What's the Quickest Path?
Despite the immense human tragedy of the earthquake/tsunami that struck Japan one year ago, many media stories in the West this past week have focused on the Fukushima meltdown, which led Mark Lynas to tweet:
I find the total silence about the 20,000 victims killed by the tsunami a year ago horrifying, current nuclear angst out of all proportion.
On a related note, because nuclear power is part of the energy/climate debate, George Monbiot recently tweeted:
How come climate change ceases to be an issue as soon as someone needs to make the case for abandoning nuclear?
That is a curious thing, isn’t it? Which leads me to this essay by Michael Lemonick, titled, “No Nukes? Only if you believe in magic.” It is a wry, concisely argued deconstruction of all the proffered “magic” solutions that keep the climate change debate stuck in the realm of fantasy. After reading that, waltz on over to Dot Earth for some historical perspective by Spencer Weart on why “nuclear fear feeds back on itself” in society.
Then there are the regulatory and cost issues that still bedevil nuclear power. The Economist, in an introduction to a new special report, writes:
In any country independent regulation is harder when the industry being regulated exists largely by government fiat. Yet, as our special report this week explains, without governments private companies would simply not choose to build nuclear-power plants. This is in part because of the risks they face from local opposition and changes in government policy (seeing Germany’s nuclear-power stations, which the government had until then seen as safe, shut down after Fukushima sent a chilling message to the industry). But it is mostly because reactors are very expensive indeed. Lower capital costs once claimed for modern post-Chernobyl designs have not materialised. The few new reactors being built in Europe are far over their already big budgets. And in America, home to the world’s largest nuclear fleet, shale gas has slashed the costs of one of the alternatives; new nuclear plants are likely only in still-regulated electricity markets such as those of the south-east.
While not giving up on nuclear power, the piece argues that the much anticipated “promise of a global [nuclear] transformation is gone.”
So where does all this leave us? If you don’t believe in magic, and you’re not waiting anymore for a nuclear renaissance, what’s the quickest (and most realistic) path to a low-carbon energy economy?
“That is a curious thing, isn’t it”
No fair, Keith. What do you think the answer is? Personally, it’s pretty obvious the answer is politics. Global warming is so horrible that conservatives must rethink their quaint faith in capitalism, but not bad enough to tell the truth about nuclear. Which means the “concerned” aren’t concerned.
But it actually worse than that:
“The White House scrambled Monday to contain the political damage from rising gas prices, which have emerged as a primary threat to President Obama’s reelection. ” http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/215625-gas-prices-trigger-obama-scramble-
20 years of hating on “conservative” “deniers” who are allegedly uniformly “Republican” or paid oil company shills far out of synch with the entire nation on global warming and – amazingly – a liberal Democrat in the White House is “scrambling” to do just about anything to avoid seeing a little old gas price hike.
Kind of brings it all home, don’t it?
“what’s the quickest (and most realistic) path to a low-carbon energy economy?”
good question. unfortunately, what is realistic today, may not be realistic tomorrow. Furthermore, what’s realistic in one jurisdiction is not necessarily realistic in another, so it’s not really an either/or binary question as you seem to be implying.
Solar power has grown by 30% per year for quite a long time now. If it continues to grow, even at a slower pace such as 11.5% annually, it can replace nuclear power.
The key to making that happen is continued price reductions. The price per watt curve for solar looks very ‘Moor-esque’ (‘Moore-ish?’). Solar panels now cost less than a dollar per watt to produce. The solar part of solar panels are now less than half the cost of a system.
If permitting gets easier. If inverters move into the 21st Century. If panel racks get more installer-friendly. If, if, if. And above all, if storage becomes affordable…
Solar power could supply a third of our country’s energy, and more than a third of the world’s. That’s with a growth rate that is one-third of the growth rate it has sustained for decades.
Anyone could make a similar case for hydroelectric power. Anyone could make a similar case for wind (assuming we’ve learned the lessons of Wind 1.0).
We’re spoilt for choice, actually.
Tom Fuller
Solar power has grown by 30% per year for quite a long time now. If it continues to grow, even at a slower pace such as 11.5% annually, it can replace nuclear power.
Except at mid-high latitudes, at night, in cloudy conditions and during the winter. Look, I know you were working for a solar company recently, but let’s keep it real.
TF
And above all, if storage becomes affordable”¦
Grid-scale storage for SPV hasn’t been invented yet. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves.
