Climate change and other predictions of Imminent Doom

[Zack Morris]

According to Zack's tribal Shamans, the good news is that wind and solar power generation technologies are no longer considered "unreliable" power generation technologies merely "intermittent" power generation technologies!

"Intermittency" is the actual term that power engineers use and you can find it referring to renewables in literature as far back as the 1970's and likely decades earlier. Believe me, you guys aren't the first to have noticed that wind and sunshine are not constant but by all means, please keep demonstrating your ignorance on the topic.

Solar cost per KWh is less than half of what it was a decade ago. That's a pretty impressive improvement. In the meantime, the nuclear power crowd has accomplished absolutely nothing with respect to feasible designs for new reactors. I'm sure we will see nuclear back on the table in due time but for now it's just excuses, excuses, excuses and half-baked ideas like "pebble bed" or thorium reactors that no one has demonstrated on a large scale. Nobody wants to invest in problematic legacy designs that have enormous tail risk.

And before you claim that irrational fear and government red tape is the problem, there are well-funded nuclear reactor start-ups that have been operating for years. Let's see what they come up with but for now, it's vaporware. A mix of energy sources is the future.

[crashtech66]

According to Zack's tribal Shamans, the good news is that wind and solar power generation technologies are no longer considered "unreliable" power generation technologies merely "intermittent" power generation technologies!

"Intermittency" is the actual term that power engineers use and you can find it referring to renewables in literature as far back as the 1970's and likely decades earlier. Believe me, you guys aren't the first to have noticed that wind and sunshine are not constant but by all means, please keep demonstrating your ignorance on the topic.

Solar cost per KWh is less than half of what it was a decade ago. That's a pretty impressive improvement. In the meantime, the nuclear power crowd has accomplished absolutely nothing with respect to feasible designs for new reactors. I'm sure we will see nuclear back on the table in due time but for now it's just excuses, excuses, excuses and half-baked ideas like "pebble bed" or thorium reactors that no one has demonstrated on a large scale. Nobody wants to invest in problematic legacy designs that have enormous tail risk.

And before you claim that irrational fear and government red tape is the problem, there are well-funded nuclear reactor start-ups that have been operating for years. Let's see what they come up with but for now, it's vaporware. A mix of energy sources is the future.

Ever the supercilious bullshitter. I'm going to hazard a guess that you have no idea what you are talking about. How about you tell us all about our newfangled way of storing all the gigawatt hours required to make the renewable dream come to fruition, without the crutch of fossil fuel or nuclear base load generation. Gonna tell us about massive banks of magical batteries? What will it be? Pull that magic out of the hat, or shut the hell up.

[Simple Minded]

Ever the supercilious bullshitter. I'm going to hazard a guess that you have no idea what you are talking about. How about you tell us all about our newfangled way of storing all the gigawatt hours required to make the renewable dream come to fruition, without the crutch of fossil fuel or nuclear base load generation. Gonna tell us about massive banks of magical batteries? What will it be? Pull that magic out of the hat, or shut the hell up.

You nailed it crashtech, Zack is truly clueless when it comes to physics or any hard science.

I have several friends who parrot the same chic bromides. They all choke when asked the few basic question I asked above. They remind me of the devote Catholic who sat in church for decades listening to masses given in Latin when they had no idea what the priest was saying. They can regurgitate what their priests tell them to say, but have no idea when their theological leaders are bullshitting them.

It's like talking to the person who buys a hybrid car to be "green." They have no clue about the environmental cost of manufacturing all the components needed for the second drivetrain, or to dispose/recycle/replace the battery. Charging infrastructure needed to implentment en masse? Shirley they will be no environmental cost associated with that hardware. They feel good about plugging their hybrid into a socket and recharging using electricity generated from a fossil fuel plant.

If they really wanted to be green, they buy a used car and drive it for a lifetime. Since they have no knowledge whatsoever of manufacturing, ideology and fantasy guides their thinking.

But hey, if you get to sit at the cool kid's lunch table and it keeps them from picking on you, that's worth something in terms of self esteem granted by others.

Eco-Theology is a fascinating religion. Scientific ignorance masquerading as knowledge and compassion.

