Uninformed Critics (Often Pro-Nuke People) Attack Renewable Energy with Loud, Though Specious Arguments
I’m often called upon to defend renewable energy against its critics. Here are my words of rebuttal to Alex Cannara, a nuclear advocate who for some reason feels compelled to denigrate renewables at every opportunity. My remarks are in italics below each of his assertions.
• There’s no such thing as “renewable” energy. Remember conservation of energy? “Renewable” is a marketing term.
The word “renewable” doesn’t mean that we’re manufacturing energy from nothing, only that we’re taking it from sources that are virtually infinite and comparatively non-polluting. The sun will be shining in our sky for the next 7.59 billion years, continuously bestowing our planet with 6000 times more power than we are consuming right now. By contrast, since the dawn of industrialization, humankind has reduced the store of hydrocarbons in the Earth’s crust by over 50%. That resource depletion alone is scary, when you think about it, though that’s the very least of our concerns with fossil fuels.
• The closest to being ‘renewable’ are solar & nuclear. The former lasts until the sun gobbles us up in a couple billion years or so; the latter lasts as long as there are any rocky/watery bodies in the solar system. The rest are subject to climate change.
Solar and wind are subject to climate change, I suppose, but that’s hardly germane. Both are inherently variable resources anyway, and, when you think about it, both will improve in efficiency as a result of the increase in insolation over the coming decades.
• Solar requires backup of about 4x to 5x from either a massive 4x-5x solar overbuild, or a gas plant, etc. Solar also consumes vast amounts of land/species unnecessarily — on-structure PV is all that’s needed worldwide, to meet peak daytime loads. But, present, cheap PV, adds directly to global warming as (1 – efficiency) x 1kW/sq meter. That’s why better designs are needed and why new inverter standards that disconnect from the grid when juice is plentiful are bad.
Nobody (nobody with any sense anyway) is talking about powering the world exclusively with PV. Also, your comment “PV adds directly to global warming as (1 – efficiency) x 1kW/sq meter” is completely false. You’re saying that every photon that fails to kick out an electron in the PV is absorbed as heat, and that this wouldn’t have happened in the absence of the PV array’s being in place. That’s just nonsense.
• Wind is the least desirable, most land/species/resource consumptive, with a pitiful power density. At least PV’s power density will improve as better efficiency solid-state designs come out. Not for windmills.
Power density is not wind’s strength, but your comment on use of land ignores the fact that wind farmers are also often cow, wheat, etc. farmers simultaneously. You’re also ignoring the fact that land use really isn’t a huge issue with any form of renewables, especially when you consider the importance of offsetting the consumption of fossil fuels—which wind energy is doing as we speak to the tune of 66 gigawatts in the US alone. That’s an awful lot of CO2, methane, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, cadmium, selenium, mercury, and an array of radioactive isotopes that never hits our atmosphere and oceans.
My overall advice: “advanced nuclear” is a powerful concept, and anyone with any common decency very much hopes that it comes along quickly and saves the day. But none of this is enhanced by shouting down renewable energy. I suggest you focus on promoting good ideas, not attacking renewables with spurious reasoning.
I agree that both renewable advocates and nuclear advocates should focus all efforts on the primary problem. The primary problem is giving the developing world an energy alternative that can displace the absolutely massive number of coal plants that will be going up otherwise. To do that we have to be cheaper than coal. We should be expending every effort at R&D to create such a choice. Money spent on reducing our own CO2 emissions is OK but that isn’t where the real gain lies. Money spent on things that have no chance of being lower cost than coal isn’t contributing to solving the primary problem. So long as we are exerting maximum effort to solve the real problem spending money elsewhere is OK. BUT we aren’t spending much effort at all on the real problem. Let’s stop shooting at each other and focus on the real problem.
Right on.
Yes I agree we should be doing both, where appropriate, there is nothing wrong with safe nuclear energy there is nothing wrong with renewables. When compared to burning fossil fuels which is the current alternative. As for cheaper than coal wind and solar already are in many places the economics are changing yet the arguments remain the same.
The primary problem is the developed world using so much energy via Coal (not your developing world theory). Your (developed world – assumed by your comment that you live in a developed world) focus on developing world is shifting the focus away from those with the power to actually make a difference not to have to focus on themselves. Trust me I live in the developing world trying to get these leaders to reduce emissions while we (developing worlds) owe you (developed worlds) debt ain’t gonna happen and nor should it. Developed world’s banking system and lack of regulations got us here into the pickle – Developed World – DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! that’s the primary problem: the Fat Cats in Washington won’t make the decisions that will lose them money.
Well Craig, if you’re going to “denigrate” someone’s statements, at
least get their name right, eh? Otherwise it looks bad for the veracity
of your other statements. ;]
“The word “renewable” doesn’t mean that we’re manufacturing energy from
nothing, only that we’re taking it from sources that are virtually
infinite and comparatively non-polluting”
If you read what I said about windmills, as others have, you see that
‘renewable’ was discredited because windmills are climate dependent —
infinity is in no way approached, as for instance the Chinese have found….
http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/wind/a-less-mighty-wind
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/us/21tttransmission.html?_r=1&hpw
http://www.capitalwired.com/how-wind-stilling-is-affecting-insects-search-for-food/22714/
And, if we read windmill data sheets, we learn that each average MW of
installed windmills required ~2000 tons of raw materials be mined
transported, refined, processed, etc. — all via fossil fuels. Modern
windmills even use many kg each of rare earths, adding very hazardous
production & pollution burdens to their const5ructuion.
We don’t even have to go into the need to build fast-acting backup, such
a gas turbine, for each wind install to see the large carbon & pollution
footprint of any wind ‘farm’.
EROI for wind is poorer than hydro, nuclear. etc. — see attached. Of
course, you may try to discredit any of the sources, Craig, including
sya, Nobellist Richter. ;]
And, wind installations are rather dangerous to workers, as the OSHA
stats bear out (plus the last graphic attached). There are many, many
sources for such safety data.
