misuse them and abuse our trust. I will not waste an hour on watching more of Kopit’s blatherings. FYI, he has been around for a long time pontificating on oil prices and I’ve read some of his thinking in the past—it’s what financial analysts do, and he has nothing more significant to say than many others in the field (PS—there are many saying “buy gold” too—). I would rather spend my time looking at the bigger economic picture, and as I tried to point out to you, that is made up of not just oil prices, but all fossil fuels, energy use and production in general, and many other facets of local and world economies.
To say it yet again, I am not argumentative. You present nothing to argue against or “discuss”—-it is not an “argument” to say you’re simply wrong, it is a statement of fact and irrefutable, and the fact that you DON’T refute me but run off and whine is proof of that.
I agree with jimbills that everything we say to you seems to be going over your head and that you display willful ignorance. I have suggested before that you are just playing a dumb game with us and acting stupid to get our goats. If that’s so, it’s time to stop—-it’s no longer funny. Let’s go back to the Old Arcus, the one who sometimes made some sense and wasn’t so wrapped up in his emotions that he fails to look in the mirror.
It’s not my substantial analysis. It’s Kopits. And you are still not talking specifics. There is plenty of content in the references. And you could reply with your version of a detailed plan for the expansion of nuclear power. That’s what I am waiting for. But you don’t do that. It’s easy to be a grump and take potshots at things you disagree with. Try something constructive for a change. Come up with some solutions and show others on these pages.
I can respond to your suggestions if they are specific, but if they are not, they are just complaining.
The troll accusation is interesting. take a look at the definition list. I have posted it many times. That’s how it’s done. Meeting only one of the criteria is not enough. when you argue against Peter, it’s only one criteria. Who is arguing against Peter’s articles? How about remarks with a negative tone. Inciting discord.
598
Page 4 5 6 7
Trolls can also be crackers, some of whom use their skills to deface Web sites like this UN page.
Karen Bleier/AFP/Getty Images
ADS BY GOOGLE
Top 7 Mini Wind Turbines
2014 Bestselling Mini Wind Turbines Compare Latest Deals & Save Big!
comparestores.net
Solar in CA – $0 Down
Slash Energy Bills, No Money Down. Cheaper, Greener, Solar! Learn More
solaramerica.org/California
Concealed Carry Guide
Do You Know Your Rights? Get Your Free Concealed Carry Guide Today!
usconcealedcarry.net
Internet Troll Help
The first step to dealing with trolls is learning how to recognize them. The following traits are clues:
Does the person ask the same questions worded in different ways? Does the person ignore suggestions or responses from other members of the community? If the community has a frequently asked question (FAQ) section, does the person seemingly refuse to read it?
Has the person posted inflammatory remarks that have no real substance to them?
Does he or she make it a habit to post messages that include insults and vulgar language?
Does he or she respond to other members in a purely negative, critical way?
Does the person post messages that are generally off-topic? Does he or she seem to want only attention rather than discuss the topic at hand?
Does the person resurrect old conversations or discussions that were once controversial within the community? Some trolls enjoy bringing back old arguments to encourage dissent within a group.
When confronted with a counter argument, does the person in question change tactics rather than answer the points made by another member? Does the person employ logical fallacies within their posts?
If the answer to these questions is yes, there’s a good chance you’re dealing with a troll. Whether the member is consciously trying to troll the community or not is another matter. There are times when even respected members of an online community might behave like a troll.
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/troll4.htm
Now why did I give that reference? If I had wanted to deceive as you have implied, I would have given it as a blind quote so you couldn’t read the rest of the article and find things to disagree with. I expect you to do that. My style is to let active civil debate lead to discovery. That doesn’t mean you have to do both sides. That’s one way dialogue works. Maybe that doesn’t work with you.
dog – Mattis remarks. Marine speech. You don’t get a lot of that in scientific literature. Doesn’t help rational consideration. Its avoided precisely because its salacious, barbaric, immature, and inflammatory. Don’t get me wrong. Im not against it in the right places. Just not always optimum in some venues.
It’s not being realistic, it’s being inaccurate. I and others have no problem with your realism. It’s the words ” no sign ” specifically. That’s why the first remark was
” no sign?”
By using that terminology, your comment failed a crucial test. We are not acting as scientists here, but a scientist would be loathe to make a statement that way. It would tend to be sprinkled with qualifiers. Even on a discourse level, the use of unqualified extreme nouns and adjectives raises flags in most people’s minds. Understand this. I agree with your statement with the addition of the qualifier “almost” or any other such qualifier. I also don’t mean to censure you in any way if you feel like sticking to your original. My purpose is to increase communication and understanding in our conversation.
If I have failed to do so, I apologize.
I give up—-the willful ignorance shown by Arcus’s failure to even read and understand what he presents as some sort of “proof”, and the mindless bright-sidedness behind such behavior is impossible to deal with.
“Electricity demand growth is slowing” is meaningless when we are talking only about the United States—-Arcus refuses to look at the graph in his own “source” that shows what has happened in CHINA. In fact, he simply does not acknowledge the existence of CHINA. And does he really understand what “demand GROWTH is SLOWING” means?
And this quote is incredible—-Do we all remember what happened between 2008 and 2012 that caused that electricity demand to decline? (Hint: It was George W. Bush’s fault).
“As the Energy Information Administration writes: “Although electricity demand fell in only three years between 1950 and 2007, it declined in four of the five years between 2008 and 2012.”
=(Hint: It was George W. Bush’s fault).=
His method was a bit unorthodox but it’s the best carbon offset to date. 2 points awarded to the establishment.
Ever played one of those Chinese finger-cuff games, where the harder you pull the less likely you are to get free? Let’s get Romney in there in 2016 and see how destructive he can be – ha, ha!
