Government Subsidies for Renewable Energy Are Needed Now, But Probably Not for Long
Yesterday I made a flippant and slapdash remark to a reader who questions the role of government support for renewable energy, where he was commenting on my piece about “Big Wind.” In my apology, I wrote:
I should have taken the time to express myself better. Here’s an attempt in that direction, using the following bullet points:
• There is overwhelming scientific evidence that our civilization is just starting to experience the suffering that is the direct result of our selfish and irresponsible behavior vis-a-vis the environment.
• Anyone who sincerely believes that deregulated free market capitalism (that led us into this mess) is now going to lead us out is delusional.
• The concept of government subsidies to kick-start a strategically important industry is hardly controversial, especially if that industry represents a social good. (Yes, there certainly are examples of poor / shortsighted decision making in the past, and one would be foolish to believe we’ll be error-free in the future. One could say that ethanol is an example, but in fairness, subsidies here were approved at a time at which the issue with gasoline was national security, not environmental stewardship.)
• You apparently believe that government subsidies are immoral, since government doesn’t have any money of its own. This is a very fringe, extremist viewpoint. I would simply say a) that legitimate governments derive their rightful powers from the consent of the governed, and b) the vast majority of American voters think that “the United States should rely more on solar energy (80 percent of respondents) and wind power (73 percent of respondents), while relying less on energy from coal and oil in the next five years.”
• Solar and wind both have excellent EROI (energy return on investment) characteristics.
• The cost of solar and especially wind has fallen to the point that they are near cost parity to fossil fuels, even without subsidies. If you simply Google “LCOE wind coal nuclear” you will come up with hundreds of articles on this subject, like this one, and you’ll realize that this is true; and that the actual data here directly refutes the notion that subsidies for renewables will always be required.
• When I say “the oil companies own the US Congress” I’m exaggerating. But very few Americans, regardless of their political persuasion or level of patriotism, deny that our country suffers from massive corruption in this arena.
• This has brought us to a truly pathetic condition, one exemplified by ExxonMobil. After receiving billions of dollars in subsidies from the US taxpayer, the largest oil company on Earth came to the conclusion in 1981 that fossil fuel consumption would soon cause a catastrophic level of climate change, but conspired to suppress this fact and engaged in a $30 million campaign to convince a gullible people that global warming is a hoax. If you don’t regard that as “evil,” it’s hard to know what you are reserving that term to describe.
There you go. This is what I should have written in the first place.
I’m happy to say I now have a contact in Indonesia who’s an expert in alternative energy and who tells me the country is in need of new methods to convert sugar cane and palm oil wastes and other types of biomass (including trash) to heat, power, biofuels and agri-char, and that the technology that they’ve been using is proving to be far too expensive and problematical and that he has looked over all my disclosure information and my patent and determined that my system can solve the problems. He also tells me that he has the ear and interest of the government and they tell him they want he and I to work with a boiler maker there to build and demonstrate a pilot project based on my Sequential Grates system. I also have another comprehensive document that I can forward to email requests that speaks to the subject sent to LBlevins at AAECorp dot com..
In oil and gas field extraction we have the concept of the decline curve – the time based production rate for that deposit, and where at a point on the Y axis it is no longer economic to extract. It would seem there is a curve of unknown shape associated with all the various forms of denial regarding the nature of the anthropocene period. At what point do the deniers fade into the irrelevant? We all would seem to have personal thresholds where the amplitude of this ‘white noise’ no longer creates a visible difference. When will the 80/73% of respondents finally become definitive? 99% ? Humanity burrowing underground?
This is spot on. Please see: http://www.2greenenergy.com/2016/02/04/mitigating-climate-change-requires-a-new-less-selfish-way-to-view-lifes-challenge/
Craig the only respectful response I can offer to your recent posting is that less than three months ago I recommended that you needed to reinvent yourself and freshen up you’re thinking to have any chance of remaining a relevant and respected objective commentator in 2016.
I see from your recent posting however that you have roundly rejected my recommendation and obviously chosen to charge full steam ahead down a path of irrelevance as a serious professional and objective commentator. That posting of yours was inane gibberish [at its best] and far from enlightened and objective analysis of a serious subject.
I am also detecting that your commentary is not that formulated by a serious professional with vast experience within the sectors that you comment on, but rather the cutting and pasting together of throw away snippets of stuff trotted out by those who are void of professional detachment or objectivity but simply have a vested commercial interest in what it is being trotted out there.
You should strive for higher goals as a commentator Craig and I recommend that you build up a network of objective professionals as contributors who don’t rely on make believe or “cut and paste” commentary.
Lawrence Coomber
Lawrence,
Surely it is possible to disagree with someone without stooping to name calling and personal insults.
LOL. Isn’t there anything you admire about my thinking/writing? At least some people like it. My mother says it’s excellent! 🙂
Lawrence writes: Well I’ve got a deep thinking mum also Craig, so based on that point I will withdraw my previous post. And keep up the good work mate.
Craig replies: That’s very cool of you. Thanks very much.
Frank normally I would agree with you on this point wholeheartedly, but in Craig’s case – we have an arrangement in place that permits me to behave this way. Oddly enough it inspires Craig to lift his game and work a bit harder explaining the real issues rather than focusing on the bum fluff stuff! and of course we will all then be the beneficiaries of his improved analytics.
