Build lots and lots (and lots) of new power plants
May 3, 2016 1:34 PM Subscribe
Here's what it would take for the US to run on 100% renewable energy. It is technically and economically feasible to run the US economy entirely on renewable energy, and to do so by 2050.
Technical or economic limits has never been the stumbling block, we could've have electric cars and widespread windfarms 50 years ago without the most powerful industrial lobby ever imagined strangling competition from clean energy sources in their infancy. We've had the technology since the late 60s at the latest.
The fossil fuel industry and its complete hold on a minimum of 50-60% of all politicians is what prevented renewable sources from scaling up faster, and what will still be preventing them from doing so in 2050 as Florida sinks into the ocean.
posted by T.D. Strange at 1:49 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
The fossil fuel industry and its complete hold on a minimum of 50-60% of all politicians is what prevented renewable sources from scaling up faster, and what will still be preventing them from doing so in 2050 as Florida sinks into the ocean.
posted by T.D. Strange at 1:49 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
Another interesting study used computers to attempt to optimize renewable electricity generation without raising prices.
posted by clawsoon at 1:52 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
US electricity could be powered mostly by the sun and wind by 2030 .... "Our research shows a transition to a reliable, low-carbon, electrical generation and transmission system can be accomplished with commercially available technology and within 15 years."The main thing the computer suggested was to use high voltage DC on a large scale in order to move electricity from all the places with lots of sun and wind to all the places where people live. "...the sun is shining or winds are blowing somewhere across the United States all of the time..."
posted by clawsoon at 1:52 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
The core of the plan is to electrify everything, including sectors that currently run partially or entirely on liquid fossil fuels. That means shifting transportation, heating/cooling, and industry to run on electric power.Reminds me of the Soviet Union's GOLERO Plan. "Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country." Ambitious, and sounding good on paper, but achieving less than expected at a greater cost.
I'm also disappointed that they dismiss nuclear power, even conflating it with fossil fuels in their projected timeline. The article notes that nuclear is the best option with regard to "nameplate capacity":
Although a nuclear plant and a wind farm might have the same "nameplate capacity" of 1 gigawatt, you'd actually need three or four wind farms that size to produce the same number of MWh as the nuclear plant. (EIA info on US capacity factors here; nuclear is highest, producing around 90 percent of the time, while solar PV is lowest, at around 20 percent.)People seem to be excessively worried about another Chernobyl or Three Mile Island, just as they're more worried about terrorist attacks than car crashes. Modern nuclear power plant designs are much safer, and fuel can be reprocessed to reduce its volume (which is already done in some countries, though not in the US).
posted by Rangi at 1:55 PM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
Biomass (including biodiesel and ethanol) are also omitted because of life-cycle costs. That's likely justifiable on the water- and land-use alone, but I think they're engaging in double counting when they talk about increased CO2 production from farming the base materials---sure the tractors would be biofuel or electric too?
The problems I do see are with transport. I don't believe the switch to hydrogen for marine and air travel fuels. It's entirely possible to imagine a biofuel airplane, JP-8 is the US army bio-kerosene and works great. Biodiesel has also used in ocean vessels already. Easy to implement either, without much cost. It's a lot harder to see how the switch to generated hydrogen would work, and how that would greatly reduce efficiency, especially by the 2025 deadline.
Hydrogen is really not a great fuel in many ways (hard to store, harder to transport, and damaging to storage/transport materials, low efficiency generation). For air travel in particular, it would quite sucky.
posted by bonehead at 2:05 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
The problems I do see are with transport. I don't believe the switch to hydrogen for marine and air travel fuels. It's entirely possible to imagine a biofuel airplane, JP-8 is the US army bio-kerosene and works great. Biodiesel has also used in ocean vessels already. Easy to implement either, without much cost. It's a lot harder to see how the switch to generated hydrogen would work, and how that would greatly reduce efficiency, especially by the 2025 deadline.
Hydrogen is really not a great fuel in many ways (hard to store, harder to transport, and damaging to storage/transport materials, low efficiency generation). For air travel in particular, it would quite sucky.
posted by bonehead at 2:05 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
To quote the article: "enormous, heroic assumptions about social and political change".
Well, we have a political party that is not only anti-science, but whose politicians regularly make statements in direct contradiction to the domain knowledge of several branches of engineering. Surmounting that will take some heroic exercises of political theater.
But the construction and deployment of infrastructure with which to transition to a 100% renewable energy economy?
Doable. Very, very doable.
posted by ocschwar at 2:06 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, we have a political party that is not only anti-science, but whose politicians regularly make statements in direct contradiction to the domain knowledge of several branches of engineering. Surmounting that will take some heroic exercises of political theater.
But the construction and deployment of infrastructure with which to transition to a 100% renewable energy economy?
Doable. Very, very doable.
posted by ocschwar at 2:06 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Also from today's news: Resettling the First American ‘Climate Refugees’
posted by gwint at 2:11 PM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by gwint at 2:11 PM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
Anything is possible with enough money. Ontario made a big move to shut down its coal plants, starting in 2003. To do that, we instituted a "feed-in-tariff" program that encouraged a massive build-out of wind and solar-pv by offering them guaranteed rates two or three times the selling price, no matter if the grid needed the electricity at the time or not. The result is mixed, but entirely predictable:
1) Ontario succeeded in closing its coal plants. Our pollution levels are down, and we are well on our way to meeting our carbon reduction goals. Some people who would have died of respiratory disease are still alive.
2) Other large generators without a price agreement (which is pretty much only OPG - the government itself) are unpredictably forced to idle their turbines, throw water over the spillway or sell at a *negative* price to get rid of excess capacity. The market is Enron-level screwed up.
3) Our electricity rates, which used to be one of the cheapest in North America, have more than doubled and are now one of the most expensive. Some price increase was inevitable - the externalities of pollution have to be added to the price, but it amounts to a big increase in the cost of living for Ontarians, especially those on tenuous incomes.
4) Our electricity demand curve has flatlined. You could argue this is a good thing, as we've improved our efficiency, but our manufacturing output has plummeted as large factories have pulled out of the province (electricity costs aren't the only reason, but it's definitely one of them). As a result, our unemployment numbers have risen, exacerbating problem #3.
So, remember - you pay for what you get.
posted by Popular Ethics at 2:11 PM on May 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
1) Ontario succeeded in closing its coal plants. Our pollution levels are down, and we are well on our way to meeting our carbon reduction goals. Some people who would have died of respiratory disease are still alive.
2) Other large generators without a price agreement (which is pretty much only OPG - the government itself) are unpredictably forced to idle their turbines, throw water over the spillway or sell at a *negative* price to get rid of excess capacity. The market is Enron-level screwed up.
3) Our electricity rates, which used to be one of the cheapest in North America, have more than doubled and are now one of the most expensive. Some price increase was inevitable - the externalities of pollution have to be added to the price, but it amounts to a big increase in the cost of living for Ontarians, especially those on tenuous incomes.
4) Our electricity demand curve has flatlined. You could argue this is a good thing, as we've improved our efficiency, but our manufacturing output has plummeted as large factories have pulled out of the province (electricity costs aren't the only reason, but it's definitely one of them). As a result, our unemployment numbers have risen, exacerbating problem #3.
So, remember - you pay for what you get.
posted by Popular Ethics at 2:11 PM on May 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
Although a nuclear plant and a wind farm might have the same "nameplate capacity" of 1 gigawatt, you'd actually need three or four wind farms that size to produce the same number of MWh as the nuclear plant. (EIA info on US capacity factors here; nuclear is highest, producing around 90 percent of the time, while solar PV is lowest, at around 20 percent.)
Although you might get 3-4 times as much energy from a nuclear power station per unit capacity, the new Hinkley C is being costed at 5-6 times the onshore wind turbine on a per unit capacity basis.
People seem to be excessively worried about another Chernobyl or Three Mile Island, just as they're more worried about terrorist attacks than car crashes.
Yeah, especially people around Fukushima.
Modern nuclear power plant designs are much safer
Up to Chernobyl in 1986 the nuclear sector said that it wasn't possible for a nuclear power station to have the kind of problem that Chernobyl eventually did. Then for 25 years the nuclear sector sold the idea that the same thing couldn't possible happen in a Western designed reactor, then Fukushima happened. So really, why should we now believe the nuclear industry when it says there can't be any serious problems with a 'Modern nuclear power plant design'?
posted by biffa at 2:25 PM on May 3, 2016 [10 favorites]
Although you might get 3-4 times as much energy from a nuclear power station per unit capacity, the new Hinkley C is being costed at 5-6 times the onshore wind turbine on a per unit capacity basis.
People seem to be excessively worried about another Chernobyl or Three Mile Island, just as they're more worried about terrorist attacks than car crashes.
Yeah, especially people around Fukushima.
Modern nuclear power plant designs are much safer
Up to Chernobyl in 1986 the nuclear sector said that it wasn't possible for a nuclear power station to have the kind of problem that Chernobyl eventually did. Then for 25 years the nuclear sector sold the idea that the same thing couldn't possible happen in a Western designed reactor, then Fukushima happened. So really, why should we now believe the nuclear industry when it says there can't be any serious problems with a 'Modern nuclear power plant design'?
posted by biffa at 2:25 PM on May 3, 2016 [10 favorites]
Technical or economic limits has never been the stumbling block, we could've have electric cars and widespread windfarms 50 years ago without the most powerful industrial lobby ever imagined strangling competition from clean energy sources in their infancy. We've had the technology since the late 60s at the latest.
Man, if only you had been around when I was writing my PhD on the strategic industrialisation of the wind turbine it would have saved me a lot of trouble. If you could just pass on your evidence it would be a real help in helping me understand what really went on.
posted by biffa at 2:30 PM on May 3, 2016 [9 favorites]
Man, if only you had been around when I was writing my PhD on the strategic industrialisation of the wind turbine it would have saved me a lot of trouble. If you could just pass on your evidence it would be a real help in helping me understand what really went on.
posted by biffa at 2:30 PM on May 3, 2016 [9 favorites]
Well, I mean, if we don't get our shit together and work towards renewables, then we're all going to basically perish a bunch sooner in terrible Global Warming Related ways. And, here in America's Soon To Be Glowing Wang, one of these new, safer modern nuclear power plants is Leaking Radiation into the Atlantic Ocean. So, yeah, lots of us aren't jumping on the nucular train any time soon if we can avoid it.
It takes decades to build a nuclear plant anyway. You can whomp up a buncha lotta wind turbines and Solar PV and concentrated-solar in the time it takes to build a nuclear plant. And they don't dump radioactive shit into the ocean and create Godzillas and shit.
posted by Cookiebastard at 2:39 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
It takes decades to build a nuclear plant anyway. You can whomp up a buncha lotta wind turbines and Solar PV and concentrated-solar in the time it takes to build a nuclear plant. And they don't dump radioactive shit into the ocean and create Godzillas and shit.
posted by Cookiebastard at 2:39 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
You can whomp up a buncha lotta wind turbines and Solar PV and concentrated-solar in the time it takes to build a nuclear plant. And they don't dump radioactive shit into the ocean and create Godzillas and shit.
No, but they kill a lot of birds and occupy endangered species habitat. Renewables are not without environmental costs.
posted by suelac at 2:41 PM on May 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
No, but they kill a lot of birds and occupy endangered species habitat. Renewables are not without environmental costs.
posted by suelac at 2:41 PM on May 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
Nuclear power is a necessary tool to get us towards 100% RE. Here in the US, it provides nearly 20% of electricity generation (8% of total energy use) The recent shutting down of the San Onofre plant in California will add 8M tonnes of CO2 because the near-term replacement energy will mostly be fossil fuel based. Dismantle nuclear energy once we've gotten to zero GHG emissions, not before.
posted by gwint at 2:42 PM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by gwint at 2:42 PM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
but they kill a lot of birds
Not really.
For every bird killed by a turbine, 5,820, on average, are killed striking buildings, typically glass windows.
Wind turbines kill fewer birds than do cats, cell towers
posted by gwint at 2:47 PM on May 3, 2016 [17 favorites]
Not really.
For every bird killed by a turbine, 5,820, on average, are killed striking buildings, typically glass windows.
Wind turbines kill fewer birds than do cats, cell towers
posted by gwint at 2:47 PM on May 3, 2016 [17 favorites]
You can whomp up a buncha lotta wind turbines and Solar PV and concentrated-solar in the time it takes to build a nuclear plant. And they don't dump radioactive shit into the ocean and create Godzillas and shit.
Also the issue of investment and political risk.
If your solar farm falls through halfway for money or permit issues, you have half a solar farm.
If your nuke falls through halfway? You have nothing.
posted by ocschwar at 2:50 PM on May 3, 2016 [11 favorites]
Renewables are not without environmental costs.
I have never heard it expressed by anyone ever that renewables do not have environmental costs. It's certainly not what I said.
Fossil Fuels and Nuclear kill way more wildlife and cause way more habitat loss per unit of energy produced. Plenty more research verifies this.
Lots of solar doesn't have to occupy endangered species habitat. They can put it on roofs and shit now.
posted by Cookiebastard at 2:52 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
I have never heard it expressed by anyone ever that renewables do not have environmental costs. It's certainly not what I said.
Fossil Fuels and Nuclear kill way more wildlife and cause way more habitat loss per unit of energy produced. Plenty more research verifies this.
Lots of solar doesn't have to occupy endangered species habitat. They can put it on roofs and shit now.
posted by Cookiebastard at 2:52 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
If your nuke falls through halfway? You have nothing.