[Simple Minded]

According to Zack's tribal Shamans, the good news is that wind and solar power generation technologies are no longer considered "unreliable" power generation technologies merely "intermittent" power generation technologies!

"Intermittency" is the actual term that power engineers use and you can find it referring to renewables in literature as far back as the 1970's and likely decades earlier. Believe me, you guys aren't the first to have noticed that wind and sunshine are not constant but by all means, please keep demonstrating your ignorance on the topic.

Solar cost per KWh is less than half of what it was a decade ago. That's a pretty impressive improvement. In the meantime, the nuclear power crowd has accomplished absolutely nothing with respect to feasible designs for new reactors. I'm sure we will see nuclear back on the table in due time but for now it's just excuses, excuses, excuses and half-baked ideas like "pebble bed" or thorium reactors that no one has demonstrated on a large scale. Nobody wants to invest in problematic legacy designs that have enormous tail risk.

And before you claim that irrational fear and government red tape is the problem, there are well-funded nuclear reactor start-ups that have been operating for years. Let's see what they come up with but for now, it's vaporware. A mix of energy sources is the future.

I've had vehicles, friends, and relative who I thought were "unreliable," even the weather seems that way at times. Knowing they're merely intermittent is a much better assessment.

[crashtech66]

At his point in our technological development, the only viable grid energy storage system is pumped hydro. Very expensive, only suited to certain locations, very poor ROI. But if we are going to keep up this renewable farce, it along with other massive grid infrastructure investments need to be a big part of the mix, yet no one talks about it. At all. Just build more stupid windmills.

[Typhoon]

At this point in our technological development, the only viable grid energy storage system is pumped hydro. Very expensive, only suited to certain locations, very poor ROI.

. . .

A quick search turned up this CAD $6 billion [edit: not] pumped hydropower project disaster in BC, Canada.

Fin Post | B.C.'s Site C hydro power boondoggle shows real cost of 'clean' energy

[Simple Minded]

At this point in our technological development, the only viable grid energy storage system is pumped hydro. Very expensive, only suited to certain locations, very poor ROI.

. . .

A quick search turned up this CAD $6 billion pumped hydropower project disaster in BC, Canada.

Fin Post | B.C.'s Site C hydro power boondoggle shows real cost of 'clean' energy

Luckily it is an intermittent and expensive source of power, rather than unreliable and expensive.

Only the ideologues prefer expensive and intermittent to inexpensive and stable.

Although it does stand to reason that an intermittent power source with a duty cycle of 15% is 5 times greener than an intermittent power source with a duty cycle of 75%. Follow the science!

Seems we are in another period of history where faith and ideology override science and reason. At least for the lowest ranking members of the tribe. For the Shamans it is probably more about raking in the $ from the current insanity of the plebes.

[Typhoon]

According to Zack's tribal Shamans, the good news is that wind and solar power generation technologies are no longer considered "unreliable" power generation technologies merely "intermittent" power generation technologies!

"Intermittency" is the actual term that power engineers use and you can find it referring to renewables in literature as far back as the 1970's and likely decades earlier.

So what? It was an unsolved problem back then and continuous to be an unsolved problem to this day and for the foreseeable future.

Believe me, you guys aren't the first to have noticed that wind and sunshine are not constant

Given that no here is claiming to have done so, what's your point?

but by all means, please keep demonstrating your ignorance on the topic.

A bit rich considering the source.

As pointed out before, "we" don't lack for good company:

PNAS | Evaluation of a proposal for reliable low-cost grid power with 100% wind, water, and solar

You, on the hand, have a petulant troubled teenager, whose no Pipi Longstocking, B grade activists posing as scientists, and abject looney tune Luddites such as Greenpeace and Extinction Rebellion for company.

Solar cost per KWh is less than half of what it was a decade ago. That's a pretty impressive improvement.

Solar power could cost less that 1/100th of what it cost a decade ago and it still would not matter.

The problems are very low energy density and, of course, the intermittent nature of solar power generation - "when the sun don't glow, the electrons don't flow" and the complete lack of a viable method of power storage.