To clarify, Lawrence and I have the exact same arrangement that I have with everyone else on Earth, i.e., he’s at liberty to publish anything he wants here as long as it’s at least somewhat relevant to the topic. I honestly couldn’t care less if it’s defamatory.
My mother, however, isn’t so sanguine about words like those, and, I have to warn, she wields a walking stick, and she knows how to use it. 🙂
Hi Mom!
Well I’ve got a deep thinking mum also Craig so based on that point I will withdraw my previous post. And keep up the good work mate.
That’s very cool of you. Thanks very much.
Lawrence Coomber, it is interesting that in the face of such objections repeated over time you keep coming back. There are some writers who I disagree with so completely that I don’t make their efforts part of my subscriptions.
You seem to feel that Craig should give absolute credence to whatever you say. You further take issue when it does not seem to be the case. That is a fairly audacious platform. But it is also not uncommon for someone, perhaps like you, that feel it is too much effort to convince others with logic and rational. In that case, the personal attack represents a personal failure of effort and reflects more on the author than the object.
I am wishing you the best and hoping that you find the personal effort and peace of mind to state your position on your own forum rather than try and destroy what you see around you.
His bullets are more effective than what I just read. It is professional in the fact that there IS logical explanation/backup in reference to a an objective and real issue, whereas, yours is a reflection of what you say, albeit, I’m not aware or keeping up with previous disagreements.
I’m not a professional writer, or analyzer, but I don’t need to be, (as everyone who is concerned about the rise of the Anthropocene does NOT have to be).
Science is FAR more important here, and that’s why i’m butting in.
Perhaps, this is the part I missed, that Craig should be even more scientific about it! Merely listening to factual news and observing data about the (still) ever declining state of the biosphere is proof enough for me, however, I like to dig deeper. Such as: water precipitates and excess CO2 does not (in the short term fashion). Therefore, there is an increasing overlap of the two infrared absorbers. That the recent rise of average global temps does not coincide well with solar activity, and that conventional pollution can also be decreased – considerably when…
The development of the machines necessary to pave the roofs and all other acceptable areas with solid state battery laminated solar panels, powering intercontinental smart grids, complete with HVDC. How is this to happen when there is expected to be DOUBLE the amount of cars on the road and DOUBLE the amount of power generation on the planet by 2050? How? By supporters of science NOT backing down and talking about what’s new and possible.
The future of energy can not be based on its past.
fireofenergy
I was replying to Lawrence (but was a little slow).
Thanks. There is no doubt that a great deal of my posts could benefit from more references to scientific facts; I’m sometimes too lazy and/or hurried to look all that stuff up again. I wish I were a walking encyclopedia on this subject, but I’m not. 🙂
• Anyone who sincerely believes that deregulated free market capitalism (that led us into this mess) is now going to lead us out is delusional.
I must count myself as delusional because I believe that free market capitalism can lead the way towards reducing our emissions.
Contrary to Lawrence I think you should keep up the good work.
This may sound like splitting hairs, but I used the word “deregulated” for a reason, i.e., that it’s clear that capitalism and environmental stewardship have not been exactly bosom buddies over the years, especially the last few decades; I think the evidence of this is pretty clear. If you have an issue with accepting this, please let me know and I’ll put you in front of some examples; sadly, they aren’t all that rare.
At the risk of oversimplifying: at least some capitalists and greedy, and at least some greedy people don’t have any compunction about earning profits at the expense of the environment. Again, please note the use of the word “some.”
I see capitalism as the only system that works. However, I do not believe in free market laissez faire capitalism. Experience shows that that creates all sorts of problems to the detriment of the majority.
Craig,
Thank you for your reply.
Just a couple of points.
1) I do not think government subsidies or incentives are “immoral” , in fact I believe I made it quite clear that I believe subsidies and incentives are basic, legitimate tools for a government to use in managing the national economy. It’s when governments misuse taxpayer funds for political or ideological purposes that governments step into murky water.
2) Exxon is a corporation, not a university or national government. It has no duty to anyone but it’s shareholders, and customers. The views of one or even several, employees of Exxon are for the directors to accept or reject at their will.
In 1981 very few scientists would have agreed with the premise the continued use of oil would create an immediate “a catastrophic level of climate change “, and that still remains a subject of contention among many leading scientists.
The 1981 CEO of Exxon was certainly in a minority in his conviction that the widely accepted concept of “Peak Oil” would occur before the 21st century.
As CEO of Exxon, (1975- 1986) Clifton C. Garvin, Jr was perfectly at liberty to reject any employees report, and fund alternate research. Rightly or wrongly, that’s his decision. Clifton C. Garvin, Jr was quite sincere in his beliefs, and choose the opinions of other equally qualified experts who supported his beliefs.
Later CEO’s can change policy depending on more information or different opinions and judgement. There’s nothing “evil ” about that.
The argument that there should be no subsidies for renewable energy seems disingenuous. Government programs have supported fossil fuels for decades. Subsidies in the form of tax breaks, public land, deregulation and even foreign policy continue today. Members of the fossil fuel industry have been convicted of conspiring to monopolize their products while restraining competition. http://www.brooklynrail.net/NationalCityLinesConspiracy.html But there are at least 7 other instances which demonstrate a business practice of eliminating competition to maintain or expanding its markets. In this context, demanding no subsidies for renewable energy does not suggest an even market but one manipulated for the benefit of the fossil fuel industry.
