Obstacles in the Way

[amberwolf]

I would not trust any paper or “scientist” that states CO2 being dissolved will “acidify” the ocean !
That is a blatent scare tactic and a scientific lie which should cause hesitation as to the objective of the paper.
Oceans are alkaline and will never becom acidic.

Though definition and typical usage is indeed to make something acid, I think that in actual usage by people (because not everyone uses words exactly as they should be), acidifying doesn't necessarily mean making something acidic, period--it can mean just making it more acidic than it is now, hence less alkaline, for instance, in your example of the oceans.

 

[Hillhater]

Though definition and typical usage is indeed to make something acid, I think that in actual usage by people (because not everyone uses words exactly as they should be), acidifying doesn't necessarily mean making something acidic, period--it can mean just making it more acidic than it is now, hence less alkaline, for instance, in your example of the oceans.

Sure,.. i understand the meaning if the words, but it is the “intent” of why it is frequently used in the CO2/oceans situation.
It is , as i said, a scare tactic,..deliberately intended to imply a crisis in the making, when the reality is nothing of the sort !
Genuine unbiased scientific reporting is very careful how it uses technical descriptions. This is obviously not genuine or unbiased !
They would have been more correct to say the Alkalinity is slightly reduced,….or even, at a stretch of thr facts, to suggest the ocean Ph was moving closer to a NEUTRAL condition…..
…but that doesnt sound as dramatic, does it ?

 

[Jrbe]

Let's not turn this discussion into a dumpster fire. This isn't about global warming / climate change.

I'd love to get back on topic and hear about some spent nuclear fuel storage / reuse that makes sense..that also doesn't burden future generations with our likely short sighted choices.

 

[Jrbe]

https://www.capecod.com/newscenter/report-says-holtec-workers-exposed-to-unplanned-radiation-intake/

Not a great nuclear is safe read for the workers.

Also the discharge of radioactive water.

 

[neptronix]

Let's not turn this discussion into a dumpster fire. This isn't about global warming / climate change.

I'd love to get back on topic and hear about some spent nuclear fuel storage / reuse that makes sense..that also doesn't burden future generations with our likely short sighted choices.

 

[JackFlorey]

Is it ?

Yes.

Levelized costs per megawatt-hour:

Solar 28-41
Wind 26-50
Coal 65-152
Natural gas 45-174
Nuclear 131-204

https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-140.pdf

Want storage too?

Solar plus storage 55-91

https://www.nrel.gov/news/video/lcoss-text.html

 

[JackFlorey]

I would not trust any paper or “scientist” that states CO2 being dissolved will “acidify” the ocean !

Your blood pH is normally 7.4. If it gets to 7.1 regularly, your doctor would tell you you have acidemia, and recommend immediate treatment to avoid serious injury and death. Even though your blood was technically still alkaline.

I suspect you would trust him.

 

[JackFlorey]

The iea report Nuclear is actually one of the lowest cost generation technologies. !

Reality says otherwise.

It makes a lot of sense to maintain the operation of our existing nuclear power plants, since they are already irradiated and they provide about 20% of our power. That means they can run at 100% power most of the time, which is the best (i.e. most economical) way to use a nuclear power plant. If you have hundreds of billions lying around and 20 years in which to do it, you could increase that to about 30%. Beyond that is counterproductive, because then those reactors have to start load following, and that's not simple/economic to do.

There are a few cases where more than 30% makes sense.

1) If we go to HTGR's then they can produce hydrogen 24/7 via thermal dissociation, and can run at 100% full time, making hydrogen or electricity as needed per electric demand.

2) If we do build out large amounts of storage, then even conventional reactors can run at 100%, thus achieving maximum economy. However, if you are going to have that storage anyway, it makes a lot more sense to fill it with $35/MWhr solar power, rather than $150/MWhr nuclear power.

 

[neptronix]

For the record, co2 is used in drink making to reduce PH and therefore increase acidity. So it absolutely does the same thing in excess in the ocean.

co2 is not the only emission of fossil fuels that's harmful, there's dozens of others that were identified many decades ago and have current demonstrable harms.

Supply wise, Saudi Arabia is currently shaking in their boots over the idea that they won't have the supply in 10-15 years to run their country anymore. Peak oil isn't just a hippie conspiracy theory anymore, we're looking at it in a few decades.

The fossil fuel story doesn't end well, and as usual, human ingenuity will be the band-aid we apply to continue to scale humanity further.

 

[Hillhater]

The iea report Nuclear is actually one of the lowest cost generation technologies. !

Reality says otherwise.

REALITY is the IEA data of actual operating system costs..
…not Lazards theoretical estimates ( with no storage) , or even those with a mere 4 HOURS of daily storage !
4 hours does not ensure a reliable 24/7 utility supply.