Nuclear construction costs are dominated by costs of borrowing as well, whereas solar and wind can be brought online in phases. Depending on how you phase, you could start making money from a wind turbine a few days after it's installed.
posted by atrazine at 2:55 PM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
Nuclear construction costs are dominated by costs of borrowing as well, whereas solar and wind can be brought online in phases. Depending on how you phase, you could start making money from a wind turbine a few days after it's installed.
posted by atrazine at 2:55 PM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
Great point ocschwar, and here in the Sunshine State, those costs are often passed on to ratepayers rather than investors, so there's that too. Round these parts, nuclear is a shit deal.
posted by Cookiebastard at 2:56 PM on May 3, 2016
posted by Cookiebastard at 2:56 PM on May 3, 2016
So, and this is probably a dumb derail, I've always wondered: if we successfully remove all coals and gas from our energy needs, where does that leave the people that love to barbecue on a gas or coal grill? Would those resources be super expensive and therefore that smokey flavor will only be available to the 1%? Or would we keep the mines and the oil platforms open to service those niche needs at competitive prices? I'm now imagining a future commercial from Shell blasting Exxon and BP over how their gas makes your ribs taste like those pedestrian electric grills.
posted by numaner at 3:05 PM on May 3, 2016
posted by numaner at 3:05 PM on May 3, 2016
marginally dumb derail? charcoal and charcoal briquettes are still a manufactured, rather than mined product.
posted by ivan ivanych samovar at 3:11 PM on May 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by ivan ivanych samovar at 3:11 PM on May 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
They're actually looking into making charcoal and then burying it: biochar. The idea is to get carbon out of the air and into the soil and also improve the fertility of the soil.
posted by biffa at 3:13 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by biffa at 3:13 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
As someone who don't use coal to grill, I didn't know that. Thanks, ivan!
posted by numaner at 3:15 PM on May 3, 2016
posted by numaner at 3:15 PM on May 3, 2016
Although I do kinda love the image of a dusty-faced miner, 3 miles underground, gingerly taking a lick of a wall and exclaiming "Boys, we've hit paydirt-- this vein of coal is nearly bursting with hickory flavor!"
posted by gwint at 3:15 PM on May 3, 2016 [19 favorites]
posted by gwint at 3:15 PM on May 3, 2016 [19 favorites]
Nuclear power is a necessary tool to get us towards 100% RE.
You ignored the study upon which this article is based, which shows a detailed scenario in which this can be done without nuclear. So no, nuclear power is not necessary. RTFA.
posted by indubitable at 3:15 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
You ignored the study upon which this article is based, which shows a detailed scenario in which this can be done without nuclear. So no, nuclear power is not necessary. RTFA.
posted by indubitable at 3:15 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Samovar knows his charcoal.
posted by No Robots at 3:16 PM on May 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by No Robots at 3:16 PM on May 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
Oh, my.
First, let me say that renewables (solar, wind, ocean tides) are the future.
But, to get to the future, we have to go through the now.
And, right now, coal (that dirty, dirty thing) is the cheapest energy going. And we have to bridge shortfalls in renewable sources to keep the electricity net stable. This is a thing: we need to keep 120/230/230/240 going through the electricity grid or it breaks. Accept the fact that we need energy generation-on-demand to do this.
So we need to burn gas/oil/coal/nuclear to do that, to keep the grid alive.
Gas is finite. Coal is and will be(for the forseeable future) dirty. Nuclear?
Well, CURRENT nuclear is good. It's safe. It is FAIL-SAFE (ie, things go wrong, the inherent design shuts things down ... pure fucking physics mean a meltdown/Chernobyl/Fukushima cannot happen).
But people keep on wanking/harping on past mistakes. Yes, they were bad. Yes, they fucked us and the planet up.
But Chernobyl? It was an old plant WHERE THEY SHUT ALL THE SAFETIES OFF TO TEST THEM!. It was something so stupid it shouldn't have happened, but it did, because the plant was first or second generation technology and people were stupid.
And Fukushima? Second generation. Designed/built in 1971. Almost half a century ago. And if it had been built up to code, if the protection walls for the generators had been high enough (or just placed on top of the reactor!), nothing would have happened.
But 50 years ago, people were cheap, went against spec and we got what we got.
But any current gen nuclear plant just does not have that problem. Inherently. Due to fucking physics.
The only problem is storage ... and transmutation has come a long way. Hell, Thorium reactors could now be built with corrosion resistant plastics which can withstand the heat which have even less problems.
So, to bridge the gap to where we have all renewable sources (which is difficult to do 100%), we can build safe nuclear reactors.
If only people understood physics and cost-cutting, we can do this NOW.
Shit, we HAVE to do this now.
So, if you are anti-nuke: learn some fucking physics and get down with current generation nuclear plant design. Because now, if you are against nuclear, you are un-educated.
If you were against it in the 70's? Well, then you were fucking right to be.
posted by MacD at 3:18 PM on May 3, 2016 [12 favorites]
First, let me say that renewables (solar, wind, ocean tides) are the future.
But, to get to the future, we have to go through the now.
And, right now, coal (that dirty, dirty thing) is the cheapest energy going. And we have to bridge shortfalls in renewable sources to keep the electricity net stable. This is a thing: we need to keep 120/230/230/240 going through the electricity grid or it breaks. Accept the fact that we need energy generation-on-demand to do this.
So we need to burn gas/oil/coal/nuclear to do that, to keep the grid alive.
Gas is finite. Coal is and will be(for the forseeable future) dirty. Nuclear?
Well, CURRENT nuclear is good. It's safe. It is FAIL-SAFE (ie, things go wrong, the inherent design shuts things down ... pure fucking physics mean a meltdown/Chernobyl/Fukushima cannot happen).
But people keep on wanking/harping on past mistakes. Yes, they were bad. Yes, they fucked us and the planet up.
But Chernobyl? It was an old plant WHERE THEY SHUT ALL THE SAFETIES OFF TO TEST THEM!. It was something so stupid it shouldn't have happened, but it did, because the plant was first or second generation technology and people were stupid.
And Fukushima? Second generation. Designed/built in 1971. Almost half a century ago. And if it had been built up to code, if the protection walls for the generators had been high enough (or just placed on top of the reactor!), nothing would have happened.
But 50 years ago, people were cheap, went against spec and we got what we got.
But any current gen nuclear plant just does not have that problem. Inherently. Due to fucking physics.
The only problem is storage ... and transmutation has come a long way. Hell, Thorium reactors could now be built with corrosion resistant plastics which can withstand the heat which have even less problems.
So, to bridge the gap to where we have all renewable sources (which is difficult to do 100%), we can build safe nuclear reactors.
If only people understood physics and cost-cutting, we can do this NOW.
Shit, we HAVE to do this now.
So, if you are anti-nuke: learn some fucking physics and get down with current generation nuclear plant design. Because now, if you are against nuclear, you are un-educated.
If you were against it in the 70's? Well, then you were fucking right to be.
posted by MacD at 3:18 PM on May 3, 2016 [12 favorites]
RTFA.
*sigh* You mean the one that ends with "Is that realistic? Uh, no. No it isn't."
posted by gwint at 3:20 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
*sigh* You mean the one that ends with "Is that realistic? Uh, no. No it isn't."
posted by gwint at 3:20 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
if we successfully remove all coals and gas from our energy needs, where does that leave the people that love to barbecue on a gas or coal grill? Would those resources be super expensive and therefore that smokey flavor will only be available to the 1%?
Options that are closer to carbon neutral: biogas, ie gas that comes from broken down biomass. You are probably looking at higher costs, reflecting that at the moment you are grilling off carbon without paying the full costs, which are met by the bottom 1% (or more) when their islands or estuaries go under water.
posted by biffa at 3:20 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Options that are closer to carbon neutral: biogas, ie gas that comes from broken down biomass. You are probably looking at higher costs, reflecting that at the moment you are grilling off carbon without paying the full costs, which are met by the bottom 1% (or more) when their islands or estuaries go under water.
posted by biffa at 3:20 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
You mean the one that ends with "Is that realistic? Uh, no. No it isn't."
Right, the journalist at Vox declared that the political obstacles are insurmountable. There's no technical or financial reason for nuclear power to be necessary, it's political.
posted by indubitable at 3:24 PM on May 3, 2016
Right, the journalist at Vox declared that the political obstacles are insurmountable. There's no technical or financial reason for nuclear power to be necessary, it's political.
posted by indubitable at 3:24 PM on May 3, 2016
So, if you are anti-nuke: learn some fucking physics and get down with current generation nuclear plant design. Because now, if you are against nuclear, you are un-educated.
The UK's first next gen nuke plant is currently being costed at somewhere between £6000 and £8000 per installed kW. This is more expensive by far than solar or onshore or offshore wind and quite a few other RE technologies. The existing examples of the reactors intended for the site are already being installed at new sites in Finland and France. Both installations are already massively behind schedule and over budget. Potentially the UK plant may become the most expensive object on the face of the Earth. So, if you are pro-nuke: learn some fucking economics. Because now, if you are for nuclear, you are un-educated.
posted by biffa at 3:26 PM on May 3, 2016 [11 favorites]
The UK's first next gen nuke plant is currently being costed at somewhere between £6000 and £8000 per installed kW. This is more expensive by far than solar or onshore or offshore wind and quite a few other RE technologies. The existing examples of the reactors intended for the site are already being installed at new sites in Finland and France. Both installations are already massively behind schedule and over budget. Potentially the UK plant may become the most expensive object on the face of the Earth. So, if you are pro-nuke: learn some fucking economics. Because now, if you are for nuclear, you are un-educated.
posted by biffa at 3:26 PM on May 3, 2016 [11 favorites]
MacD: But any current gen nuclear plant just does not have that problem. Inherently. Due to fucking physics.
Why would physics protect us, when it's willingness to spend money that's the problem? That's a problem that hasn't gone away, and will not go away.
Human stupidity, which you also referenced as a source of accidents, will also not go away.
I don't have an opinion on nuclear, but you're making unconvincing arguments.
posted by clawsoon at 3:26 PM on May 3, 2016 [17 favorites]
Why would physics protect us, when it's willingness to spend money that's the problem? That's a problem that hasn't gone away, and will not go away.
Human stupidity, which you also referenced as a source of accidents, will also not go away.
I don't have an opinion on nuclear, but you're making unconvincing arguments.
posted by clawsoon at 3:26 PM on May 3, 2016 [17 favorites]
Right, the journalist at Vox declared that the political obstacles are insurmountable. There's no technical or financial reason for nuclear power to be necessary, it's political.
If by "political" you mean "starting today, ramp up our entire political will and economic engines to war-time capacity where we change every aspect of daily life in order to meet this goal" than, yeah, sure, it's just "political" But here in the real world, I'm not willing to give up any of the tools in the toolbelt to get to zero carbon ASAP. I'm personally not pro- or anti- nuclear. I'm just anti-GHGs.
I think the more important points from the original report include: We can do this largely with existing technology (no need for Bill Gates to invent cold fusion) and that each U.S. state has different advantages and challenges and we need to pay attention to those differences.
posted by gwint at 3:36 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
If by "political" you mean "starting today, ramp up our entire political will and economic engines to war-time capacity where we change every aspect of daily life in order to meet this goal" than, yeah, sure, it's just "political" But here in the real world, I'm not willing to give up any of the tools in the toolbelt to get to zero carbon ASAP. I'm personally not pro- or anti- nuclear. I'm just anti-GHGs.
I think the more important points from the original report include: We can do this largely with existing technology (no need for Bill Gates to invent cold fusion) and that each U.S. state has different advantages and challenges and we need to pay attention to those differences.
posted by gwint at 3:36 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
So let's do the numbers on land use:
... 328,000 new onshore 5 MW wind turbines (providing 30.9% of U.S. energy for all purposes), 156,200 off-shore 5 MW wind turbines (19.1%), 46,480 50 MW new utility-scale solar-PV power plants (30.7%), 2,273 100 MW utility-scale CSP power plants (7.3%), 75.2 million 5 kW residential rooftop PV systems (3.98%), 2.75 million 100 kW commercial/government rooftop systems (3.2%), 208 100 MW geothermal plants (1.23%), 36,050 0.75 MW wave devices (0.37%), 8,800 1 MW tidal turbines (0.14%), and 3 new hydroelectric power plants (all in Alaska).
That will meet average demand. Then you need 1,364 additional new CSP plants and 9,380 50 MW solar-thermal collection systems ("for heat storage in soil") "to produce peaking power, to account for additional loads due to losses in and out of storage, and to ensure reliability of the grid."
So the non-roof mounted solar capacity is
(46,480+9380)*50MW = 2,793,000 MW from photovoltaic utility plants
(2,273+1364)*100MW = 363,700 MW from concentrated solar plants
Pulling the numbers form Wikipedia's solar power land use page
A 2013 study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory concluded that the average large photovoltaic plant in the United States occupied 3.1 acres of permanently disturbed area and 3.4 acres of total site area per gigawatt-hour per year. The average CSP plant in the US occupied 2.7 acres of disturbed area and 3.5 acres of total area per GWh/yr,[31]
(Terrifying fact from later in this section, coal takes up more land area than solar over its lifecycle for the same amount of power produced.)
So, needing to convert from the unit of GW h/yr to MW by taking the number of hours in a year (8,766) gives us 3.1 acres / 0.114 MW or about about 27 acres per MW of production for photovoltaic. CSP is 2.7/0.114 or about 24 acres per MW.
Except, given that I have found news reports of a 50 MW solar plant scheduled to take up 320 acres, and the fact that the original units were in GWh/yr I suspect that these are actual average power output numbers, not the "nameplate capacity", so we need to multiply the acreage/MW by the capacity factor of ~0.2 to get our units right.
That gives us 5.4 acres/MW for PV and 4.7 acres/MW for CSP.
So that gives us 16.8 million acres of land permanently disturbed for photovoltaics. That is 26,520 square miles of land. That's not a tiny impact. It's still less than 1% of the land area of the US, so it's probably doable, but it's also about 26 times the size of the Chernobyl exclusion zone. It's a lot of land paved over.