ExxonMobil, as any corporation, is a ‘fictitious person’ – a paper creation of law, not a natural person – thus it has no inherent birthrights. Conversely, it is subject to the birthrights of natural persons, and it is subject to the statutes and policies imposed upon it by lawful governments acting on behalf of, and by the consent of, natural persons.
Many a corporations has behaved as though it’s only obligation is to its owners and patrons, but that is not, in fact, the reality.
A firm’s executives are substantially shielded, behind a legal charter of incorporation, from the consequences of their actions.
Suppose that humanity were to collectively adopt the position that executives are, and should be, exempt from the morality of ethics. The evidence is overwhelming that we natural persons would suffer a rapid acceleration in the already serious degradation of our own condition, and that of the biosphere on which we all will always depend.
Cameron,
You wrote, “ExxonMobil, as any corporation, is a ‘fictitious person’ – a paper creation of law, not a natural person – thus it has no inherent birthrights.”
That is only partly true. Surely corporations are fictitious persons. English common law treated corporations as persons; so has American law since the beginning. That is firmly established. Obviously corporations are also unnatural, as you state. However, corporations are owned by PEOPLE and the people who own corporations are natural persons who do have rights. Thus, any UNJUSTIFIED interference with corporations violates the rights of people. Unfortunately, that is often overlooked.
Of course we need laws to prevent corporations from acting in ways that are contrary to the public interest, but even so we must continually bear in mind that corporations are owned by people who have rights. Thus we must be careful that when regulate corporations to protect the public interest we are not violating the rights of those who own the corporations.
In the 1970s it was commonly said that only people have rights and that property has no rights. What they overlooked was that people have the right to own property and do own property.
We must not let simplistic slogans obfuscate issues and becloud our ability to think clearly and fairly.
Jim Hightower’s Lowdown publication reminds us that, for about seventy years after our nation was founded, each corporation was granted its charter – on pain of dissolution for any violation – under the following criteria: To maintain and adhere to a genuine purpose of public benefit; To limit itself to its original business concern, abstain from purchasing other corporations, and amass only a specified maximum of wealth; To exist for a nominal term of 20 years before applying to the legislature for renewal; To deal equitably with trading partners and competition. And – pointedly – these companies were prohibited from lobbying, and from influencing any political campaigns. Our best founders were as wary of the power of corporations as they were of military ascendancy.
Additionally, Hightower’s Lowdown recalls the little-known fact that the fraudulent corporate attempts to demand the rights of persons under law all hearken back to a completely unauthorized entry in the summary of a single Supreme Court case, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad in 1886. A certain Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis, a court reporter employed by a private publisher of legal documents, made a legally baseless assertion when he errantly opened his summary with this unfounded statement: “The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment…” (Back in 1868, the 14th Amendment had granted former slaves equal protection under the law.)
Although the railroad lawyers had attempted to persuade the court to create legal personhood for corporations, the justices resolutely excluded any such verdict on the subject by the court. Neither has any declaration by Congress ever established or recognized any merit to any firm’s claim to possess the legal rights of “natural persons”.
Slavery was the old legal fiction that falsely claimed that a person is property.
“Corporate personhood” is the new legal fiction that falsely claims that property is a person.
It’s the same lie, from the opposite direction.
Having failed to sustain the legality of slavery, the elite now seek to make their paper creations into our masters – arguing that these mere paper creatures of unjust law should now possess all of our cherished human birthrights, on top of already enjoying significant special shields against liability and tax law that humans don’t receive.
When people try to argue in favor of this twisted form of “equality under the law” they should instead keep in mind that a corporation is taxed based only on its domestic profit (that’s its ‘claimed revenue’ minus ‘expenses’), while genuine flesh and blood persons are required to pay tax based on our total gross income.
How’s that for having their cake and eating ours too?
Imagine only paying tax on your “disposable income” – which is what you have left after paying for food, shelter, clothing, medical expenses, childcare, transportation and insurance… Imagine paying taxes only on what you don’t spend to survive.
Thanks Cameron for the reference. However most of the “law” for the concept of corporate “personhood” in the US has been slowly carved out as a result of Supreme Court decisions over 200 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood What they don’t tell you in Law School while studying this however is that we attempted to escape the concept of “Divine Right” as a basis for Monarchs to rule in favor of “Democracy.” But these decisions then shift control back to artificially created immortal, omnipotent and increasingly omnipresent “persons” we call “corporations” and their economic power. Perhaps nature does abhor a vacuum and in an increasingly secular society we needed to create the secular “god” called the corporation.
Yes, Breath on the Wind, the chief author of our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution warned us later about the power of the SCOTUS – observing that by the power granted to the SCOTUS to declare what the law means (after legislators have written it), and thereby slowly undermining our democratic republic, the tiny body of nine unelected judges is capable of more damage to our society than could ever be accomplished by any other body of government.