The "New Energy Economy": An exercise in magical thinking

How Many km2 of Solar Panels in Spain and how much battery backup would it take to power Germany

In the meantime, the nuclear power crowd has accomplished absolutely nothing with respect to feasible designs for new reactors. I'm sure we will see nuclear back on the table in due time but for now it's just excuses, excuses, excuses and half-baked ideas like "pebble bed" or thorium reactors that no one has demonstrated on a large scale. Nobody wants to invest in problematic legacy designs that have enormous tail risk.

The basic problem for the global nuclear industry is the US promoted pressurized light water nuclear reactor [PWR], due to its political and economic influence back in the day. Well suited for powering nuclear submarines, but poorly suited to civilian power production. All due to historical parochial infighting among US bureaucracies - the US Navy [Rickover] vs Oak Ridge. Loss of moderator [water] in a PWR leads to a critical chain reaction.

A far safer and more reliable alternative has been in operation for decades, developed by your unassuming northern neighbour - CANDU - a heavy water [deuterium oxide] moderated reactor. Does not require expensive and resource intensive uranium fuel enrichment, loss of moderator leads to shutdown, not a critical chain reaction [re Fukushima Daiichi], and the reactor does not need to be shutdown for refuelling. And yes, it can also run on a thorium fuel mixture. A search informs that 60% of electrical power in the province of Ontario, Canada is generated by CANDU nuclear.

If you're going to invoke terms such as "tail risk", it's better if you actually have some understanding of them.

safest-energy-sources.png (172.36 KiB) Viewed 47163 times

Relative safety of sources of energy

And before you claim that irrational fear and government red tape is the problem, there are well-funded nuclear reactor start-ups that have been operating for years. Let's see what they come up with but for now, it's vaporware. A mix of energy sources is the future.

Countries in Europe, such as Sweden and Germany, are not only stagnant, but going backwards - closing down their nuclear power stations.
The US is likewise shutting down its nuclear power plants.

Well funded start-up? Name one.

PR China recently brought their first fully "Made in China" nuclear reactor online, Hualong One.
Also, in PR China, about 10 more nuclear plants are currently under construction with more planned.

Speaking of bovinity:

Breakthrough | On anti-nuclear bullshit

[crashtech66]

At this point in our technological development, the only viable grid energy storage system is pumped hydro. Very expensive, only suited to certain locations, very poor ROI.

. . .

A quick search turned up this CAD $6 billion pumped hydropower project disaster in BC, Canada.

Fin Post | B.C.'s Site C hydro power boondoggle shows real cost of 'clean' energy

Is that pumped storage? I took a quick look at it and didn't see anything other than a regular hydro project. It's a bloody shame that even regular hydro can't be built cost effectively now. I've always been pretty bullish on hydro, it's the renewable that actually makes sense.

[noddy]

the dangers of energy sources is missing batteries - super toxic things made from super toxic ingrediants, killing hundreds of thousands and polluting the environment indefinately from manufacture, all the way through to landfill.

At this point in our technological development, the only viable grid energy storage system is pumped hydro. Very expensive, only suited to certain locations, very poor ROI.

. . .

A quick search turned up this CAD $6 billion pumped hydropower project disaster in BC, Canada.

Fin Post | B.C.'s Site C hydro power boondoggle shows real cost of 'clean' energy

Is that pumped storage? I took a quick look at it and didn't see anything other than a regular hydro project. It's a bloody shame that even regular hydro can't be built cost effectively now. I've always been pretty bullish on hydro, it's the renewable that actually makes sense.

afaik, the only renewable energy storage that makes any sense is hydrogen and its been "just around the corner" for quite some time..

once the fuel cells and/or the ammonia catalyst tech lets us transport and store hydrogen easily, then the rules about renewables will change and countries with large hydrothermal or solar capability should be able to export hydrogen fuel as easily as fossil fuels.

[Typhoon]

At this point in our technological development, the only viable grid energy storage system is pumped hydro. Very expensive, only suited to certain locations, very poor ROI.

. . .

A quick search turned up this CAD $6 billion pumped hydropower project disaster in BC, Canada.

Fin Post | B.C.'s Site C hydro power boondoggle shows real cost of 'clean' energy

Is that pumped storage? I took a quick look at it and didn't see anything other than a regular hydro project. It's a bloody shame that even regular hydro can't be built cost effectively now. I've always been pretty bullish on hydro, it's the renewable that actually makes sense.

