Here's the theme I'm seeing: NG is what makes it onto everybody's list...

[phantom power]

And it's usually #2 or #3 on the list. It's going to win by default.

Phantom Power's Gloomy Prediction Of The Day: we're going to end up with most of our eggs in the NG basket, which will create a race for what's going to fuck us first: CO2, fracking impacts, or just running out of NG.

[kristopher]

1. The economics dictate otherwise.

This doesn't address that issue, but the economics can't be understood unless the technologies are correctly understood first.
http://sites.nationalacademies.org/Energy/index.htm

[phantom power]

3. every time I try to download from that site it fails

don't know if it's a firefox-on-fedora thing, or what.

[phantom power]

4. but either way, I have a broad question

when you say "economics dictate otherwise" does that mean (a) economics where externalities are priced in, or (b) economics where energy industries mostly get to say "fuck the externalities"?

Because the economics here on the ground is mostly (b). Which favors the hell out of coal and NG in the near to mid term. And nobody cares about the longer term, because that's just another externality.

And if it's (a), it causes me to ask how we get to a place where (a) is actually enforced. and then also, I always wonder which externalities are priced in, and what that price is, and who decides.

[kristopher]

5. Your choices are not relevant to the forces at work.

Suppose you're first conclusion is adopted whole-scale immediately and we move away from coal to natural gas. If we consider resource availability there is more than enough to keep us going until we choke on the CO2. We can move away from coal to natural gas but even with fracking it is going to cost because natural gas as a fuel is pretty expensive. For bulk power wind is already significantly less expensive than natural gas and solar is currently competitive with natural gas for peak power in many markets. We can expect further declines in the cost of output from those technologies, while simultaneously there is no reason to think that natural gas will ever be significantly less expensive if we increase demand as you hypothesize.
The natural economic fit is bulk power from wind and solar with load shaped by a shifting set of technologies that are dispatchable such as natural gas/renewable biomethane, various storage techs, wave/current/tidal, geothermal, and biomass.

[CRH]

7. Can you recommend a couple of sources, ...

for good primer articles, that illustrate that solar and wind are price competitive and quantitatively capable of replacing NG for electric generation and industrial applications. I know the price effectiveness off grid applications, but I don't realize the ability of quantitative production if tied to the grid system.

Thanks.

[kristopher]

11. Well, let's see...

The discussion is really one that requires several areas of specialized knowledge to fully appreciate such as public policy formation, energy technologies, economics (particularly natural resource and environmental), energy markets and energy trading, electric policy and project planning to name a few. I'm an energy policy analyst specializing in the move to carbon free energy so I'm afraid that my perspective is informed by a wide array of sources that aren't amenable to being distilled into entry level articles.

In Delaware there was a law passed requiring bids for new generation to be solicited by the Public Service Commission. An offshore wind farm, a new coal plant and a natural gas plant all bid.

Wind won. In this case the public service commission had been directed to consider the external costs of the energy sources, but the legislator's intent was to sell the coal plant with the promise that it was designed to be "clean" by particulate standards and would be able to be retrofit with carbon capture tech if/when it was developed.

The wind bid was a surprise, but when it came down to the nuts and bolts the coal plant was eliminated almost immediately.

The natural gas plant was able to compete because of the low upfront capital costs, but it lost because of the long term fuel requirements and the fact that probable CO2 pricing promised higher prices in the future.

Now that is offshore wind that has yet to prove itself in the US. If you look around you'll find any number of references to land based projects that produce electricity for about 3-4 cents/KWH.

As to solar, when you hear of utilities sponsoring solar projects, it is because there is an economic niche they are able to fill with it. NJ has had an effective program for rooftop solar over the past half dozen years, and it is justified by the avoided costs of building new natural gas generation to meet peak summertime demand.

[CRH]

15. The non answer is in itself an answer.

I must not have understood your post, because wind and solar combined can not come close to grid requirements as they are now, not from any sources a I have read. Sorry to bust in on your conversation.

[kristopher]

16. Please clarify

"wind and solar combined can not come close to grid requirements as they are now,"

What does that mean?

[CRH]

19. You were talking apples, I perceived oranges, ...

From the beginning, your post 5 --

The natural economic fit is bulk power from wind and solar with load shaped by a shifting set of technologies that are dispatchable such as natural gas/renewable biomethane, various storage techs, wave/current/tidal, geothermal, and biomass.