Cameron, I hear you and the concern of the founding fathers. But in their wisdom they created the 3 branches of Government with its checks and balances. The power of the Supreme Court is balanced by the possibility of the congress or the States to initiate a constitutional amendment and this is the direction we are heading with several efforts and sponsors: For additional solutions and a speech that send chills down your spine view view Elizabeth Warren here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmO8fvcWpkY
I haven’t read anything stating under which circumstances wind power would be cost competitive. If utility lines are either underutilized or can’t handle capacity then cost goes up. Remember what happened in Brazil and I think the same happened in New York. Who pays for line infrastructure? I haven’t read anything anywhere that seems to have a solution. Does the government itself install it? Are the utilities going to get guilted into building them? Those that build them will most likely get a lower return on investment than those that invest elsewhere and the builders in turn get reprimanded for bad investments. Will the government give subsidies for grid infrastructure which is the other half of the equation? I’ve been following PATH in the eastern panhandle of WV for years and seen the complexities and I don’t think they should be underestimated. The fact that you are talking about a nation wide grid makes it far more complex. True, storage might progress but unless a rational plan is created I think there will be a massive waste of money. So who is doing the number crunching on it? Craig, why don’t you post links to go to so we all can see what the latest plans are from the government for subsidy implementation.
John,
It seems that the fact that wind power is intermittent is usually overlooked. Using straight-forward objective arguments to make that clear seems to be ineffective. Apparently a different approach is necessary.
Suppose someone were to write a dialogue or vignette about selling wind power to a utility. The wind power salesman would be conversing with the power buyer pointing out the advantages of wind power, including the low price. The power buyer would ask questions such as when the power would be available and other questions which the puzzled and frustrated wind power salesman would be unable to answer. A good writer could compose a very interesting interchange which would make the limitations of wind power inescapably clear.
Frank, I like you and I appreciate all your comments. But at the risk of being snide, we out here in energy land are pretty darn well aware that wind is intermittent. That notwithstanding, wind accounts for almost 5% of the US grid mix. The American wind industry installed 5,001 megawatts (MW) during the fourth quarter of 2015, more installations than in all of 2014. Overall in 2015 the American wind industry installed 8,598 MW, the third largest amount ever installed in a year and a 77 percent increase over 2014.
My point is that the energy buyers are making this happen.
Craig,
As long as the percentage of renewable energy sources is low enough that fossil and nuclear plants can fill in the power gaps, the percentage of renewables can continue to increase. But with currently available technology, it will be impossible to shut down all the fossil and nuclear plants. It will be necessary to keep them running in spinning reserve mode which is inefficient.
True today, however, this is no reason to not to make RE better. By relying on (almost) 100% solar during midday, we’d effectively cut emissions by about half. This kills all baseload. Then NG kicks in for the other half of the time but cuts another half of otherwise coal emissions because it’s has twice the hydrogen to carbon ratio.
Solar’s capacity factor is about 25%. A doubling of capacity buildup from what’s needed to power “everything” at noon would reduce emissions by 4x (assuming daytime power consumption is fully half of the “off” hours).
Solar will be made for just pennies a watt, by 2030. Ever look at the actual size of a solar watt? It’s only about 10 sq inches. An unrelated comparison is that gasoline is as cheap as milk (and they both demand more physical space than just a few 3″ x 3.5″ squares of solar panel).
Can nuclear be made cheaper and load following? I think so. Can it be made cheaper than what’s coming after solar? I think not (because of regulation, insurance and concern about fission products).
As solar achieves that price reduction through multiple doublings in capacity buildup, NG will undoubtedly get more expensive (unless global cooling becomes real). However, this is when the solid state battery “explosion” will commence. It will be like solar and battery printed in large sheets (and possibly laminated together) for a price comparable to ordinary solar today (unlike batteries today, solid electrolyte can handle extreme temperature environments and last much longer). It should be cheaper due to no liquid electrolyte protection requirements and economies of scale.
Subsidy will not be for solar anymore, but for the battery part of it. Yet, the demand for “battery” will be greater then, than the demand for solar is now. Solar is new, fighting the established industries. Then, solar will “demand” batteries. Also, far less subsidy per “unit of battery” because already a large spread to attach too. This means that the subsidy shall mostly go into the development of the factories needed to get it so much cheaper and better than today.
Research is already ongoing and suggesting that the solid electrolyte is possible! It’ll also be more energy dense to boot.
So what is impossible today will be the norm tomorrow.
https://news.mit.edu/2015/solid-state-rechargeable-batteries-safer-longer-lasting-0817
Craig,
This is for everyone else, too.
I see this as a way to communicate what I see as obvious, and enjoy the passion to save the biosphere from ourselves. We might have to make a few lifestyle changes but they won’t be too drastic, being that we still have some major efficiency improvements to be made and the possibility of almost unlimited energy (outside of nuclear, even!).
How could anyone not see that there is overwhelming evidence of our damage to the biosphere? I see this kind of statement to be the logical way to start all energy/environmental debates as it evokes the necessary input from all sides. We know it’s true, but a good debate will encourage those that think we’re too small to damage an entire biosphere towards re-evaluating.
Concerning that believing that capitalism (as I know it) can fix the problems it got us into, is delusional, I present the following: It is easier to initiate science will to action than a different social structure within or against our system which favors individualism (and definitely easier than social change in present day communist countries). The American way can not be charged with the greatest faults – because we have that freedom (because more often than not, there’s still “good” rich people which cause a lot of good to occur)!
We all are held captive by money our place is our cage, yet, if it was not for oil, “evil oil” most of us would not even exist.