“Unorthodox?” Because it made a small bit of sense in his world where senselessness was orthodox?? I remember W more for going back on his campaign pledges on reducing CO2, driving Christy Todd Whitman out of her job, attacking climate scientists and climate science, deep-sixing Kyoto, and letting Cheney and friends determine our “national energy policy”.
I keep giving you clues. You are supposed to reply and comment that you read other things in the reference I gave. I purposely gave you the reference so you could do so. If you would stop jumping to conclusions about my opinions you might realize they are not exactly what you imagine sometimes. The dialogue is supposed to advance understanding and provide balance. Properly done, it succeeds in that. Providing full reference is not an attempt to conceal or cheat. It’s not a competitive debate, it’s a rational dialogue. You should be encouraging references not criticizing them. Otherwise this a mindless and meaningless exercise in barstool opinion slinging. Is that what we want? You have a bright mind. Why waste it.
Are you sitting on a barstool right now doing what one normally does while sitting there? It sure sounds like it, because your comment is rather incoherent.
When you or anyone else gives a “reference”, I do the following:
1) Try to judge from your comments what you think the reference proves (your premise).
2) Read the reference and try to judge whether it does in fact give any proof that your premise is correct.
3) If in fact the reference does support your premise, I will agree with you, perhaps add supplementary info, or just let it stand.
4) If I believe you have made errors of fact or logic, I will point that out to you, in the expectation that you will reply, either by proving me wrong or accepting my criticism and correcting your errors.
I prefer not to waste my “bright mind” dealing with BS, and that’s why I do the above. It is a standard way of operating among thinking people. Why do you seem to find it so alien?
You can stop with the Arcus this Arcus that any time now. Did I say demand slowed in China? Not here. You are engaging in mud wrestling not civil discourse. As I say in this article blog, there is an evolution of every country that starts with rapid growth and pollution and ends with low population growth and GNP more decoupled from energy consumption. China is going through all,phases of that evolution much quicker than most. in the end, it doesn’t matter. The course is clear. The economic systems are only slowing because of resource depletion. There are limits. thats not the way to go. It can’t be a growing economy and renewables. But it’s not sudden catastrophic disaster either. It’s slower. It will not go as expected or as hoped for. Both triumphs and failures are ahead. Giving up is not an option for future generations. Fatalism is a luxury only an older generation enjoys.
Fyi, IMO, the depression of 2008 – 2012 was a result of the rise in oil prices brought on by the failure of Saudi Arabia to increase oil production and lower cost at US behest as done so many times in the past to shore up an ailing economy.
As I said, come back when you’re sober. No one who was sober would ever make this comment:
“IMO, the depression of 2008 – 2012 was a result of the rise in oil prices brought on by the failure of Saudi Arabia to increase oil production and lower cost at US behest as done so many times in the past to shore up an ailing economy”.
Never a response to a direct question. It’s all debate and no substance. Did I say demand slowed in China? That’s why I can tell your response is emotional not rational. That and the expletives. Kind if a tell, eh?
Jim,
See Tim Garrett’s papers on this very problem:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-009-9717-9
http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/3/1/2012/esd-3-1-2012.html
You are also, I believe, taking too narrow a time-slice when viewing the recent failure to decarbonize our economy. Here’s a larger view:
Renewables have abjectly failed to make a dent in decarbonizing our economy. Nuclear power has a demonstrated record of success in decarbonizing our economy. The path forward is obvious.
Let’s try that image again:
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3943/15411528007_6e5416746a.jpg
Arcus imitation: “OOH-OOH-OOH!!!! Look at the slope on that graph! Fossil fuel use is declining so rapidly! And look at how steep that last one year drop is! I can project that way off into future La-La lands! Once GERMANY works through its problems and sets a good example for the world, all will be well!”
Of course, he will ignore the scale of the y-axis, which covers only .08 of the full range of the data and puts the real bottom of the graph somewhere near his toes.
He will ignore the contribution nuclear power makes because he has a knee-jerk negative reaction to nuclear.
He will ignore the flatness of the graph in the “renewables” era, and NOT ask himself why fossil fuel use is not declining when renewables are increasing exponentially. (And he will likely show us what an excellent graph interpreter he is by citing a “rate of change of rate of change” graph at that point).
He will not notice that fossil fuel use has taken ~50 years to fall from ~94.5% to ~86.5% of the total, and that at that rate, it would take over 500 years to reach zero IF there were any real downward trend—-which there isn’t.
Bright-sidedness, motivated reasoning, and willful ignorance rule!
Why do you act like that in public? Do you realize its ramifications? Do you think people are likely to take you more or less seriously because of it? You behave as if you cannot control your childish outbursts. And it reflects poorly on you. And it adds nothing to the discourse. Someone said, “mind your manners”. I think I have heard, “behave yourself”. Even Hulk Hogan appeared in an ad where he was “civilized”.
Keith – I’m familiar with Garrett’s work. I haven’t cited it here, as I think the same conclusions can be made by different means.
The World Bank link about renewables not making even a dent in the problem the past decade should be a strong indicator of where we stand. However, I don’t believe nuclear offers an answer, either. If you notice on the chart you linked, nuclear power only managed to displaced 7 percent of fossil carbon energy in 30 years – and that’s being generous, because it should also include hydropower in that total. Plus, since 2000, total world energy use has increased 30 percent:
http://thumbnails-visually.netdna-ssl.com/world-total-primary-energy-consumption-quadrillion-btu_516c67a6a2aa2_w1500.png
Tim Garrett has stated the following, “Stabilization of carbon dioxide emissions at current rates will require approximately 300 gigawatts of new non-carbon-dioxide-emitting power production capacity annually – approximately one new nuclear power plant (or equivalent) per day. Physically, there are no other options without killing the economy.”
http://www.unews.utah.edu/old/p/112009-1.html
He said that in 2009. Since then, world energy has increased 12 percent. Additionally, world energy only contributes roughly 2/3 of human caused GG emissions (link follows in reply), so even if we solved world energy 100% (both electricity and transport) we’d have at least 33% of the problem to handle.