So, Craig, you appear not to be an engineer, but a marketer, who’s
willing to mislead folks, even in government, about ‘renewables’. That
won’t fly uncorrected here.
—
Alex Cannara
PS, since this site doesn’t seem to take attachments, email me for the mentioned graphs last name at sbcglobal dot net.
@ Dr Cannara, You should provide comparison figures how much in tons of material is used in building a Nuclear plant per MW? What is the average cost per ton installed?
What amount of land is required for nuclear (inside the security fence) per MW can it be used for other purposes?
Please include secured mines and waste storage facilities (temporary and permanent). Optional; include the unusable land around Chernobyl and Fukushima minus the unuseable land from wind and solar.
What is the average construction time per MW for Nuclear compared to the average for wind or solar construction time per MW?
How many countries can install Nuclear energy today?
What do those that cannot do instead?
What effect does the heat transferred from billions of gallons of cooling water have on the environment? As average global temperatures rise what effect will this have on energy efficiency for thermal based nuclear plants.
I would like to add I am a supporter of safe nuclear energy where appropriate, however my enthusiasm for renewables far exceeds this.
Especially as there are solutions that can provide base load dispatch-able and sustainable energy available today.
“Safe nuclear” belongs in the same category as “Clean coal”: a myth perpetrated by those invested in the technology to make the concept seem palpable even though it is not. Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima will never be habitable again; the same as the fate for numerous oil fields and refinery sites. Over time, we will destroy the entire planet, one patch at a time if we keep it up. Most ground mounted solar supports grazing and if removed, there is no permanent damage to the site.
I’ve covered the EROI of wind dozens of times here: http://2greenenergy.com/?s=wind+eroi&submit=Go. And please see: http://2greenenergy.com/2015/08/09/renewable-energy-youre-looking-at-it-you-can-see-it-at-work/
@Dr A Cannara – “Windmills are climate dependent”
And so they are however they are just another form of solar power. As long as the sun shines the wind will blow somewhere. I can’t see any data to suggest that the wind is changing faster the the average lifetime of the wind farms. As wind farms go out of commission new ones will be built where the wind is blowing strongest.
“And, if we read windmill data sheets, we learn that each average MW of
installed windmills required ~2000 tons of raw materials be mined”
What is an average MW????? So are you trying to imply that if wind turbines did not exist 2000 less tons of raw materials would be mined?
Also if you look here:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2011/5036/sir2011-5036.pdf
A wind turbine uses uses about 750tons of materials per megawatt not 2000. There is no such thing as an average MW as wind turbines here in Australia can have capacity factors of up to 40%. The next generation would use about 540t so I am not sure where you got your figures from.
“We don’t even have to go into the need to build fast-acting backup, such
a gas turbine, for each wind install to see the large carbon & pollution
footprint of any wind ‘farm’.”
Which has to be built anyway to back up all forms of generation. Coal and nuclear still have to have reserve capacity equal to two of the largest generators combined in most electricity systems.
“EROI for wind is poorer than hydro, nuclear. etc. — see attached’
If you look on Google Scholar the average EROI for wind over many studies is about 25:1 which is pretty good considering. If you want to cherry pick the study with the lowest EROI then go for it however I would rather take the average of many studies.
“So, Craig, you appear not to be an engineer, but a marketer, who’s
willing to mislead folks, even in government, about ‘renewables’. That
won’t fly uncorrected here.”
So far the only one misleading folks is you as your ‘facts” about renewables are just plain wrong or misleading.
I have a possible issue with desert solar. From a distance, the installations in Lucerne valley southern California look like many lakes, complete with “shorelines”. Animals might migrate there just to become exhausted and die of thirst. A study needs to be done OR owners must simply place clean water around the perimeter. This could complicate matters concerning an increase of the local heat effect.
The heat effect is contrary to what you said about photons heating up the ground where the panel would be placed, anyways. That it untrue to the degree of how much darker the panel is (minus The 15% or so for efficiency). If the desert sands have an albedo of 75% and the panels, 15%, then it’s obvious that the increase of infrared shall be quite noticeable. I do realize that this is not a problem at the global level due to the fact that solar insolation varies by far greater amounts. Thus we can have lots of thermal sources.
Also, to all global warming supporters: isn’t the 30% or so of excess co2 of little concern compared to all the other infrared absorbing gases. I want to be sure that we are not taxing fossil fuels just for a greedy conglomeration of world leaders.
I do agree, however, that we must replace fossil fuels with any source that meets the following criteria:
1, cheap to manufacture,
2, abundant and safe, and most importantly,
3, that energy input required to make itself and storage (based on capacity factor) is only a small fraction of output.
Thanks for supporting ALL sources of clean energy concepts.
I want to edit: The CO2 is about 143% more than pre industrial times and I have some simple math which suggests that there is over 2 trillion tons in the air – alone.
http://whatsthebackupplan.com/
I have never been completely opposed to renewables. However, I still maintain that their rôle is quite limited mainly because of their intermittent nature which makes them unable to provide reliable power without massive energy storage capacity which, with current technology, simply is not practical. Thus, even if wind generators and PV installations were free, renewables could not provide for the power requirements of most large countries.
There are situations where renewables are the best alternative. For example, some people live in remote areas where connecting to the grid would be impractical. For them, the limitations of renewables are acceptable. Having only a few small LED lights and the ability to recharge cell ‘phones and perhaps notebook computers can greatly improve their quality of their lives; this has already been amply demonstrated. But as a major source of power for most large countries, renewables cannot lift people out of poverty.
Solar and wind can be big players if we develop better energy storage means. Pumped hydro, for instance, cuts down a lot of the variability of either. Recent developments with solar roadways and the Dutch sound barrier/translucent solar panels show some promise. The Dutch are also running a demo bike path that can generate energy for at least 50 homes.