Delusional are the ones who would not want to displace energy bloatedness with efficiency. Most people simply don’t care to understand the basic math or fundamental reasoning concerning these debates (I know i’m limited). However, many (mostly younger people) in “this camp” will become very aware and enact much goodwill towards their newly realized fact that they must themselves be the one to be the change they want to be. ~ Yes ~
Corporate power needs to be dealt with by economic means. This is truly a collective necessity (purchasing power).
Perhaps the monetary system, which is capitalist in communist countries as well, will lead to the machine automation required to actually MAKE RE cheaper than coal.
Concerning the science of the approaching Anthropocene, checks and balances (should) be applied at local, state, national and international levels, using the age old social tools of warding off the evil of allowing ourselves to continue to degrade the biosphere. Yes, I agree that anyone (that runs a oil company, and others) who use corporate money to deter investment in clean energy is evil, because also, of failing to meet corporate goals for the very long run (especially if they believed peak oil would ruin everyone’s day by now!). However, if long ago, there really was no technical way of achieving a greater proportion of clean energy without drastic cuts to living standards. In that sense, I have to argue for the oil companies. Now, they have NO excuse, except to provide for the advancement of RE (RE still needs oil). They can, and most probably will, invest in RE. Eventually, they will have too, lest we all fail the third great challenge. The first war cold war politics, the second was preventing ozone hole depletion, so ya, this “not destroy the biosphere” thing is really just another, albeit, very difficult challenge.
It is the future (not the past that) has the probability of cheaper solar panels, the coming solid state battery storage explosion and the connection of billions of sources of clean energy spanning many timezones. Proof in my positive attitude is in this: we already have cleaner air in the already developed states (and in California despite more people). And in the international ability to repair the ozone layer. There is simply MORE people concerned about the biosphere than ever before.
As for a different social structure, it would have to be one primarily dictated by unbiased computer networks providing everyone’s wants and needs without any need for money. Such a social system would be far more efficient (and people would have all their time to be part of solutions too). I don’t see the Venus Project’s dream of a resource based economy materializing anytime soon, even though it makes the most sense because machines will obsolete most employment, too. If implemented, the vision of the Venus Project would be FAR more effective at solving ALL the problems. Of course, the devil is in the details of any transition to such a resource based economy, and there could be definite political trouble in such a try.
Everything good has had government help, because we want to better our collective future. I don’t see how anyone could disagree unless the subsidy rose outside the economic bounds. This is where I think the word delusional would apply! To those that don’t want to chip in for science research and clean energy automation. After the help, demand causes competition to make the product cheaper (as was the case for all energy sources). Then, hardly any subsidy could be allowed lest it go out of bounds.
I believe subsidized services is a lessor tech fix, as that gets in the way of actual industrialization (needed for future betterment). Thus, building a cheaper solar panel is better than diverting funds for cheaper weather stripping. However, complete home insulation could only be the best such service. Once “everyone” is aware of the principles of passive solar home siting, the voting wallet shall deter the need for such services in their yet to be built homes. Infact, entire cities should be designed counter to urban sprawl, and could be once “everyone” realizes what time, energy and “stress” efficiency can be had.
Wind energy kills birds. Period (because I’ve seen the videos). However, there is no reason to believe the industry can’t develop bird herding drones. On top of autonomous game theory, it’ll require a mastery of predator psychology! In the meantime, we must continue to develop the solid state solar infrastructure ASAP because there is nothing wrong with a few billion solar panels lined with solid state lithium battery material.
Some people like to say that Google has kinda dropped the RE<coal goal, that there is no hope for RE. They don't realize that Google is still investing like the most (google it). They know that in the future, it will payoff in more ways than one, and at an ever accelerating pace, because…
you can't base the future of energy on its past.
Thanks for reading.
Robert,
You wrote:
“Can nuclear be made cheaper and load following? I think so. Can it be made cheaper than what’s coming after solar? I think not (because of regulation, insurance and concern about fission products).”
From what I have read in various places, it looks as though many of the problems associated with nuclear power exist because we chose a bad nuclear technology then halted R & D to develop a better nuclear technology. Although new nuclear power plants are safer than the earliest ones, they are still the same basic technology but with refinements, just as car engines are the same basic design as in 1900 put have been refined with overhead valves, fuel injection, improved metallurgy, and emissions abatement add-ons.
A nuclear technology and fuel cycle that could extract 99% of the energy from the nuclear fuel instead of the current 1% would obviously greatly reduce ultimate fission products, i.e., waste. Also, a design that did not require an emergency cooling system to prevent melting down when the reactor is shut down and did not require a highly pressurized reactor vessel would obviously be safer. Although it is too soon to be certain, it appears to me that the liquid fluoride thorium reactor is probably the way to go, but there are also a number of other possibilities.
To me it seems very unwise to put all effort into renewables and do no R & D on nuclear power.
I believe that we should continue research in nuclear, to make certain that there could be no problems. No matter the design, there must be fission products. A breeder will create (about) the same amount of such but will not create the actinides (or transuranics, I think its the same term) which are the heavy metals that don’t split, absorbing a neutron. If they do, they burn that, too, thus, highly efficient.
Dealing with fission products have, so far, been good, however, they have to be secured from any would be projectile for up to 300 years, after which there’s no radiation (to be concerned about). They do contain more radioactivity than a bomb (but that’s hard to believe). I guess because of the sheer weight of the wastes adding up over the years.