Personally, I'd rather take the small risk of getting cancer from a nuclear accident and spend the extra money to not have to pave over that much, but I can see how that might be a tough sell.
posted by Zalzidrax at 3:46 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
... 328,000 new onshore 5 MW wind turbines (providing 30.9% of U.S. energy for all purposes), 156,200 off-shore 5 MW wind turbines (19.1%), 46,480 50 MW new utility-scale solar-PV power plants (30.7%), 2,273 100 MW utility-scale CSP power plants (7.3%), 75.2 million 5 kW residential rooftop PV systems (3.98%), 2.75 million 100 kW commercial/government rooftop systems (3.2%), 208 100 MW geothermal plants (1.23%), 36,050 0.75 MW wave devices (0.37%), 8,800 1 MW tidal turbines (0.14%), and 3 new hydroelectric power plants (all in Alaska).
That will meet average demand. Then you need 1,364 additional new CSP plants and 9,380 50 MW solar-thermal collection systems ("for heat storage in soil") "to produce peaking power, to account for additional loads due to losses in and out of storage, and to ensure reliability of the grid."
So the non-roof mounted solar capacity is
(46,480+9380)*50MW = 2,793,000 MW from photovoltaic utility plants
(2,273+1364)*100MW = 363,700 MW from concentrated solar plants
Pulling the numbers form Wikipedia's solar power land use page
A 2013 study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory concluded that the average large photovoltaic plant in the United States occupied 3.1 acres of permanently disturbed area and 3.4 acres of total site area per gigawatt-hour per year. The average CSP plant in the US occupied 2.7 acres of disturbed area and 3.5 acres of total area per GWh/yr,[31]
(Terrifying fact from later in this section, coal takes up more land area than solar over its lifecycle for the same amount of power produced.)
So, needing to convert from the unit of GW h/yr to MW by taking the number of hours in a year (8,766) gives us 3.1 acres / 0.114 MW or about about 27 acres per MW of production for photovoltaic. CSP is 2.7/0.114 or about 24 acres per MW.
Except, given that I have found news reports of a 50 MW solar plant scheduled to take up 320 acres, and the fact that the original units were in GWh/yr I suspect that these are actual average power output numbers, not the "nameplate capacity", so we need to multiply the acreage/MW by the capacity factor of ~0.2 to get our units right.
That gives us 5.4 acres/MW for PV and 4.7 acres/MW for CSP.
So that gives us 16.8 million acres of land permanently disturbed for photovoltaics. That is 26,520 square miles of land. That's not a tiny impact. It's still less than 1% of the land area of the US, so it's probably doable, but it's also about 26 times the size of the Chernobyl exclusion zone. It's a lot of land paved over.
Personally, I'd rather take the small risk of getting cancer from a nuclear accident and spend the extra money to not have to pave over that much, but I can see how that might be a tough sell.
posted by Zalzidrax at 3:46 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Options that are closer to carbon neutral: biogas
If all your inputs are from wind, solar, tidal or hydro, then biogas/biomass is carbon-neutral too. It will cause a bump in atmospheric CO2 due to greater usage of the carbon cycle, but we're still cycling carbon in the biosphere, not injecting new carbon that's been long sequestered.
To ignore biomass is a little too purer than thou for me. The inefficiencies and the problems with hydrogen are not trivial. Hydrocarbons in some form are still a great transient package for energy, especially for transport applications. Life makes waxes and triglycerides naturally for just this purpose, after all.
In particular, I don't think those options should be forbidden because an LCA based on an unsustainable petroleum-based production chain gives them a less-than-neutral carbon rating today. With WSS inputs instead of petroleum, they'll be a little inefficient true, but what else are we going to be doing with that daily cyclical overproduction of power? There are many land and water uses to solve, but third- and later generation biofuels show a lot of promise there.
Biomass is fine, just as long as it's not based on production which gets its base power from burning long-buried dino squeezings.
posted by bonehead at 4:04 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
If all your inputs are from wind, solar, tidal or hydro, then biogas/biomass is carbon-neutral too. It will cause a bump in atmospheric CO2 due to greater usage of the carbon cycle, but we're still cycling carbon in the biosphere, not injecting new carbon that's been long sequestered.
To ignore biomass is a little too purer than thou for me. The inefficiencies and the problems with hydrogen are not trivial. Hydrocarbons in some form are still a great transient package for energy, especially for transport applications. Life makes waxes and triglycerides naturally for just this purpose, after all.
In particular, I don't think those options should be forbidden because an LCA based on an unsustainable petroleum-based production chain gives them a less-than-neutral carbon rating today. With WSS inputs instead of petroleum, they'll be a little inefficient true, but what else are we going to be doing with that daily cyclical overproduction of power? There are many land and water uses to solve, but third- and later generation biofuels show a lot of promise there.
Biomass is fine, just as long as it's not based on production which gets its base power from burning long-buried dino squeezings.
posted by bonehead at 4:04 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
It is easy to overestimate the safety profile of large scale nuclear plants. I think it would be a serious mistake to invest in this technology when others are available for much cheaper. Consider that Chernobyl and the Japanese meltdown are ongoing nuclear emergencies. These disasters are contained for the moment, but they are not over. Only through incredible engineering efforts has our species been able to keep the crisis from spinning out of control. Of course with civil war in Ukraine and ongoing seismic risk in Japan who knows how long we can keep it up.
posted by humanfont at 4:09 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by humanfont at 4:09 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Related: Climate-exodus expected in the Middle East and North Africa
More than 500 million people live in the Middle East and North Africa - a region which is very hot in summer and where climate change is already evident. The number of extremely hot days has doubled since 1970. “In future, the climate in large parts of the Middle East and North Africa could change in such a manner that the very existence of its inhabitants is in jeopardy,” says Jos Lelieveld, Director at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry and Professor at the Cyprus Institute.posted by Existential Dread at 4:11 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
Lelieveld and his colleagues have investigated how temperatures will develop in the Middle East and North Africa over the course of the 21st century. The result is deeply alarming: Even if Earth’s temperature were to increase on average only by two degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial times, the temperature in summer in these regions will increase more than twofold. By mid-century, during the warmest periods, temperatures will not fall below 30 degrees at night, and during daytime they could rise to 46 degrees Celsius (approximately 114 degrees Fahrenheit). By the end of the century, midday temperatures on hot days could even climb to 50 degrees Celsius (approximately 122 degrees Fahrenheit). Another finding: Heat waves could occur ten times more often than they do now.
Building a solar plant doesn't pave the land or render it unusable. I am aware of a few cases of the land being also used for cattle grazing, I'd would expect more of that in the future. Other livestock works, as well. Biggest operational problem they ran into was that the emergency shutoff button was installed right at cow-head-height.
And people will continue to discover ways of coming up with other ways of making double or triple use of the land over time. Another dual-use proposal: use the solar panels as roofs over irrigation canals. That reduces evaporation of the water which saves money and reduces droughts.
posted by breath at 4:16 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
And people will continue to discover ways of coming up with other ways of making double or triple use of the land over time. Another dual-use proposal: use the solar panels as roofs over irrigation canals. That reduces evaporation of the water which saves money and reduces droughts.
posted by breath at 4:16 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
So that gives us 16.8 million acres of land permanently disturbed for photovoltaics. That is 26,520 square miles of land. That's not a tiny impact. It's still less than 1% of the land area of the US, so it's probably doable, but it's also about 26 times the size of the Chernobyl exclusion zone. It's a lot of land paved over.
It's not my idea, but how much of NA is parking lots? I'll bet its some number that's comparable. At least a substantial fraction of that number.
posted by bonehead at 4:21 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's not my idea, but how much of NA is parking lots? I'll bet its some number that's comparable. At least a substantial fraction of that number.
posted by bonehead at 4:21 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
The only problem is storage ... and transmutation has come a long way. Hell, Thorium reactors could now be built with corrosion resistant plastics which can withstand the heat which have even less problems.
I'm curious on the problem of what you do with a decommissioned powerplant. Surely that's a environmental disaster for decades/centuries. I mean, what to do with all of the now radioactive materials that made up the plant? You can't just, "Breeder Reactor" and the problem is gone with big piles of metal and concrete.
I do also think the, "only problem is storage" is a much larger problem than you're letting on. Lots of nuclear waste is stored on-site of the nuclear reactor. No one wants to store the stuff, no one wants to transport the stuff. It's a huge security problem to boot.
Nuclear energy used to be called, "Too Cheap To Meter", but we're all getting pretty used to understanding that the costs we don't see are just offset by other things, namely environmental costs, just like coal, natural gas, etc.
I have the opinion that we're going to have to use far less energy in the future. To start off with - whatever the source.
posted by alex_skazat at 4:26 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm curious on the problem of what you do with a decommissioned powerplant. Surely that's a environmental disaster for decades/centuries. I mean, what to do with all of the now radioactive materials that made up the plant? You can't just, "Breeder Reactor" and the problem is gone with big piles of metal and concrete.
I do also think the, "only problem is storage" is a much larger problem than you're letting on. Lots of nuclear waste is stored on-site of the nuclear reactor. No one wants to store the stuff, no one wants to transport the stuff. It's a huge security problem to boot.
Nuclear energy used to be called, "Too Cheap To Meter", but we're all getting pretty used to understanding that the costs we don't see are just offset by other things, namely environmental costs, just like coal, natural gas, etc.
I have the opinion that we're going to have to use far less energy in the future. To start off with - whatever the source.
posted by alex_skazat at 4:26 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
I can't believe these researchers thought there wouldn't be any political roadblocks making implementation of their research a challenging prospect, boy will their faces be red when they read the Vox analysis
posted by threeants at 4:27 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by threeants at 4:27 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bonehead: We've been looking at putting solar car ports on our work site. It's not as cheap as you'd hope once the canopy is accounted for, some of the economics are influenced by whether a canopy adds anything to the car park , where we are there is little premium for shading but this isn't going to be true in the southern US. The UK's building research establishment has just published a guide to solar on car parks if anyone is interested.
posted by biffa at 4:30 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by biffa at 4:30 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Did I miss the costs? Not the ongoing estimated savings once you are up and running, but the capital outlay to get there?
posted by mark k at 5:00 PM on May 3, 2016
posted by mark k at 5:00 PM on May 3, 2016
The UK's first next gen nuke plant is currently being costed at somewhere between £6000 and £8000 per installed kW... So, if you are pro-nuke: learn some fucking economics. Because now, if you are for nuclear, you are un-educated.
Not necessarily. This is where the concept of capacity factor comes in handy. It was raised in that article BTW, just not explained real well. For nuclear, the capacity factor is basically the proportion of time that it runs; in real world examples, around 90%. So a 1MW plant, for example, gives you 900KW * 8760 hours / year = 7.9 GWh / year. Whereas the the sun only shines during the day and even then it's only at the optimal angle for a short time, so your solar capacity factor is much lower (and variable throughout the year, but ignore that for now). From that same Wikipedia page, realistic capacity factors for solar are 15% (using the Massachusetts stat - seems a better UK comparison than Arizona). So a 1MW solar farm generates more like 150KW * 8760 hours / year = 1.3 GWh / year, so about 1/6 as much as the nuclear plant with the same faceplate rating.
Median installed price for utility-scale solar was around $3000/KW AC in 2014 [pdf]. At the moment that's about £2070, which is about 1/4 as much as the nuclear plant estimate even assuming the high end of your quoted range. And as you said, it's the first Gen III plant they're installing in the UK so one would imagine that subsequent efforts would become more efficient.
So, yeah. Lots of assumptions here, but it doesn't necessarily defy basic economics to install nuclear, even under the current regulatory environment. But at least we got to swear at each other a bunch, which is nice.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 5:02 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
Not necessarily. This is where the concept of capacity factor comes in handy. It was raised in that article BTW, just not explained real well. For nuclear, the capacity factor is basically the proportion of time that it runs; in real world examples, around 90%. So a 1MW plant, for example, gives you 900KW * 8760 hours / year = 7.9 GWh / year. Whereas the the sun only shines during the day and even then it's only at the optimal angle for a short time, so your solar capacity factor is much lower (and variable throughout the year, but ignore that for now). From that same Wikipedia page, realistic capacity factors for solar are 15% (using the Massachusetts stat - seems a better UK comparison than Arizona). So a 1MW solar farm generates more like 150KW * 8760 hours / year = 1.3 GWh / year, so about 1/6 as much as the nuclear plant with the same faceplate rating.
Median installed price for utility-scale solar was around $3000/KW AC in 2014 [pdf]. At the moment that's about £2070, which is about 1/4 as much as the nuclear plant estimate even assuming the high end of your quoted range. And as you said, it's the first Gen III plant they're installing in the UK so one would imagine that subsequent efforts would become more efficient.
So, yeah. Lots of assumptions here, but it doesn't necessarily defy basic economics to install nuclear, even under the current regulatory environment. But at least we got to swear at each other a bunch, which is nice.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 5:02 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
Not to slvox police, but #SLVOX, dammit.
posted by aspersioncast at 5:15 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by aspersioncast at 5:15 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
Renewable is the future ... and the country that gets there with the goods first will own that future.
Looks like the US will continue to install goods made elsewhere ... those installation jobs will last long enough to make the conversion, then be gone.
If you get a chance, catch the show "Catching the Sun", produced by Leonardo DiCaprio, on Netflix. Lays out the current situation very well.
posted by Twang at 5:16 PM on May 3, 2016
Looks like the US will continue to install goods made elsewhere ... those installation jobs will last long enough to make the conversion, then be gone.
If you get a chance, catch the show "Catching the Sun", produced by Leonardo DiCaprio, on Netflix. Lays out the current situation very well.
posted by Twang at 5:16 PM on May 3, 2016
So, if you are anti-nuke: learn some fucking physics and get down with current generation nuclear plant design.