Tom,
I understand that you’re a fan of Ray Kurzweil, exponential growth and such. How long will it take for solar to replace nuclear if it continues to grow at 30% clip (optimistic scenario) and at 10% (pessimistic one)?
A simple calculation shows that solar out put will grow hundred-fold in 17.6 or in 48.3 years. Assuming 2% rate of growth in consumption, solar would (optimistically) generate 70.6% of energy demand by 2029 or (pessimistically) 38.4% by 2060. And it will get only better and better from there on.
With that in mind, why do we need to worry about controlling CO2 emissions today?
[W]hat’s the quickest (and most realistic) path to a low-carbon energy economy?
Government funded research directed to energy storage, fusion, space-based solar, cheaper safer nuclear, and further improvements in wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, etc.
We need to invent our way to non-carbon electrical generation which is actually cheaper than coal, oil and gas.
I would rather spend 1 trillion on research than 1 trillion on subsidies for things which are more expensive than coal, oil and gas.
Sashka @6:
That is a good question.
That is the sort of cost benefit analysis which I would like to see the answer to, and more discussion of.
Tom Fuller – I was reading an industry overview of solar installations in USA – existing, under construction, and in development. The sum of the first two didn’t inspire me that the cost is yet anywhere near competitive, and something like 70% of the first two cats was Caifornia, which I assume is subsidy. So, broadly, the rest of the USA has almost no solar pv existing or under construction.
I note your if if if if. It’s nowhere near there yet, and your storage comment – I echo BBD, it hasn’t yet been invented, not a question of price.
What was wrong with wind 1.0? It’s what we have, to get data from about intermittency and average output?
BBD and Roddy, I will just refer you both to the refrain cited by industry experts and executives about storage–storage exists and in quantity. It just isn’t cheap.
BBD, any sane look at the potential of renewables starts with the geographic limitations. In most places where the sun don’t shine, the wind do blow. And if you’ve tracked the installation of ground source heat pumps you’ll find them skewing heavily pole-wards.
Nope, solar is not the best option in Montana. It is the best option in Los Angeles.
What a pity that everyone lives in Montana and not Los Angeles.
@7
“We need to invent our way to non-carbon electrical generation which is actually cheaper than coal, oil and gas. ”
why?
Sashka, as far as worrying about CO2 emissions, there are two reasons to be concerned.
First, because of the greenhouse effect and the fact that we do not know the sensitivity of the atmosphere to a doubling of the concentrations of CO2.
Second, because fuels that emit CO2 upon combustion tend to also emit other things as well.
Tom
BBD, any sane look at the potential of renewables starts with the geographic limitations.
Hmm. Here in Euroland, we are being promised a future of Big Solar (CSP) in N Africa and the Middle East (yup, notably stable regions). Thousands of miles of HVDC cables are supposed to bring the bounty to Europe and the distant UK. Nobody seems concerned that these provide targets of (easy) opportunity to the bearded (and non-bearded) nutters of the world. In fact it is never mentioned. Ever. And we are being told that this is or will be a move towards ‘energy security’ compared to a dependence on FFs. Consider me unconvinced.
@12
don’t forget ocean acidification. apparently people still use the ocean for stuff.
BBD and Roddy, I will just refer you both to the refrain cited by industry experts and executives about storage”“storage exists and in quantity. It just isn’t cheap.
SPV needs giant batteries. As far as I know, grid-scale battery storage does not exist at all. Sure, CSP can use molten salt, which is why I ‘like’ it more than SPV. It’s a tremendous advantage.
It does not get around the problem with reduced winter insolation even in low-latitude deserts. A large part of me views solar as a lovely idea with near-insurmountable real-world implementation problems. Like wind and biofuels and any significant attempt to expand hydro.
Marlowe Johnson @11:
You asked “why?”
Because economic reality is that if the non-carbon alternative is not cheaper, not enough people will switch to de-carbonize the world economy.
It is very difficult to get people to switch to a better lightbulb if it costs 10 times as much (and only lasts 5 times as long).
On the other hand, it is easy to get people to switch to a cheaper lightbult, and as a bonus also lasts five times longer.
All you have to do is sell the better product, cheaper, and people will switch automatically, without the need for laws of any kind.
That is basic economics.
I don’t buy the claim that nuclear power is not profitable. In Germany before Fukushima, Angela Merkel planned to tax nuclear facilities with a nuclear rod tax and the nuclear companies would have paid part of their profits into a renewable energy fund as a compensation for extending operational lifespans of 17 reactors. The fund would have received 17 billion euros and fuel rod tax would have yielded 2.3 billion euros annually until 2016.