Getting rid of actinide wastes appears to be at the expense of increased security. Breeders can be tweaked to create bomb grade material such as U233 (from thorium) and P239 from U238. Hence, it might be safer to stick with a design that can not breed. A denatured MSR can provide less wastes with more safety than the LWR.
I find this particular reactor design VERY temping!
http://terrestrialenergy.com/imsr-technology/
Robert,
The method of choice to create weapons grade nuclear fuel is to use centrifuges. In earlier times, before centrifuges were available, gaseous diffusion was used to enrich natural uranium to 90%+ U235 but that was very expensive so some weapons material was made by using nuclear reactors to make plutonium which was then separated out. So I think that probably the risk of weapons proliferation from nuclear reactors is quite low.
It appears that the reason that Iran claims to want a nuclear reactor to generate power is to provide an excuse to have centrifuges to enrich uranium to about 5% U235 to use as reactor fuel but then continue the enrichment process to produce weapons grade uranium.
Your link was interesting. Of course the LFTR is simply a subset of molten salt reactors. Because it is too soon to know what nuclear reactor would be the best design, I think that it would be a good idea to do R & D on multiple designs that look promising until it can be determined which is best. Keeping the fuel in liquid form has some obvious advantages.
Robert your assessment of me is wrong. I am not known as a blind critic of useful ideas or meaningful discussion, in fact quite the opposite is true. Like you I expect, I am also a passionate and working advocate for human advancement through technological breakthroughs such as “low cost and abundant renewable energy generation technologies” to power the energy intensive new global industries of the future for example.
I find that the most fertile minds to discuss quantum leap technologies in the immediate future are young students, which is very encouraging because the future solutions are in the hands of the world’s best and brightest young physicists, engineers, researchers and scientists coming through the education systems globally. I enjoy lecturing to large numbers of young students regularly throughout China and elsewhere about the future technologies that they will be a part of, and they all share Craig’s passion for Eco related issues in spades.
http://www.98xtxy.com/html/2013/xydt_0905/3720.html
We should all be mindful in how we as individuals visualize the future and in particularly how it should be ‘powered up’ for the benefit of all including importantly the new age industries for obvious reasons, but also to avoid a wasteland of stranded ‘transitionary’ RE generation assets everywhere.
The key RE technology imperatives I support are: clean – abundant – low cost power for all, and this trifecta will dictate that a lot of current boutique [and heavily subsidised RE formats] will be relegated to the “well it seemed like a good idea at the time” repository.
Our best RE advocates will be those objective ones focused on promoting and discussing clean sustainable modern outcomes unmistakably underpinned by commercial reality, and definitely not “tinkering at the margins technologies” or spruiking up gimmicks and other wiz bang stuff.
Regards Lawrence
“it will be impossible to shut down all the fossil and nuclear plants.”
It is not only possible but it is happening to old inefficient plants and will continue to happen as the playing field is leveling.
Bruce is quite correct here. It’s happening right in front of our eyes. The real challenge: India and China, but we’ll there.
Germany is shutting down nuclear plants and burning coal instead.
https://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2015/06/06/why-germanys-nuclear-phaseout-is-leading-to-more-coal-burning/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-04-14/coal-rises-vampire-like-as-german-utilities-seek-survival
http://blogs.ft.com/nick-butler/2015/07/06/germany-the-coal-industry-lives-on/
The following two links are to articles about Dr. James Hansen, a highly respected climate scientist, who strongly asserts that nuclear power is essential to reducing CO2 emissions to acceptable levels:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZExWtXAZ7M
http://seekerblog.com/2015/03/09/james-hansen-calls-out-big-green-its-the-money-that-drives-their-anti-nuclear-dogma/
It’s quite interesting that large investors – the majority of whom are driven by potential return and not ideologically driven in any direction (let alone progressive, liberal, tree-hugging or humanitarian) – aren’t running in droves (or even trickles) to invest in new nuclear generation projects on a commercial scale, but they definitely are investing appreciably in commercial scale in renewables like wind and solar. You don’t think they’ve done their homework?
A critical and objective analysis of wind energy technology [in its current format] will highlight that it is already an obsolescent technology and ongoing serious private or public sector investment in wind will rapidly evaporate in the near future.
On the flip side, wind has played a critical role in the evolution of the RE technologies development sector as it navigates it way through the “energy technologies inverted pyramid” towards those enduring and sustainable “energy dense technologies” capable of satisfying the future global energy imperatives of: [clean – abundant – low cost] energy for all.
The same no holds barred critical analysis of solar PV technologies [in its current formats] will draw similar conclusions to that of wind technology, except solar PV through research and development breakthroughs, is positioning itself through quantum leap developments that will extend its lifespan considerably in the evolution of the immutable [energy technologies inverted pyramid].
Energy dense Stage 4 solar PV technologies are close, after at least a ten year global R&D effort that I have followed closely, and these products when commercialised will quickly kill off many current PV technology products such as [rooftop PV panel installations, and the myriad of technically weak BIPV technologies] for example.
