-
We have been investing in electricty storage for over 100 year. The laws of physics and thermodynamics are exactly the same as they were then, as they are now.
Physics which allowed us to construct GWh level storage in ways which made sense at the time. We've never looked for non hydro storage solutions, because we never needed it. Fossil fuels and supplying on demand was cheaper. We've had maybe half a decade where there is economic incentive to look for super-cheap scalable storage solutions, thanks to subsidized renewable energy gluts ... not 100 years. Give it a little time. -
Well, it is like 5000 lawyers on the bottom of the sea: a start.
No disrespect intended, but really, this is you answer?QuoteHave you done any calculations, (Henry Ford did), to see how much energy insulating and then insulating again would save?
I did. At least for my house, half of which is 200 years old, atm uses 2500m3 NG / year on average. It is partly isolated. If I get the insulation up to today's standards, that will go down at least 40%. Joules you do not have to put in don't have to be generated. If I get the energy use down by that a heatpump will supply the heating easily.QuoteYou do realize we subsidize the solar and wind industry. Energy from coal is more expensive then solar and wind. We will probably never go back to using coal.
You do realize that we subsidize fossil fuels way more than we do renewables? According to the IMF:
https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-06-07/imf-true-cost-fossil-fuels-53-trillion-yearQuoteNatural gas is so inexpensive right now, it’s almost being given away.
That is because we do not pay for the pollution created by burning that gas. 1m3 = 33MJ = 10kWh = 1.78 kg CO2QuoteWe have been investing in electricty storage for over 100 year.
I beg to differ. Due to the availability of dead cheap energy there was no push at all to look into ways of generating and storing large amounts of electrical energy. Portable computing is the biggest driver behind developments in storage. That is why a Tesla is (still) filled with 7000+ silly 18650 lithium cells. I dare say that had we been developing batteries for a century that would not have been the case.QuoteThe laws of physics and thermodynamics are exactly the same as they were then, as they are now.
Yep. Man said it could not be done. And still planes do fly.QuoteDo you have any idea how much energy can be stored in batteries, hydrogen, formic acid, compressed air, flywheels? Have you done or seen the calculation? It’s not much. If all of the batteries in the world were to be used to store and provide electricty it would supply less than 5 minutes of our electrical needs.
We don't need months of storage. Electricity is easily transported and over great distances. As they say, the sun always shines somewhere, as does the wid blow. Smart use of available energy (smart grids, price driven use-it-when-it's-there) brings the amount of storage needed down. Do we need batteries? Only for mobile systems. For grid connected storage something like https://www.ecn.nl/news/item/floating-train-at-2000-kmh-set-to-store-10-of-dutch-electricity/ would be nice. Far off? So is clean nuclear.QuoteYes we can conserve, but only 1/8 of the world is using 90% of the energy. Are you going to deprive the other 7/8s of the world who need electricty for clean drinking water and cooking that electricty?
No, I'm not. Good thing that these other countries seem to learn from our mistakes. Partly because their population is coughing their lungs out and partly because it is the cheapest option atm they install and use more renewables than our so-called civilized part of the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_India
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China
But hey, we feel it is much more necessary to go on a holiday 3 times a year to a sunny island to take a look at the dying coral reefs than to pay for a couple of solar panels on our roofs.QuoteAll humans are addicted to the burning of hydrocarbons.
No. Only our part of the world is addicted to fossil fuels. Which is the reason we react so strongly when confronted with the biggest part of the solution: conservation. Use Less Energy. A junkies worst nightmare, that is.QuoteSo what’s the solution? Not what you have suggested. Gas, oil, coal, wind, geothermal wave, solar, hydro, chemical - Nope none of these will supply enough energy within causing additional problems forhuman life on earth. Just leaves one.... Nuclear. It’s clean, It’s green, and renewable and far more energy dense than fossil fuels.
Uranium is a finite fuel, even if we manage to make it from seawater. Thorium is vaporware. Fission is vaporware. Building a nuclear reactor costs at least 10 years. In those 10 years so much will be changed in our energy use that the energy from nuclear will be unaffordable.
And a pity that you seem to have missed my remark about nuclear. I am not dead against it, but I feel it is only fair to ask from a nuclear power plant the same as we ask from people who erect a wind generator: make sure you insure against disaster and include the removal after decommissioning in the price for a kWh so the taxpayer is not left with the bill.