Small, modular nukes might also help, but I’d like that to be the last resort because of my fear of the long-lasting effects of radiation. We still haven’t cleaned up our mess from WWII, and the remains of the Hanford efforts threaten the Columbia River today. Likewise, we haven’t cleaned up our messes from the Exxon Valdez, the Deepwater Horizon “spill” or the massive downstream effects of mountaintop removal for coal. As an ex-teacher, I want to remind people that we can’t go on to an elective assignment until we’ve completed the required one.
Why are we even talking about nuclear? The industry cannot afford the cost of an accident and, after over 70 years, have not figured out how to permanently store the waste. Once you add the decommissioning cost to the lifetime storage cost nuclear is a ridiculous idea that loads future generations with enormous debt for energy that is not even used wisely. Look at how easily SCE and SDGE we able to replace San Onofre with conservation, demand response and efficiency.
Demand response, conservation and efficiency can only go so far. Soon, we’ll need to charge a billion electric cars mostly at night and we’ll have to desalinate trillions of gallons of water. Can solar and wind do all that? Perhaps, but will the ESOI or energy stored of investment of the primary storage (and the efficiency of that storage) required be high enough to not require a vast over build of the renewables? Remember, the residential sector is only a percentage of overall energy usage – we can not afford high energy prices beyond that of intrinsic capital expense (no regs till after the tech is in place to industrialize clean energy for cheap).
Hal,
You seem to be stuck in a time warp of nuclear hysteria, and a wildly over optimistic, very naive concept of how industrialized societies use energy.
I’m not often as direct, or as blunt as I’m being now, but sometimes it’s good to get a ” reality ” check every so often.
That is a completely empty claim. Have they repealed Price-Anderson? No. Have they discovered how to store waste safely for 250,000 years? No. Stop lying or state your proof. Sorry but you need the “reality check”. Correct me with facts if you think I am wrong, not empty claims.
Hal,
Like I say, you are stuck in a time warp ! The Price-Anderson Act was passed in 1957 ! Don’t you think technology has moved on just a little in the last 58 years ?
Here’s just a few “facts for you to consider before you start calling people ” liars !”
1) The radioactivity of Thorium nuclear waste, is hazardous for hundred of years, not hundreds of thousands.
2) The waste from Thorium is miniscule in comparison to conventional uranium reactors (over one thousand times less) so waste disposal is not a problem.
3) Thorium reactors can even destroy all that pesky old uranium waste material, safely and cheaply (including warheads).
4) One ton of thorium produces as much energy as 200 tons of uranium, or 3,500,000 tons of coal.Coal. ( CERN). Thorium is plentiful and easily mined with little environmental impact.
5) Thorium reactors do not “meltdown’ and pretty well accident proof.
6) Thorium is not effective to produce Nuclear Weapons.
7) thorium reactors are much smaller in physical size, and much cheaper to build than Uranium reactors.
Every technology has some drawbacks, thorium, even LFTR systems have some disadvantages, but very minimal in comparison to the advantages.
You can come out of your homemade 1950’s nuclear bunker, the scary nuclear bombs will soon be safely fueling your energy needs, thanks to a Thorium reactor. (it may be the only way to get rid of the old waste safely).
I hope that brings you up to date.
Except for the part about … there are NO commercially operating Thorium reactors and some of its developers are not sure there ever will be. You write as though it is a commonly used technology that is here today in a way that makes non-scientists think we have a realistic nuclear power option.
You glossed over P-A like it is no longer around or needed without addressing the fact that it is neither. SCE and SDGE are fighting to put the cost of their big mistake at SONGS onto the ratepayers as the cost of doing business. They also need permission to store their uranium waste in place (a seismic/tsunami zone) because there is no safe place or way to move it.
Nuclear is dead. Solar and batteries have already taken over. Get over it.
MP: You need to add this: 8) Thorium reactors don’t exist.
As I wrote here: http://2greenenergy.com/2015/08/09/renewable-energy-youre-looking-at-it-you-can-see-it-at-work/:
You talk about LFTRs (liquid fluoride thorium reactors) as if they actually exist. They don’t. I’m not saying they’re a bad idea; in fact, I love the idea, and I hope with all my heart that it is developed and deployed quickly. But I’m not sure it’s reasonable to compare something that actually exists right here and now on our planet with something that doesn’t.
If nuclear is such a good option, why are coal plants still operating?. If nuclear could replace dirty coal plants, why haven’t they? The main reason renewables are growing exponentially and nuclear is completely stalled is ROI. Investors are sick of investing in nuclear plants that run massively over budget and have numerous safety and regulatory problems, if they ever open at all. Wind and solar can be built in less that one year from approval, have few regulatory hurdles, and simply work as expected. Nuclear, in theory, is a fabulous source of power, but in practice requires enormous faith in human engineering to contain the beast within. Nuclear is also caught up in non-proliferation issues, which has stymied all research into alternative designs. Nuclear is potentially so dangerous that the developers cannot get general liability insurance and require Governments to back-stop their liability, in other words exempting them from any liability. No-one else gets that. The worst thing that can happen with a solar panel is you cut yourself (OK, electrocution is an issue, but that’s true of any electrical generation).
Utilities that are developing nuclear plants expect the customer to pay for the cost to build the plant long before it has been built, and there are no guarantees that the plant will ever open, and if it does not, they do not get their money back. That’s not an attractive option for customers. No-one else gets to do that to their customers.
We have constructed a 100kW solar park on 11 Deger 9000NT tracker towers, each holding 4o Solet 245W panels. Our local energy has finally agreed to hook us up to the grid but we had to pay 14,000 euros just to hook up. Then we discovered they had placed circuit breakers which flip out whenever we produce more than 60% capacity. I am now looking into producing hydrogen from the 3 Deger towers we had to take off the grid. If this works out, we may take off the other towers and simply begin to produce hydrogen. Estonians have 20 patents on hydrogen generators, which I am hoping we can work together to produce a proof of concept project. Anyone have any ideas?