The next stage of solar PV science development addresses the two major “engineering and commercial viability” challenges inherent in current PV technology designs that needed to be overcome by researchers to have any chance of PV being retained in the overall energy generation technologies mix and thereby extending the life of PV as a sustainable and useful energy technology into the future, namely:-
[1] how to repackage the science of solar PV technology in a format that will massively reduce the unsustainable and rising cost of labor, installation infrastructure, and space requirements, in deploying PV systems of any scale, and;
[2] how to create “energy dense PV science” in volumetric format designs that efficiently communicate with light, rather than the hitherto inefficient and labor intensive to deploy, flat area panel format.
Lawrence Coomber
Even if PV systems converted 100% of the incident energy from the sun to electricity and were free, the intermittent nature of PV systems would preclude their use as a major source of power in the absence of practical energy storage technologies.
You may be aware that there is huge concommitance between our demand for power and the presence of the sun in the sky.
To a limited extent there is. But there are many times when the amount of solar power would be much greater than required and other times when it would fall short.
While I don’t necessarily agree with the analysis, or its applicability for every situation, there is at least one opinion that says that solar thermal for hot water is dead due to the cheap potential of PV plus an electric heat pump hot water tank. http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/musings/solar-thermal-really-really-dead It might be possible to say the same thing for heating when considering solar thermal and air source heat pumps. I do know of one home owner who installed PV plus geothermal in NJ and with regrets said that it would have been cheaper to simply install more PV and use resistance heating. Even if it is cheaper it may not be as efficient which would lead us into a discussion of waste and pollution.
=========
Sometimes there are things that the government can do that do not require subsidies or a great deal of money. While the cost of PV panels continues to drop the cost of installation remains an issue. Presently we have a national electrical code that has been adopted in most localities. A national efficiency and renewable resource building code that can be adopted locally, may help to make solar panels cheaper to install. It would ensure that new construction met certain standards of efficiency and allowed for the labor friendly option of solar panels (a minimum south facing roof area to square foot area ratio, at the appropriate angle for the latitude with a conduit for either PV or thermal to the utility room.) This is the sort of standard which would help to reduce the cost of installing solar without placing a burden on taxpayers or the building industry.
While it is true that presently PV systems do not have the capacity factor of geothermal, nuclear or fossil fuel generation it is not true for thermal systems that store heat. CSP systems will always be more efficient at capturing energy than Earth based strictly PV systems. With heat storage they also have higher capacity factors than PV systems. The weak efficiency link is the same for all thermal power plants (fossil fuel, geothermal and nuclear:) converting heat to electricity. Long term, current DOE funded research in magnetohydrodynamics or solid state thermoelectrics may resolve this issue. In the short term stable chemical heat storage would be a game changer that may allow a way to use heat as a product and drive an entire industry based upon “heat batteries.”
Heat is a waste product for PV panels, which is why some PV panels are achieving their overall efficiency results (similar to stationary fuel cells) by resorting to co-generation (combined heat plus power,) which is fine if you can otherwise use heat or once again convert the heat to electricity. But it requires some careful reading of the process and understanding of the implications.
A space based PV system would have more energy available to capture. Beaming that energy to Earth would have to be a no fly zone. But such large scale construction seems dependent upon first development of a space elevator. This in turn is dependent upon a new tether technology which could instead give us onshore and off shore aerial wind turbines.
A future with these technological energy advancements is probably desirable. When faced with the question of what is going to incentivize any company to invest in the necessary research for any of these potential goals, the answer is the same as for any investment: less risk. This is why we have national laboratories, why we have research and development grants.
We spread the risk among many people through tax dollars. Is it wasteful? That is an entirely different question. We dig many tons of rock to get just grams of material. Is it wasteful to dig all of that rock which we end up throwing away? Rather it is seen as a cost of doing business. Similarly to mine for new ideas through research does have a waste factor. It always will. However to concentrate in misery over the waste misses the entire point of the effort. It is a failure to see and understand the goal. It is a conservative point of view that does not want risk and does not want change. It is a part of all of us to some extent, but a part that must be understood and put to rest if we want to make progress as a society and as individuals.
Lack of government subsidies should only mean that a technology has matured. The Petrochemical industry is like the 40 year old child who has never left home. Until a few years ago the amount of the national debt each year was equal to the trade deficit attributed to buying foreign oil, about $200 billion. RE is essentially a domestic product and clearly a better economic alternative energy source. Therefore we should consider the arguments about subsidies, research waste, the need for oil and the economic benefits of oil just so much rhetoric intending to keep us locked into the past.
CSP can only be about 30% efficient due to thermal losses in the steam generator. I believe it requires deserts to be bulldozed as well.
Best to make it all solid state because no moving parts would eventually become the least expensive way to mass produce solar and batteries. That way, all the sunny roofs could first be utilized. PV should be put in the deserts ONLY if bulldozing is prohibited.
Eventually, a substance which converts some of the heat of the panel into an infrared wavelength (that is not absorbed by co2) could be utilized, to cool the panel, making it a little more efficient and directing that heat into outer space.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/renewables/photonic-crystals-use-coldness-of-the-universe-to-chill-solar-panels-on-earth
The theoretical limit for solar PV is about 27% for single junction cells. The “collection” aspect for solar thermal is about 4 times as efficient. As mentioned the “conversion” aspect is the weak link and similar to other thermal power plants but with thermal storage capacity factors as high as 60% and 70% (almost equal to coal) are possible (and concurrently resolves the intermittency issue.)
