Climate Change Debate

[HAzelGroveWolf]

China and India are far from bastions of clean industry anyway. They'll switch to renewable once it's cost effective. That's not going to happen sitting around waiting for fossil fuel to run out.

Governments need to fully commit to investing. They'll waste more money by trying to drip-feed the technology into full scale commercial use.

If by 'renewable' you mean wind/solar/hydro we are in trouble - period.
One or two of those might contribute in some places some of the time. There is no shortage of hydrocarbons, a choice of usage might be debated and then there are a plethora of new nuclear technologies that might be viable.
I don't think the government is deluded either, shale explotation is inevitable.

 

[visage]

The problem isn't the availability of hydrocarbons, it's our inability to use them without serious consequences for the environment.

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

The problem isn't the availability of hydrocarbons, it's our inability to use them without serious consequences for the environment.

There are no environmental consequences with the so called renewables? I would say that high energy density generation is easier to manage from an environmental point of view.

 

[visage]

Renewable energy won't cause drought, flooding, increased hurricane activity....

 

[Alan]

There are no environmental consequences with the so called renewables? I would say that high energy density generation is easier to manage from an environmental point of view.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahah

oh, you're serious??

 

[The Bear]

I've no problem with any energy as long as it's clean and safe.

Hydrogen, nuclear, whatever.

 

[visage]

Surely cost is important too? Thats what rules out nuclear.

 

[Alan]

I've no problem with any energy as long as it's clean and safe.

Hydrogen, nuclear, whatever.

I'm mostly on the nuclear bandwagon but some safety measures must be improved. Certainly it's the cleanest high-output process we have (at least to the best of my knowledge).

Geothermal is an interesting source but can't be installed just anywhere and has questionable effects on the tectonics of the "mined" region.

 

[Alan]

Surely cost is important too? Thats what rules out nuclear.

Every energy source is expensive in some way. What's nuclear's $/watt ratio?

EDIT: Found it myself. Nuclear was the cheapest source of energy in the United States in 2012, at $0.024 per kilowatt hour. Coal was next at $0.0327/hr, and then natural gas at $0.034/hr.

Obviously your mileage will vary based on country.

 

[visage]

Its difficult to take costs at face value - how much subsidy is involved? What about deferred costs - decomissioning, waste storage etc. Are they included?

On first glance your figure seems pretty low, so I wonder if its literally the cost of the fuel and the day-to-day operations to turn it into energy.

The biggest issue with nuclear, however, is the huge up front costs involved. Hinkley Point C, a proposed new reactor in the UK, has been costed at 24 billion GBP. Thats a huge investment - and any backer is going to want to ensure that they can recoup their investment - thats why the British government has guaranteed a strike price of about $145 per MWh, or 14c per kWh, guaranteed for 35 years - clearly lot higher than your quoted figure.

So with nuclear you're basically saying that for the next 35 years it will be the best bet - you cant just back out of paying for electricity that you've said you'll buy - and thats a pretty speculative position, given that renewables are getting cheaper all the time.

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahah

oh, you're serious??

'Renewable' energy resourse usage from cradle to grave is far from trivial. You've yet to answer my carbon dioxide question.

 

[Alan]

'Renewable' energy resourse usage from cradle to grave is far from trivial. You've yet to answer my carbon dioxide question.

Got any numbers that back up your point here?

And what question is it that I haven't answered?

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

Got any numbers that back up your point here?

And what question is it that I haven't answered?

There is a large overhead in material usage, transport, transmission costs, environmental blight etc for in most cases a yield that is a small proportion of rated capacity (onshore wind <20% typical).
You seemed to over state the 'toxicity' of carbon dioxide, so I asked you to quantify its concentration in the atmosphere. You failed to acknowledge the importance of the compound for life. If the climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide is significant it is logarithmic and we do not know for sure the co-efficients involved.

 

[nimrod]

Its difficult to take costs at face value - how much subsidy is involved? What about deferred costs - decomissioning, waste storage etc. Are they included?

On first glance your figure seems pretty low, so I wonder if its literally the cost of the fuel and the day-to-day operations to turn it into energy.

The biggest issue with nuclear, however, is the huge up front costs involved. Hinkley Point C, a proposed new reactor in the UK, has been costed at 24 billion GBP. Thats a huge investment - and any backer is going to want to ensure that they can recoup their investment - thats why the British government has guaranteed a strike price of about $145 per MWh, or 14c per kWh, guaranteed for 35 years - clearly lot higher than your quoted figure.

So with nuclear you're basically saying that for the next 35 years it will be the best bet - you cant just back out of paying for electricity that you've said you'll buy - and thats a pretty speculative position, given that renewables are getting cheaper all the time.

that's correct. the cost Alan is seeing is old, probably fully depreciated plant. who knows whether the decommissioning has been properly costed in that. new plant capital cost of nuclear makes it v expensive, more than most 'renewables' and as you wrote the investor required a 35 year support guarantee. UK 'renewables' are supported over 15 years now.

even new gas plants require support over wholesale electricity. some proposed bid in the the capacity mechanism and lost out to existing plant further delaying some new build.

 

[Alan]

There is a large overhead in material usage, transport, transmission costs, environmental blight etc for in most cases a yield that is a small proportion of rated capacity (onshore wind <20% typical).
You seemed to over state the 'toxicity' of carbon dioxide, so I asked you to quantify its concentration in the atmosphere. You failed to acknowledge the importance of the compound for life. If the climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide is significant it is logarithmic and we do not know for sure the co-efficients involved.

Nobody is debating this, but it's not as if fossil fuels are somehow exempt from these.

As for CO2, again, nobody is saying it's not a necessary vapor for human life, but so is nitrogen, and you don't see settlements springing up on Venus or Mercury. Too much of anything will kill you. Hell, you can even die from H2O poisoning!

 

[Alan]

that's correct. the cost Alan is seeing is old, probably fully depreciated plant. who knows whether the decommissioning has been properly costed in that. new plant capital cost of nuclear makes it v expensive, more than most 'renewables' and as you wrote the investor required a 35 year support guarantee. UK 'renewables' are supported over 15 years now.

even new gas plants require support over wholesale electricity. some proposed bid in the the capacity mechanism and lost out to existing plant further delaying some new build.

Aye, fair points, all.

 

[nimrod]

onshore wind would tend to be modelled on 25-30% LF, with some UK getting up to 40%. for offshore, the Danish fleet for instance, is achieving > 40%.

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

onshore wind would tend to be modelled on 25-30% LF, with some UK getting up to 40%. for offshore, the Danish fleet for instance, is achieving > 40%.

We are however probably near saturation of sites capable of >20% all of which requires 100% backup, it is never baseload and little bulk storage capability is available. Denmark probably has the highest electricity tariffs in Europe and at the same time by virtue of population/geography can dump/import electricity as it suits.

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

Nobody is debating this, but it's not as if fossil fuels are somehow exempt from these.

As for CO2, again, nobody is saying it's not a necessary vapor for human life, but so is nitrogen, and you don't see settlements springing up on Venus or Mercury. Too much of anything will kill you. Hell, you can even die from H2O poisoning!

Hydrocarbon energy production for all modes is on demand. Forget Venus it has nasty gases at stupid bar, Mercury is rather naked.

 

[Alan]

Hydrocarbon energy production for all modes is on demand. Forget Venus it has nasty gases at stupid bar, Mercury is rather naked.

But you can't argue that too much CO2 in the atmosphere isn't directly harmful to human health. It simply can't be done. Period.