Yes, I think that you are correct, it is regular hydro. My mistake.

I agree re hydropower. Makes sense where it can be implemented.

[Typhoon]

the dangers of energy sources is missing batteries - super toxic things made from super toxic ingrediants, killing hundreds of thousands and polluting the environment indefinately from manufacture, all the way through to landfill.

At this point in our technological development, the only viable grid energy storage system is pumped hydro. Very expensive, only suited to certain locations, very poor ROI.

. . .

A quick search turned up this CAD $6 billion pumped hydropower project disaster in BC, Canada.

Fin Post | B.C.'s Site C hydro power boondoggle shows real cost of 'clean' energy

Is that pumped storage? I took a quick look at it and didn't see anything other than a regular hydro project. It's a bloody shame that even regular hydro can't be built cost effectively now. I've always been pretty bullish on hydro, it's the renewable that actually makes sense.

afaik, the only renewable energy storage that makes any sense is hydrogen and its been "just around the corner" for quite some time..

once the fuel cells and/or the ammonia catalyst tech lets us transport and store hydrogen easily, then the rules about renewables will change and countries with large hydrothermal or solar capability should be able to export hydrogen fuel as easily as fossil fuels.

Japan has gone "all in" wrt hydrogen as a fuel source.

Nikkei | Japan's big, lonely bet on hydrogen

Another option for hydrogen production: the forgotten aqueous homogeneous nuclear reactor. Hydrogen and oxygen are a byproduct of the radiolysis of water.

[Zack Morris]

How about you tell us all about our newfangled way of storing all the gigawatt hours required to make the renewable dream come to fruition, without the crutch of fossil fuel or nuclear base load generation. Gonna tell us about massive banks of magical batteries? What will it be? Pull that magic out of the hat, or shut the hell up.

The renewable energy dream has been blossoming right under your nose (if only you'd only care to look past the tip of it).

You're making a strawman argument. Nobody argues that fossil fuel generation is going to be replaced completely any time soon. That doesn't make renewables and fossil fuel-free energy production a fruitless boondoggle, certainly not when the United States' most populous state now derives 2/3rds of its energy from clean sources. Solar and wind alone account for 30% of California's generation -- that's a massive win for the state and for the climate. And yes, battery banks are a fast-growing part of that equation, especially as lithium ion battery prices continue to drop (the inevitable transition to electric cars will only accelerate that). Expect several gigawatt-hours of capacity within the decade to come online in California alone.

No magic required. Just inevitable progress driven by demand for carbon-free electricity. Imagine if we had listened to the cynics, the curmudgeons, and the National Review crowd.

[Zack Morris]

Japan has gone "all in" wrt hydrogen as a fuel source.

Why not nuclear? Did they hit some unexpected technical difficulties with bringing "simple" and "safe" modern nuclear reactor designs online? Or is the Japanese energy industry staffed by liberal snowflakes, too?

[Zack Morris]

So what? It was an unsolved problem back then and continuous to be an unsolved problem to this day and for the foreseeable future.

So what? It doesn't need to be solved completely for renewables to be deployed on a wide scale, as has been demonstrated with solar and wind taking a substantial bite out of CO2 emissions.

You, on the hand, have a petulant troubled teenager, whose no Pipi Longstocking, B grade activists posing as scientists, and abject looney tune Luddites such as Greenpeace and Extinction Rebellion for company.

The only people championing extinction are conservatives and the growth-at-any-cost crowd. We've been doing just fine with our activist-cum-scientists.

Solar power could cost less that 1/100th of what it cost a decade ago and it still would not matter.

Deployed solar generation says otherwise.

The problems are very low energy density and, of course, the intermittent nature of solar power generation - "when the sun don't glow, the electrons don't flow" and the complete lack of a viable method of power storage.

Low energy density is trivial to mitigate: you cover more area with solar panels.

Intermittency becomes less of a problem as solar is deployed more broadly over a dispersed region. If the sun goes out over all of California for 24 hours, we've got bigger problems to worry about. At night, you can make up the reduced demand with fossil fuels and it's still a win. Batteries are a viable option on a 20-30 year time frame and by then, maybe we'll at last have suitable nuclear reactors to pick up the slack.