-
No disrespect intended, but really, this is you answer?
And did you do the calculation? Here is one for you:
Have you done any calculations, (Henry Ford did), to see how much energy insulating and then insulating again would save?
Solar power on small scale has an energy payback time of just 2-3 years (all energy made, that is used for manufacturing) and has a financial payback time of 6-7 years. Without subsidies.
A modern nuclear plant has no payback time, as it is way too expensive. They start building it, and it will not pay for itself over its entire lifetime. And usually the plant costs go above the estimates by billions. And the decomissioning cost is usually "let's just ignore this for now" in the business plan.
Here is a recent project for you:
"EDF has previously said France's first EPR would cost €3.3 billion[2] and start commercial operations in 2012, after construction lasting 54 months.[3]
On 3 December 2012 EDF announced that the estimated costs have escalated to €8.5 billion ($11 billion), and the completion of construction is delayed to 2016.[4] The next day the Italian power company Enel announced it was relinquishing its 12.5% stake in the project, and 5 future EPRs, so would be reimbursed its project stake of €613 million plus interest.[5][6]
In November 2014 EDF announced that completion of construction was delayed to 2017 due to delays in component delivery by Areva.[7]
...
The EPR (Flamanville 3) aimed to be safer than any previous reactor, but as of 2016 the project is three times over budget and years behind schedule. In September 2015 EDF announced that the estimated costs had escalated to €10.5 billion, and the start-up of the reactor was delayed to the fourth quarter of 2018.[17]"
Great plan. Here, I give you the key to the planet, save us.
Hold on partner. I live in the US where the cost for a kWhr ranges from $0.03 to $0.85. At $0.03 it's not a less than 10 year payback as you suggest. And here in the US we have a 30% and somtimes more subsidy.
Try doing your calcuations based on actual numbers, as in 0.03 to $0.85 kWhr and see what you come up wtih.
As for nuclear you are talking about current nuclear technologies. THat's not the same thing as NextGen Nuclear. Entirely differnt process and technology. When current nucelar power technology is green it there is long lvied radioactive waste which needs to be dealt with.
Not ture with NextGen Nuclear. It's green and completly renewable and there are no long lived radioactive waste.
Are we talkign about the same thing? Soudns to me like you have the technologies mixed up.
-
As for nuclear you are talking about current nuclear technologies. THat's not the same thing as NextGen Nuclear. Entirely differnt process and technology.
Zinc air batteries are entirely different technology than Lithium Ion. On sea gravity storage is entirely different technology than existing grid scale storage.
Both sides have pies in the sky with nice looking math to back it up. Both sides need government funding to get ahead
-
As for nuclear you are talking about current nuclear technologies. THat's not the same thing as NextGen Nuclear. Entirely differnt process and technology.
Zinc air batteries are entirely different technology than Lithium Ion. On sea gravity storage is entirely different technology than existing grid scale storage.
Both sides have pies in the sky with nice looking math to back it up. Both sides need government funding to get ahead
NextGen Nuclear is well funded by governments and billionaires., -
As are renewables, so lets see how it shakes out.
-
Aham,and it is only 25 years from introduction...As for nuclear you are talking about current nuclear technologies. THat's not the same thing as NextGen Nuclear. Entirely differnt process and technology.
Zinc air batteries are entirely different technology than Lithium Ion. On sea gravity storage is entirely different technology than existing grid scale storage.
Both sides have pies in the sky with nice looking math to back it up. Both sides need government funding to get ahead
NextGen Nuclear is well funded by governments and billionaires.,
BTW the ERP reactor is a 3rd generation reactor. There is a total of 8 of these. They must be really really successful.
Also, please point out the 3 cent here
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a
-
Human nature is to not think far beyond ones immediate needs and desires.
Human nature is to use up available resources as fast as is economically advantageous.
Human nature led us to burn up millions of years of fossilized solar energy as fast as possible.
Human nature is to ignore the adverse consequences of our actions until biological or societal consequences force us to.
Human nature leads many to mock those who seek more sustainable sources of energy.