FPL: Turkey Point cleanup to cost an estimated $50 million in 2016
Duke Kills Florida Nuclear Project, Keeps Customers' Money
Interesting fucking physics problems there. Or maybe being anti-nuke is a little more fucking nuanced than you think?
posted by Cookiebastard at 5:48 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
FPL: Turkey Point cleanup to cost an estimated $50 million in 2016
Duke Kills Florida Nuclear Project, Keeps Customers' Money
Interesting fucking physics problems there. Or maybe being anti-nuke is a little more fucking nuanced than you think?
posted by Cookiebastard at 5:48 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
This is a thing: we need to keep 120/230/230/240 going through the electricity grid or it breaks. Accept the fact that we need energy generation-on-demand to do this.
Is this an absolute thing, or could we engineer around it? I'm wondering if some combination of solar plus electric-car-style large battery packs in homes could lessen the need for the full grid to be up all the time.
posted by bonaldi at 5:48 PM on May 3, 2016
Is this an absolute thing, or could we engineer around it? I'm wondering if some combination of solar plus electric-car-style large battery packs in homes could lessen the need for the full grid to be up all the time.
posted by bonaldi at 5:48 PM on May 3, 2016
A fission nuclear power plant seems like a poor investment at the current time. Two decades and several billion dollars before you start making electricity and generating a return on the investment. What will the costs of solar and energy storage do over the next 20 years? In the last 20 the price for these items has dropped more than 100x.
posted by humanfont at 5:53 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by humanfont at 5:53 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
Does the modern nuclear power plant solve the problem of radioactive waste that must be stored somewhere safe for thousands of years and the eventual decommissioning of radioactive buildings and grounds? This is an honest question to those who say that we must be realistic and embrace nuclear power because modern plants solve all the problems.
Similarly, does the modern nuclear power plant address the human tendency to cut corners, take shortcuts, make mistakes, and have blind spots to possible problems (both in the building process and in the maintenance process)? Because this is also a concern around a power generation system that has the potential to fail catastrophically.
posted by kokaku at 6:02 PM on May 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
Similarly, does the modern nuclear power plant address the human tendency to cut corners, take shortcuts, make mistakes, and have blind spots to possible problems (both in the building process and in the maintenance process)? Because this is also a concern around a power generation system that has the potential to fail catastrophically.
posted by kokaku at 6:02 PM on May 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
This is a thing: we need to keep 120/230/230/240 going through the electricity grid or it breaks. Accept the fact that we need energy generation-on-demand to do this.
Is this an absolute thing, or could we engineer around it?
You know how much of our power consumption goes to controlling temperatures with thermostats?
A hell of a lot. And the thing is, refrigeration infrastructure is not really "on demand." Truth be told, fridges, HVAC, especially at commercial scales or above, can tolerate minutes, even hours of delay before turning on.
And we have this lovely thing called TCP/IP that lets a refrigeration apparatus say "may I run?" and the utility answer "go ahead," or "please wait," or even "how about you run NOW so you won't run as much in 2 hours when a surge of demand comes in?"
That covers a lot of the need for capacity in the grid.
posted by ocschwar at 6:07 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
First, we need to do something like this.
But, I don't see anything in the Vox piece or the paper abstract about capital outlays, which is one of the most important things for planning. Cost savings to other industries, 40 years from now, do not get something done today.
I'm going to embarrass myself by estimating. I'm sure the authors explain in more detail but they should put top line costs at the top line and not bury them. If someone can see their estimates or a skeptic's estimates it would be more useful than what I'm doing here--please post them!
But as a back of the envelope calculation, I google for capital outlay for solar and come up with about $5 a watt. That puts a capital outlay estimate in the mid-thirty trillion dollar range, without accounting for storage. Storage on the needed scale has not been done previously, there are ideas (some depending on favorable geology) but for this estimate I'll pretend it's a wash with planned plant replacements.
To benchmark this, the federal budget is in the mid-three trillion range and total GDP is 17 trillion. Total debt is 16 trillion. They look like they are front loading the roll-out, so maybe two trillion per year for 15 years? Obviously you're going to try and pay for this with private funds and guaranteed purchases but it's a huge shift in how we're using resources over the next 10 years.
This exercise only tells me it's hard to evaluate without good estimates along these lines and leaves me frustrated that they aren't putting them front and center*. I think climate change is the single most dangerous problem facing humanity today, so 10+% of GDP to put the US right works for me. Heck, I'd do 20%. But what's the actual cost?
*Or embarrassed when someone inevitably points out that they are right in the abstract and I missed them . . .
posted by mark k at 6:13 PM on May 3, 2016
But, I don't see anything in the Vox piece or the paper abstract about capital outlays, which is one of the most important things for planning. Cost savings to other industries, 40 years from now, do not get something done today.
I'm going to embarrass myself by estimating. I'm sure the authors explain in more detail but they should put top line costs at the top line and not bury them. If someone can see their estimates or a skeptic's estimates it would be more useful than what I'm doing here--please post them!
But as a back of the envelope calculation, I google for capital outlay for solar and come up with about $5 a watt. That puts a capital outlay estimate in the mid-thirty trillion dollar range, without accounting for storage. Storage on the needed scale has not been done previously, there are ideas (some depending on favorable geology) but for this estimate I'll pretend it's a wash with planned plant replacements.
To benchmark this, the federal budget is in the mid-three trillion range and total GDP is 17 trillion. Total debt is 16 trillion. They look like they are front loading the roll-out, so maybe two trillion per year for 15 years? Obviously you're going to try and pay for this with private funds and guaranteed purchases but it's a huge shift in how we're using resources over the next 10 years.
This exercise only tells me it's hard to evaluate without good estimates along these lines and leaves me frustrated that they aren't putting them front and center*. I think climate change is the single most dangerous problem facing humanity today, so 10+% of GDP to put the US right works for me. Heck, I'd do 20%. But what's the actual cost?
*Or embarrassed when someone inevitably points out that they are right in the abstract and I missed them . . .
posted by mark k at 6:13 PM on May 3, 2016
Lots of nuclear waste is stored on-site of the nuclear reactor.
This is true even for some sites that have been decommissioned and dismantled, so the only remnant of the plant is the spent fuel.
It's not my idea, but how much of NA is parking lots?
This is not my idea either, but how much area do highway median strips take up? Why not pave those with PV?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:19 PM on May 3, 2016
This is true even for some sites that have been decommissioned and dismantled, so the only remnant of the plant is the spent fuel.
It's not my idea, but how much of NA is parking lots?
This is not my idea either, but how much area do highway median strips take up? Why not pave those with PV?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:19 PM on May 3, 2016
A possibly stupid question: Why not put solar in deserts and use the highest voltage lines possible to get the electricity to where it's needed?
Some unique desert habitat would be destroyed, yes, but - given global warming - much more of it would probably be preserved by the local cooling that sucking all that energy out would (I presume) provide.
posted by clawsoon at 6:27 PM on May 3, 2016
Some unique desert habitat would be destroyed, yes, but - given global warming - much more of it would probably be preserved by the local cooling that sucking all that energy out would (I presume) provide.
posted by clawsoon at 6:27 PM on May 3, 2016
Ultra high voltage lines can transmit efficiently over thousands of kilometres, making possible a global grid that generates wherever the sun is currently shining.
posted by No Robots at 7:04 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by No Robots at 7:04 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
A possibly stupid question: Why not put solar in deserts and use the highest voltage lines possible to get the electricity to where it's needed?
1. Solar panels have a finite lifetime that is roughly measured in kWh. So if you put a panel where it gets less sun, you're also putting it where you will take longer before you need to replace it. Ergo, it's not as wasteful as it might seem.
2. The inverters that hook panels into the grid also do frequency support, meaning you can instruct them to run their AC a few milliseconds ahead of the sine wave they see on their grid connection, or a few milliseconds behind the wave. For stabilizing the grid, avoiding blackouts, and lengthening the lifetime of nearby transformers, that is a valuable service.
3. When there's sun, there's demand for AC. A solar panel at the same location will produce juice in lockstep with the demand for same.
4. Transmission lines cost money.
5. All that rooftop space begs to be used. All those parking lots beg to be used (and the canopy shades the cars - double win.)
posted by ocschwar at 7:17 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
1. Solar panels have a finite lifetime that is roughly measured in kWh. So if you put a panel where it gets less sun, you're also putting it where you will take longer before you need to replace it. Ergo, it's not as wasteful as it might seem.
2. The inverters that hook panels into the grid also do frequency support, meaning you can instruct them to run their AC a few milliseconds ahead of the sine wave they see on their grid connection, or a few milliseconds behind the wave. For stabilizing the grid, avoiding blackouts, and lengthening the lifetime of nearby transformers, that is a valuable service.
3. When there's sun, there's demand for AC. A solar panel at the same location will produce juice in lockstep with the demand for same.
4. Transmission lines cost money.
5. All that rooftop space begs to be used. All those parking lots beg to be used (and the canopy shades the cars - double win.)
posted by ocschwar at 7:17 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
But as a back of the envelope calculation, I google for capital outlay for solar and come up with about $5 a watt.
Well, that link indicates $3.87/watt three years ago for PV. Current PV installed price for fixed ground mount panels is somewhere around $1.50 per watt. That works out to about $3.5T for the PV proposed in the article. That's a lot, sure, but over the 35 years that this is to take place, that's only $100B per year. At the same time, PV prices have dropped very rapidly in recent decades and even years; we can reasonably expect that the cost per watt will continue to fall, so $100B per year is very high.
Of course, you still have to add solar thermal, the various smaller contributions from other sources, and all those wind turbines, but still we aren't talking about a huge amount of money.
The other thing is that the US could easily save so much more energy with efficiency than indicated in the article. Better buildings, better transportation, better agriculture, better appliances, etc.
posted by ssg at 7:19 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
Well, that link indicates $3.87/watt three years ago for PV. Current PV installed price for fixed ground mount panels is somewhere around $1.50 per watt. That works out to about $3.5T for the PV proposed in the article. That's a lot, sure, but over the 35 years that this is to take place, that's only $100B per year. At the same time, PV prices have dropped very rapidly in recent decades and even years; we can reasonably expect that the cost per watt will continue to fall, so $100B per year is very high.
Of course, you still have to add solar thermal, the various smaller contributions from other sources, and all those wind turbines, but still we aren't talking about a huge amount of money.
The other thing is that the US could easily save so much more energy with efficiency than indicated in the article. Better buildings, better transportation, better agriculture, better appliances, etc.
posted by ssg at 7:19 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
So that gives us 16.8 million acres of land permanently disturbed for photovoltaics.
I haven't read enough of it to tell whether it's at all worth taking seriously, but the paper itself does consider this, and its estimate is not too far from yours: Being within a factor of two is close enough in this game. Twice as much land again is to be used for wind turbines, if you include space between them that's still useful for agriculture.
The problem with doing the calculations this way is that you end up using the current megawatts per acre performance of existing solar PV fields to indicate the future value for solar PV deployed basically everywhere. Existing large-scale solar power production is concentrated in areas where they actually get a lot of sunlight. That is not as much the case in the forecast scenario, which has places such as Michigan getting quite a lot of their power from solar PV.
It's easy enough to calculate for solar, since there's a nice convenient insolation number for the climate of every area, and the efficacy of solar power is very close to directly proportional to the amount of sunlight you get. With wind there's a similar number, but it of course it's going to vary more with local terrain, and in many places it gets a bit difficult to estimate how much of the good kind is available. Solar power though, it's easy. In Michigan it's about half as good as solar power in South Texas and other such places where all the largest facilities exist today. But then, I did say being off by a factor of two isn't so bad, when you're just fantasizing about future energy production. It's completely possible that solar power might continue to drop in cost to the point where it eventually makes sense even in Michigan and Ontario. It's not immediately clear to me whether or not the paper makes the same kind of mistake for both land area and cost considerations, but it sort of looks like it.
The reasons for doing without any nuclear power appear to be no more clear in the actual journal article than they are in the vox.com report, so I'm going to decline to actually read the whole thing. According to my prejudices it suggests a high probability that nuclear is excluded simply because it's really easy to arbitrarily adjust the slope of some lines on a chart to result in whatever mix of energy production your heart desires.
posted by sfenders at 7:55 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
I haven't read enough of it to tell whether it's at all worth taking seriously, but the paper itself does consider this, and its estimate is not too far from yours: Being within a factor of two is close enough in this game. Twice as much land again is to be used for wind turbines, if you include space between them that's still useful for agriculture.
The problem with doing the calculations this way is that you end up using the current megawatts per acre performance of existing solar PV fields to indicate the future value for solar PV deployed basically everywhere. Existing large-scale solar power production is concentrated in areas where they actually get a lot of sunlight. That is not as much the case in the forecast scenario, which has places such as Michigan getting quite a lot of their power from solar PV.
It's easy enough to calculate for solar, since there's a nice convenient insolation number for the climate of every area, and the efficacy of solar power is very close to directly proportional to the amount of sunlight you get. With wind there's a similar number, but it of course it's going to vary more with local terrain, and in many places it gets a bit difficult to estimate how much of the good kind is available. Solar power though, it's easy. In Michigan it's about half as good as solar power in South Texas and other such places where all the largest facilities exist today. But then, I did say being off by a factor of two isn't so bad, when you're just fantasizing about future energy production. It's completely possible that solar power might continue to drop in cost to the point where it eventually makes sense even in Michigan and Ontario. It's not immediately clear to me whether or not the paper makes the same kind of mistake for both land area and cost considerations, but it sort of looks like it.