The path forward is obvious, yes, but it’s not nuclear. We have to kill economic growth and have rapid degrowth. Nothing else will work in the timeframe necessary to prevent a significant temperature rise. I know humans won’t do this, because we can’t wrap our heads around the idea of living like the entire world did just 200 years ago (minus the population size), but we’re kidding ourselves if we think any sort of energy replacement by itself solves the problem. We’re doubly kidding ourselves if we think we can solve climate change and maintain economic growth. We’re triply kidding ourselves if we think that if even by some miracle, energy technology could solve the problem, we wouldn’t hit multiple other environmental and resource barriers.
Global greenhouse emissions by source chart here:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html
Showing impatience with renewables when they just became economically viable? What’s the point in that? They are growing, nuclear is declining. That’s old news.
WHAT?
You sound like the guy in a rocking chair with a long beard and a horn to his ear. You have not heard that nuclear is declining ? LOL. Long ago amigo. Long ago.
A short time ago, there were 77 nuclear plants under construction worldwide (20-odd of them in China alone). That number is certainly different now, due to completions and new starts.
The world is going nuclear in a huge way; it’s just the G7, which has been under fire from anti-nuclear propaganda for 50 years, that’s dithering. I doubt that even that will last, because the writing is on the wall.
Peter – thanks for the illuminating video. It puts things in simple terms. Planned outages are generally not a problem. There must be sufficient capacity available ( plus spares for unplanned outages) for the highest demand day of the year. That means excess capacity is idle most of the year. Unplanned outages are the system operators biggest headache, because they have the potential for grid instability to lead to blackout.
Along with the myth of baseload power, we can add the myth of renewable storage.
Until renewable integrations reach levels like 50 %, storage is not needed or cost effective. There are many more economic ways load and supply variation are handled other than storage. Solar reduces the need for reserves and idles gas peaker power plants. Peaker and coal plants are being mothballed wherever renewables capacity rises.
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/questioning-the-value-proposition-of-energy-storage
Denmark, at less than 34% wind, has very large import and export power flows. If it had to go it alone that power would have to be stored or lost.
That is just one of the integration costs of wind, and is why none has ever delivered on the promise of “clean and cheap”. By this time the falsehood is so threadbare it must be considered a lie.
Denmark, at less than 34% wind, has very large import and export power flows.
This is an argument against renewables? That a very small country or state must coordinate with others over a wide geographic area to make renewables work best? My dear man , you have missed decades of literature on the subject.
I think this is how a distributed grid is supposed to work. One would expect “imports” and “exports” to be a sign of a very healthy, emerging distributed smart grid.
Why have the promises of “clean and cheap” been totally broken, Arcus? Highest electric rates in Europe, and still 48% coal.
Sweden “coördinates” with Denmark, but Sweden has roughly 0% coal on its grid and has very cheap electric rates. The Swedes heat with carbon-free electricity (nuclear + hydro), many Danes heat with coal (though they call it “district heating”). The Danes sell power to Sweden (and Norway) for much less than they buy it back.
Denmark recently scored 385 gCO2/kWh compared to Sweden’s 23. In what Bizarro world is that called “working”, Arcus?
The primary “Green” push isn’t anti-carbon, but anti-nuclear. They don’t care about the climate so long as they can get that Evil Atomic Power That Makes Windmills Look Bad, so they demonize it. Big Green, fronting for fossil interests, is currently the biggest obstacle to climate action in the G7.
Pardon me for looking at results instead of propaganda. It’s a character flaw.
If Denmark was isolated only a small fraction of wind would be stored or lost. Only few hours per year wind output was greater than demand. Majority would be easily integrated by adjusting coal and gas output.
The reason that Denmark is not isolated is because they can make money by trading electricity. It’s better than working alone.
France is also trading electricity and if France was isolated then their nuclear capacity factor would drop even further. So it’s a similar situation.
This table is instructive. It shows the wide range of system operator options for dealing with variation.
http://www.greentechmedia.com/content/images/articles/StorageEconomics.png
Hmmmm. Now why would there be two negative votes for a table. Hmmmmm.
Hmmmmmm—-why two negative votes, Arcus asks? I can’t speak for those who voted so, but I would suspect that they had the same reaction I did when I saw it.
That Arcus was yet again posting something out of context that he didn’t fully understand and misrepresented to us.
That the chart’s purpose was not to show “the wide range of system operator options for dealing with variation”, but rather to show “relative economics of integration options”, and “showing the wide range of options” was merely an ancillary benefit. We also need to remember that only parts of the “wide range” are likely available for use in any given system. Note the “qualifier” box in the lower right as well. The graph also needs the footnotes to be fully understandable in any context.
So, I have analyzed the evidence, reached a conclusion, and stated it. I will conjecture that Arcus will now skip off into the tulips yet again and ignore my comments, which are NOT really about the chart (which IS interesting and contains some useful information), but about Arcus’s logic fail. I will not add a third “negative” vote to the total because I don’t want to encourage more whining by Arcus. I WILL suggest that those who gave this post a thumbs up should tell us why they did so—-was it the pretty colors?
Not really. But your reference to skipping off into the tulips is evidence of colorful behavior intended to incite emotion, rather than rational discourse. It’s a check mark in the trolling column. I used the verb, not the noun, for a reason. If you want to say the charts purpose is not exactly this, and comment so,
“the wide range of system operator options for dealing with variation”, but rather to show “relative economics of integration options”, and “showing the wide range of options” was merely an ancillary benefit. We also need to remember that only parts of the “wide range” are likely available for use in any given system. Note the “qualifier” box in the lower right as well. The graph also needs the footnotes to be fully understandable in any context.
I have no objection, other than it is a little picky, which I can’t complain too much about or risk being a hypocrite. The comment doesn’t actually read like
Much of a criticism. I was using shorthand to describe a much larger article with many more points. It would be useful if you commented on its points rather than attacking my weaker, necessarily incomplete summary.mi did not quote the source, but I just quoted it in another comment.