Human nature leads many to adopt political tribalism and embrace denial or ignorance of the consequences of short term thinking.
Human nature leads many to forget that without "environmentalists" there would be no regulations protecting clean air and water from corporate greed.
Human nature leads some to ignore the long term consequences of accumulated spent nuclear fuel storage by impermanent human civilizations.
Human nature leads many to expect technological solutions to all problems.
Human nature means that we will continue to pursue infinite growth on a finite planet.
Human nature means that we will burn every last joule of economically extractable fossil fuel.
Human nature means that geopolitical strife will continue to escalate as nation tribes seek to control dwindling resources.
Human nature means we will eventually succumb to physical limits and ecological realities as we continue to fight among ourselves.
-
I have found environmentalist who have traded in their car for a bike to save the planet.
Then they completely omit the fuel for that bike in their naive calculations. Of course they buy their fuel from the supermarket where half of it is shipped halfway around the world to be washed and packed, then halfway back around the world to be distributed to the supermarkets in CO2 hungry planes, ships and diesel trucks.
Human power might be efficient, but it is not CO2 free! Far from it.
There was an article I read where someone calculated it was nearly as efficient to drive a Ford Mondeo the half mile to the local shop for a pint of milk than it was to walk it. Based on the energy consumed by the body and the CO2 released + the CO2 et. al. required to farm, ship, package and cook the food required, even included the methane released as a result of digestion and the rotting left overs, off cuts.
-
Aham,and it is only 25 years from introduction...As for nuclear you are talking about current nuclear technologies. THat's not the same thing as NextGen Nuclear. Entirely differnt process and technology.
Zinc air batteries are entirely different technology than Lithium Ion. On sea gravity storage is entirely different technology than existing grid scale storage.
Both sides have pies in the sky with nice looking math to back it up. Both sides need government funding to get ahead
NextGen Nuclear is well funded by governments and billionaires.,
BTW the ERP reactor is a 3rd generation reactor. There is a total of 8 of these. They must be really really successful.
Also, please point out the 3 cent here
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a
Can’t. You are looking at the average prices, not actual prices for each state. Sho me a table with actual prices power companies charge and I will show you. -
I think this spat illustrates the human nature part of the OP's posting perfectly! Whllst the lobbyests quote increasingly increadable pseudo science against each other the politicians stand in the middle and unsuprisingly do nothing except occasionally some blip of daft policy like installing so called smart meters all over the UK at cost to the consumer who doesnt want them and nobody has yet been able to identify a benefit.
I am with woody and others the best we can do is miminimise our personal energy consumption as that is within our personal power and is not subject to political lobbying and pseudo science of any kind.
OK so I am not solving the worlds problems BUT trying to find some global solution that fits all is an utter waste of time, local solutions are needed for local situations, even down to a personal individual level. -
Quote
I live in the US where the cost for a kWhr ranges from $0.03 to $0.85. At $0.03 it's not a less than 10 year payback as you suggest. And here in the US we have a 30% and somtimes more subsidy.
Wrong. 3cent/kwh is the price of electricity. Not the cost of electricity.
Completely different thing.
If you want to see how much the electricity costs in the US, look here :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Lazard_(2017)
Nuclear electricity in the US costs about 3x more than utility scale PV now. The gap increases every year.
You can guess what will be built more in the upcoming years.
-
But it is NextGen™®, not the current one. It will actually plant trees and filter water, and pet hedgehogs. When it is ready. Only few more years...QuoteI live in the US where the cost for a kWhr ranges from $0.03 to $0.85. At $0.03 it's not a less than 10 year payback as you suggest. And here in the US we have a 30% and somtimes more subsidy.
Wrong. 3cent/kwh is the price of electricity. Not the cost of electricity.
Completely different thing.
If you want to see how much the electricity costs in the US, look here :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Lazard_(2017)
Nuclear electricity in the US costs about 3x more than utility scale PV now. The gap increases every year.
You can guess what will be built more in the upcoming years. -
Quote
I live in the US where the cost for a kWhr ranges from $0.03 to $0.85. At $0.03 it's not a less than 10 year payback as you suggest. And here in the US we have a 30% and somtimes more subsidy.
Wrong. 3cent/kwh is the price of electricity. Not the cost of electricity.
Completely different thing.