Again, the shear growth of solar generation in the US over just the past decade shows it is absolutely viable as a substantial contributor to grid capacity. But we knew this 25 years ago when plans were being laid.

The basic problem for the global nuclear industry is the US promoted pressurized light water nuclear reactor [PWR], due to its political and economic influence back in the day. Well suited for powering nuclear submarines, but poorly suited to civilian power production. All due to historical parochial infighting among US bureaucracies - the US Navy [Rickover] vs Oak Ridge. Loss of moderator [water] in a PWR leads to a critical chain reaction.

A far safer and more reliable alternative has been in operation for decades, developed by your unassuming northern neighbour - CANDU - a heavy water [deuterium oxide] moderated reactor. Does not require expensive and resource intensive uranium fuel enrichment, loss of moderator leads to shutdown, not a critical chain reaction [re Fukushima Daiichi], and the reactor does not need to be shutdown for refuelling. And yes, it can also run on a thorium fuel mixture. A search informs that 60% of electrical power in the province of Ontario, Canada is generated by CANDU nuclear.

If you're going to invoke terms such as "tail risk", it's better if you actually have some understanding of them.

If it's such a fantastic design, I'm sure we'll see it popping up in more places than Canada and China.

Well funded start-up? Name one.

TerraPower.

[crashtech66]

How about you tell us all about our newfangled way of storing all the gigawatt hours required to make the renewable dream come to fruition, without the crutch of fossil fuel or nuclear base load generation. Gonna tell us about massive banks of magical batteries? What will it be? Pull that magic out of the hat, or shut the hell up.

The renewable energy dream has been blossoming right under your nose (if only you'd only care to look past the tip of it).

You're making a strawman argument. Nobody argues that fossil fuel generation is going to be replaced completely any time soon. That doesn't make renewables and fossil fuel-free energy production a fruitless boondoggle, certainly not when the United States' most populous state now derives 2/3rds of its energy from clean sources. Solar and wind alone account for 30% of California's generation -- that's a massive win for the state and for the climate. And yes, battery banks are a fast-growing part of that equation, especially as lithium ion battery prices continue to drop (the inevitable transition to electric cars will only accelerate that). Expect several gigawatt-hours of capacity within the decade to come online in California alone.

No magic required. Just inevitable progress driven by demand for carbon-free electricity. Imagine if we had listened to the cynics, the curmudgeons, and the National Review crowd.

Content-free stats, that's all you got? Either you feel the need to parrot an ideological line, or you have no clue, just like the majority of low-information California voters. Thank goodness I got out of there before the insanity went exponential. How about searching for some real stats on grid connected batteries? I won't even insist on their manufacturing carbon footprint, because although it is significant, enough batteries can never be built to service the intermittent nature of renewables anyway. I implore you to research the real numbers. Batteries can't do the job! Cali is dooming itself to the expensive import of electricity, especially with its insane war against natural gas, the cleanest, most benign form of fossil energy there is, and incidentally the only bridge we have, save nuclear, to the holy grail of fusion energy.

[Simple Minded]

Content-free stats, that's all you got? Either you feel the need to parrot an ideological line, or you have no clue, just like the majority of low-information California voters. Thank goodness I got out of there before the insanity went exponential. How about searching for some real stats on grid connected batteries? I won't even insist on their manufacturing carbon footprint, because although it is significant, enough batteries can never be built to service the intermittent nature of renewables anyway. I implore you to research the real numbers. Batteries can't do the job! Cali is dooming itself to the expensive import of electricity, especially with its insane war against natural gas, the cleanest, most benign form of fossil energy there is, and incidentally the only bridge we have, save nuclear, to the holy grail of fusion energy.

Crashtech66,

Zack really has no other choice than being clueless AND parroting ecotheology cannon.

"Toe the line or we take away your Eco-card!" Every bit as painful as de-blacking a Person of Color.