Here is the author summary, not mine,
“The main selling point for storage, forged into a meme by story after story in the press, is that storage is needed to compensate for the variable output of wind and solar. “Today, the power grid isn’t able to easily handle the rapid fluctuations in the production of wind and solar power,” is just a random sample quote.
But this claim is not true now, and will not be true for quite some time. The electricity grid is by far the most cost-effective and reliable way to deal with the variability of wind and solar, just like it deals with the variability of demand.”
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/questioning-the-value-proposition-of-energy-storage
This reference from Milligan et al, and spouses some myths of variable reneables and storage. The relative economics favor renewables much more since this paper was written in 2009.
http://nebula.wsimg.com/bf834abf7af015c9e345c0996a6eedc8?AccessKeyId=42DCE041FCDC1D51F9AC&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
Um, no. All generators can fail, but that is not the same as being intermittent. A dispatchable generator can be backed up by another dispatchable generator (which is why we have a grid). An intermittent generator cannot be backed up by another intermittent generator; wind cannot be backed up by other wind or PV, it must be backed up by hydro, gas or (like Denmark) coal.
Grids require spinning reserve equal to the biggest generator currently on the grid. Intermittent generators require reserves (some spinning, some off-line) equal to their entire nameplate capacity.
A blatant falsehood.
generators require reserves (some spinning, some off-line) equal to their entire nameplate capacity.
Wow. We can just do a poll of up and down votes to settle a question of fact. Yeah. That will do it. Riiiiiiggghhht. To quote Cosby.
You really want to go with that BS? Answer why California reserves were less than the sum total of nameplate wind and solar at 3PM yesterday in California. These pages are not frequented as often by those with technical skill. It would be a shame if those unfamiliar actually believed your prattle.
Still no answer. You gave the formula for renewables reserve as 100% of nameplate capacity. I just gave a counter example. Califirnua has 5.3 GW wind and 4.9GW solar. There is 2.9 GW rooftop. Yesterday at 3PM, reserves were less than 10GW. There has to be reserves for the rest of the system, so the total reserves according the 100% formula must exceed 13GW. It doesn’t.
The formula for trolling has been posted many times. One point,
When confronted with a counter argument, does the person in question change tactics rather than answer the points made by another member? Does the person employ logical fallacies within their posts?
Look at the wind power generated in the BPA on Jan. 16-23 of this year (green line) and tell me how much non-wind reserve, as a fraction of load, those wind farms require the grid to have (here’s hoping this crazy preview-less blog software embeds the graph or otherwise does something sensible):
http://atomicinsightscom.c.presscdn.com/wp-content/uploads/BPA-Jan-16-Jan-22-2014.png
I make that 100%. (source)
Look at the graph. BPA is a giant set of dams. Reserves in this system are nothing like an ordinary system. Look at the load and hydro. Notice hydro is greater than the load. Now start explaining what’s going on. The amount of hydro on this system has little or no relationship with the amount if reserves required. Reserves are not even listed in the graph. You have made a series of false assumptions and conclusions not warranted by the evidence. Why am I not surprised.
Yes, that’s true. But that doesn’t mean that system costs are necessarily higher. For example: Denmark is using cogeneration for wind backup and for district heating at the same time.
When there’s an abundance of wind they’re dumping wind into district heating system, and when there’s not enough wind they’re generating electricity and heat with backup. It’s very efficient to do these things together, despite that nameplate capacity must be roughly equal to peak demand. It’s a multitasking backup. It also makes sense, because heat demand is mostly in winter (which is when these periods without wind and solar occur).
ppp251 – Nice post. The myths of wind power by Milligan referenced above and the comment below showing show wind reserves less costly than conventional below. At this point, the amount of reserves necessary for renewables is negligible. Storage is a bogeyman, not needed, and actually the last and most expensive option the system operator would go to.
That’s true until wind reaches about 20-30% penetration. But going beyond 20-30% more reserves are required.
So at this point pretty much every country in the world (with the only exception of Denmark) doesn’t have to worry about this yet.
Denmark had about 33% wind in 2013 and a bit over 40% in the first half of 2014 (due to favourable conditions and they also opened one new big offshore wind farm). So Denmark is the first country to face these challenges and they’ve decided they’re going to combine heat and power sector together.
Yes, Arcus WOULD think this is a “nice post”. He is always looking for someone, anyone, that seems to support his delusions. You do yourself and the rest of us no favors by encouraging him
Denmark is a country that is ~1/16 the size of Texas and has a population of ~5-1/2 million. It is a flyspeck in the greater world of energy production and consumption on this planet. Aside from being a “good example” on some things, what goes on there has little relevance to CHINA, INDIA, COAL, and the U.S.
I am encouraging renewables and accurate information about renewables.
I don’t see any viable way how nuclear could be scaled to global levels. Economic and technical difficulties are too big.
Renewables (wind and solar in particular) will have to do the hard lifting in order to avoid catastrophic climate change.
Denmark may be a small country, but it’s still significant because it’s showing how other countries (in norther climates in particular) can integrate large amounts of wind power on the grid. China, India and U.S. will follow Denmark’s and Germany’s leadership.
Anyone who would so baldly assert that “China, India and U.S. will follow Denmark’s and Germany’s leadership” is suffering from terminal bright-sidedness. The “leadership” that will be followed is provided by the capitalistic “growth” system that is now the world-wide model, and it will lead us not to a carbon-free utopia but to the destruction of the biosphere;
I am with you 100% in encouraging renewables and accurate information about renewables. You say “I don’t see any viable way how nuclear could be scaled to global levels. Economic and technical difficulties are too big”. You need to find some accurate information about nuclear power and study that as well. Perhaps you would then understand why Hansen et al are encouraging it. There are NO technical difficulties standing in the way of scaling nuclear up to being a much larger part of the energy picture. It’s more a lack of will, and when it becomes obvious how “expensive” burning fossil fuels really is, nuclear power will seem cheap.