If you want to see how much the electricity costs in the US, look here :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Lazard_(2017)
Nuclear electricity in the US costs about 3x more than utility scale PV now. The gap increases every year.
You can guess what will be built more in the upcoming years.
All depends on which definition for each word you are using. In ours country someone asked what the price of something is. And the husband asks the wife how much that item is going to cost him.
-
There is not and will not be anything that will fully replace fossil fuels. That is not to say that alternatives are not needed. They are.
We have squandered the easily extractable FF bounty we were handed and the remaining economically and energetically easy to extract FF resources are quickly being depleted.
Every alternative energy source currently requires large amounts of societal subsidies and fossil fuel burning in its deployment. Nuclear is one of the worst in that regard with very large societal subsidies and large amounts of energy required for deployment. If one factors in subsidies and energy required to deal with spent fuel rods, then lifetime societal and energy cost is negative. Short term thinking and corporate cronyism is the only reason it continues to be deployed.
But just because there is nothing that will fully replace fossil fuels, does not mean there are not some alternatives that are more viable than others.
A few years ago, physicist Tom Murphy did an excellent series of blog posts examining the viability of various alternative energy sources. The summary post can be found HERE. His summary table is below:
-
The first world can shift consumption way down to make a transition. How well we are able to feed the rest of the world during the transition is a bigger problem.
-
The first world can shift consumption way down to make a transition. How well we are able to feed the rest of the world during the transition is a bigger problem.
Fritz Haber solved this problem 100 years ago. Then with the use of petro-chemicals and GMOs we have more than enough food to feed everyone. I can get summer fruits anytime of the year.
-
The first world can shift consumption way down to make a transition. How well we are able to feed the rest of the world during the transition is a bigger problem.
Yes, increased global food production since the 1940s has been almost entirely dependent on the availability of abundant and cheap fossil fuel inputs. Fertilizers, pesticides and diesel fuel.
Eventually world population will fall far. How far and over what time frame is the question. -
There is not and will not be anything that will fully replace fossil fuels. That is not to say that alternatives are not needed. They are.
We have squandered the easily extractable FF bounty we were handed and the remaining economically and energetically easy to extract FF resources are quickly being depleted.
Every alternative energy source currently requires large amounts of societal subsidies and fossil fuel burning in its deployment. Nuclear is one of the worst in that regard with very large societal subsidies and large amounts of energy required for deployment. If one factors in subsidies and energy required to deal with spent fuel rods, then lifetime societal and energy cost is negative. Short term thinking and corporate cronyism is the only reason it continues to be deployed.
But just because there is nothing that will fully replace fossil fuels, does not mean there are not some alternatives that are more viable than others.
A few years ago, physicist Tom Murphy did an excellent series of blog posts examining the viability of various alternative energy sources. The summary post can be found HERE. His summary table is below:
We are addicted to hydrocarbon fuels and have a lot of it.
One thing I don't understand is why is PV solar so high on the list. The guy is a physicist. One would think he would understand and has seen the issues with solar.
The guy also fails to mention the amount of resources with have vs. what it will take use those resources to provide power. Not even close to being a full picture.
For some reason he didn't include all the different types of NextGen nuclear.
Mankind is betting on NetGen nuclear. If you do a bit of research of how much solar can produce vs what our needs are we are still 82% short in 35 years. And this is according to the solar power industry. These are their estimates.
I'm not a fan of nuclear, but got a better solution? So far all of the "Free Energy", energy Unity people have failed. -
There is not and will not be anything that will fully replace fossil fuels. That is not to say that alternatives are not needed. They are.
You do realize, that with sufficient solar and wind power, and a few P2G plants (Power-to-gas), it is possible to completely get rid of the current fossil fuel usage? Storing massive amount of gas is possible, and we can generate the gas from CO2 and H2O. In fact we can just reverse global warming altogether. And burning methane is not polluting unlike coal or pretty much everything else. -
There is not and will not be anything that will fully replace fossil fuels. That is not to say that alternatives are not needed. They are.
You do realize, that with sufficient solar and wind power, and a few P2G plants (Power-to-gas), it is possible to completely get rid of the current fossil fuel usage? Storing massive amount of gas is possible, and we can generate the gas from CO2 and H2O. In fact we can just reverse global warming altogether. And burning methane is not polluting unlike coal or pretty much everything else.