EU Horizon 2020 may have the funding for the research program you suggest.
I am located in southern Estonia.
I have a reader interested in your project, but the link to your name is broken. Please contact me using the “contact” button at the top of the page, and I’ll connect the two of you.
Craig, well said. Remember the observation of Gandhi, who said, “First they laugh at you. Then, they fight you. Then, you win.”
Your well-rounded background in physics and philosophy – combined with your significant experience in business – serves to uniquely position you to construct and disseminate logical and informed counters to those sorts of artful propaganda that are only to be expected when vested interests are threatened and significant funds are at stake.
I appreciate your blend of ethics and intellect.
Wow. Thanks. I hope my mom sees this one. 🙂
It seems to me that we are more than able to produce energy – our biggest block seems to be efficiency.
Ok, our 2 biggest blocks seem to be a) efficiency, and b) storage.
Our 3 biggest blocks seems to be, ….(sorry for the reference to (what I think was) a old Goon Show routine…)
That, and the assumption that we can continue to consume at the rate we are indefinitely into the future.
When we are forced to pay all the associated costs with our consumption, the result will be a much lower energy society than we currently have.
I have a house with PV for electricity and solar hot water. In designing and causing to have built the house, we made some serious decisions about conservation. And it worked.
Trying to run a house built prior to the ’80’s or 90’s this way would be ridiculous – lousy insulation, absent or poorly installed vapour barrier, inefficient lighting/appliances (I laugh when neighbours with incandescent bulbs in pot-light fixtures complain about their energy costs), etc. all are massive wastes – surely we can do better than that.
However, the key is the cost to the end consumer. If we start insisting that all costs associated with energy production are attached to the energy delivered – damage to land, air and water (with “damage” being very broadly defined) – then people will start to treat it as something with “value”.
Until then, we won’t – we’ll continue to waste and pollute, and pass the costs off to future generations.
But hey! – we’ll be gone before before the kids and grandkids really realize what we’ve done. “Burn, baby, burn.”
We need to consume more energy in order to make up for renewable energy low capacity which requires that we store close to the inverse of that low capacity. This extra energy will be needed to build both the extra collection and storage and inefficiency of that storage.
If you have less acid battery backup, they “energy costed” about half of all the energy they will ever store. I assume this accounts for all energy inputs including fuel for the employees, etc.
Now, we have to industrialize the manufacture of the batteries that have an ESOI or energy stored on investment of greater than 5 (instead of just 2) in order to grow the RE economy within the realm of physics.
Also consider that the molten salt reactors would provide unlimited amounts of carbon free energy, necessary for co2 removal via greening an entire desert.
No prob 😉
Craig,
I know that Alex can be hard to get along with at times. He has been hard on me. Has he been hard on you? Is that the issue?
It is too bad because he is hard on some individuals because he has an enormous amount of useful information in his head. He has put an enormous amount of effort to get the word out about nuclear, ocean acidification, global warming, and all forms of energy. He travels around giving talks at his own expense. I don’t know what to suggest if you had a run in with Alex. I have my own ways of dealing with this, but I don’t know if they would right for you.
I have an enormous respect for Alex because he works so hard to make life better for future generations. He has done a lot.
I personally don’t want more wind farms built. Wind only produces energy about one-third of the time, which means that we need to back it up about two thirds of the time. That means burning lots of natural gas in California and coal in other states. By the way we import some electricity from coal.
I never heard Alex say to shut down any wind farms down. All the concrete and steel has already been made for the ones in service. The access roads are already there. A lot of CO2 went into the atmosphere already from them being built. Might as well use them because we are not undoing that CO2 contribution any time soon.
I used to be a wind farm advocate and even wrote a proposal about how to stop them from killing birds and bats. I worked real hard on it.
Then I met Alex and watched a lot of YouTube videos of past speakers at the various TEAC conferences. I have read a lot over the past five years about this all. I attended the TEAC7 conference.
As for PV solar, I agree with Alex that they have a place on roof tops but I don’t like big solar farms in the desert. But I would not tear down a desert solar farm that are up and running right now.
I myself push for getting Generation IV nuclear reactors built, preferably molten salt reactors and getting them build ASAP. They will be our cheapest and safest kind. I see this as a step to avoid a lot of human grief for our children and our grandchildren.
I really like what ThorCon power is doing:
Check:
http://thorconpower.com/ and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfsOYzOpYRw
Maybe in bunch of decades when we have a hell of a lot of new nuclear reactors up and running, it would be a good idea to shut down some desert solar farms and shut down some wind farms. I am 78 now and may not be around to see it happen. Again, I don’t want to see more of either built. I would rather see that money go for nuclear.
By the way, Alex researched a way to fix ocean acidification. It involves a hell of a lot of nuclear reactors.
Check:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzoW_cVg2hE
Rudy Stefenel
Yes, I suppose he’s been hard on me, but as I write here: http://2greenenergy.com/2015/08/09/renewable-energy-youre-looking-at-it-you-can-see-it-at-work/, that’s not the issue.
Dear Craig you deserve a Star of Peace for allowing Dr Alex to pontificate against the two forms of energy , solar and wind as inefficient toys that will not significantly contribute to the global energy challenge in a meaningful way.
My response Dr Alex is simple and straightforward. He should share all his concerns with the Global INVESTMENT Community AS all Publicized forecasts for total energy investment show by a wide margin that these two renewable’s garner close to 60 % or more of all the investment in new energy going forward thru 2040. Both technologies will only improve going forward.
Even Shell Oil co predicts 60 % or more of these two energy forms by 2050.