You say “Renewables (wind and solar in particular) will have to do the hard lifting in order to avoid catastrophic climate change”. Certainly true in the long run, but the point some of have been trying to make is it’s not happening anywhere near fast enough. I will again say “go back and look at the graphs”, particularly the one showing that increasing energy demand is being met mainly by burning more fossil fuels and that renewables are in a catch-up game that could take centuries before their impact makes a real difference—-we simply don’t have the time. (look for the tiny orange wedge).
If we use todays LWR then there’s not enough uranium supply.
We’d need breeder reactors to really scale nuclear to global levels. But in addition to that being a massive engineering challenge in itself, breeder reactors come with all sorts of problems ranging from noone really having much experience with them to being exceptionally expensive.
The only breeder reactor that’s been operational for some years is Russian BN-600, and during it’s lifetime it had dozens of failures, leaks and fires.
These issues may ultimately be solved, but it will take some time and I find it hard to believe that it can happen fast enough to address climate change.
Most of the increase is coming from developing countries and it’s because there was no alternative to fossil fuels. Most of the fossil fuel infrastructure doesn’t last more than 40 years, so it’s going to be phased out by 2050. We must offer alternative and then investments will go away from fossil fuels.
I am with PPP. No dog, you set yourself up with this “NO tecnical difficulties” comment. First, the use of caps illustrates the need to display emotion to make your point. In the Internet universe, it’s called shouting. A bad start. Next, the use if the extreme word ” no”. That’s two problems in one word. You are on a roll. Statements with implied zero or infinity can lead to trouble. Then you get to the matter of how much, which is where the meat of the matter is.
You made a bold statement. Bold statements require bold proof. No citations were given.
You keep talking content. Where is it? The references are the content. Not the rhetoric. There is no proof in rhetoric. I want proof.
Please. No emotion. Just solid references. Do it like Skeptical Science.
PPP just gave several counterpoints, ones that many others also have. By saying there are no … You are saying the subject is not open to debate. Is it true? There is no disagrrpeement? is this a case like 97% of scientists agree GW is real and caused by humans? Or is this something not so open and shut?
Dismissing the importance of example is just a part of the errors dog makes. If examples were not important, China would not have tragically followed US lead in adopting an energy intensive society. Nor would China quite so easily ignored Kyoto without US intransigence. The rest of the world is on the page. EU has goals and is meeting them. The two rogues, US and China are the problem. The world is now waiting for them to follow EUs lead. The excuse before was it couldn’t be done. It is being done. It’s not what’s technically possible that is limiting response. It’s a choice. EU has goals to meet the challenge. Many EU countries have met or are on track. It’s time for the rogues to get the message.
Centuries? Centuries for renewables? In one word throwing the whole universe of jacobson, Budischak and many other scientists with comprehensive energy plans in the waste basket. Without any specifics. Still, no proof. Not a hint if reference. Just opinion. Very disappointing. Really. Seriously. Show the plan. In its entirety. Or give some more meaningful commentary to those authors studies. Even that would be OK. But this present behavior smacks of irresponsible immaturity. Your thoughts and expressions count. Make them real. Complaining, rhetoric, and emotion are not helpful.
dog – Your reply had no connection to what ppp wrote. The main subject was reserves. You went off on a different direction. And as usual, the emotional, inflammatory language. Yes, that is trolling. So is off topic.
dog – you mentioned the magic word, “Hansen”. You could start a conversation there dipping into specifics. That would be more productive. He has some writings that could be a basis of conversation and could make specific points. For example, when you first mentioned Hansen, I provided reference to a paper by a group of scientists who countered his arguments. Thats a real discussion. Why haven’t you engaged in that instead of this silly inflammatory name calling?
ppp251 writes:
If we use today’s LWRs, we can load them with cores designed on the basis of the Shippingport reactor’s light water breeder experiment. That final run of the Shippingport reactor, 1977-82, went 5 years without refueling and terminated with 1.3% more fissile isotopes than it started with. The fertile material was not uranium but thorium, which is a byproduct of rare-earth refining.
Who gives a damn about uranium supply (0.72% fissile) when you can make U-233 (100% fissile) from thorium?
For that matter, what happens to reactor capacity factor when they can run 5 years without interruption for refueling? Things only get better if heavy water is added to improve neutron economy.
Fission technology isn’t dead. It’s barely begun.
Even more.
“The cost of reliably integrating large conventional power plants onto the power system in Texas is more than 17 times larger than the cost of reliably integrating wind energy, based on new AWEA analysis of data from the state’s independent power grid operator.”
http://aweablog.org/blog/post/fact-check-winds-integration-costs-are-lower-than-those-for-other-energy-sources
Reserves are calculated daily on the day ahead forecast for all sources and demand. See caiso.com for examples. Reserves depend on forecast accuracy. Almost no reserves are storage. reserves are calculated for the whole system, not its individual components.
Then why do you keep proposing it, as if it is the answer? Because you are correct – nobody in his right head is going to endorse the idea of crashing the economy, or whatever the heck “rapid degrowth” actually translates into.
And, frankly, why should they? If the goal here – it’s a bouncing ball, and you need to keep your eyes on it – is to avoid a significant temperature rise, then what we need to do is drastically lower CO2 emissions. Can we at least agree that is true?
And can we agree that lowering CO2 emissions without economic catastrophe is preferable to lowering CO2 emissions with economic catastrophe?
And might we agree also that the bottom line is that with a functioning economy or not, we must eventually develop new energy sources that don’t oxidize carbon?
So, why don’t we focus on getting that green energy built now, instead of later? And thereby avoiding economic catastrophe whilst lowering CO2 emissions?