Close to 30 billion euros (40 billion dollars) in nuclear taxes ….and apparently the power companies still would have made a profit with nuclear.
Jarmo @17:
Anything can be profitable if you can pass along the cost to the consumer.
The question is what is the cost per kilowatt of nuclear in Germany as compared to other energy sources, such as coal, oil or gas.
I am pretty sure that nuclear is just more expensive per kilowatt than coal, oil or gas (ignoring the external costs of CO2 emissions and digging up the ground, etc.).
But it can be profitable even so – since the rates are controlled by the government and they permit the costs to be passed on to the consumer.
@16
define cheaper please.
#18
The energy costs for coal and gas are different in Europe. Anyway, there is a study made in Finland that clearly said that in our country, nuclear is cheaper than coal or gas. Here’s the link:
https://www.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/39685/isbn9789522145888.pdf
Can somebody explain to me why the energy sector is any different from say the meda/communication sector?
20 or more years ago media was dominated by a group of massively powerful organisations. TV/newspapers/telecom all with massive amounts of political and financial power. Newspapers made prime ministers in the UK. A fantastic new technology (the internet) comes along and blows a massive hole in this. Nothing Big Media can do about this and a whole new group of economic giants are born in a decade or so. So if the new non-carbon technologies are so fantastic why aren’t they just exploding, building new economic giants and simply sweeping Big Carbon aside? My own bias leads me to believe they aren’t that fantastic.
“The quickest path?”. The best path forward is to completely drop the environmental fundamentalism. For these types I don’t think cheap clean energy is really the goal, limiting humanity is. So prioritize energy requirements to build internationally prosperous societies while maintaining a rational approach to environmental needs as secondary considerations. If that means business as usual for the time being then so be it.
This is simply a statement on the fundamental problem with the green movement. Zero pragmatists in leadership, and none are welcome.
You kind of want to ask…”So what is it you want to do, exactly?”
Stating the evils of all solutions and proclaiming them as unacceptable, and doing this for 30 straight years, is bordering on insanity. It is noted that several people have come around on nuclear power, but the knee jerk reaction is always to leave it off the list of solutions so as not to alienate any green groups…”solar, wind, biofuels…………waiting…….still waiting…..”
If the solution does not include even more plentiful, cheap, and abundant power, it will NEVER NEVER NEVER have a chance. See RPJ’s Iron law.
The people who think we should simply use much less power or just tax it into submission are just utopian cranks wasting everyone’s time, especially the greens.
When will the green’s get pragmatic leadership? Ever? Is it simply wired into their DNA to be this way?
Tom,
If the estimates of solar power penetration are realistic we’ll never get to double CO2, that’s the point I was making. Moreover, the fossil fuels will be naturally substituted by solar and wind based on market prices. When I asked about worry I meant why push for carbon taxes etc now if a market-based solution is just a few (perhaps as little as two) decades away? Exponential growth of solar will be clearly more effective than any gov-t regulation.
Marlowe Johnson@ 19:
You said “define cheaper please.”
I define “cheaper” as the out of pocket cost to the consumer.
The kilowatt per hour cost, as it shows up on you electric bill.
I am ignoring all external costs – and just looking at the out-of-pocket cost to the consumer of the power.
@21
google “market barriers to entry energy sector”
@24
why are you ignoring all external costs? Do you think this kind of assumption makes for sound economic policy analysis?
Jarmo @20:
Interesting.
In the USA Nuclear is more expensive than coal or natural gas, but cheaper than solar and wind:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Levelized_energy_cost_chart_1,_2011_DOE_report.gif
Marlowe @25:
I am ignoring external costs because 1) they don’t show up on my electric bill, 2) I don’t know how much they are or how to calculate them and 3) they are speculative and subject to wildly inaccurate estimates.
Should I assume 10 cm of sea level rise by 2100 or 5 meters?
I think you can see that 5 meters of SLR is going to be a lot more expensive than 10 cm.
Do I (living in Minnesota) have to pay for the external future costs for the strip mine in Ohio?
How much food should I assume will be grown in 2050 or 2100 based on my climate forecast.
These all play into the external costs – and there is really no way to put an actual objective dollar amount on any of it.
Sure – try – but I think it is a much easier case to sell if the non-carbon source of power is cheaper, without trying to build in the external costs.
At least that is my opinion.