Once you take the big leap of faith of "the sky is falling cause humans are bad," all the smaller insanities are relatively painless. Ignore the effects of the variability of the sun, clouds, all associated costs, environmental impacts, variations in climate that go back millions of years, hourly, daily and annual temperature variations that are 10x-70x bigger than "the excessive rate of temperature change over 150 years," etc.

Very similar to the Church of Andrew Cuomo and COVID-19. "Ya got the choice between death and following my mandates! What don't you understand about that? Ya wanna DIE or ya wanna be smart and live?"

[Typhoon]

How about you tell us all about our newfangled way of storing all the gigawatt hours required to make the renewable dream come to fruition, without the crutch of fossil fuel or nuclear base load generation. Gonna tell us about massive banks of magical batteries? What will it be? Pull that magic out of the hat, or shut the hell up.

The renewable energy dream has been blossoming right under your nose (if only you'd only care to look past the tip of it).

You're making a strawman argument. Nobody argues that fossil fuel generation is going to be replaced completely any time soon. That doesn't make renewables and fossil fuel-free energy production a fruitless boondoggle, certainly not when the United States' most populous state now derives 2/3rds of its energy from clean sources. Solar and wind alone account for 30% of California's generation -- that's a massive win for the state and for the climate. And yes, battery banks are a fast-growing part of that equation, especially as lithium ion battery prices continue to drop (the inevitable transition to electric cars will only accelerate that). Expect several gigawatt-hours of capacity within the decade to come online in California alone.

No magic required. Just inevitable progress driven by demand for carbon-free electricity. Imagine if we had listened to the cynics, the curmudgeons, and the National Review crowd.

Content-free stats, that's all you got?

. . .

Indeed, but where's the stats?

Reminds one of those content-free "four square" charts that management consultants believe actually mean something.

[crashtech66]

Good info on the subject is tough to come by, but by my estimates about 22 million Tesla Powerwalls or equivalent would suffice for 100% green energy in California, assuming enough expansion of solar & wind capacity to charge them. That number is likely too low for a hot, windless summer evening. I think that is about 1.6 Powerwalls per average household. Scale that out to the rest of the country, and the problem becomes even more obvious. It opens up questions about how far and fast battery production could be ramped, and even whether or not the raw material can be extracted fast enough. Californians coming up with the 165 billion to buy them might present a problem when other infrastructure needs are pressing. Doing batteries on such a massive scale presents environmental issues as well. Green energy disciples never speak of such heresies, though.

Obviously my numbers are very rough approximations, but just getting a feel for the orders of magnitude is the point.

[Typhoon]

From the pdf article The "New Energy Economy": An exercise in magical thinking linked in my post above:

The annual output of Tesla’s Gigafactory, the world’s largest battery factory, could store three minutes’ worth of annual U.S. electricity demand. It would require 1,000 years of production to make enough batteries for two days’ worth of U.S. electricity demand. Meanwhile, 50–100 pounds of materials are mined, moved, and processed for every pound of battery produced.

Numeracy counts,
in all amounts.

[Simple Minded]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0Cp7DrvNLQ

The scary part of Climate Change is how rapidly humans changed the climate during pre-Halocene era.

We should be patting ourselves on the back for the self-restraint we have achieved in the last 10,000 years.

[Simple Minded]

From the pdf article The "New Energy Economy": An exercise in magical thinking linked in my post above:

The annual output of Tesla’s Gigafactory, the world’s largest battery factory, could store three minutes’ worth of annual U.S. electricity demand. It would require 1,000 years of production to make enough batteries for two days’ worth of U.S. electricity demand. Meanwhile, 50–100 pounds of materials are mined, moved, and processed for every pound of battery produced.

Numeracy counts,
in all amounts.

Back to the ideology of the climate crises tribe:

"If it saved just one human life it will be worth it!"
"If millions die, or we destroy the environment, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs."

[Nonc Hilaire]

Don’t forget batteries only last about five years. That’s five replacements for the average 25 yr life of a solar panel with no green disposal methods for any of it.

[Typhoon]

Quite.

Aside from all the other issues, the key factor is energy density.

Energy_density.svg.png (107.56 KiB) Viewed 46990 times

[Source. Wikipedia]

[crashtech66]

Let's be fair, energy density is only critical in mobile applications which must carry their own fuel.