It makes a lot of sense to maintain the operation of our existing nuclear power plants, since they are already irradiated and they provide about 20% of our power. That means they can run at 100% power most of the time, which is the best (i.e. most economical) way to use a nuclear power plant. If you have hundreds of billions lying around and 20 years in which to do it, you could increase that to about 30%. Beyond that is counterproductive, because then those reactors have to start load following, and that's not simple/economic to do.
There are a few cases where more than 30% makes sense.

But there are “a few cases”…such as France, which has 70+% Nuclear supply ..and one of the lowest cost power in Europe….(22c/.kWh))
….compared to Germany which has 60% Renewables (wind) and THE HIGHEST COST power in Europe.(53c/kWh)
https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/electricity_prices/
That is REALITY Jack.

If we do build out large amounts of storage, then even conventional reactors can run at 100%, thus achieving maximum economy. However, if you are going to have that storage anyway, it makes a lot more sense to fill it with $35/MWhr solar power, rather than $150/MWhr nuclear power.

With mostly Nuclear you do not need “large amounts” of storage (ref France), but with wind, solar etc, you will need VERY LARGE amounts of storage for 24/7 security
You should estimate the cost of storage to ensure 24/7 supply with “net zero” policy enacted .( its much more than 4 hours !)

 

[Hillhater]

co2 is not the only emission of fossil fuels that's harmful, there's dozens of others that were identified many decades ago and have current demonstrable harms.

Sure , but do not ignore the emmissions directly associated with production of RE infrastructure and equipment.
And emissions are not just from fossil fuels..
There are emmissions from living breathing , landfill waste, agriculture, industrial chemical processes, brewing, etc.

Supply wise, Saudi Arabia is currently shaking in their boots over the idea that they won't have the supply in 10-15 years to run their country anymore. Peak oil isn't just a hippie conspiracy theory anymore, we're looking at it in a few decades.

So “peak oil” in a few decades ? (Again !) then supply will continue for a few more decades after… maybe 100 yrs ?
PS, the Saudi concern is that they wont have oil to SELL…
…they will ahve to buy it like the rest of the world
But, Oil has a very small contribution to electricity generation. So not really a factor in this discussion.

 

[Jrbe]

The iea report Nuclear is actually one of the lowest cost generation technologies. !

Reality says otherwise.

I'm seeing the iea link not as a report, but more a cost analysis with sliding scales for adjusting for different cost inputs. If you slide the discount rate to 1 (why not 0?..) nuclear falls to more expensive than hydro, wind, & solar. This is probably meant to show different cost inputs to do analysis but can also be adjusted (or fudged) to make different options look better or worse.

 

[JackFlorey]

That is REALITY Jack.

OK sounds like you don't understand load following. No worries; lots of people don't.

 

[JackFlorey]

I'm seeing the iea link not as a report, but more a cost analysis with sliding scales for adjusting for different cost inputs.

It is both, of course. The reason there is a range of prices is that there are a lot of different coal plants, each with its own efficiency, cost of fuel, cost of operation etc.

This is probably meant to show different cost inputs to do analysis but can also be adjusted (or fudged) to make different options look better or worse.

Right. They even include a case for zero fuel costs, which makes coal, natural gas and nuclear cheaper. It is, of course, not based on reality. The bars in the analysis ARE based on reality - on operating costs of various forms of power.

 

[Jrbe]

Hillhater, consider not trying to win every conversation. Try to understand the other persons position and why they're there.
Negating things with false equivalencies isn't honest, fair, or constructive. It's trying to shut down info because something disqualifies that information in your opinion. There's a big difference between opinion and peer reviewed info. You don't trust 99% scientists so who is left for info about scientific topics? If you're looking for the 1% you also have to look at peer review of their work. I'm all for questioning things but when it devolves into pedantics it's exhausting.
The goalposts are constantly moving with these win tactics and there's just talk in circles. Try to see things not as binary (black and white) but as shades of grey. You have some valid points on occasion but when it's delivered with a sledgehammer it's not well received.
A "fact" is a best understanding of something to be true. It's not set in stone. Our understanding can change and that adjusts what the "fact" is. I try to think in theories and not in fact / belief because they're quite rigid and don't usually evolve well.

For example,

compared to Germany which has 60% Renewables (wind) and THE HIGHEST COST power in Europe.(53c/kWh)
https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/electricity_prices/

Germany is suffering from natural gas shortage from the Russia / Ukraine fiasco. The energy cost just doubled for my location because of the same thing. Blaming all of Germany's energy cost on renewables isn't fair or accurate. Their energy costs were expensive before Ukraine. Their co2 targets, taxes, etc. also push up end costs. Lots of things contribute to cost, not just renewables being part of their supply. So the false equivalency is high % of renewables = high costs. It's not that simple.

How does this add to the conversation?

That is REALITY Jack.

Less sledgehammer and more understanding will help you further conversation when you have a valid point.