The reasons for doing without any nuclear power appear to be no more clear in the actual journal article than they are in the vox.com report, so I'm going to decline to actually read the whole thing. According to my prejudices it suggests a high probability that nuclear is excluded simply because it's really easy to arbitrarily adjust the slope of some lines on a chart to result in whatever mix of energy production your heart desires.
posted by sfenders at 7:55 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
Current PV installed price for fixed ground mount panels is somewhere around $1.50 per watt. That works out to about $3.5T for the PV proposed in the article. That's a lot, sure, but over the 35 years that this is to take place, that's only $100B per year. At the same time, PV prices have dropped very rapidly in recent decades and even years; we can reasonably expect that the cost per watt will continue to fall, so $100B per year is very high.
So this is why I'd like to see an expert estimate or ideally a range of plausible estimates. I certainly believe I may be off by a factor of three on base cost, and that gets to $700 billion a year using the same estimates which is much more manageable. (I'm assuming all capital costs are roughly equal.)
I'm not going much lower though, let alone well below $100B/year, with my current understanding of the plan. The vast bulk of the deployments happen within 15 years (at least based on the graph), which means construction starts even earlier, so I don't think you can put off paying for 35 years (even if that's a legitimate window for ROI estimates). Also, since you are increasing productive and installation capacity by more than an order of magnitude so rapidly I also think you are more likely in "massive cost overrun" territory than "exponential decreases in price" for the aggressive version of the plan.
This doesn't cover unprecedented energy storage tech, or the capital outlays to change transportation manufacture or anything else. We're tossing ideas and between us are below $100B and around $1 trillion per year during rollout. The actual number seems highly relevant to planning, even if (like me) you'd do it either way.
posted by mark k at 8:44 PM on May 3, 2016
So this is why I'd like to see an expert estimate or ideally a range of plausible estimates. I certainly believe I may be off by a factor of three on base cost, and that gets to $700 billion a year using the same estimates which is much more manageable. (I'm assuming all capital costs are roughly equal.)
I'm not going much lower though, let alone well below $100B/year, with my current understanding of the plan. The vast bulk of the deployments happen within 15 years (at least based on the graph), which means construction starts even earlier, so I don't think you can put off paying for 35 years (even if that's a legitimate window for ROI estimates). Also, since you are increasing productive and installation capacity by more than an order of magnitude so rapidly I also think you are more likely in "massive cost overrun" territory than "exponential decreases in price" for the aggressive version of the plan.
This doesn't cover unprecedented energy storage tech, or the capital outlays to change transportation manufacture or anything else. We're tossing ideas and between us are below $100B and around $1 trillion per year during rollout. The actual number seems highly relevant to planning, even if (like me) you'd do it either way.
posted by mark k at 8:44 PM on May 3, 2016
But as a back of the envelope calculation, I google for capital outlay for solar and come up with about $5 a watt.--mark k
Interesting that you should say this, because I just finished reading this article:
Developers bid as little as 2.99 cents a kilowatt-hour to develop 800 megawatts of solar-power projects This is net cost, including all capital expenditures.
This is an extreme example, but it is part of the trend of rapidly dropping solar prices.
posted by eye of newt at 11:29 PM on May 3, 2016
Interesting that you should say this, because I just finished reading this article:
Developers bid as little as 2.99 cents a kilowatt-hour to develop 800 megawatts of solar-power projects This is net cost, including all capital expenditures.
This is an extreme example, but it is part of the trend of rapidly dropping solar prices.
posted by eye of newt at 11:29 PM on May 3, 2016
Well, that link indicates $3.87/watt three years ago for PV. Current PV installed price for fixed ground mount panels is somewhere around $1.50 per watt. That works out to about $3.5T for the PV proposed in the article. That's a lot, sure, but over the 35 years that this is to take place, that's only $100B per year. At the same time, PV prices have dropped very rapidly in recent decades and even years; we can reasonably expect that the cost per watt will continue to fall, so $100B per year is very high.
Fraunhofer, the German research specialists estimate that the cost of domestic PV went from €14000/kW to €1350/kW from 1990 to the end of 2015. This represented a learning curve which meant that the cost came down by 20% every time the capacity of global PV doubled (ie if PV cost €10000 for a system when there was 1GW in the world, the same system cost €8000 by the time there was 2GW in the world). We can expect learning curves to continue to head down as nations further ramp up capacity, and if the US was to be making the kinds of investment talked about in the articles then it should mean continued substantive price reduction.
To give an example of falling costs from another tech, the UK is currently reviewing permission for the installation of its first unsubsidised wind farm, the Big Field 38.5 MW farm.
posted by biffa at 3:22 AM on May 4, 2016
Fraunhofer, the German research specialists estimate that the cost of domestic PV went from €14000/kW to €1350/kW from 1990 to the end of 2015. This represented a learning curve which meant that the cost came down by 20% every time the capacity of global PV doubled (ie if PV cost €10000 for a system when there was 1GW in the world, the same system cost €8000 by the time there was 2GW in the world). We can expect learning curves to continue to head down as nations further ramp up capacity, and if the US was to be making the kinds of investment talked about in the articles then it should mean continued substantive price reduction.
To give an example of falling costs from another tech, the UK is currently reviewing permission for the installation of its first unsubsidised wind farm, the Big Field 38.5 MW farm.
posted by biffa at 3:22 AM on May 4, 2016
Similarly, does the modern nuclear power plant address the human tendency to cut corners, take shortcuts, make mistakes, and have blind spots to possible problems (both in the building process and in the maintenance process)? Because this is also a concern around a power generation system that has the potential to fail catastrophically.
This so much. If you put nuclear engineers in charge, completely in charge, I would be all for nuclear (there's the waste storage, but that's another issue). Because the engineers know how to build and maintain a safe nuclear plant. But the engineers aren't necessarily in charge--the bean counters are. And they have a bottom line, if the Almighty Quarterly Report is to be adhered to.
The Fukushima plant was supposed to have been decommissioned--shut down--a few years before the disaster. Why wasn't it? Because the execs at TEPCO, may they rot in hell, decided to keep it going to avoid the expense of building a new plant.
Scientists I can trust. Capitalists I most certainly do not.
posted by zardoz at 4:10 AM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
This so much. If you put nuclear engineers in charge, completely in charge, I would be all for nuclear (there's the waste storage, but that's another issue). Because the engineers know how to build and maintain a safe nuclear plant. But the engineers aren't necessarily in charge--the bean counters are. And they have a bottom line, if the Almighty Quarterly Report is to be adhered to.
The Fukushima plant was supposed to have been decommissioned--shut down--a few years before the disaster. Why wasn't it? Because the execs at TEPCO, may they rot in hell, decided to keep it going to avoid the expense of building a new plant.
Scientists I can trust. Capitalists I most certainly do not.
posted by zardoz at 4:10 AM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
UBS and Citigroup make the case that it's a solar future.
posted by humanfont at 5:33 AM on May 4, 2016
posted by humanfont at 5:33 AM on May 4, 2016
The Pilgrim Station nuclear plant in Plymouth, MA was due to shut down several years ago, having reached the end of its service life, until the NRC renewed its operating license. It is the same General Electric BWR-3 design as the Fukushima reactors, and is also located on the ocean shore. Entergy, the Pilgrim operator, has said it will shut down the plant in 2019, due to "market conditions."
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:23 AM on May 4, 2016
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:23 AM on May 4, 2016
One thing that doesn't seem to get much airtime is the idea that electricity generation could be more localised, thus reducing demand on the grid and transmission losses. Taking ownership of electricity generation at a local level could have the side effect of making people more aware of their usage. This would not work everywhere, but it could work in a lot of places.
Community heating, biofuels, heat exchangers, hydro electrics, wave power, those people on the spinning machines at the gym, burning green waste, taking advantage of microclimates within built up areas to generate wind power; opportunities are everywhere for power generation.
There is no reason why we can't build more energy efficient buildings that take advantage of the local environment and minimise energy use.
On the subject of paving over the land with solar panels. We already paved over the land with tarmac, I am sure there are many places where the road use and solar exposure would be optimal for solar roadways. The solar panel coverings for parking lots are also a no brainer. Who likes getting into a hot car on a hot day?
What we really need is a device that converts carbon dioxide into oxygen and carbon using sunlight. Perhaps also providing a dappled shade and refreshing smell. The carbon could be stored and the oxygen released. The stored carbon could perhaps be used to manufacture the device itself, and excess could be harvested for use in construction and even as a fuel. A wonderful, magical device.
What I think we should be doing is engineering people capable of photosynthesis, using the top of the food pyramid as a jump off point. That doesn't go down well at dinner parties, so I keep that on the low down.
posted by asok at 7:47 AM on May 4, 2016
Community heating, biofuels, heat exchangers, hydro electrics, wave power, those people on the spinning machines at the gym, burning green waste, taking advantage of microclimates within built up areas to generate wind power; opportunities are everywhere for power generation.
There is no reason why we can't build more energy efficient buildings that take advantage of the local environment and minimise energy use.
On the subject of paving over the land with solar panels. We already paved over the land with tarmac, I am sure there are many places where the road use and solar exposure would be optimal for solar roadways. The solar panel coverings for parking lots are also a no brainer. Who likes getting into a hot car on a hot day?
What we really need is a device that converts carbon dioxide into oxygen and carbon using sunlight. Perhaps also providing a dappled shade and refreshing smell. The carbon could be stored and the oxygen released. The stored carbon could perhaps be used to manufacture the device itself, and excess could be harvested for use in construction and even as a fuel. A wonderful, magical device.
What I think we should be doing is engineering people capable of photosynthesis, using the top of the food pyramid as a jump off point. That doesn't go down well at dinner parties, so I keep that on the low down.
posted by asok at 7:47 AM on May 4, 2016
*pours petrol on self*
Set me alight, use me as fuel, maybe the nuke folks will be put off my the smell.
Gas is great, it is, compared to coal, but the fact is we are seeing billions spend on new LNG now, which will last 20 years (they say, will be closer to 40)
posted by Mezentian at 7:52 AM on May 4, 2016
Set me alight, use me as fuel, maybe the nuke folks will be put off my the smell.
Gas is great, it is, compared to coal, but the fact is we are seeing billions spend on new LNG now, which will last 20 years (they say, will be closer to 40)
posted by Mezentian at 7:52 AM on May 4, 2016
One thing that doesn't seem to get much airtime is the idea that electricity generation could be more localised
So much of this. It's my dream for our next house to be a net energy generator and as close to carbon neutral and I can reasonably get. We've taken care of most of the low hanging fruit on the house we're in now and will probably start looking at moving next year so I won't be here long enough for it to pay off. But on our next house, I'm going to start with whatever has the best ROI (insulation, usually) and work my through until I've got a geothermal heat pump, a roof covered in solar panels, and whatever else makes sense. I want to blast the A/C with all the windows open (like, twice a year, let me have this one) and still be feeding juice to the grid.
I want to do everything that I personally can do to contribute to the mitigation of global warming and I'm convinced that I'll be able to do it while saving money in the long term. The last time I checked into it, the pay-back period on most solar installs was 5-7 years and some companies have financing schemes that let you start collecting on that from day 1.
I'd think it would be a reasonably small matter to update building codes so that anyone building a new house or updating an existing one over a certain value be required to use some of those thing.
If you can afford to build a five million dollar house, you can afford the solar panels that other's can't and you likely don't care about the pay-back period. As stuff get's cheaper, you can start moving the value target lower until any new house built would be required to have a pretty high level of efficiency.
The solar panel coverings for parking lots are also a no brainer. Who likes getting into a hot car on a hot day?
I wonder if a person could turn a profit with a business model that involves contacting commercial building owners with large, flat parking lots and offering to built roofs over the parking lot for free. In return, the company gets to keep all of the revenue from the electricity generated from the solar panels on the roof.
It would basically be a way to get free real-estate on which to build mini-solar farms.
posted by VTX at 8:22 AM on May 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
So much of this. It's my dream for our next house to be a net energy generator and as close to carbon neutral and I can reasonably get. We've taken care of most of the low hanging fruit on the house we're in now and will probably start looking at moving next year so I won't be here long enough for it to pay off. But on our next house, I'm going to start with whatever has the best ROI (insulation, usually) and work my through until I've got a geothermal heat pump, a roof covered in solar panels, and whatever else makes sense. I want to blast the A/C with all the windows open (like, twice a year, let me have this one) and still be feeding juice to the grid.
I want to do everything that I personally can do to contribute to the mitigation of global warming and I'm convinced that I'll be able to do it while saving money in the long term. The last time I checked into it, the pay-back period on most solar installs was 5-7 years and some companies have financing schemes that let you start collecting on that from day 1.
I'd think it would be a reasonably small matter to update building codes so that anyone building a new house or updating an existing one over a certain value be required to use some of those thing.
If you can afford to build a five million dollar house, you can afford the solar panels that other's can't and you likely don't care about the pay-back period. As stuff get's cheaper, you can start moving the value target lower until any new house built would be required to have a pretty high level of efficiency.
The solar panel coverings for parking lots are also a no brainer. Who likes getting into a hot car on a hot day?
I wonder if a person could turn a profit with a business model that involves contacting commercial building owners with large, flat parking lots and offering to built roofs over the parking lot for free. In return, the company gets to keep all of the revenue from the electricity generated from the solar panels on the roof.
It would basically be a way to get free real-estate on which to build mini-solar farms.
posted by VTX at 8:22 AM on May 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
But 50 years ago, people were cheap, went against spec and we got what we got.
I see little evidence in the world around us that people today are any less likely to cheap out or go against spec, or that people of tomorrow can be counted on to run things according to plan and not skimp on maintenance.
posted by fings at 8:32 AM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
I see little evidence in the world around us that people today are any less likely to cheap out or go against spec, or that people of tomorrow can be counted on to run things according to plan and not skimp on maintenance.
posted by fings at 8:32 AM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
PV enabled car ports do have additional benefits if you can gain from covering the space anyway, ie, if you live somewhere warm, sadly, not all of us do. Another significant problem is that car parks are not fixed structures. You want the panels to be in place for at least 5 years to be economic so that tends to mean you want to be sure the car park will still be a car park in 15 years. If your site is expending this can be an issue. We ran the figures for the place I work and we would be much better off going to flat roofs first (and hopefully we will do this).
posted by biffa at 8:55 AM on May 4, 2016
posted by biffa at 8:55 AM on May 4, 2016
those people on the spinning machines at the gym [...] opportunities are everywhere for power generation.
