More on the coal/nuclear/renewables dilemma

[GliderGuider]

Being both anti-coal and anti-nuclear is a reasonable emotional position. Whether it's a reasonable rational position depends on your assessment of our current situation and our near-term prospects.

Specifically, it depends on your considered answers to the following questions:

1. What is the probability that renewable resources will be ramped up fast enough to replace significant amounts of coal and nuclear power within a reasonable time frame (e.g. scale to 20% or more of total world electricity production within 25 years)? This would have to take into account the probability of sufficient investment, production capacity, political will and public acceptance.

2. What is the probability that the cost per watt and equipment availability will position renewables to out-compete coal in places like China (say within the next 10 years)?

3. What is the probability that conservation efforts will reduce global electricity demand within the next 20 years (not just increase energy intensity while leaving the absolute demand growing)?

4. What is the probability that the variability issues with renewables like wind and solar will be solved sufficiently to permit large-scale (i.e. national level) applications within 10 years?

5. What is the probability that rapid climate change will constrain global food production in the short term? This could prompt a strong backlash against increased coal use, but if it happens before renewables are ready to take over, that backlash will increase the pressure for nuclear power.

*****************************************
My answers to those questions are:

1. In order to provide 20% of the world's current electricity production in 25 years, the installed base of wind power would need to expand by 15% per year for 25 straight years. While it's true that industry performance has exceeded this so far, and the predictions out to 2010 are in the 20% pa range, I am skeptical that this kind of growth can be maintained for a quarter century. The reason is that it is much easier to grow a nascent industry at double-digit rates than a mature one. Double-digit growth rates in any mature industry have proven very difficult to maintain for longer than a decade or so, and the rates tend to either decrease over time or crash due to various sustainability issues. I came out of the high tech telecommunications R&D sector, so my understanding of this issue is visceral. I would say a 10% pa growth over that time might be achievable. Given that renewables currently supply 1% of the world's electricity, a realistic forecast for growth would be a displacement capability of 0.1% per year.

2. My judgment on this question is that due to the growth constraints I described above renewables will not be positioned to out-compete coal in China within the next decade. China is installing over 2 gigawatts of coal-fired electricity per week, and has plans to continue that for the next decade. That's a terawatt of new output over the next decade. I simply don't see wind being positioned to put a dent in that.

3. Conservation efforts (aka demand destruction) will help. I could see the world reducing its demand and increasing its energy intensity enough to cut a compounding 1% per year off the demand for the next 20 years. That would result in a total reduction over that time of 17.5%. Electricity consumption has been growing at a 10-year average of 3.3%. If that holds, the difference (taking into account the growth of renewables and conservation) would still result in electricity demand that is 50% higher in 20 years.

4. This question about solving variability problems is a bit of an imponderable, but my gut feeling says it won't happen. Variability can be addressed through increasing the geographic separation of generating units, expanding the mix of generating sources and adding storage to the system. All these requirements add cost, which makes the system less competitive compared to established baseload sources. Now economic cost shouldn't be the only driver for energy policy, but for many nations without large pools of discretionary GDP, the bottom line is everything. We will see some expansions of smart grids within the next decade or two, especially in rich nations. I don't believe they will penetrate enough to offset more than a few tenths of a percent of global electricity generation.

5. The more I read about climate, the more convinced I become that we are on the very edge of a major, sudden phase change in the global climate. I now suspect we will see massive, chaotic global climate perturbations by the end of the next decade. We are seeing the leading edge of this shift already. People are now generally convinced that climate change is being driven by CO2, and as the immediate, visible impacts of climate chaos (wildfires, droughts, flooding, heat waves and other extreme weather events) pile up, the pressure on politicians to deal with CO2 production will be enormous. This will conflict directly with the desire for industrialization in the developing world, and will promote the attractiveness of non-CO2 sources. If renewables aren't ready to take over (as I believe they won't be), the choices will be limited to hydro and nuclear if any semblance of business as usual is to be maintained.

*****************************************
So, my conclusions are:

1. The problem of growing demand is too large for any realistic growth in renewable electrical generation to cope with.

2. The very large residual demand for electricity, after renewables and conservation have done their work, will have to be met from existing sources (I discount the contribution of sources like fusion over the next two decades).

3. It is my conclusion, based on the evidence I've seen, that Climate Chaos is about to become a very severe problem for humanity, to the point where it will threaten the lives of very large numbers of people around the world. While I don't believe the changes can be stopped, I do think this will put severe pressure on politicians to limit CO2 generation.

4. Renewables will not be up to the task and the possibility of additional hydro power is limited or nonexistent in many countries. That will leave natural gas, nuclear and severe demand destruction as the only possibilities.

5. Natural gas generates CO2, is hard to transport, and is showing early signs of depletion in many places. It will peak shortly after oil and due to its lower viscosity its depletion curve will be much steeper than oil. NG will be a stopgap electricity generation fuel for no more than another decade.

6. Given the success of the anti-nuclear lobby world-wide, that will leave "severe demand destruction" as the only door out of the box.