 

[Hillhater]

Hillhater, consider not trying to win every conversation.
For example,

compared to Germany which has 60% Renewables (wind) and THE HIGHEST COST power in Europe.(53c/kWh)
https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/electricity_prices/

Germany is suffering from natural gas shortage from the Russia / Ukraine fiasco. The energy cost just doubled for my location because of the same thing. Blaming all of Germany's energy cost on renewables isn't fair or accurate. Their energy costs were expensive before Ukraine. Their co2 targets, taxes, etc. also push up end costs. Lots of things contribute to cost, not just renewables being part of their supply. So the false equivalency is high % of renewables = high costs. It's not that simple.

How does this as to the conversation?

That is REALITY Jack.

Its not about “winning a conversation” ..its about trying to correct false answers and missguided views , using real information.
You have come to this forum late in the debate re CO2, AGM, Fossil vs Renewables, etc, and you may not be aware just how far imbedded some of these views (on both sides ) are. I have found that polite conversation doesnt cut through to the more hardened AGW /CO2 alarmists.
There is not such a difference between opinion, and peer reviewed as you may want to believe. Todays peer review process is widely critisized to the point thhat it is often just a group of collegues supporting each others views.
It is not that i dont trust 99% of scientists…. Only that 99% who attempt to confirm or support the AGW /CO2 theory.
There are many others who vigourously refute that position,.. (30,000 of them are supporting a Law Suit against the UNIPCC !)
..but they are marginalised and denied any significant media coverage to minimise their support.
There is much “ black and white” in this debate, but it like religeous differences, with each side committed to their belief no matter what evidence is presented…like the historic CO2 /Temp data that clearly shows CO2 is not the driver of temperature !
Germany has had steadily increasing electricity costs since it started on its extensive RE programm, ( totally unrelated to the Ukraine, except that cheap Russian gas was previously helping to hide the FULL costs of their rush to RE !)… and it is not hard to understand that linkage..huge investment in new generation infrastructure whilst retaining the majority of the established system …why? Because they do not have storage capacity to support their level of intermittent RE.
That pattern can be seen repeated in nearly all major grid systems that have progressed their RE plans..EG: CA, UK, Spain, Australia, Denmark, Italy, etc etc… it is not coincidence, it is due to the additional costs involved in creating a dependable RE grid.

the false equivalency is high % of renewables = high costs. It's not that simple.

… sorry to disillution you, but i think you will discover that with regards to wind and solar, it is “that simple” !
And the “REALITY” add emphasis to the data following jacks comment of. “reality says otherwise” .

 

[Jrbe]

You have come to this forum late in the debate re CO2, AGM, Fossil vs Renewables, etc, and you may not be aware just how far imbedded some of these views (on both sides ) are.

This thread wasn't a debate about global warming / climate change, or at least it wasn't until this post,

And dont loose track of what initiated all this move to renewables… the belief in the effects of anthropogenic CO2 on the global climate…an unscientific belief that will eventually be proven to be the fraud that it is.

My hope for this thread is that you will stop dragging this post in that direction and that others will stop taking the bait. I find this original topic interesting, but not the off topic direction it keeps getting pushed.

 

[neptronix]

We give hillhater way too much attention

 

[Hillhater]

“This thread wasn't a debate about global warming / climate change, or at least it wasn't until this post,..”
… I did not bring up the subject for discussion,…
Way back in this thread the OP posted this request…

Why do you think that renewables can never provide a sufficient amount of electricity? Without storage I agree ... but with storage at some point his should work out fine.

Just to be on the same page here ... you don't believe that man made climate change exists? I believe know a little bit about the field. How comes you describe it as unscientific? Do you have some references for that?

.. and if cannot see the direct relavence of climate change to the thread topics, then you are missing a few key points, and likely the fundamental problems that are being created with an irrational rush to eliminate a tried and proven generation system and replace it with unreliable , low efficiency , unproven, expensive , alternatives.

 

[Jrbe]

“This thread wasn't a debate about global warming / climate change, or at least it wasn't until this post,..”
… I did not bring up the subject for discussion,…
Way back in this thread the OP posted this request…

.. and if cannot see the direct relavence of climate change to the thread topics, then you are missing a few key points, and likely the fundamental problems that are being created with an irrational rush to eliminate a tried and proven generation system and replace it with unreliable , low efficiency , unproven, expensive , alternatives.

Let's quote that properly. I'm working on understanding the new forum setup still...
From the post here, https://endless-sphere.com/sphere/threads/obstacles-in-the-way.119016/post-1748698

Just because cto-es likely unknowingly took your bait doesn't mean the entire conversation should shift to climate change.

If you want to battle / spar with people about climate change feel free to do that in the bar link you posted (that I'd link but I'm struggling to find with the update..)