Also, leaves falling from trees every year, all that gravitational potential energy could be harvested! Maple syrup producers could put little mini hydro-electric generators in their sap lines. Shoes could recover energy with every step you take to power your cell phone. For energy storage, has anyone thought of using a really big spring?
What you call community heating doesn't belong in that list though, it's really not a bad idea and there is plenty of room for more projects to provide it.
posted by sfenders at 9:34 AM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Also, leaves falling from trees every year, all that gravitational potential energy could be harvested! Maple syrup producers could put little mini hydro-electric generators in their sap lines. Shoes could recover energy with every step you take to power your cell phone. For energy storage, has anyone thought of using a really big spring?
What you call community heating doesn't belong in that list though, it's really not a bad idea and there is plenty of room for more projects to provide it.
posted by sfenders at 9:34 AM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
How about solar panels that can also harvest energy from rain?
posted by gwint at 11:16 AM on May 4, 2016
posted by gwint at 11:16 AM on May 4, 2016
So, I am less au courant with fancy technology, so let's talk about low-tech biogas (aka, bacteria ferment waste into methane which we can burn, and other stuff which we don't).
One major issue with biogas currently is that it is currently difficult to store and transport efficiently. Biogas is mostly methane, which is relatively expensive to compress or cool into a compact liquid form, except on a large-scale industrial level.*
You can use the uncompressed methane to power big vehicles (it would be a little unwieldy to strap a big gas bag to a convertible), but you do get relatively low mileage on uncompressed methane, so best for short trips.
You can use an air compressor to store the biogas in propane containers (this whole lunatic article is wonderful, though there are some impressive fire hazards, I'm sure). This article refers to a max pressure of 200psi, not the density that you would need for more than local use.
Allegedly, this is the reason why oil wells flare off so much natural gas, since the infrastructure to safely capture, purify, and compress that much methane for transport is too expensive.
*One of the exceptions, where your fermentable materials are already centralized? Waste treatment plants.** A composting facility near Oslo takes food and agricultural waste, and is able to pipe the resulting methane directly to a liquefaction facility. If anyone with more Norwegian than me is able to find out more about its operation, I have only found in English mostly puff pieces before it went online in 2014. They're gonna try and run Oslo's bus fleet on homemade LNG!
**Not, however, sewage treatment plants. The feces of pretty much any omnivore, like humans or pigs, is not as efficient for methane production as herbivores like cows, goats, rabbits. There will be biogas produced (this article is rather more upbeat), but for most processors, getting rid of pathogens is a much higher priority. This is one of the cases where the smaller operators, in individual farms or villages, can try to optimize for biogas AND nightsoil fertilizer AND thermophilic pathogen-killing fermentation all at once, and more power to them.
posted by ivan ivanych samovar at 12:05 PM on May 4, 2016
One major issue with biogas currently is that it is currently difficult to store and transport efficiently. Biogas is mostly methane, which is relatively expensive to compress or cool into a compact liquid form, except on a large-scale industrial level.*
You can use the uncompressed methane to power big vehicles (it would be a little unwieldy to strap a big gas bag to a convertible), but you do get relatively low mileage on uncompressed methane, so best for short trips.
You can use an air compressor to store the biogas in propane containers (this whole lunatic article is wonderful, though there are some impressive fire hazards, I'm sure). This article refers to a max pressure of 200psi, not the density that you would need for more than local use.
Allegedly, this is the reason why oil wells flare off so much natural gas, since the infrastructure to safely capture, purify, and compress that much methane for transport is too expensive.
*One of the exceptions, where your fermentable materials are already centralized? Waste treatment plants.** A composting facility near Oslo takes food and agricultural waste, and is able to pipe the resulting methane directly to a liquefaction facility. If anyone with more Norwegian than me is able to find out more about its operation, I have only found in English mostly puff pieces before it went online in 2014. They're gonna try and run Oslo's bus fleet on homemade LNG!
**Not, however, sewage treatment plants. The feces of pretty much any omnivore, like humans or pigs, is not as efficient for methane production as herbivores like cows, goats, rabbits. There will be biogas produced (this article is rather more upbeat), but for most processors, getting rid of pathogens is a much higher priority. This is one of the cases where the smaller operators, in individual farms or villages, can try to optimize for biogas AND nightsoil fertilizer AND thermophilic pathogen-killing fermentation all at once, and more power to them.
posted by ivan ivanych samovar at 12:05 PM on May 4, 2016
**Not, however, sewage treatment plants. The feces of pretty much any omnivore, like humans or pigs, is not as efficient for methane production as herbivores like cows, goats, rabbits. There will be biogas produced (this article is rather more upbeat), but for most processors, getting rid of pathogens is a much higher priority. This is one of the cases where the smaller operators, in individual farms or villages, can try to optimize for biogas AND nightsoil fertilizer AND thermophilic pathogen-killing fermentation all at once, and more power to them.
(Civil Engineer here) Most sewage treatment plants already make use of the biogas coming off their digesters-it runs piston engines quite well and is used to pump/heat/power the equipment all over the plant. Due to various real world factors, it is rarely enough to power the whole plant needs but usually makes up more than half and in some of the better plants close to 100% when it is all running right. BTW the water and solids coming off these plants are also put to use-the better plants produce drinkable water (if somewhat smelly/bad tasting) due to current regulation this water must be used on non crop agriculture or released into the environment (usually rivers). The solids are used as fertilizer/soil amendments on crops for animal feed or non food crops (around here it is grass seed and tree farms). So there really isn't much more to be gained here.
And yes, we need a dependable, reliable grid that is up 100% of the time or we are going to have big, big problems. See the above paragraph about sewage treatment plants? No power, lots of untreated sewage into the environment-this leads to bad things like cholera, typhus, dysentery, and the list goes one, plus if no power than water treatment plants don't work (Flint? paging Flint-not quite the same problem but if we don't have sewage and drinking water treatment, well the overpopulation problem is also solved).
So we are going to need a large installed base of 100% reliable power in plants that will work in any condition, and coal is NOT an acceptable solution anymore even if you don't buy this fancy, ivory tower global warming conspiracy(this is sarcasm not a statement of belief) due to the crap we get from coal burning and mining. In developed countries hydro is largely tapped to the extant practical (and has its own environmental impact) and is catching up in non developed countries. Natural gas is useful and far less polluting than coal (so a move in the right direction) but still a limited fossil fuel resource. Solar is great when the sun shines and the clouds clear but well night and winter happens with some regularity. Wind faces similar problems. What to do? and if you think people are going to accept shivering in the dark to meet some far off Utopian vision for a perfect world, well let me know how that works out? (since it seems nuclear is just impossible for far less genuine reasons than renewables for base load power generation)
posted by bartonlong at 3:13 PM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
(Civil Engineer here) Most sewage treatment plants already make use of the biogas coming off their digesters-it runs piston engines quite well and is used to pump/heat/power the equipment all over the plant. Due to various real world factors, it is rarely enough to power the whole plant needs but usually makes up more than half and in some of the better plants close to 100% when it is all running right. BTW the water and solids coming off these plants are also put to use-the better plants produce drinkable water (if somewhat smelly/bad tasting) due to current regulation this water must be used on non crop agriculture or released into the environment (usually rivers). The solids are used as fertilizer/soil amendments on crops for animal feed or non food crops (around here it is grass seed and tree farms). So there really isn't much more to be gained here.
And yes, we need a dependable, reliable grid that is up 100% of the time or we are going to have big, big problems. See the above paragraph about sewage treatment plants? No power, lots of untreated sewage into the environment-this leads to bad things like cholera, typhus, dysentery, and the list goes one, plus if no power than water treatment plants don't work (Flint? paging Flint-not quite the same problem but if we don't have sewage and drinking water treatment, well the overpopulation problem is also solved).
So we are going to need a large installed base of 100% reliable power in plants that will work in any condition, and coal is NOT an acceptable solution anymore even if you don't buy this fancy, ivory tower global warming conspiracy(this is sarcasm not a statement of belief) due to the crap we get from coal burning and mining. In developed countries hydro is largely tapped to the extant practical (and has its own environmental impact) and is catching up in non developed countries. Natural gas is useful and far less polluting than coal (so a move in the right direction) but still a limited fossil fuel resource. Solar is great when the sun shines and the clouds clear but well night and winter happens with some regularity. Wind faces similar problems. What to do? and if you think people are going to accept shivering in the dark to meet some far off Utopian vision for a perfect world, well let me know how that works out? (since it seems nuclear is just impossible for far less genuine reasons than renewables for base load power generation)
posted by bartonlong at 3:13 PM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
Thanks for your helpful comment sfenders! You forgot about harnessing the farts of vegans, or something.
ivan ivanych samovar, biogas doesn't need to be a panacea, it just needs to work where it works best. For example, collect suitable waste from a residential tower block and feed it to the anaerobic digester on the roof in a caged bladder. Use the gas to power electricity generators or burn it to heat water or something to carry heat around the place.
I think much transport is going to have to be done using electric motors. Storage is not good, but engines are efficient. I like the gas bag cars though! What about biodiesel? Is that a viable option?
bartonlong, maybe the vegetable waste from the crops grown on the solid output from the sewage farm could be fed to anaerobic digestion bacteria. The output could augment the power already being generated. Maybe that would be enough to make the treatment plant self sufficient? I assume the power generated by the AD is constant 24/7.
Here's a farm that generates 1.3MW/h using AD and 26,000t of organic waste per year. They also power a business park and a woodchip processing plant.
There are plenty of continuous industrial processes that require 24 hour power, not to mention hospitals and other essential services. Not everyone can have a AD bladder pooting methane for them!
If we are looking specifically at carbon reduction, I think nuclear power performs quite well (I could be wrong). The nuclear waste business is an endeavour that requires century long considerations, which is a big stumbling block. I just think all the owners of nuclear power stations should be forced to live next to them, to give them a bit of incentive on safety!
posted by asok at 4:02 PM on May 4, 2016
ivan ivanych samovar, biogas doesn't need to be a panacea, it just needs to work where it works best. For example, collect suitable waste from a residential tower block and feed it to the anaerobic digester on the roof in a caged bladder. Use the gas to power electricity generators or burn it to heat water or something to carry heat around the place.
I think much transport is going to have to be done using electric motors. Storage is not good, but engines are efficient. I like the gas bag cars though! What about biodiesel? Is that a viable option?
bartonlong, maybe the vegetable waste from the crops grown on the solid output from the sewage farm could be fed to anaerobic digestion bacteria. The output could augment the power already being generated. Maybe that would be enough to make the treatment plant self sufficient? I assume the power generated by the AD is constant 24/7.
Here's a farm that generates 1.3MW/h using AD and 26,000t of organic waste per year. They also power a business park and a woodchip processing plant.
There are plenty of continuous industrial processes that require 24 hour power, not to mention hospitals and other essential services. Not everyone can have a AD bladder pooting methane for them!
If we are looking specifically at carbon reduction, I think nuclear power performs quite well (I could be wrong). The nuclear waste business is an endeavour that requires century long considerations, which is a big stumbling block. I just think all the owners of nuclear power stations should be forced to live next to them, to give them a bit of incentive on safety!
posted by asok at 4:02 PM on May 4, 2016
bartonlong, I hope I didn't come off as denigrating the noble sacrifices of civil and waste treatment engineers. My family already thinks I'm weird enough for being fascinated by waste treatment, so I don't think they'd appreciate me having a nemesis in the industry.
Honestly, although I figured that sewage treatment (like landfills) recaptured some of their waste methane, I didn't realize that yields were as high as 50% to 100% of fuel needs. Good job.
In the example I gave above, part of the beauty of it to me was that all of the inputs were basically waste material which would have to be processed anyway to become useful again. The composted solids would probably be most useful in the surrounding farmland, but I would be surprised if recaptured sewage treatment solids couldn't be used to fertilize some of Norway's beloved stands of future firewood, providing another energy input.
posted by ivan ivanych samovar at 6:54 PM on May 4, 2016
Honestly, although I figured that sewage treatment (like landfills) recaptured some of their waste methane, I didn't realize that yields were as high as 50% to 100% of fuel needs. Good job.
In the example I gave above, part of the beauty of it to me was that all of the inputs were basically waste material which would have to be processed anyway to become useful again. The composted solids would probably be most useful in the surrounding farmland, but I would be surprised if recaptured sewage treatment solids couldn't be used to fertilize some of Norway's beloved stands of future firewood, providing another energy input.
posted by ivan ivanych samovar at 6:54 PM on May 4, 2016
One approach to get continuous power from renewable power sources is with energy storage. That's why California has mandate for its power companies to have 1.3 gigawatts of cost-effective storage by 2020.
That's a small drop in the energy bucket, but it is the first time there has been such a requirement in the US and it is helping boost the industry.
posted by eye of newt at 9:36 PM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's a small drop in the energy bucket, but it is the first time there has been such a requirement in the US and it is helping boost the industry.
posted by eye of newt at 9:36 PM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
ivan, the UK has recently introduced regulation which make it a lot easier to clean up biogas and stick it straight into the local gas main. The other obvious (and more common) thing to do would be to have the biogas power electrical generation on site. Typically you would put a fairly mobile 1MW generator (about the size of a container unit) on site and feed in the biogas for either site electrical needs or to sell to grid. It may even be possible to use the waste heat for local needs too, although there is often an absence of local heat demand since biogas production can be quite antisocial. Since the biogas counts as renewables in a lot of places there may be support available for this approach.