Money talks and everything else is just …..b….s…The serious money and the Bigger Government Policy Vision is incorporating both solar and wind heavily into their Resource plans. India dirty coal rich – is yes going to finally develop or at least discussing to , its Thorium reactor potential and reduce its coal growth long term. They just announced a $ 10 Billion solar deal with Sun Edison
So Dr Alex perhaps you should venture a trip over there and help them redirect their investment to make your point.
These high levels of direct investment are in-spite of the apparent limitations ( current levels of efficiency) which Dr Alex seems to be so concerned about. the Smart money knows something which is basically that the world will go to decentralized energy supply that is modular in scale and is shaped to integrate in a system of systems that compliment each other . No one system is the COMPLETE solution. Wind and solar are married to gas in a positive manner. Decentralized consumption and supply options with many other smart technologies to shape a new path.
Additional Indirect Investment
The gas turbine manufactures current designs including even the large CC Gas units the big ones are being designed to run in a Flex mode so they can load follow and ramp up and down or cycle in both a cost effective , resource efficient. So both the small turbines and the big ones are being designed to Integrate with intermittent resources.
Even the much promised Small scale Nuclear units for which I can find support as I believe in a balanced approach are being designed to integrate with intermittent solar and wind. Load Follow capability is a touted feature. These designs are 15 years in making and they don’t think they will deploy a couple of units until 2022 if deployed in US. Has taken a long time and the Jury is undecided going forward ???
This contrasts significantly with the large current fleet of both nuclear and coal units that work best at very high capacity factors that are not going to be needed in a energy efficient decentralized modular consumption market that we are moving towards.
These large design limitations coupled with the highest capital and operating costs make large scale nuclear and so called clean coal plants Unattractive Investments from many perspectives.
A simple google search on the Voglte Nuclear plant in Georgia and the Sumner Plants in South Carolina will once again show the massive capital costs over runs and delays that plague the domestic industry. When one reads about the costs and delays one can conclude that nuclear efficiency remains elusive in reality in the US. perhaps there is real truth in the concept of Nuclear Follies ! Ditto for Super Critical Carbon Sequestration C Coal – check out the Kemper Plant in Mississippi. The over nite costs per KW for both the nukes and the coal are over $7,500 per KW. Kemper will ship CO 2 to nearby oil fields for EOR and more carbon burning which is counter productive to the Bigger goals of reducing carbon.
The most expensive power on the market.
To make large nuclear work and pay out correctly there must be a market demand for large base load power . In the US the demand growth is .7 to 1.2 % nationwide and some areas of the US are seeing negative load growth. Utilities have to manage their risks and they don’t see the need for 24 / 7 massive base load. Base load is evolving.
Subsidies come in many forms
In Illinois the electric utility that owns the most nuclear units in the country has had to resort to lobby the state legislature to intercede in utility rate making to maintain a wholesale price of around $ 7.2 cents per Kwhr so that the utility can continue to operate old existing nuclear units and not lose money. This is a fact. Another example of the Myth of Free markets in the energy sector ! It takes market price intervention to keep 35 yr plus nukes going or they lose money.
The old nukes can’t compete with CC gas and wind which are averaging $ 4. 5 cents Kwhr or so wholesale power. So at night the nuclear units are losing out to economic dispatch or merit order pricing. So there you go, old units need a $$$ subsidy still after all the subsidies that began with the nuclear fuel cycle even in their late operating life all Embedded subsidies counted.
This pricing challenge will migrate to the NE areas once the planned expansion of 2 new gas transmission lines are completed and more CC gas units come online to integrate with NE Wind. The older nuclear units will face the same economic challenges !
In contrast both solar and wind are fuel free so their life cycle cost advantages stand the test of time. Low $$ Risk also.
Concluding
I too have read some of Dr. Alex’s work and as others have said he has done some real positive research and serious work. However, perhaps he may reconsider his positions in respect to solar and wind. We need many Options going Forward if we are slow the destruction we have done to the environment and its many systems. Time in the Hour Glass is Running Down !
Trust we supported the discussion , Best to All
Craig,
It’s great to see a response from Dr Cannara. What’s even more interesting is the passionate differences between two advocates and adherents, of Global warming /Climate Change.
Like most advocates who set out on a crusade, you both suffer from a certain amount of tunnel vision. The righteousness of your cause, and conviction of urgency can tend to make advocates become just a little unrealistic and inflexible.
There’s no doubt Dr Alex Cannara is a brilliant and well respected academic. No one, well,… no one but a fool would question Dr Cannara’s integrity, or intellectual capacity. Of course Dr Cannara’s opinions can, and should be, vigorously challenged and debated, but only with as much consideration as Dr Cannara devotes to researching his opinions.
My criticism is from a more,…ah, ..humble perspective. Unlike both of you,I don’t see global warming/climate change as such an immediate threat, nor do I accept that the planets climate (and climate change effects) can be predicted with the absolute, immutable certainty that many advocates preach.
The science, (like all science) behind GW/CC is by nature imperfect and still developing. Humans have always suffered from delusions of grandeur about the role of human activity on the planet, and by considering themselves the only truly reasoning beings on the planet, find themselves lonely and desperately seek to anthropomorphize for good or ill.
In reality, the search for replacement energy is governed by factors as complicated as the complexity of human civilization.
Academics, Scientists, and advocates (especially crusaders) tend to see social organization in simplistic, idealistic terms.
In reality, Modern Industrialized nations require “Power/Energy on demand “. That Power/Energy must be delivered at the most reliable, and competitive rate, with the least disruption to the existing economy.
Political idealism, good intentions, lofty ambitions, can be afforded as long as the national/state economy remains prosperous, the minute the economy starts to fail, the electoral backlash kicks in, and all futuristic, esoteric considerations, and programs melt away in a stampede back to proven technologies.
Solar and Wind power, are like Electric Vehicles. The concept is popular, and appeals to the best intentions of the average citizen. However, the advocates of these emerging technologies have wildly overstated their maturity, effectiveness and practicality.