I have been trying to bring awareness to you of how your message is poorly received - so your good points can be heard. There's always the ignore button that everyone can use so they don't have to deal with a specific users trolling.

 

[whatever]

australia here, some observations:
rooftop solar has been massive in australia, 1 in 4 homes recorded as having them in 2020 ( csiro data), we are having closures of coal powered generation plants.
Now the really odd thing about all this is: those still paying for grid electricity are paying more than ever, the prices just keep going up and up.
Go figure?

 

[Jrbe]

australia here, some observations:
rooftop solar has been massive in australia, 1 in 4 homes recorded as having them in 2020 ( csiro data), we are having closures of coal powered generation plants.
Now the really odd thing about all this is: those still paying for grid electricity are paying more than ever, the prices just keep going up and up.
Go figure?

The power companies have lost 25% or so of their customers in a way. They (or government depending on where) still have to maintain transmission infrastructure and keep the grid stable on top of making energy.
They likely profit off reselling energy they buy from their solar consumers, that makes up a bit for them but It's a declining market for power companies with people going solar. Lost income for power companies means costs are spread out over a smaller pool of consumers which ultimately means higher prices for their consumers.
The people who can't afford a home / solar are unfortunately hit the hardest. There's a saying, "It's expensive being poor." This is a legitimate problem. I'm not sure what's being done worldwide to help that. The US passed the inflation reduction act which tries to help them. I don't think it can be effective for the worst off though, renters likely will still pay.

The grid stability side could be solved with a grid wide communication / billing setup. Grid requests power, people's inverters can back feed what's needed to help stabilize the grid and get reimbursed / paid. Also when the grid has too much energy you could be billed for backfeeding the grid. I know some places were doing this on the billing side. Without the grid request side it's a mess. Tesla solar has something like this, I won't be giving them any of my business though.

There's also the solar flare issue that's consistently ignored / forgotten about. I think grids should be able to be quickly separated into smaller grids to try to deal with the energy from a big solar flare. I'm not aware of any work / ability in this area, if you ES'ers do please share.
To me, this is another simple choice for renewables with storage that have some protections in place to disconnect from the grid and deal with all that energy.

I don't think how do I privatize this, I think how do we move forward together and make this happen. I think the above makes a lot of sense for energy.

 

[Hillhater]

The power companies have lost 25% or so of their customers in a way. They (or government depending on where) still have to maintain transmission infrastructure and keep the grid stable on top of making energy.
They likely profit off reselling energy they buy from their solar consumers, that makes up a bit for them but It's a declining market for power companies with people going solar. Lost income for power companies means costs are spread out over a smaller pool of consumers which ultimately means higher prices for their consumers.

correct, and if you extrapolate that to a 50%+ penitration of RT solar you rapidly approach a situation where the “grid” model becomes financially unviable due to deminished customer base.
..but not just RT solar……at the same time the grid is continually pouring more capital into Wind & Solar + storage, whilst writing off existing functional Fossil and Nuclear generation..hence amplifying the overhead grid costs for the remaining consumers to support.

The grid stability side could be solved with a grid wide communication / billing setup. Grid requests power, people's inverters can back feed what's needed to help stabilize the grid and get reimbursed / paid.

That is being trialled in some areas, but requires consumers to have their own storage with sufficient RT solar to generate sufficient excess for both the consumers requirements and the possibile grid requests…..with the obvious extra costs to the consumer
Currently, (in Australia at least) RT solar and domestic storage batteries are government subsidised, but as Feed in Tarrifs are reduced, there is less incentive to enter into these “grid support” schemes.
FYI….current Australian domestic grid supply is approx Au$0.30/kWh, and FIT is $0.06 - $0.10 /kWh

 

[JackFlorey]

The grid stability side could be solved with a grid wide communication / billing setup.

I think it's much simpler than that. Do real time pricing in both directions (sell and buy) and then let the market control power demand/supply.

I think grids should be able to be quickly separated into smaller grids to try to deal with the energy from a big solar flare. I'm not aware of any work / ability in this area, if you ES'ers do please share.

There's not much resilience in the public utility grids here (US), but more and more often behind-the-meter systems are able to island in the event of a power outage. Some companies even sell kits to enable such systems to survive EMP, which hardens them against interference due to flares.

 

[Hillhater]

Just because cto-es likely unknowingly took your bait doesn't mean the entire conversation should shift to climate change.


I have been trying to bring awareness to you of how your message is poorly received - so your good points can be heard. There's always the ignore button that everyone can use so they don't have to deal with a specific users trolling.

i didnt “bait” cto-es, he asked me to explain my views and give evidence……i answered in kind
just because a topic keeps re appearing, that does not make it “trolling”
And remember , this is not “your” thread or topic to dictate the content or direction… this is a public forum, threads tend to have a life of their own !
if you do not like the content , please feel free to exercise your ignor function !