However, there can be problems with farms being big enough to have enough animal waste production to justify the AD/generator system and there is a social pushback from farmers not wanting to get involved in secondary businesses like energy production. Some Government support is needed to facilitate this to a greater extent and promote the technology as well as overcome the tech and regulatory barriers.
posted by biffa at 3:02 AM on May 5, 2016
However, there can be problems with farms being big enough to have enough animal waste production to justify the AD/generator system and there is a social pushback from farmers not wanting to get involved in secondary businesses like energy production. Some Government support is needed to facilitate this to a greater extent and promote the technology as well as overcome the tech and regulatory barriers.
posted by biffa at 3:02 AM on May 5, 2016
Ramez Naam: Ideas and well-regulated markets will solve the climate change challenge - "Innovative business models and policy are vital. 'Technology innovation is often facilitated or bootstrapped by policy innovation, and it's driven along by business-model innovation', he says... He's got a simple, four-point plan for a carbon tax. First, pass the tax, give businesses and consumers five years to prepare for it, and start it at just $10 per ton of CO2. Second, raise the price by $10 a year until the US meets its emission targets. Third, put a tax on imports from countries that don't tax carbon. Fourth, give all the money back to taxpayers, probably by reducing payroll of income taxes."
Bret Victor: What can a technologist do about climate change? - "I'm not going to discuss policy and regulation, although they're no less important than technological innovation. A good way to think about it, via Saul Griffith, is that it's the role of technologists to create options for policy-makers... If we take Saul Griffith's quote at face value and accept that addressing climate change will take a concerted global effort comparable to World War II, consider that the U.S. spent about $4 trillion in today's dollars to 'fight the enemy' at that time. Our present enemy is more threatening, and our financial commitment to the fight is several orders of magnitude off... In the meantime, the fossil fuel industry is being subsidized at about half a trillion dollars a year."
posted by kliuless at 10:32 AM on May 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Bret Victor: What can a technologist do about climate change? - "I'm not going to discuss policy and regulation, although they're no less important than technological innovation. A good way to think about it, via Saul Griffith, is that it's the role of technologists to create options for policy-makers... If we take Saul Griffith's quote at face value and accept that addressing climate change will take a concerted global effort comparable to World War II, consider that the U.S. spent about $4 trillion in today's dollars to 'fight the enemy' at that time. Our present enemy is more threatening, and our financial commitment to the fight is several orders of magnitude off... In the meantime, the fossil fuel industry is being subsidized at about half a trillion dollars a year."
posted by kliuless at 10:32 AM on May 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
there is a social pushback from farmers not wanting to get involved in secondary businesses like energy production
There have been a large number of innovative ideas around Ontario for farm-centred energy production. Some have been interesting, like the companies buying rights to barn roofs for solar generation and/or providing power to the farm and power back up to the grid. Others, perhaps not so great: providing free soy milling services for animal in exchange for keeping the resulting oil for biodiesel conversion (impractical now that a) the biofuel regs are still nowhere in sight almost a decade on and b) the price of food oils has gone back above that of diesel).
But, IME, farmers are quite willing to innovate given a market and regulatory climate that supports it. You don't get to be a farmer in Canada anymore if you're not an aggressive thinker. The Ag sector in NA has been really Darwinian for the past generation (or more). Tie climate change initiatives to economic incentives and uptake can be quite good. Much reason to hope here, if it's done right.
posted by bonehead at 12:14 PM on May 5, 2016
There have been a large number of innovative ideas around Ontario for farm-centred energy production. Some have been interesting, like the companies buying rights to barn roofs for solar generation and/or providing power to the farm and power back up to the grid. Others, perhaps not so great: providing free soy milling services for animal in exchange for keeping the resulting oil for biodiesel conversion (impractical now that a) the biofuel regs are still nowhere in sight almost a decade on and b) the price of food oils has gone back above that of diesel).
But, IME, farmers are quite willing to innovate given a market and regulatory climate that supports it. You don't get to be a farmer in Canada anymore if you're not an aggressive thinker. The Ag sector in NA has been really Darwinian for the past generation (or more). Tie climate change initiatives to economic incentives and uptake can be quite good. Much reason to hope here, if it's done right.
posted by bonehead at 12:14 PM on May 5, 2016
Between now and 2050 it should be possible to replace base load capacity with geothermal and space based solar power.
posted by humanfont at 12:21 PM on May 5, 2016
posted by humanfont at 12:21 PM on May 5, 2016
humanfont, its such a horribly bad idea to pick tech that is massively far from being useful, never mind economic, and suggesting it can deliver substantive capacity with any relability. Its now 32 years since the first commercial wind turbine came to market and we are at the stage where it is becoming increasingly competitive. In the UK we are seeing a company trying to get permission to build the country's first unsubsidised windfarm and at the same time the government abandoning what is the most mature of the new renewables energy technologies. Its an insane time to be bailing on the kit, after decades of subsidy. We do need to provide R&D support but perhaps a bigger challenge is to find ways to get fairly mature tech across the gap to full commercial maturity. This requires less per unit funding but enough support for high volume. It can be difficult to maintain support politically, but it makes the most sense in terms of delivering low carbon generation.
bonehead: I agree it is doable, we need the right policy and regulation, but also the right financial models and also easily usable tech, allowing farms to deploy and not have to worry too much about putting too much time into management. We've been doing some work on small-scale AD and think it is workable but cattle manure alone might not do it, it may require some management of silage, etc, which is potentially offputting for some farmers.
posted by biffa at 12:43 PM on May 5, 2016
bonehead: I agree it is doable, we need the right policy and regulation, but also the right financial models and also easily usable tech, allowing farms to deploy and not have to worry too much about putting too much time into management. We've been doing some work on small-scale AD and think it is workable but cattle manure alone might not do it, it may require some management of silage, etc, which is potentially offputting for some farmers.
posted by biffa at 12:43 PM on May 5, 2016
I hear you: quantity issues can be killers. Waste->fuel sounds great until you realize that your waste streams would need to be 100 times or more bigger be economically worthwhile---i.e. the bioethanol problem in northern climates.
posted by bonehead at 1:36 PM on May 5, 2016
posted by bonehead at 1:36 PM on May 5, 2016
Between now and 2050 it should be possible to replace base load capacity with geothermal and space based solar power.--humanfont
humanfont, its such a horribly bad idea to pick tech that is massively far from being useful, never mind economic, and suggesting it can deliver substantive capacity with any relability. --biffa
Geothermal power plants supply 6.1% of California's total power--2.7 GWatts. Wind is about double that, but it is still a pretty high number. Iceland gets just about 50% of its total power from geothermal plants and is very close to being fossil fuel free.
Of course you can only build the plants where there is natural geothermal energy (such as geysers), but there are a number of places, such as Wyoming, that are highly underutilized.
posted by eye of newt at 8:47 PM on May 5, 2016
humanfont, its such a horribly bad idea to pick tech that is massively far from being useful, never mind economic, and suggesting it can deliver substantive capacity with any relability. --biffa
Geothermal power plants supply 6.1% of California's total power--2.7 GWatts. Wind is about double that, but it is still a pretty high number. Iceland gets just about 50% of its total power from geothermal plants and is very close to being fossil fuel free.
Of course you can only build the plants where there is natural geothermal energy (such as geysers), but there are a number of places, such as Wyoming, that are highly underutilized.
posted by eye of newt at 8:47 PM on May 5, 2016
Sure, geothermal is certainly more advanced than space based solar, but the variance in exploitable sites for geothermal is pretty limited and the tech will have to improve markedly to be useful in many places where it is not currently viable.
posted by biffa at 12:10 AM on May 6, 2016
posted by biffa at 12:10 AM on May 6, 2016
The USGS has produced a map that contradicts your assessment regarding the distribution of geothermal sites.
posted by humanfont at 7:21 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by humanfont at 7:21 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
But it doesn't contradict me, your map only shows that some sites are better than others in the US, ie, it shows the merits of geothermal sites compared to other geothermal sites. It doesn't provide any data as to how exploitable each site is. It may be that some of them could be done tomorrow and be cheap and easy, but this isn't really likely to be the case I'm afraid. The reality is it would be difficult and pretty expensive to drill down the depths they are talking about (up to 10km) and even then it would be a crapshoot as to whether there was anything useful at a specific location. I have been keeping an eye on a local deep geothermal project where I live and they are talking about spending £13M on digging a single hole to 7km (they will need 2 and a generating plant to get anything out) to find out whether there is a resource there.
I'd be quite happy to have geothermal be more useful in more places, I just think its a bad idea to keep doing the basics with one RE tech then as soon as we make progress we cut back and go after another much less mature one. We need a policy framework that supports tech all the way through. It would be great if we supported multiple tech all the way through, my objection was to generalisations about geothermal and space solar providing all our needs by 2050, when in fact it will be a challenge to meet all our needs with the RE technology we have working and which is much more commercially mature.
posted by biffa at 9:05 AM on May 6, 2016
I'd be quite happy to have geothermal be more useful in more places, I just think its a bad idea to keep doing the basics with one RE tech then as soon as we make progress we cut back and go after another much less mature one. We need a policy framework that supports tech all the way through. It would be great if we supported multiple tech all the way through, my objection was to generalisations about geothermal and space solar providing all our needs by 2050, when in fact it will be a challenge to meet all our needs with the RE technology we have working and which is much more commercially mature.
posted by biffa at 9:05 AM on May 6, 2016
Ditto on geothermal being expensive. It's a risky play often and thus can be really hard to get funding for. In Canada:
posted by bonehead at 11:09 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Geothermal may be competitive over the 30-year lifespan of a plant, but it is risky, comes with high upfront capital costs and a slow payoff at the end, making investors wary.They tried it at our work location without much success a decade ago. Lots of money spent on a half dozen very expensive holes and no result.
The exploratory drilling for geothermal is as complex and uncertain as oil and gas drilling, but the resource at the end doesn’t return the level of energy density as a fossil fuel play, Jacek Majorowicz, a University of Alberta professor of physics, said.
“We can’t completely define the resource until we are drilling, so the project has front-end risk with long-term return,” Dunn, of Borealis, said. “You have to have a good geologist and a better banker.”
posted by bonehead at 11:09 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Geothermal drilled 'wherever' is certainly risky and expensive. However, geothermal where there are already hot springs is simple and cheap.
The Geysers, in California, was first used to generate electricity in the 1920s. It is now the largest geothermal field of power plants in the world. There are other places in the US that have much more potential than The Geysers.
There is no one simple solution to getting 100% off of fossil fuels. It will take a combination of a lot of different approaches, all jostling for the most affordability.
posted by eye of newt at 1:04 PM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Geysers, in California, was first used to generate electricity in the 1920s. It is now the largest geothermal field of power plants in the world. There are other places in the US that have much more potential than The Geysers.
There is no one simple solution to getting 100% off of fossil fuels. It will take a combination of a lot of different approaches, all jostling for the most affordability.
posted by eye of newt at 1:04 PM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
2015 Annual U.S. & Global Geothermal Power Production Report
posted by humanfont at 3:46 PM on May 6, 2016
posted by humanfont at 3:46 PM on May 6, 2016
It's not my idea, but how much of NA is parking lots?
Ok, these number are only for the USA, not all of NA, but here you go.
NY Times says:
11.2 million acres is 17500 square miles.
So if we covered ever parking lot with a solar roof, we should have about 3590/17500=20.5% of the power generation we need to be 100% electric.
posted by fings at 9:04 PM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ok, these number are only for the USA, not all of NA, but here you go.
NY Times says:
Absent hard numbers Mr. Ben-Joseph settles on a compromise of 500 million parking spaces in the country, occupying some 3,590 square miles, or an area larger than Delaware and Rhode Island combined.Solar City's video on IFLScience says 11.2 million acres would be needed for the US to be 100% solar powered.
11.2 million acres is 17500 square miles.
So if we covered ever parking lot with a solar roof, we should have about 3590/17500=20.5% of the power generation we need to be 100% electric.
posted by fings at 9:04 PM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Some significant portion of those parking spaces are in parking garages, and only the top floor would be worth PV paneling. Some garages are underground or under buildings, so panels would have to go on the surface features.
Has anybody estimated how much area median strips comprise?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:50 AM on May 7, 2016
Has anybody estimated how much area median strips comprise?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:50 AM on May 7, 2016
So if we covered ever parking lot with a solar roof, we should have about 3590/17500=20.5% of the power generation we need to be 100% electric.
I haven't looked deeply into this, but, you know, there are options that make what you say less silly-sounding.
If we cover houses, factories, public buildings and other structures with solar panels, and we mix them with battery storage, and we have some wind and hydro, and whatever, plus energy efficiency we could still get combined gas cycle generation to a fraction of what it is today to meet the baseload needs.
posted by Mezentian at 6:21 AM on May 7, 2016
I haven't looked deeply into this, but, you know, there are options that make what you say less silly-sounding.
If we cover houses, factories, public buildings and other structures with solar panels, and we mix them with battery storage, and we have some wind and hydro, and whatever, plus energy efficiency we could still get combined gas cycle generation to a fraction of what it is today to meet the baseload needs.
posted by Mezentian at 6:21 AM on May 7, 2016
The baseload question is an interesting one and the answer is not going to be the same everywhere. That said, we need to keep in mind that electrical demand at night is a lot lower than during the day. In many places that are hydro heavy, the problem we have now is the opposite: we don't want to turn the dams off at night because we still want a river downstream, but there is little demand for the power. In that context, solar makes a lot of sense. Depending on location, wind can provide nighttime per as well and there is always some capacity in hydro dams if you are willing to vary the reservoir level a bit.