So, I asked for other sources to inform me when you stated the 'natural economic fit is bulk power from wind and solar', because after reading your earlier link, the article indicated future renewables potential excluding hydro could not accomplish a substantial portion of demand/load. (example below)

From your link in post 1, the report by the National Academies entitled Electricity from Renewable Sources Status, Prospects, and Impediments, it concludes with an accelerated deployment effort, all renewable sources excluding hydro could provide 10% of the nation's energy by 2020 and 20% by 2035.
~~
So, though wind and solar bulk power might be a natural economic fit from criteria such as public policy formation, energy technologies, economics (particularly natural resource and environmental), energy markets and energy trading, electric policy and project planning; I did not understand how this was germane when the potential for renewables (20%), were such a small portion to form a core of bulk power to service the present 750,000 Mw peak demands upon the national grid.

I have erred in my perception, that the connotation of your original statement was a discussion of physical quantitative capabilities.

Rather, it appears I have stumbled into a thread of discussion between two energy analysts discussing hypotheticals of future energy policy rather than physical properties of renewable power sources. I see how your discussion does not lend itself to entry level sources. I'm sorry to have disrupted your discussion.

on edit: spelling

[kristopher]

20. Thank you

I understand your point of interest far better.
Before anything else let me say that this is an open forum and you are welcome to join any conversation at any time. Speaking for myself I come here specifically with the hope that my expertise is in some way helpful.

The two points you are most interested in look to be the physical limitations on how much of our generation can come from renewable sources and over what time frame these sources could be brought online. The studies in this area are basically in 4 groups:

Studies designed around resource assessments that look at 1) whether there exists current or near term technologies for extraction and 2) whether the raw resource size is sufficient to make a meaningful contribution to solving the problem of AGW. Most of these are centered around the application of the evaluated sources in a CO2 reduction strategy and use only those 2 criteria to judge the suitability of an energy source for inclusion as a "solution" to our energy problems. The best known example of this type of study would be the "Stabilization Wedges" of Pacala and Socolow out of Princeton. These types of studies do not attempt an overall cost/benefit analysis of the energy sources being considered, instead generally limiting themselves to the 2 points I stated.

Building on that we have studies that look at the full range of known qualities associated with each energy source. The premise behind these studies is to rate the overall impact and costs of the use of the various technologies. For example it is good to know what the impact of building several thousand nuclear plants would have on the quality of ore mined for fuel and what that decline in ore quality would mean to the long term CO2 emissions of nuclear power plants (they rise dramatically). Many of these studies are specific to individual technologies but there are a few that take a comprehensive look at all the options that are ready to go. The goal of these life cycle analysis type studies is often, as much as is possible, to decouple energy from environmental damage and to evaluate how sustainable the resources are. The best of these is by Jacobson out of Stanford.

There are also resource integration studies that tell us how to proceed with blending new variable generation into our existing energy infrastructure.

The big picture view tells us there are two basic concepts that are in play here - a centralized grid based on large-scale thermal generation and a distributed grid that brings small scale generation much closer to the end user. Nuclear power preserves the existing system, but renewables are a best fit in a distributed system. So most integration studies are concerned with the technical challenges involved in transitioning from a centralized grid to the elements of a distributed grid. One of the keywords in this effort is "smartgrid", which is the term for a group of technologies that moves grid power management from a place where 1000MW coal plants serve towns and cities to a level where things like rooftop solar on individual homes or electric vehicles are recognized and *utilized* by the system.
Examples:
Academic: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/03/29/0909075107.abstract
Governmental: http://www.nrel.gov/wind/systemsintegration/wwsis.html

Finally there are economic studies that attempt to show the costs involved with the various technologies. These are the most problematic because not only do economic circumstances change rapidly, but much of the data they are based on is industry derived and must be viewed critically as it is very easy to produce misleading but plausible conclusions if great care isn't exercised. This is a particular problem with nuclear power because of the extremely close link between government and industry but also because security concerns limit independent access to raw data.


All of these areas have studies produced by various entities with different reasons for producing the information. In order of validity, generally those are:
Peer reviewed academic journals
Non peer reviewed academic white papers
Governmental and Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) reports
Industry reports

Now, about the NAS study. The numbers you quoted represent a very aggressive effort and it isn't clear if that can be mustered or not. What it doesn't include is consideration of recent changes in our economy or the actions of China. Their conclusions are based on certain assumptions regarding political and economic possibilities that may or may not bear out - I personally think they will be fairly wide of the mark because of the pace of development of China's energy sector. China has no established energy infrastructure to deal with so they are pushing hard on all fronts and since the NAS paper was published they have made a dramatic change in the policy that guides development of their energy infrastructure. It involves the way power is bought by the grid. The change is one that prioritizes the purchase of power by the grid operator based not on price, but on the type of generation so that grid operators are obligated to buy all renewable generation that is available before they can buy energy from nonrenewable sources. Over time, this will orient their grid around renewables in the same way that ours is oriented around centralized thermal.