In truth, Dr Cannara is correct. Wind and Solar, can’t provide “Power/Energy on demand “.
Only Fossil fuels or Nuclear Technology, can create “Power/Energy on Demand”.
Oh, sure RFI advocates and lobbyists, can shuffle the figures and invent idealistic additional costs, (externalities) , but in reality, society will not “reorganize ” itself to conform to an idealized lifestyle they don’t want, they’ll simply get a government who will provide what they demand.
So, for those worried about Global Warming/Climate change, the choice becomes simple.
Continue to bleat on about fantasy technologies that will take many decades, (if ever) , to become effective, or bite the bullet, forget old prejudices, and concentrate on building the best Thorium Reactors possible. (for most it will require learning about the difference between thorium and uranium).
That’s not to say Craig, and all those fans of Solar and Wind aren’t well intentioned, or sincere. It’s just,…. well, ….wanting something to be true, and it being true, are two different things!
I love these discussions – but I’m left wondering why it always revolves around “how to use more energy?” instead of “How to be smarter with what we already have available.”
I have a “raised bungalow” – fairly typical 3 bedroom house – in Central Ontario (where we get “winter”.) According to the information I have, it runs on about 25% of the energy of the “average” house in the area, most of which I product on-site (solar.)
That’s not fantasy – that’s not hypothetical, sometime in the future – that’s today. That’s not even difficult – most of the people who visit have no idea that we’re “off-grid”.
But to invest massive amounts of money into new generation BEFORE investing in conservation makes no sense to me. Let’s fix what we have so we can intelligently look at new supply. Let’s reach for the “low hanging fruit” before we decide that the apple tree has to go.
The problem is one of PR – insulating a bunch of attics isn’t as “sexy” as fighting for a thorium reactor (what ever that is.)
But one of them can happen today at a relatively low cost…
So add a tax to carbon fuels – all of them – then use the funds generated to convert our ‘energy consuming devices’ (from whole house down to iPod) to far more efficient ones.
Maybe it will end up that we don’t need either off-shore oil or new reactors. Certainly, it will p**s off a whole new group of “vested interests” – and think of the “energy” THAT will create! (Ok, how to harness it remains a problem…)
I agree that efficiency and conservation are the “low-hanging fruit.” Unfortunately, with a growing population that is becoming more energy-hungry as time passes, we need to be working simultaneously on large supplies of low-carbon power.
Roger, kudos to you on your efficiency and independence. i appreciate your concerns.
However, I would prefer a simultaneous track with focus on both efficiency and transition – particularly since efficiency is largely on the micro-economic level (changes in individual homes and businesses mostly privately owned) and transition is largely on the macro-economic level (changes in generation, infrastructure and product stream).
I don’t see it as an ‘either/or’ proposition to the extent the changes/advances are significantly in different realms.
Cameron – I don’t see it as an “either/or” either (…hmmm)
But I have seen in the past how “mega-projects” get all the publicity and attention (after all, they’re “mega!”) and suck up all the money. (And sometimes they end up not being as “useful” as they are “big” – at some level, I mistrust “big”)
I think I have some faith in the macro end to appropriately supply the micro end – i/e/ if there is a huge demand for insulation, pv panels and inverters, industry and labour will provide them.
do I think there is a role for government to encourage “right” behaviour? Absolutely. But we should be making a conscious decision as a society whether we want to “support” less hazardous options or not. (e.g. imagine if no one took the lead to develop any of the major Hydro electric projects. Suppose the money currently earmarked for “Chernobyl 11” or “5 Mile Island” were put instead into updating all the social housing in US and Cda – the energy saved would be staggering and the only people who would lose are those who like building big projects. I don’t mean to pick exclusively on Nuclear – although i don’t like it, for obvious reasons – but first prove to me that we need it, “need” as opposed to “want”.
I fully agree that we need to pursue both tracks in the most rapid and responsible manner possible, and that would not include waiting on LFTRs (or building new ‘old style’ nuke plants), when Solar (CSP and PV) and Wind are mature and competative – especially when externalized fossil costs enter the equation.
I believe there absolutely is a necessary role for government, as the market will not drive the change quickly enough when powerful vested interests are spending to delay it. The challenge there is the fixated and methodical army of corporate lobbyists – 11,000 strong and pouring out bribery at an average of $6 million per congressperson in 2012 alone – many of whom are aligned with fossil or fossil-dependent interests.
Though uttered concerning the Civil War, the words of Abraham Lincoln illuminate the danger of inaction against this army of bribery…
“At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”
Good government is how We the People defend our Public Commons and advance our Common Good. Good government won’t come from people who hate government.
However beneficial renewables will be to our United States and health and well-being for ourselves and our progeny, there is a substantial transition cost for all those firms that continue to regard these resources as competition. Their formidable lobbying power ensures that the feeble attempts to subsidize renewables will continue to be sporadic, unpredictable and anemic. We may also expect the campaign of misinformation, concealment, and discredit to endure long past the tipping point.
If we want to escape indentured servitude and act with true liberty, we will find instruction in the words of a man who accomplished those feats in great measure, Frederick Douglass:
“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to, and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”
Exxon-Mobil and its ilk are quite well organized, and not for altruistic public benefit. If we logical, critically thinking and imaginative humans want to see our national security and political sovereignty preserved, and if we want to defend ourselves and our posterity against the lethal ravages that fossil fuels inflict upon the biosphere and the economy, we had best get organized.
Let me convey both my fear and my hope on the topic of sustainability.
My fear… The elite employ shrewdly servile advisers whose strongest motivation is to protect the profitable status quo. This they will do until what they regard as the approach of the last survivable moment.
Further, that because of that very bias, their judgment will be skewed so as to delay that decision far beyond the actual rational thresholds. Indeed, the deepest aspect of my fear is that this fatal delay may already have occurred.