Sometimes I think you and I live in different realities. ALL of your questions are answered by understanding the implications of above. If you want a different answer, you need to explain how the above is wrong.
I’ve always said we need to build cleaner energy as fast as possible right now. But, by itself, that approach will be woefully inadequate. The fact that we don’t like that answer doesn’t matter.
Economic catastrophe is our future, inevitably, because we cannot understand that the economy is reliant on our environment. We think the economy has priority, but this is us thinking we’re important. I’ve tried multiple ways to get you to see how and why just renewable energy transition will not cut it, but I’m hitting a brick wall here. You respond a few days later, and that response is like you never heard it.
Unfortunately. I understand most people think like you, and so our future is to plow on, blinded by faith in technology, only to eventually understand we made a tragic mistake in that faith.
I bring up voluntary degrowth because I know psychologically our species could adapt far more rapidly and capably to something we choose to do. We’d also truly be confronting our predicament without wasting time if we choose that path. The involuntary version will be much harder for us to manage, and we’ll be further down the path of overshoot when we get it.
“I bring up voluntary degrowth because I know psychologically our species could adapt far more rapidly and capably to something we choose to do. We’d also truly be confronting our predicament without wasting time if we choose that path. The involuntary version will be much harder for us to manage, and we’ll be further down the path of overshoot when we get it”.
Yep. I have spoken often of the need for a WW2 level mobilization, as has Gilding. WW2 was a simpler time and it was easy to focus on good “guys and bad guys” and “do the right thing”. But fighting a global war against CO2 in the Pogo-esque situation of “We have met the enemy and he is us” is going to be far more difficult than what happened in WW2. We are all at odds with ourselves now.
WW2 was limited in scope regarding the land masses involved and the resources being fought over by barely more than 2 billion people. In the modern world of 7+ billion “consumers”, everyone on the planet shares the same resources of air and oceans, and narrow self-interest and the capitalist system virtually guarantee that we will go into “involuntary overshoot”. There is no other rational conclusion to be reached.
“Will be woefully inadequate” .. Maybe. How do you know? What does inadequate mean? Does it mean we are already tasting resource depletion with economic effects and GW? Yes. I think these are more matters of perspective than differences of opinion. IMO, everything has consequences. What did we think would happen years ago? We thought oil might run out. But way in the future. We queued for gas and thought maybe that’s how it looked. What happened? A little different. Oil went to 100/ bl, gas rose to 4 dollars, auto sales, driver miles growth slowed, and electrical demand did too. Nothing surprising about that given the price of oil. Why is there so little recognition of the connection between oil prices and GNP? A sudden amnesia? Rather than unfolding like the a sci fi tabloid, or a 2 hour movie, we experience it as a slow process taking years. The wars, pestilence, and economic depression are viewed as unrelated, even though they have already passed and continue daily. Meanwhile the harbingers still toll their bell of impending doom and argue when and how much it will happen. It’s already started. And yet there is practically no awareness. Hubberts prediction of conventional oil peak is right on the money. The fear of the pressures building to one gigantic catastrophe are revealing that counterbalancing forces work over a timescale of decades. What we worry Is a mistake like GW warming can take place with not enough feedback and stalled consequences. There is no doubt. The present system of unbridled consumption is a complete failure. We are struggling to find a new culture that values sustainability and nature. A patch won’t fix it. The grass roots is calling for change. They want nothing less than the rapid change if cultural and sociopolitical systems. The system is the problem. It’s the last to change. And it’s answes are, but can’t we keep this dependency? How about a carbon tax and unlimited growth and happy times? Not real.
Is there a cogent thought in there somewhere?
“Maybe. How do you know?”
Read Garrett, watch the Krumdieck videos, look at global trends as opposed to regional ones, read and understand ‘Limits to Growth’, and look at the overall picture rather than focusing on minutia about nameplate capacities. There also many other ways to see it.
The rest of your comment answers your question, too. One reason why just building cleaner energy by itself will be woefully inadequate to solving climate change is that we are entering a resource depletion phase. Less net energy to society means that we’ll be less able to swap out an entire infrastructure. We’ll keep using the dirty stuff. We’d have to do that to build out the cleaner stuff, anyway, but a system in decline maintains rather than expands. It’s like having bad credit and an old car and getting it repaired instead of buying a new one. One can’t afford the new car, and even though the repairs are costly, it’s at least possible to keep going with the clunker.
And that’s just one reason, and not even the most important reason, why energy transition alone won’t work.
I often agree with you, but you have these wild, almost schizophrenic jumps between irrational optimism and understanding. The grass roots? They want iPads, man.
Also, please use paragraphs – coordinate your thoughts. You can be very difficult to read at times.
jimbills – I think you are responding to me, but with the indentation system, I never know. Sorry about the lack of indentation and paragraphs. Mobile devices are not conducive.
Its an unfortunate result of this forum system that several conversations get juggled at once. I can respond to a factual error from one person and get into a lengthy philosophical discussion with another. It creates a disjointed sense of perspective. I have an innate distaste towards inaccuracy at the detail level and at the same time a broad expansive philosophical view. I manage to juggle the tow and remain comfortable with both where others lose consciousness. (haha)
Since your comment was regarding building cleaner energy by itself, I suspected it was a response to Gingerbaker, since I think cleaner energy by itself won’t do.
Just to be clear.
Sustainability is the goal. Renewables are a means that unlocks that possibility, not an end to it.
I don’t know about other systems in decline, but the US, German, and Australian systems are replacing coal with renewables. Unable to swap out the dirty stuff? Tell that to RWE and EON in Germany that are campaigning to drop 10GW of base load power because it is no longer economic and losing out to renewables which are lowering wholesale rates.
I do agree that energy transition alone will not work. But not because its not working where renewables are introduced. Because renewables are not introduced fast enough everywhere!