#22 Tom Scharf- Bingo! Hit the nail on the head.
Old, but serviceable analogy. Your accountant walks into your NY office and tells you that you must be in LA tomorrow by noon for a meeting or you might go bankrupt. You certainly have a question or two, but she’s the expert so you start booking the flight.
“No, no” she says. “You must walk to LA.”
Now, you may have a small, nagging concern about why LA was recommended, but your main priority at this point to find a new accountant- one who is sane. Oh, and you cancelled the airline booking- because if the accountant’s “plan” doesn’t get you to LA by noon, there must not be any reason to be there.
I think the world is in the “find a new accountant” phase- there is a small, nagging concern but until someone sane takes up the cause, there isn’t any action to take.
Keith,
Ultimately the answer to your question is that the quickest (and most realistic) path to a low-carbon energy economy goes straight through our ecosphere.
To explain, in British Columbia we could go almost entirely to a combination of wind and hydro electric (using run-of-the-river technology) with larger dams providing easily ramped-up power when the wind isn’t blowing. However, in doing so will put a number of rivers at risk (due to water diversion), will flood pristine habitats for dams and would risk sea-birds populations and fragile near-shore habitats due to wind turbines.
In the southern U.S. a series of large concentrated solar power facilities combined with wind and supplemented by hydro-electric and nuclear could do the trick, but once again at the cost of large expanses of desert ecosphere, coastal bird habitat and fragile river ecosystems. This has not been done in the past because the development of the resources is restricted by legislation that currently protects endangered species and fragile habitats.
It also should be mentioned that all these wind turbines need huge magnets which eat up tremendous amounts of rare-earth elements and exotic metals that are incredibly hard on ecosystems to mine and extract.
Ultimately it is a trade-off, we could supply our needs using existing technologies but to do so will cost elsewhere and the biggest costs will be to our ecosystem.
Battery storage of solar energy will never be a practical stand alone system for distributing energy during hours of darkness other than a in boutique situation.
Other than at the equator, for six months of the year daytime hours are less than nighttime hours. The ratio varies depending on latitude. For Phoenix(~33N) the nighttime:daytime ratio can be as much as 14:10.
Assuming 100% efficiency in charging the batteries, which is not even close to possible, you must have a solar array large enough to charge 14 hours worth of battery supply dedicated to just that purpose. On top of that, you need a separate solar array of sufficient size dedicated to providing grid power during hours of daylight.
When you consider the best solar systems in the world only have about a 24% capacity factor, the shear size of the systems required is ludicrous.
#26
Checked on the DOE report:
The levelized cost shown for each utility-scale generation technology in the tables below are calculated based on a 30-year cost recovery period
The old nuclear plants in Finland have been running over 30 years now and will be decommissioned sometime in the 2020’s. The new Olkiluoto 3 has a planned lifespan of 60 years.
Nuclear has high building costs but the fuel costs are low. The longer they run, the more profitable they are. Your Oyster Creek station has been running for 42 years now.
Hi Sashka,
Well, I don’t know. I’ve been trying to make the point over at my blog that people haven’t really been paying attention to how much energy we’re actually going to be using in the future. The Department of Energy has a… model… built around costs and local supply constraints that estimates world energy consumption at about 720 quadrillion btu’s in 2030. Using a bit of math, historic consumption and various other elements of jiggery pokery I came up with an estimate of about 1,000 quads in 2030, 2,000 quads in 2050 and 3,000 quads by 2075.
My estimates are admittedly back of the envelope quality–although the work is there for all to see. But for Gawdsakes, the DoE is estimating that India will be using the same amount of energy in 2035 that North Korea used in 2007.
I think we’re going to need the kitchen sink…
So as Lemonick says in the linked article:
I wish we didn’t have to think about nuclear power as a viable option for the future. Magic would be much nicer.
But I don’t believe in magic.
Tom
One thing we do agree on is that global energy demand (baseload being the largest component) will rise during the C20th.