As you may have noticed, the point was not to advocate any particular solar method but to locate an area of potential technological advancement: (in this case, the thermal conversion process.) PV among many other advantages also has potential for technological advancements but they are less clearly defined and with smaller margins and so not as good an illustration.
Agreed. There will be areas where CSP dominates and it is more efficient overall, especially if used directly for heat. Mirrors shouldn’t get as hot as PV either.
I had to question myself being that I was pointing towards PV just because it could be easier to make and deploy, and forgot about the real facts concerning older CSP – indeed, they are still more efficient.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Energy_Generating_Systems#Accidents_and_incidents
I would, however, refrain from the tower concept solely because it could fry birds until bird herding drones could prevent that.
My other concern is that they should be able to post mount for the heliostats (for the tower) thus not absolutely necessary for bulldozing (each heliostat could be individually “set” no matter the height on post) Whereas, it’s very hard to imagine being able to not bulldoze for the long arrays of 1 axis concentrators.
There was also an accident with mineral oil concerning the 1 axis type. Future versions would use a low temp molten salt (but they’d have to be the tower design).
I also have to keep telling myself that the little bit of ecological “ruin” caused by dozers is of little concern compared to full on global warming. Infact, we’ve done so much ruin already that this might not even matter, compared to all the cities, roads, and, especially, suburban development.
Bird herding drones are needed for wind, anyways.
Breath,
Although with current technology, CSP is more efficient than PV, there is another factor to consider. PV can produce power on cloudy days although of course the amount of power is reduced whereas CSP can not receive any energy from the sun on cloudy days.
CSP and the even more efficient CST (using heat directly in an industrial process)will always be more efficient than PV at collecting solar energy in the best locations. It is just physics. PV is making an integral conversion to electricity that CST does not perform as part of the collection. In addition, CST is collecting heat which in any other process is a waste product that reduces efficiency. In fairness it is because the collection and conversion to electricity are two separate processes it is easier to look at separate technological solutions. Which is why it makes a more clear example than PV to illustrate the need for subsidized technology research.
Rather than wring our hands and wail that PV or CSP are not good for every location we just don’t use an application that does not fit the environment. We just don’t do it. CSP is sited in relatively cloudless skies In areas with mixed cloud cover PV can work with less available solar energy. In addition there is a whole basket full of energy ideas that are waiting for a pilot project.
We have probably done much damage to the environment simply because we have always been drawn to one solution for every application. Coal for every type of power requirement, petrol engines for every type of transportation need… And some try to apply the same narrow thinking to renewable energy. Unfortunately if you bring a solar engineer to a site he is not necessarily going to build you a wind farm.
We have to measure what we are giving up in our pursuit of economies of scale. Such thinking keeps us from really seeing the environment to learn what will work best at a particular location.
Breath,
The comparison of different systems to provide domestic hot water was interesting. However, it omitted the cost of replacing the PV driven heat pump when it wears out. Whether that would change the relative results I don’t know, but it should have been included.
When I lived in Fiji (1994 – 2004), I had a solar water heater. I rarely had to use the 2400W electric resistance booster. However, that climate is unusually favorable for solar water heaters. In addition to the advantage of latitude, the unheated water is not very cold so less heat has to be added to it. Also, when using the water for showering, the percentage of cold water mixed with the heated water is much less for the same reason thereby making a smaller storage tank acceptable.
It may be that the optimal system for providing domestic hot water would depend on the climate.
Frank, I do think that it is important to understand the solar options rather than simply do what has been done in other parts of the world. There are so many factors that can make a difference. Even such a small thing as a local talent which can create and repair any part of a system compared to a system that may be subject to ordering parts from a factory that may or may not still be in business in 10 years.
Nature shows us both narrow niche organisms and broad, adapting organisms. There is a strategic advantage to the less efficient and a time and place for the super efficient.
While I have never been to Fiji I have spent time at your neighbors in SE Asia, Australia, New Zealand and far away China. Most of the Solar HW heaters I noticed were thermo-syphoning systems with a tank on the roof. Much smaller gravity fed piping with cisterns in the attic were not uncommon. It is very different than what is common in the US. Things may have changed by now, but the lesson to me was that the same thing does not have to be done the same way everywhere to achieve the desired effect.
Correction: “inverted pyramid” is incorrect and should be read as “pyramid”.
Too little emphasis has been put on home heating and providing hot water. Even if we reached the point of providing 100% of electricity with non-CO2 emitting methods, there is still the matter of home heating unless we use electricity for home heating which is basically inefficient. Although electric resistance heating is 100% efficient, that ignores the losses in generating the electricity. Of course heat pumps are more efficient than electric resistance heating and can have a COP > 3 whereas electric resistance heating has a COP = 1.
The technology for heating homes with solar energy has been around for many decades but occasionally used.
Breath,
The solar water heater I had when I lived in Fiji (note past tense – I’m in Albuquerque NM now) was the thermo-syphoning type with the tank on the roof; that was the most common type. What I didn’t like about it was that it had a float valve to keep the tank full and the water flowed by gravity into the house which obviously meant low pressure. I think it would have worked better to have stagnant water in the tank and a heat exchanger in the tank consisting of a copper coil through which the fresh water would flow. That would have provided hot water at a higher pressure.
Of course it is important to have a system which can be serviced locally and any plumber could easily service that type of solar heater, but that would not have been a problem with a heat pump either.