Why not irrational optimism and understanding? In the face of such disaster, a little irrational optimism is purposeful. What you may call irrational optimism others call faith and a sense of purpose. One to get you going, the other, the engineering side, to make it happen. Some cannot encompass both. I get it.
The world needs all kinds. Some have many kinds inside. Sorry if that gives you
ataxia.
(and a sense of humor that causes ataxia in some)
take as directed by your doctor
That’s it. I am following jimbills out the door soon on this thread. Since reality and rationality have already fled the scene, those of us that believe in them had better leave too.
Christopher – “Why not irrational optimism”?
Simply because irrational optimism is highly likely to lead to false and ineffective solutions.
jimbills – Careful now. I said both. Not one. Without any optimism, we can all just sit in our chairs and let impending doom swallow us. With only unbridled optimism we have no connection to the physical world. Balance is the problem.
You’re welcome dog. Take some happy pills. You need them.
Say goodnight, Christopher.
No one is “proposing” it in the sense that you use the word, as a viable plan or real solution. Jimbills and I speak of it more as a consequence, a result of business as usual that will simply happen—-the unsustainability of all aspects of modern “civilization” and economic systems will simply lead to collapse, and that will lead to the rapid degrowth that will help to cut fossil fuel use as a side benefit.
Have you not yet read Gilding’s The Great Disruption? “Rapid degrowth” translates into serious societal and economic upheaval accompanied by quite a bit of human death and suffering. No one “endorses” it, it will just happen if we don’t get moving on CO2 soon.
All your rhetorical questions are just that—rhetorical, and NOT “keeping the eye on the ball”. The “ball” is displayed in all of the graphs on this thread and in many others we have seen on other threads. Fossil fuel use is climbing and it is NOT being replaced by renewables fast enough. Period.
You close with the question: “So, why don’t we focus on getting that green energy built now, instead of later? And thereby avoiding economic catastrophe whilst lowering CO2 emissions?”
I will answer by saying that the human species has evolved to a state where it is out of control and unable to see the forest for the trees. The overwhelming number of humans on the planet are concerned only with themselves and their short time on Earth. We need to have a major SHTF scenario to cause the Great Awakening that Gilding speaks of in Disruption—-massive ice sheet melt, rapid temperature increase, runaway extreme weather events, rapid sea level rise, collapse of the ocean biome—-until that occurs, it will be BAU and the greedy rich will continue to drive us closer to the cliff’s edge. McPherson, Gilding. jimbills, and I all understand that—-why don’t you?
A few caveats: I am proposing we change on our own, even though I know it’s pipe dream within a pipe dream that we’d actually do it.
If one thinks they have the only real solution, but they know no one will accept that solution, should they shut up about it? I figure it can’t hurt to mention it once in a while, especially on a site devoted to the issue.
We think we’re solving this thing with technology, and we’re not.
I’ll post one more excellent Susan Krumdieck video. I only discovered her a few weeks ago, but she speaks a lot of sense to me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9YRNqewGIY
You and I disagree a bit with Gilding’s ‘Great Disruption’ (sounds a lot like ‘Great Awakening’ – I can only assume he doesn’t know U.S. history well) belief a bit. He thinks we’ll have a kumbaya moment, and everyone comes together and fights environmental catastrophe in a large, war-type effort.
Honestly, I think that’s too optimistic. I think it’ll be far more messy than that (see Greece for an example). But I do think we’ll be forced to adopt much more sustainable practices as adaptive necessity.
I think you misread Gilding. His thoughts do get a bit muddled in spots, but I think that’s because he was just trying to be “polite” and tap dancing around the “messiness” rather than come over as a doom-sayer. Not everyone is as brave as McPherson.
I don’t think he sees a WW2 level mobilization as a solution that is guaranteed to work either, but as something we will likely be forced into and will have to give our best shot. And, as I’ve said, that global mobilization will be very difficult to achieve when nearly every human alive is “Hitler”.
Possibly I did. It’s been a while now since I read it. But, it’s a minor point, anyway. The general conclusions are the same.
Gingerbaker – its getting kind of hostile in here lately, eh? Oh well. I guess your question is just too easy, but I have to say when you don’t get a simple answer to those kinds of questions, do I have to tell you that there is an irrational, emotional content to the answer? Not trying to pick on anyone, just saying.
Heres the answer. Yes. What else? Lets choose horrible privation and GW?
The matter of whether its possible to avoid economic impact is something that can be considered separately. What nations are trying to do is reduce the intensity of emissions. Another way of saying, uncouple GNP from energy use. You might add that the idea is to uncouple resource depletion from economies. Thats a good goal. What jimbills is saying if I may borrow his pulpit, is that growth will eat up gains in those areas if it is unchecked. You can both be right. We are blind men touching an elephant. Its not temporary. Its the human condition.
I apparently spoke too soon when I complimented Arcus on the comparative sobriety demonstrated in his earlier remarks today.
Blind men touching elephants and “both can be right”? Lord love a duck!
Then answer ginger bakers question. It’s an IQ test.
And can we agree that lowering CO2 emissions without economic catastrophe is preferable to lowering CO2 emissions with economic catastrophe?
If you can’t figure out the correct answer to that question, then emotion is clouding reason.
California reserves are about 10GW, varying through the day, Lower at night. Combined renewables nameplate capacity is over 10 GW. Case proved. Renewables do not require reserves equal to nameplate. This notion is a fantasy born of total ignorance of the real power system.
Here we go with fantasies of nuclear power just like the good old days. The good old days that never were. Facile attempts to point to France as a model while ignoring the huge government subsidies, the decommissioning costs, and the recent shift away. Pointedly no longer pointing to Japan as a nuclear model, with its estimated 250 billion ticket for disaster and no nuclear electricity. Sort of like a caller at a carnival, step right up. There is a history of unmet promise. It hasn’t changed one bit. Nuclear is in decline and its proponents are just as wrong as ever. It’s just there is now a track record to prove it. Nuclear declined and investment dropped decades ago, curtailed by the high cost.