The consequence to us will probably be profound in that the price of renewables is greatly affected by the demand that attracts investment in manufacturing. There are two areas where this should have the most impact - high capacity lithium batteries for EVs and home storage, and solar PV. Both of these technologies are very responsive to the benefits of mass production and competition. It is my opinion that we are going to rapidly see the 202 goals established by the "Sun Shot" program achieved in short order by China.

Once electricity from solar PV costs less than electricity from coal, you can look for the already high rate of penetration to skyrocket. As a practical functional matter there is no reason that renewable energy sources cannot provide 100% of our energy within 10-15 years. Whether or not we do that is completely a matter of political will - even the economics argue in favor of the transition (unless you are an owner of an energy source that will be made obsolete).

Hope this helps.

[CRH]

21. Thank you for your reply, ...

I shall follow the links to broaden my horizons.

[Nihil]

8. Gosh ... there's a change:

> This doesn't address that issue

You're actually *admitting* that you are posting irrelevant crap
rather than just *doing* it! Woohoo! Progress!

Mind you, it leads to the same point anyway as you try to pull the
wool over the eyes of the readers in order to greenwash the NG industry
yet again.

[kristopher]

9. You mean like the NAS?

[Nihil]

12. The NAS weren't posting on this thread. You were. I didn't mention the NAS: I mentioned your post.

I have no problem with the NAS - nor with yet another strawman
from your collection.

The NAS weren't posting on this thread. You were.

The point I found so refreshingly unexpected in your post was that
this time you admitted in advance that you were evading the issue
rather than just doing it.

Little slivers of silver peep through from behind the darkest clouds!
:hi:

[kristopher]

13. My post leads to the NAS

As a reference that directly contradicts your statement:

"Mind you, it leads to the same point anyway as you try to pull the wool over the eyes of the readers in order to greenwash the NG industry yet again."

Things are looking pretty bad for the nuclear industry, aren't they? You guys are starting to seem awfully desperate.

[FBaggins]

14. Things are looking bad for the nuclear industry?

What planet are you living on?

"Things" look brighter for that industry than they have in decades.

Once again inventing your own reality to make yourself feel better?

[kristopher]

17. Really?

The 2010 goal for building the 5 plants demonstrating nuclear energy's economic viability has come and gone with no new plants built. There is ZERO interest in the financial community for supporting nuclear power no matter how many subsidies are offered nor how much of the risk is transferred to the public.

Then there are comments like this from the industry itself:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x277311

If you think this is success I'd like to know how you define failure.

[FBaggins]

18. Yes. Really.

The 2010 goal for building the 5 plants demonstrating nuclear energy's economic viability has come and gone with no new plants built.

There was a "goal" somewhere of having five plants built by last year? Can you link to that goal?

is ZERO interest in the financial community for supporting nuclear power no matter how many subsidies are offered nor how much of the risk is transferred to the public.

And yet they are being built... and multiple states are changing their stance on nuclear power (as many countries have while this supposed "failure" you're dreaming of has occured). Most companies are submitting requests to build plants and the NRC is close to approving the first new designs in decades.

All while countries around the globe are dramatically ramping up plans for new nuclear plants.

Then there are comments like this from the industry itself:

Lol... I love how that's "from the industry" in your mind.

[bananas]

22. Here's an archive of the DOE "Nuclear Power 2010" website, and some other links

Here's the archived page from 2003:

http://web.archive.org/web/20030321192336/http://www.ne.doe.gov/NucPwr2010/NucPwr2010.html

Nuclear Power 2010 -- Overview

Deploying new baseload nuclear generating capacity this decade would support the National Energy Policy objectives of enhancing U.S. energy supply diversity and energy security. The Nuclear Power 2010 program, unveiled by the Secretary on February 14, 2002, is a joint government/industry cost-shared effort to identify sites for new nuclear power plants, develop advanced nuclear plant technologies, and demonstrate new regulatory processes leading to a private sector decision by 2005 to order new nuclear power plants for deployment in the United States in the 2010 timeframe.

<snip>

Through the regulatory demonstration and reactor technology development activities of the Nuclear Power 2010 program, competitive advanced reactor designs, in the range of $1,000 to $1,200 per kilowatt electric, are expected to become available to the commercial electricity generation market.