Something else that looks plausible is MacKay’s plan E (MacKay is the chief scientific advisor to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change and can be taken seriously):
Producing lots of electricity ““ plan E
E stands for “economics.” This fifth plan is a rough guess for what might happen in a liberated energy market with a strong carbon price. On a level economic playing field with a strong price signal preventing the emission of CO2, we don’t expect a diverse solution with a wide range of power-costs; rather, we expect an economically optimal solution that delivers the required power at the lowest cost. And when “clean coal” and nuclear go head to head on price, it’s nuclear that wins. (Engineers at a UK electricity generator told me that the capital cost of regular dirty coal power stations is £1 billion per GW, about the same as nuclear; but the capital cost of “clean-coal” power, including carbon capture and storage, is roughly £2 billion per GW.) I’ve assumed that solar power in other people’s deserts loses to nuclear power when we take into account the cost of the required 2000-km-long transmission lines (though van Voorthuysen (2008) reckons that with Nobel-prize-worthy developments in solar-powered production of chemical fuels, solar power in deserts would be the economic equal of nuclear power). Offshore wind also loses to nuclear, but I’ve assumed that onshore wind costs about the same as nuclear.
So perhaps – for the UK at least – the lion’s share of future capacity will ultimately be nuclear.
#30 Bob,
Have you considered concentrated solar power in your posting? it reduces/eliminates the need for batteries as the energy is stored as heat and allows for 24 hour power generation.
@27
excluding external costs because they are difficult to quantify is certainly an option, but you haven’t made it clear why it’s a wise option. I certainly agree that it would be wonderful to have perfectly benign ‘clean’ energy technology which had lower direct costs than conventional fossil/nuclear options, but then I also think it would be nice if unicorns existed as well.
as a numbers guy I certainly appreciate the value in assigning numbers to things, as it can help to clarify the decision making process. However, numbers are not the end all and be all. direct levelized costs of electricity are useful. all-in costs are more useful, if more uncertain as well. But the idea that energy policy is, or even should be decided solely on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis is ridiculous. I’m looking at you BBD and directing your attention to Voltaire’s Bastards. There are a host of other relevant factors that should also be considered. I’ll leave it to the reader to think about what those might be.
Marlowe Johnson
But the idea that energy policy is, or even should be decided solely on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis is ridiculous. I’m looking at you BBD and directing your attention to Voltaire’s Bastards. There are a host of other relevant factors that should also be considered. I’ll leave it to the reader to think about what those might be.
Personal favourites include proven, scalable baseload technology to meet near-certain rise in baseload demand and urgency of need for deployment, opportunity cost (one budget, one chance, one planet). There are other, cost-based arguments in favour of nuclear too.
Tom Scharf:
Your reality-based posts are getting old. Haven’t you noticed that this blog is going the way of Curry where the same opposite numbers flog each other with the same arguments over and over and over again.
The only thing missing is the iron sunrise at the start of the comments.
I’ve just now finally begun to read Nietzsche’s Antichrist where he demolishes fantastical thinking associated with all religion, especially Christianity. It’s no surprise that the denial of natural law continues, especially among the agnostic environmentalists. The pessimist in me thinks we are entering a new dark-age lead by a Hydra of fundamentalists clinging to religion, environmentalism, naturopathy, astrology-magik, NASCAR and “reality” television. Reading the daily letters to the editor in my local paper about the mortal danger of PG&E SmartMeters reinforces these dark thoughts.
#35 Blair,
It doesn’t matter how you cut it. Footprint still doesn’t change. The energy you can extract per sq. meter during the day must be sufficient to power the grid during daylight while also generating sufficient excess heat to be useful enough to supply the grid through the night.
For a place with a 14:10 ratio like the Phoenix worst portion of the year, you need a solar area large enough to supply grid power during 10 hours of daylight and also an area large enough to store sufficient heat in those 10 hours to make the heat last through 14 hours of darkness.
In other words, a total system about 240% of the size necessary to provide power only in the daylight hours.
That would work at 100% capacity factor, but with a 24% CF you have to quadruple the size just to assure 24 hours of power. Then, if you happen to get 3-4 days of partial overcast or rain, you’re screwed without good old reliable fossil fuel always available. It makes no sense to carpet the world with solar installations or windmills.
Wind and solar have comparable capacity factors if solar is within 35 degrees of the equator. Solar capacity factor at the latitude of England or Germany is only about 11%. Very Poor. Both wind and solar are erratic as to when power will be produced.
Here is a graph that demonstrates the erratic nature of wind power in the NW US along with some other sources of power. Updates every 5 minutes. Sorry, they don’t have any solar on their system.
http://transmission.bpa.gov/business/operations/Wind/baltwg.aspx
Hi Bob,
I don’t know anybody who wants solar to replace everything else. It’s a very useful 30% partial solution.