My hope… A significant percentage of the people now living in every society will soon organize around truth and non-violence. These many of us will cooperate to engage in massive and widespread direct action to counter and overwhelm the forces preventing wise progress. This cooperation will persevere to evolve and implement new paradigm and a new power structure.
My fondest hope is that the resulting change will endure, for the benefit of all humankind, and for the healing of the broad web of life that will always be necessary for our existence.
Truth — Non-Violence — Cooperation — Direct Action – Perseverance
Cameron – if I understand what you’re saying, your concern is that large institutions have such a vested interest in the “status quo” that change will not come from within the “system” but from the outliers.
I agree. The grandparents of the students I taught thrived by helping to build the current system, the parents benefited from it, took advantage of it, saw the harm being done but did not feel empowered to start a change.
But today’s students both see the opportunity to make things better and understand that they have the power to “make it so”. (Sorry – can’t resist the cultural references )
I view my job as one of illustrating alternatives. PV and wind will not allow the same lifestyle I grew up with – but it WILL allow a very comfortable life of less waste and less damage. I can prove it – I’m living it. I have 2 computers (and all the other “normal” toys), my house is warm and comfortable and I pay no electricity bill. I have natural gas for cooking, and a water heater. The water heater will heat my house, but it never has.
My total bill for a year runs on the order of $300 – heat, light and cooking. When I tell students that, I see the light go on in their eyes. I’ve brought busloads of them here to show them the house – so they can see I don’t live in a weird, cold, dark hovel. It looks like their home but far more efficient. And cheaper.
The reduced carbon footprint interests and intrigues them – they like techie toys as much as I do – but the monthly savings really hooks them. There is some truth to the idea that it will take a while to recoup the costs of fixing existing buildings but we have houses here that are 100+ years old. It would not take that long.
And the payback period will be significantly shortened if we stop externalizing costs – if energy prices actually reflect all the costs. I have no idea what a nuclear power plant would cost to build, to operate and to completely decommission (including permanent safe storage for all the radioactive parts associated with it), but that’s what energy from that plant should cost the user.
I don’t believe that that is the case currently. I want fail-safe storage guaranteed for the life of the radioactive elements until they decay to the background level. I want all carbon captured, all land, water and air damaged by mining, processing, whatever returned to the pristine state. I want all those costs attached to the energy or product before it comes to the consumer (me).
Anything less is my contribution to the destruction of the biosphere and that’s not acceptable. “Take only pictures, leave only footprints” – the eco-tourist’s mantra. We need an updated saying to cover more of our activities.
I don’t believe in blame – maybe because I’m as much at fault as anyone else – but I do believe in recognizing responsibility for a problem and personally taking real action to fix it. I didn’t cause it all, and I can’t fix it all but that doesn’t absolve me of the responsibility to do everything I can.
Sorry to rant, or to sound like I’m lecturing – but that’s my stand.
Well said, Roger. Onward.
Reading through this article and all the comments was quite a rollercoaster. My view is like many others – we need to keep developing clean power of all types – and that includes storage. All signs (as one poster mentioned) show that this is working for solar, wind, and storage. Their costs are dropping and so far, not through any great innovation, just through good engineering and scale. For Nuclear, rather than point out the issues – we need to focus on solving them. As Craig said, IF we can make low waste reactors, then great. No one is against the idea of safe, cost effective Fusion Power! I also think we should invest in better ways to deal with nuclear waste than burying it and hoping. A few thousand years or even a few hundred is simply out of control for our species. We are naive to think we know what will happen to our best plans in that time frame. But if we can find a way to deal with the waste? Space elevators (and send it to the sun)? That is not anymore inconceivable.
However, there is a vast difference between R&D for what MIGHT be and continued investment in what is. Solar, wind, geothermal work now. Storage is close. We can make them a reality. We won’t be 100% free of fossil fuels anytime soon, but like when you start recycling, then composting instead of putting everything in the trash, it is a great start! When I see Germany already at 30% and electricity prices FALLING because of that, I know that we can do it too.
I suppose I’m being naive, but I’m still on the lookout for electricity storage – better (and more cost effective) than large, deep cycle, lead acid batteries. Nov, dec and Jan kill me – cold dark and snowy. I keep having to import power, whereas I have excess for May, june july August and Sept.
Any rumours of better systems out there?
I could answer this in round terms, but let me ask my friend, the consummate RE DIYer, Brian McGowan, who’s far more attuned to the subject.
Time is short right now but be advised, I have seen this and a reply will be forthcoming.
Thanks. You’re the man.
Roger,
At first glance it would seem you need to come up with some form of long term storage. Unlike off gridders who are looking to survive for 5 days without any kind of replenishment you are, I think, looking to save energy you harvest in summer to use in the winter months.
I would first need to ask some questions.
What do you currently do with the excess energy you harvest in the summer now?
You claim to “import” energy in the wintertime. Where do you import this energy from?
Batteries are clearly not meant for long term (many months) of storage. I am running a set of nickel/iron batteries which are not quite as efficient as FLAs but are able to survive not being fully charged for weeks on end without sulfating since they work in a different way. I am coming up in 2 years of use on these batteries and they seem fine so far but it would be many years before I can tell how well suited they actually are for this application. They seem better than any set of FLAs I have had to date.
Beyond that I see only 2 possible ways to store energy for the long term and both require generating hydrogen which is not actually that hard to do.
The first is Glen Doty’s wind fuels project which is not up and running yet as far as I know. It is a process that converts hydrogen and CO2 into hydrocarbon fuels like gasoline and diesel. So here you could generate hydrogen in the summer time and convert it into liquid fuels to be stored away for use in the wintertime when you could run a generator with them.
The second is to generate the hydrogen same as above and just store it for later use. You could put a natural gas kit on a generator and use the hydrogen for fuel. You could get a hydrogen fuel cell and run the hydrogen through that to help keep your batteries charged during the winter.