So the 'sun doesn't shine at night' problem may not be a problem at all in many places. With wind, hydro, pumped hydro storage and other storage methods, plus possibly biomass, biogas, and geothermal, and of course some smart energy use (electric cars that only charge when supply is available, for instance), this is really not the big deal people make it out to be.
posted by ssg at 8:55 PM on May 7, 2016
So the 'sun doesn't shine at night' problem may not be a problem at all in many places. With wind, hydro, pumped hydro storage and other storage methods, plus possibly biomass, biogas, and geothermal, and of course some smart energy use (electric cars that only charge when supply is available, for instance), this is really not the big deal people make it out to be.
posted by ssg at 8:55 PM on May 7, 2016
How will coal, natural gas and nuclear stay in business when their competitors can provide a cheaper product every year and their costs keep rising or stay flat? Even the base load argument has limits.
posted by humanfont at 6:05 PM on May 8, 2016
posted by humanfont at 6:05 PM on May 8, 2016
How will coal, natural gas and nuclear stay in business when their competitors can provide a cheaper product every year and their costs keep rising or stay flat?
Subsidies and buying politicians.
posted by Mezentian at 7:05 AM on May 9, 2016
Subsidies and buying politicians.
posted by Mezentian at 7:05 AM on May 9, 2016
I thought part of the idea behind Elon Musk building that giant factory to build batteries is that someday, we'll all have nice big batteries in our houses to help cover gaps in power generation.
posted by VTX at 2:53 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by VTX at 2:53 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Batteries are nice, and all, but they're expensive, and will be for quite some time.
There are also situations where they might not be fit for purpose (rental properties, apartment builldings - although with the latter they are developing microgrid solutions), and various other reasons why you still need grid access (say, if you battery just up and dies one day, as Li-Ion batteries are won't to do). In theory we could all just dump power into the grid and make the excess available to those who need it, and pay a modest import for the poles and wires, but I think you know why that might not work.
posted by Mezentian at 1:17 AM on May 11, 2016
There are also situations where they might not be fit for purpose (rental properties, apartment builldings - although with the latter they are developing microgrid solutions), and various other reasons why you still need grid access (say, if you battery just up and dies one day, as Li-Ion batteries are won't to do). In theory we could all just dump power into the grid and make the excess available to those who need it, and pay a modest import for the poles and wires, but I think you know why that might not work.
posted by Mezentian at 1:17 AM on May 11, 2016
Battery production, and more specifically all of the Musk companies' production, is going to be maxxed out getting electric cars on the road for the next five-ten years, I think. Unless technology changes, always a possibility, I don't think stationary batteries can (or should) play a big role in grid management.
posted by bonehead at 6:43 AM on May 11, 2016
posted by bonehead at 6:43 AM on May 11, 2016
I hate two words:
Lithium
Boom.
(I have two other words "Lithium Boom", but I do hate them too)
I don't think stationary batteries can (or should) play a big role in grid management.
Yah. We could power people's homes, or we could spend alla that time powering the cars they spend all that time in.
posted by Mezentian at 8:27 AM on May 11, 2016
Lithium
Boom.
(I have two other words "Lithium Boom", but I do hate them too)
I don't think stationary batteries can (or should) play a big role in grid management.
Yah. We could power people's homes, or we could spend alla that time powering the cars they spend all that time in.
posted by Mezentian at 8:27 AM on May 11, 2016
The thing about Musk's battery factories is that the ONE they are building right now DOUBLES worldwide lithium ion battery production.
Really I think the problem is that battery production has expanded to meet the demand we have for batteries in all of our myriad of small devices.
How many more of those factories would it take to make enough batteries that it makes sense to power homes? At $5 billion, it's not cheap but a quick search shows that Toyota spent something like $1 billion to build a factory (and they have about 20 worldwide) so they aren't all that much more than other factories.
Especially when we're talking about the limited number of small solar installations that exist right now and that the battery would just cover gaps in power, not provide 100% of the house's power until the sun comes back up. Though I just looked and the battery that powers the regular Tesla S is good for 60 kWh and the average house in the US consumes 30 kWh per day.
posted by VTX at 9:33 AM on May 11, 2016
Really I think the problem is that battery production has expanded to meet the demand we have for batteries in all of our myriad of small devices.
How many more of those factories would it take to make enough batteries that it makes sense to power homes? At $5 billion, it's not cheap but a quick search shows that Toyota spent something like $1 billion to build a factory (and they have about 20 worldwide) so they aren't all that much more than other factories.
Especially when we're talking about the limited number of small solar installations that exist right now and that the battery would just cover gaps in power, not provide 100% of the house's power until the sun comes back up. Though I just looked and the battery that powers the regular Tesla S is good for 60 kWh and the average house in the US consumes 30 kWh per day.
posted by VTX at 9:33 AM on May 11, 2016
fwiw :P
Toyota battery breakthrough means magnesium could eventually replace lithium - "There is still some way to go before we'll be slotting magnesium batteries into our smartphones with the researchers estimating that it could be 20 years before these batteries go mainstream. The hope is that making the discovery public may help speed up that timeline."
hopefully a bit closer!
How Cheap Can Energy Storage Get? Pretty Darn Cheap - "CAES systems and some flow battery systems can be made with abundant elements that are cheaper and available in higher volumes than lithium. For instance:"
Toyota battery breakthrough means magnesium could eventually replace lithium - "There is still some way to go before we'll be slotting magnesium batteries into our smartphones with the researchers estimating that it could be 20 years before these batteries go mainstream. The hope is that making the discovery public may help speed up that timeline."
hopefully a bit closer!
How Cheap Can Energy Storage Get? Pretty Darn Cheap - "CAES systems and some flow battery systems can be made with abundant elements that are cheaper and available in higher volumes than lithium. For instance:"
- LightSail Energy’s compressed air tanks are made of carbon fiber, the primary ingredient of which (carbon) is the 4th most abundant element in the universe, and roughly 1,000x more abundant in the earth’s crust than lithium.
- ESS’s flow batteries are comprised almost entirely of iron, which is at least several hundred times more abundant in the earth’s crust than lithium.
There are few fields where it seems to be as acceptable to announce as many exciting results, then disappear, never to be heard from again as in the battery sector. Sorry, from past experience, I'll hold my judgement until there are actual devices using the actual technology before trying to assess the viability of a particular announcement.
posted by bonehead at 11:04 AM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by bonehead at 11:04 AM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
CAES systems and some flow battery systems can be made with abundant elements that are cheaper and available in higher volumes than lithium.
Ctrl+F Vanadium, no results??
Vanadium flow batteries are already being sold in shipping-container size installations. Imergy Power Systems and UniEnergy Technologies, to name a couple.
And Bloom Energy is selling their so-called Energy Server, a fuel-flexible solid oxide fuel cell module that can power a building using natural gas or biogas.
Lots of cool stuff coming online now.
posted by Existential Dread at 12:40 PM on May 11, 2016
Ctrl+F Vanadium, no results??
Vanadium flow batteries are already being sold in shipping-container size installations. Imergy Power Systems and UniEnergy Technologies, to name a couple.
And Bloom Energy is selling their so-called Energy Server, a fuel-flexible solid oxide fuel cell module that can power a building using natural gas or biogas.
Lots of cool stuff coming online now.
posted by Existential Dread at 12:40 PM on May 11, 2016
Earlier today the Dianne Rheme show on NPR had a good conversation on the future of coal. In the last 8 years coal has fallen from >50% of US power production to close to 30% today. There are no new coal power plants planned for construction in the US and there is mounting public pressure to shut down the remaining ones.
posted by humanfont at 12:51 PM on May 11, 2016
posted by humanfont at 12:51 PM on May 11, 2016
For the first time ever, solar generated more power in the UK than coal over a period of one week. UK coal generation has also fallen to zero twice this week.
posted by biffa at 12:09 AM on May 12, 2016
posted by biffa at 12:09 AM on May 12, 2016
In the last 8 years coal has fallen from >50% of US power production to close to 30% today. There are no new coal power plants planned for construction in the US and there is mounting public pressure to shut down the remaining ones.
The EIA had a report out over night on energy use out to 2040.
It's, well, we're fucked if they're right.
Here's a few bits about coal:
Coal, the world's slowest-growing energy source, rises by 0.6%/year and is surpassed by natural gas by 2030.
The top three coal-consuming countries are China, the United States, and India, which together account for more than 70% of world coal use. China currently accounts for almost half of the world’s total coal consumption, but a slowing economy and plans to implement policies to address air pollution and climate change contribute to declining coal use in China in the later years of the projection.
Australia will grab market share if demand grows, and with projects like Carmichael getting significant government support (read it and weep for, yes, something dumber than Trump) unless its stopped now (big money and US PE are pouring into Australian coal right now).
And in the US, if the CPP is kept in place (which requires Not Trump to win and the courts to be sensible), US coal production will declines significantly between 2012 and 2040.
And, now we get to the kicker:
World energy-related CO2 emissions rise from 32.2 billion metric tons in 2012 to 35.6 billion metric tons in 2020 and to 43.2 billion metric tons in 2040 in the IEO2016 Reference case–an increase of 34% over the projection period..
Since most of that growth is in the developing world, and we need to leave 75% of the discovered fossil fuels in the ground to have a hope of reaching the COP21 targets: the challenge is (I assume) to tackle fossil fuels within the next 15 years, and not only make renewables cheap for us all, but make them cheap, available and pervasive in the non-OECD world.
Can we do that? You know, I think we can. Places like India and Tanzania lack the built infrastructure and sunk costs in power gen that stops a transition in places like here, so we can probably get in ahead and builld utility-scale solar and wind or whatever (since power tends to be limited and centralised, and use is low), assuming we have the will.
posted by Mezentian at 4:15 AM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
The EIA had a report out over night on energy use out to 2040.
It's, well, we're fucked if they're right.
Here's a few bits about coal:
Coal, the world's slowest-growing energy source, rises by 0.6%/year and is surpassed by natural gas by 2030.
The top three coal-consuming countries are China, the United States, and India, which together account for more than 70% of world coal use. China currently accounts for almost half of the world’s total coal consumption, but a slowing economy and plans to implement policies to address air pollution and climate change contribute to declining coal use in China in the later years of the projection.
Australia will grab market share if demand grows, and with projects like Carmichael getting significant government support (read it and weep for, yes, something dumber than Trump) unless its stopped now (big money and US PE are pouring into Australian coal right now).
And in the US, if the CPP is kept in place (which requires Not Trump to win and the courts to be sensible), US coal production will declines significantly between 2012 and 2040.
And, now we get to the kicker:
World energy-related CO2 emissions rise from 32.2 billion metric tons in 2012 to 35.6 billion metric tons in 2020 and to 43.2 billion metric tons in 2040 in the IEO2016 Reference case–an increase of 34% over the projection period..
Since most of that growth is in the developing world, and we need to leave 75% of the discovered fossil fuels in the ground to have a hope of reaching the COP21 targets: the challenge is (I assume) to tackle fossil fuels within the next 15 years, and not only make renewables cheap for us all, but make them cheap, available and pervasive in the non-OECD world.
Can we do that? You know, I think we can. Places like India and Tanzania lack the built infrastructure and sunk costs in power gen that stops a transition in places like here, so we can probably get in ahead and builld utility-scale solar and wind or whatever (since power tends to be limited and centralised, and use is low), assuming we have the will.
posted by Mezentian at 4:15 AM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
The pattern for much of our technological history has been that things get invented in the US, infrastructure is built out and then other countries built out their infrastructure.
It's why they had progressive scanning TVs long before the US (NTSC vs. PAL), really high bandwidth internet is cheaper and faster other places, and why I have to buy my cell phone from my carrier instead of just putting in my SIM chip.
The point being that after developed nations like the US retrofit everything it should a lot easier to build even better sustainable energy infrastructure everywhere else. We (we as in, human kind) gain a lot of knowledge and experience retrofitting infrastructure that wasn't ever intended to work the way we're using it today and everyone else will be able to learn from our mistakes and, as I like to say, "Do it right, do it once."
Or if you'd prefer, think of retrofitting sustainable energy infrastructure in developed nations and filling humanity's tool box so have the best version of every tool we need to build from the ground up in places where it doesn't already exist.
posted by VTX at 3:01 PM on May 24, 2016
It's why they had progressive scanning TVs long before the US (NTSC vs. PAL), really high bandwidth internet is cheaper and faster other places, and why I have to buy my cell phone from my carrier instead of just putting in my SIM chip.
The point being that after developed nations like the US retrofit everything it should a lot easier to build even better sustainable energy infrastructure everywhere else. We (we as in, human kind) gain a lot of knowledge and experience retrofitting infrastructure that wasn't ever intended to work the way we're using it today and everyone else will be able to learn from our mistakes and, as I like to say, "Do it right, do it once."
Or if you'd prefer, think of retrofitting sustainable energy infrastructure in developed nations and filling humanity's tool box so have the best version of every tool we need to build from the ground up in places where it doesn't already exist.
posted by VTX at 3:01 PM on May 24, 2016
This may have it's own thread by now (I been away), but if you want to lament humanity, reading about Total's plans and livestreaming ExxonMobil's AGM this week: basically contraception.
I can't post about it, because I get all ranty and profane and prone to utterances of illegality, but Jesus Fucking Christ, American business is fucked.
Apparently corporations have free speech rights and shit.
Even Shell, mother-fucking Shell, look good compared to Exxon and Chevron and all the US oil companies.
Shell.
And Shell sucks.
posted by Mezentian at 9:18 AM on May 27, 2016
I can't post about it, because I get all ranty and profane and prone to utterances of illegality, but Jesus Fucking Christ, American business is fucked.
Apparently corporations have free speech rights and shit.
Even Shell, mother-fucking Shell, look good compared to Exxon and Chevron and all the US oil companies.
Shell.
And Shell sucks.
posted by Mezentian at 9:18 AM on May 27, 2016
« Older Drones will airlift soylent packets and water to... | The triumphant return of Canada's census Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Phredward at 1:46 PM on May 3, 2016 [12 favorites]