Yes we can, but where are you going to get all of the energy to do so? Or do you plan to do this by breaking the laws? Laws of thermodynamics that is. At this time that's the only way we could do it. -
There is not and will not be anything that will fully replace fossil fuels. That is not to say that alternatives are not needed. They are.
You do realize, that with sufficient solar and wind power, and a few P2G plants (Power-to-gas), it is possible to completely get rid of the current fossil fuel usage? Storing massive amount of gas is possible, and we can generate the gas from CO2 and H2O. In fact we can just reverse global warming altogether. And burning methane is not polluting unlike coal or pretty much everything else.
No, I disagree. There is no high energy density, net energy positive, easily transportable fuel substitute for oil/nat gas. I wish it were so. It's not - at least not with current population and energy usage patterns.
Maybe with a much smaller global population and smaller energy usage - it could eventually happen.
But even so - getting from A to B is the problem. Developing the infrastructure to totally transform our societal energy source/structure would require economic resources, cheap fossil fuels, and time we no longer have. If we would have started 40 years ago then we would have had a shot at a relatively painless transition. But we chose to borrow from the future instead.
Jimmy Carter tried to turn us that direction. We know what happened next. People didn't want to hear it. Denial. Borrow from the future. Human nature. -
There is not and will not be anything that will fully replace fossil fuels. That is not to say that alternatives are not needed. They are.
You do realize, that with sufficient solar and wind power, and a few P2G plants (Power-to-gas), it is possible to completely get rid of the current fossil fuel usage? Storing massive amount of gas is possible, and we can generate the gas from CO2 and H2O. In fact we can just reverse global warming altogether. And burning methane is not polluting unlike coal or pretty much everything else.
No, I disagree. There is no high energy density, net energy positive, easily transportable fuel substitute for oil/nat gas. I wish it were so. It's not - at least not with current population and energy usage patterns.
Maybe with a much smaller global population and smaller energy usage - it could eventually happen.
But even so - getting from A to B is the problem. Developing the infrastructure to totally transform our societal energy source/structure would require economic resources, cheap fossil fuels, and time we no longer have. If we would have started 40 years ago then we would have had a shot at a relatively painless transition. But we chose to borrow from the future instead.
Jimmy Carter tried to turn us that direction. We know what happened next. People didn't want to hear it. Denial. Borrow from the future. Human nature.
Not quite.... The energy densit of Nuclear is far more greater than any other fuel source. Not sure of the exact number but shoudl be on the scale of a billion.
We can use nuclear power for transporation. Been using it for decades for submarines and ships. USSR flew a nuclear powered aircraft. US was desinging one. Just one flaw both had, creww and passengers would get jetlag and radiation sickness.
And let's not forget Ford had plans for a nuclear powered car. Can't recall any plans for a nuclear poered train. But can't think why it would not be possible.
Both the US and Russia developed nuclear p
-
We are addicted to hydrocarbon fuels
Yes we are.Quoteand have a lot of it.
Nope - not any more - not that's economically and energetically easy to extract. And we're using it at about 4x the rate that new reserves are being discovered. Economic growth depends on the availability of cheap fossil fuel. Without it, growth stagnates and massive amount of borrowing (requiring central bank intervention to promote) is required to keep the house of cards from collapsing. Geopolitics become unstable and wars are waged.QuoteOne thing I don't understand is why is PV solar so high on the list. The guy is a physicist. One would think he would understand and has seen the issues with solar.
You're right. You don't understand. He understands very well the limitations of solar and other power sources. Read the individual posts on each energy source.
-
Fritz Haber solved this problem 100 years ago. Then with the use of petro-chemicals and GMOs we have more than enough food to feed everyone. I can get summer fruits anytime of the year.
He didn't fix Peak Everything. Nitrogen fertilizer we can make from air with modest amounts of energy, but the same can't be said for all the bulk materials we need to build stuff. Energy consumption to recover usable bulk materials is going to shoot up at about the same time as fossil fuel prices start to get off the rails.
The best for humanity would be to stop breeding for a while, take care of the elderly with robots while we can still build them and avoid a much nastier die off down the line.