Here is an example of the second method by Mike Stritzkey in NJ although I think this guy did it in the most expensive and energy inefficient way that could possibly be imagined to run a very large house. His hydrogen generator cost $42,000.00 if I remember correctly and the reason is because he used a medical grade generator. Probably not required if all you are going to do is light it on fire or run it through a fuel cell. He also has a 21kW solar array and 10 1900ft3 low pressure natural gas tanks to store the hydrogen he generates in the summer to use in the winter. It is a truly massive and expensive system. I have a prototype hydrogen generator mostly completed that am pretty sure I could make for less than $500 and it’s scalable as needed. The only reason I stopped working on it is I am not generating enough power with my little system to think about having to store it away. I figured I’d get back on it when I have a large enough system to generate enough excess to need to store it.
http://hydrogenhouseproject.org/the-hydrogen-house.html
So that’s what I have to offer with the limited information you have provided so far. With more information I could maybe come up with some other solutions.
Brian
Thanks very much for this, Brian.
Brian – thanks for this. I’m sorry I didn’t provide more information in the first post.
I have about 1.5Kw PV on the roof. The house (which I caused to have built – no-one in their right mind lets me touch a hammer ) was designed to run on about 4 KwHr/day. I’m slightly over that but for 9 months each year the panels do it. The batteries (when new, rated 1600 AHr, 24 vdc , FLA) are 8 years old. I’m thinking about replacing them, or adding a new bank that I could switch to.
My sister owns the house next door, so I have a 15Amp circuit that runs over to my place – I can use it to charge the batteries. (I prefer that to having a gas generator – reduced footprint… and she’s ok with it.) (I chose to use her place as backup because it also means I pay the base fee and she has power when she (or her kids) want to come out and stay.)
So I am sort of the typical off-gridder, except that my backup is grid not generator. I only use about 6 hours once a week in the winter months or in the spring/fall about 4 hours to do equalization charge.
Replacing the batteries is going to be a nuisance, since we’re out of town and the landscape is sand beach – dragging them from the road access to the basement is not a long run but I can’t do it. I don’t know enough about the over-all impact of FLA vs alternative battery tech – I.e. Musk’s “Powerwall” units. FLAs can be “remanufactured” so minimal waste at the end of the life…?
I don’t expect to have to do this many more times, but I would like to (and can afford to) get something that would not embarrass the kids (and grandkids, eventually.)
Also, it seems to me that, when the batteries really wear out, it’s just the acid that has degraded – the case, the wiring and the lead should be fine – so that finding a source of H2SO4 would be all that’s required to renew them.
To be clear, I studied music – not anything useful – so I rely on people like you to explain things to me in a way that a child can understand. Any help will be greatly appreciated.
Roger
There are several things to address here. I honestly am amazed you managed to get those batteries to last that long. For starters FLA batteries like to be charged at between C10 and C20 rates. (10-20% of battery Amp hour capacity) So for your 1600Ah battery you would want to see a charge rate of 160-320 amps. At 1.5Kw 24V your panels could only produce at best 62.5. My guess is the only thing that saved them is your equalization charging. I am guessing you have a combination inverter/charger with the capacity to produce the power required to do this equalization charging?
As for Power wall batteries, these are not ready for prime time off grid use. They come in two varieties. One is strictly for backup use and is only rated for 50 charge discharge cycles and meant to be sitting mostly on standby. Of the two varieties this one will allow the greatest discharge capacity. The second can sustain about 2-3 thousand cycles but will supply a smaller amount of current. The other drawback is they are very high voltage on the order of 4-600 volts as I understand so at this moment there is no inverter hardware to convert this to standard household power at 120 or 240 VAC. Also, unless you have a string of PV panels in series that amounted to 600V you would need some kind of charge controller that would step up what you have to what they need. I am coming up with this out of memory but I believe these numbers to be correct. These are basically offshoots of the batteries he makes for his cars.
For the batteries you have now which have to be near end of life, there is no restoring them. These batteries are made of lead plates and sulfur dissolved in water basically. In general they work by having the sulfur come out of the water and bond with the lead plates releasing electrons into the plates in the process. The sulfur that bonds with the plates is called sulfate and is an insulator and therefore does not conduct current so the areas of the plates covered by this sulfate do not conduct. When the battery is charged current is drawn from the plates through the solution and drives the sulfate off of the plates and back into the water. So when discharging and having the sulfur bond with the plates and leave the water the specific gravity of the of the solution decreases. When charging the opposite occurs. The longer the sulfate remains on the plates the “harder” it gets and the harder it becomes to drive it off the plates. This can happen in several day’s time. Your equalization charging helps very much to clean the plates and drive the sulfur back into solution but there is always some left that does not go. Over time little by little this increases until there is finally no more place on the plates for the sulfur to bond to. Even of you add more sulfur to the solution there will be no place for it to go on the plates so you won’t gain anything. If your batteries are 8 years old and used every day that is nearly 3000 cycles. This is a good long life for these batteries. Your best bet is to replace them if they are failing. I would be interested to know what your specific gravity readings are.
For experimental purposes I am currently almost 2 years into running a set of nickel/iron batteries. So far so good but I can’t attest to their longevity. They are expensive, drink a lot of water but can’t sulfate in the way FLAs do and can go without being fully charged for extended periods of time and don’t require equalization charges and don’t seem to care about temperature the way FLAs do. I keep mine out in the garage which is the equivalent the being exposed to open space except it is dry and not windy.
I think we should continue this conversation over email if you have it. I am at bigvid@comcast.net.
For your amusement I have a website which is never up to date. http://home.comcast.net/~bigvid/
There are other forums where things like this are discussed by people much more knowledgeable than I am. One place is Solar Panel Talk. I am no longer there but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t check it out.
http://www.solarpaneltalk.com/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=13
Brian