On balance I think the risks posed to humanity by Climate Chaos and "severe demand destruction" are far more severe than those posed by nuclear power, but I think that decision has already been made. I won't advocate for nuclear power, but I will keep trying to outline the consequences of the choices we are making as a civilization and a species.

Paul Chefurka

[Kolesar]

1. kick...eom

[phantom power]

2. Is it just a dilemma, or a World Dilemmatique?

[GliderGuider]

3. It's only a dilemma until you realize the answer is

"None of the above"

[pscot]

4. That would make it a conundrum

with hair on it.

[losthills]

5. Your piece is well thought out

but there are different ways of looking at these issues.

First, I don't think we're going to stop climate change. It's too late for that. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't try, but the reality is that climate change is something we're going to have to live with and deal with.

Second, I don't think that climate change is going to be catastrophic for humans or for civilization. It will be catastrophic for wildlife, and that's the really terrible thing about it, but humans have the ability to cope with it. The idea that changing climate patterns are going to bring death and destruction is over the top, as far as I'm concerned. It actually will present a combination of problems and opportunities.

Third, I think your asessment of the potential for wind and solar power to meet the needs of civilized man are far too pessimistic. The days of Oil, Coal, and Nuclear power are numbered anyway, no matter how desperately anyone wants to cling to them. It's just a question of how much more damage we want to do with them before we let them go...

Most of the criticism of renewables revolves their unsuitability for powering a grid that was designed for inputs of more potent power sources. And for their intermittant power generating characteristics. But that is actually their strength. Wind and solar generaters can be cranked out by the thousands in small shops and installed in homes, businesses and neighborhoods as easily as cable television systems. If we move to DC based systems and battery banks, we can gradually leave the grid behind and eventually mine it for copper and steel. It will be seen as a great natural resource.

And I wouldn't discount wave power. Money spent developing this emerging power source may well be the best money ever spent. And if we really believe that climate change can still be forstalled or buffered, then the time to start is now...

[malakai2]

6. I'm inclined to take the opposite postition on a few things

I do agree that climate change has been here for a while, is progressing rapidly, and will be manifesting in far-reaching ways that we have yet to even imagine.

Climate change will severely impact ecological systems, with loss of biodiversity and degradation of various systems on which we depend. Loss of genetic diversity in livestock and crops in the name of efficiency means loss of resilient strains that may be much better adapted to emerging climate conditions. Loss of mountain glaciers and change in precipitation patterns in many areas means an increased need for pumping water to existing population centers and agricultural areas, which means energy expenditures, or resettlement in more sustainable areas, which means massive energy expenditures. Depletion of topsoil means increased reliance on petro derivatives for fertilizer, which means an increased cost of energy as the two compete for a shrinking resource. Sea level rise will require resettlement of hundreds of millions, if not billions, away from the coasts globally, which means incalculable energy expenditures and increased competition between settlements and farmland. I think we're up shit creek. To take the actions here without easy coal, oil, and gas means sacrifice, huge sacrifice, and people don't generally make that kind of sacrifice voluntarily...they tend to act out violently.

If we assume people who have accustomed themselves to having things like refrigerators, microwaves, electric washers, electric dryers, televisions, lots of lights, relatively large dwellings with the expectation of privacy, thermostats set irresponsibly far from ambient conditions, etc., are willing to suddenly forgo a lot of that luxury, then no problem, we can expect renewables to step in. Problem even at that point is the energy needed to produce generating equipment, and the potential for huge price spikes as depletion of fossil sources becomes plainly evident means the cost of energy for the production of generating equipment will become more rather than less prohibitive. Who will be able to afford the cost of energy needed to mine, refine, cast, assemble, install, and wire this stuff if the price of energy at every step of the way jumps a few hundred percent? Would the materials for these things even be available if, hypothetically, we had to deal with wartime rationing (I'm thinking resource wars, Venezuela, Nigeria, central Asia, and the like)?

The time to start dealing with this was when we first had an inkling of the problem, way back in the 1960s and 1970s. That time is gone, and short of some miraculous fusion power breakthrough, or thin film solar that can generate power at ridiculously high efficiency rates even outside of deserts and low latitudes, it is gone forever. I like to think that moving to heavy reliance on fission as an energy source can prolong our search for a better solution, but I suppose politics will prevent that from ever happening. If I had to guess, I'd say the model for the end of the century would look something like sub-Saharan Africa. Lots of people, lots of subsistence communities, not a whole lot of frivolous electronic diversions, areas of widespread famine, unsanitary water in limited supply, etc., with some relatively prosperous pockets where the affluent show off by wasting resources conspicuously. You know, like a Dickens novel, except without the coal or whale oil, or the hope for a better tomorrow.

[GliderGuider]

7. You've been doing a lot of hard thinking about this, and it shows.

You've got a really solid grasp of the ecological aspects of the crisis, as well as the Law of Receding Horizons which is one thing people don't get when they use the "X will become economical as the price of oil rises further" argument. I'll look forward to more of your contributions.

Welcome to DU!