Roadmap For Deployment

In early fiscal year 2002, a Near-Term Deployment Working Group, operating under the auspices of the Department’s Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee, issued A Roadmap to Deploy New Nuclear Power Plants in the United States by 2010. The Roadmap recommends actions to be taken by industry and the Department to support deployment of new advanced nuclear power plants in the United States by 2010. The recommendations, which have broad industry support, provide the basis for the activities of the Nuclear Power 2010 program.

<snip>

Their cost estimates and construction timelines were absurd.

Last year, I linked to a pdf which is still on the DOE website right now;
the thread is: 'Will "Nuclear Power 2010" reach its goal?'

And that pdf clearly states:

http://www.ne.doe.gov/neac/neacPDFs/JohnsonApr02NERAC_NP2010.pdf

Nuclear Power 2010 Program Overview

<snip>

Goals

Orders for one or more new nuclear plants by 2005

Operation of new nuclear power plants by 2010

<snip>

That's right - "operation" of new nuclear plants, not just construction starts.

A quick google shows that jpak posted other links back in 2005: '18. Yes, it's the result of Cheney's Nuclear 2010 initiiative'

If you do more googling you'll find that it was discussed a number of times here on DU,
and that quite a few people fell for the hype.

[FBaggins]

23. Thanks for the research - Was the program ever implemented?

I mean... if we're still here in 2030 and wind/solar have gone from 3-4% penetration to, say, 10%... will that prove that the "plans" for 100% renewables worldwide by 2030 were wrong?

Or would it just mean that they were never even tried?


Either way, it's ridiculous to look at the rapid expansion of nuclear plants worldwide (and the even larger plans for additional growth in the near future) and pretend that "things are looking bad" for nuclear power. Surely you must see that?

[bananas]

24. Yes, the program was implemented and fully funded. nt

[FBaggins]

25. How could it be?

The government hasn't finished approving the two leading "new" (I know I guy who worked on one of those "new" designs decades ago) designs yet.

Wasn't "fully funded" something like a whopping $40 million dollars? "Whoopdeedoo"

I see they had a "roadmap" that would get them there. How far down the road does your notion of "implemented" get?
Phase one was to clear up the regulatory process right away. Can you tell me what date that was completed?
They said that in order to hit the 2010 date, they needed to have plant order commitments by the end of 2003. How implemented was that?

I note that you skipped the more relevant question. Is it that you don't know? Or that you do know and realize that answering honestly kinda defeats your purpose? :)

[bananas]

26. How could it be? They were intentionally deceptive or they were they f*cking delusiional or both. nt

[bananas]

27. This is obviously new information for you.

It will take much time and effort on your part to digest and understand these things.

[FBaggins]

28. Maybe you can help me?

You could start by trying to answer the question that you've now dodged three times. :)

If we're still here in 2030 and wind/solar have gone from 3-4% penetration to, say, 10%... will that prove that the "plans" for 100% renewables worldwide by 2030 were wrong?

[Dogmudgeon]

29. We're at 3-4% now?

I thought industrial wind broke the 1% mark only in 2008. It had been doubling every 30 months or so, but that slowed down due to the economy. (Any slowdown in the nuclear industry is solely due to it being a product of Satan, however.)

--d!

[FBaggins]

30. Depends on what you're measuring it against.

If you're talking about total energy use, you have a much larger denominator.

I was talking about electricity production, I think that's pretty close. I haven't looked it up lately, but I think it's a fraction of a percent in solar and somewhere around 2-3% for wind. I could be off. I might be remembering an "other renewables" figure that would include geothermal (etc)... but that's an even smaller wedge.

Either way, I'm pretty sure that it's well able 1%.

[opihimoimoi]

2. Suggestions from the Fish Wrapping Union will solve for the nx generation of energy supplies

Solutions coming up in a book projected for publication nx week...

Plan will provide for 3 million jobs in 3 years in addition to Obamas econ recovery

Stay tuned

[pscot]

6. I read just today that all the gas drillers

are rushing off to look for oil. They've brought an environmental shitstorm down on themselves by setting fire to peoples tapwater and and everybody is talking about $200 oil anyway. But I think you're right. Long term it has to be gas and coal and god help us.

[FBaggins]

10. They're just moving to wetter parts of the shale

They produced a glut of natural gas supply since they don't have a way to export significant quantities of the stuff. Oil is traded globally, so (with some exceptions) they can produce as much as they can find without worrying about driving the price down to unprofitable levels.

It certainly isn't the "environmental shitstorm" that concerns them... since they're using essentially the same technique that they were using to find gas. They've just shifted from "drier" to "wetter" portions of the same shale plays.