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/citigroup-says-the-age-of-renewables-has-begun
Sometimes Nuclear proponents not content to boost their favorite, see renewables as a competitor and seek to trash them. The headline is the age of renewables has begun, not its been here for 40 years. And it has just begun, so detractors criticize its size. Make no mistake. It will grow rapidly. Dreams of nuclear growth will fade as the reality of the cost and difficulty of nuclear expansion sink in.
http://nuclear-news.net/2013/06/28/nuclear-power-its-just-not-cost-effective/
Do you ever pay attention to anything but those deluded voices of bright-sidedness that echo in your head?
No one says that nuclear is cheaper than other sources, only that it is carbon-free and cost won’t matter when the SHTF and we must finally deal with carbon. You are too much in love with your straw men.
“Make no mistake. It will grow rapidly”, you say of “the age of renewables”?
I know you are graph-interpretation-impaired and suffer from serious cognitive dissonance issues, but you must somehow come to grips with the FACTS some day. Look at the graphs that jimbills and keith have provided here and try to understand that we are not detractors of renewables, but merely realists about the progress they are making (which is, unfortunately, little to none on a world-wide basis, and certainly nowhere near enough).
I myself have no “Dreams of nuclear growth” that relate to the cost and difficulty of nuclear expansion. Yes, it is difficult and expensive (but not for the horsepucky propaganda reasons that you have spouted for months—-E-Pot flushed your toilet there). If it becomes necessary for the planet to survive, as Hansen and others believe it is, we WILL return to nuclear.
Cost won’t matter? We already have an emergency. Does cost matter now? does cost matter for renewables, but not nuclear? That’s a switch. I agree to a point, but economics will influence the roll out of new generation. If economics don’t matter, and we are subsidizing nuclear, it doesn’t seem to be working. Undoubtedly some nuclear power plants will get built. Will they do enough to matter? No. And they are doing less and less every year. I have heard enough from phony ” we are not detractors of renewables”. Does that include E pot? Pickering? Why are the renewables detractors always nuke nuts? Why do moderates say why can’t we have both? Or why do sources like citigroup say the age of renewables is here? Because it just started. And why do you insist on substituting your opinion of what you think my opinion is for my own words for what it is? I prefer not to get into personalities because it is a useless mire, yet you insist. But facts and sources and reason can yield knowledge. The truth is not personal domain. I guess my appeal to decorum failed. It’s not just a matter of being raspy about telling others what you think. It’s just being raspy.an irrelevant distraction.
Come back when you’re sober. You are destroying the “decorum” here with your disjointed ramblings.
Your comments don’t even need a header with your name. Find one thats not raspy. Find one thats pleasant. And you plead innocently, what me?
Yes, absolutely cost matters. Cost matters for everything. There has been a 5-decade-long program to drive up costs for nuclear power, by saddling it with expenses and delays that nothing else has to deal with. This is why “renewables” look relatively cheap. Well, coal is even cheaper than renewables, which is why Germany and Denmark intend to burn coal as far out as they actually have plans (which, given that they’ve just built new plants, is at least 50 years).
Cost represents resources, which are being depleted.
The original 1960’s nuclear plant designs were cheaper than coal (mighty-mite reactors without all the extras mandated by the NRC are cheaper than coal boilers). They were less resource intensive. It took the mandate of massive expenditures on legal resources to save coal from the nuclear threat.
Yes, absolutely. And if (perhaps I should say “when”) there is the collapse that you are pushing us toward, and “kill all the lawyers” has come and gone, and there’s no money to speak of, people will build the cheapest and fastest plants they can build to meet their needs. They’ll be plants that can be built in a couple of years, with materials from any steel mill and cement factory, which eschew the need for enriched uranium (that is probably gone due to dismantling centrifuge plants by edict).
Do you know what kind of plant people will be able to build that way? Fuel-pin-in-tube, light-water cooled, GRAPHITE moderated to run on natural uranium. In short, an RMBK.
Your post-collapse future plant is not windmills and PV panels. It is Chernobyls, everywhere.
LOL
“Fuel-pin-in-tube, light-water cooled, GRAPHITE moderated to run on natural uranium. In short, an RMBK. Your post-collapse future plant is not windmills and PV panels”.
“It is Chernobyls, everywhere”.
That scares even me. Don’t be giving the Chicken Littles even more reason to run screaming into the streets.
And that’s why I want things to go from Gen III+ LWRs to MSRs and LMFBRs, not a collapse of any kind. People do desperate things in a collapse. The white-tail deer was hunted down to almost nothing immediately after the 1929 crash; another world-wide crash would probably be much worse.
It’s not “nuke nuts” who say we can’t have both, it’s you Greens who insist that renewables mean nuclear must go. I’ve explained this at least a dozen times, but maybe one more will penetrate your thick skull:
1. Renewables are not competitive without subsidies, mandates and grid priority.
2. Grid priority means that other generation must be curtailed to follow wind and solar generation, not the reverse. This allows the RE to collect the maximum generation subsidy.
3. These are used as a club to force base-load generators, including nuclear, off the grid.
A more sensible scheme would be to make renewables curtail or store their excess output, and allow other carbon-free generation like nuclear to do what it does best: crank out carbon-free power 24/7. Such a requirement for curtailment would immediately create innovation in storage, schedulable demand (not demand curtailment, but as-required demand generation), and other useful things. But you Greens have always had nuclear power as your Enemy #1.
You are a realist? OK. Provide your global plan for nuclear rollout to prevent GW. Give details. Show how it affects GNP, how many meltdowns, the whole thing. Show how its feasible including all the political and other ramifications. Really. Please do. Seriously. Thats what Jacobson and Budischak are doing. Feel free to reference peer reviewed research on the subject. Even a book. But it has to have concrete numbers, not just pie in the sky.
Find your answer here.
I meant dig not you.