Bob,
As I noted above, my plan would have the benefit of virtually de-carbonizing energy at the cost to the environment. As for the plant size to power a city like Pheonix even at a 14:10 ratio, well that would be childs play as long as you were willing to sacrifice your desert. A 2003 National Renewable Energy Laboratory Study calculated that a 26,000 km2 field of solar troughs could power the entire US energy grid at a cost of pennies for the kWhr. I know that number looks huge but given the area of desert available in the southwest it isn’t all that big a footprint. As I noted above this is not my desired alternative but it is a technologically attainable one using existing technologies. The fact that it shows a wanton disregard for the desert ecosystems of the southwest is simply a cost…not one I would agree we should ask the ecosystems to bear….but certainly an attainable one.
The few new reactors being built in Europe are far over their already big budgets
There are two ways to budget a First of A Kind build of anything. What it is should cost or what it will probably cost.
Anyone who doesn’t allow for a 30% overrun on a First of a Kind Build is making a big mistake. I.E. Okiluto in Finland
Hence…Vogtle #3 and #4 are budgeted at $14 billion for the pair…while VC Summer #2 and #3 and budgeted at $11 billion for the pair.
new nuclear plants are likely only in still-regulated electricity markets such as those of the south-east.
The price of natural gas delivered to Florida Electric Utilities is $6/MMBtu and the price of coal is pretty close to $4/MMBtu.
Florida is faced with a decision to build an additional national gas pipeline to support more natural gas generation of build more nuclear.
This is distinctly different from Texas where coal goes for about $2.50/MMBtu and Natural gas goes for about $4/MMBtu.
For nuclear to be ‘cost effective’ as baseload the delivered price of coal needs to be $4/MMBtu and the delivered price of gas needs to be about $6/MMBtu.
Those numbers only exist in the Southeast.
Tom Fuller,
I don’t know anybody who wants solar to replace everything else. It’s a very useful 30% partial solution.
Southern California has a 16 GW spread between summer peak and winter peak load with the summer being the higher number.
California has 16 GW worth of demand that only exists in the summer when the sun is shining.
30% solar ‘name plate’ capacity fits nicely into California’s mix.
I won’t comment on the price but as a ‘tool that fits the job’ Solar fits well in California up to 16 GW of nameplate capacity.
In places with a smaller summer/winter spread or where winter peak is the highest solar doesn’t fit so well.
Energy is like real-estate…Location,Location, Location 🙂
Absolutely correct, harrywr2. We’re kind of fortunate that as a species we tend to congregate where the sun shines brightly.
The future nuclear power plant here in Florida is getting a ton of bad press lately (not that this is a story). But Progress Energy has swung some deal with the regulators were us lucky consumers “pre-pay” for the nuclear power plant to be built.
And if it doesn’t get built, PE gets to keep a lot of the money anyway. They also tried to rebuild a containment dome several years ago and it cracked again. $1B (with a ‘b’) spent and no schedule for it to come back on-line yet.
I’m a big nuclear supporter, and this stuff looks bad to even me.
The way to make nuclear more cost effective is to not build 50 one-off (custom) plants. It is to build 50 identical plants. Being the right leaning person I am, I paradoxically believe energy production belongs on the govt side of the ledger.
If the greens can’t get out of the way so we can actually build these low carbon solutions, than the greens simply can’t have low carbon solutions. They ought to be the ones campaigning to streamline this stuff, not chaining themselves to turtles in the desert because they fear increased shade might affect their breeding habits.
Business as usual is the enemy of low carbon energy, not skeptics.
If you can’t build a solar farm in the desert without people having a fit, and you can’t build a wind farm in the ocean off Massachusetts without a hissy fit, you really can’t go large with these big footprint energy solutions.
For nuclear to be “˜cost effective’ as baseload the delivered price of coal needs to be $4/MMBtu and the delivered price of gas needs to be about $6/MMBtu.
Those numbers only exist in the Southeast.
Absent government interference or regulation on frakking, $6/MMbtu gas may be a thing of the past. At least for the foreseeable future. I’ve got gas priced at $2.50. But it moves around a bit.
Wrong question. I believe the real question is why is carbon such an obsession for so many?
#42
Anyone who doesn’t allow for a 30% overrun on a First of a Kind Build is making a big mistake. I.E. Olkiluto in Finland
In the case of Olkiluoto, the one who made the mistake was Areva, the company building the plant.
Olkiluoto 3 is a fixed-price turnkey deal so the cost overruns are Areva’s responsibility.
And those who think scaling up for solar will work because a 26,000 k2 footprint is reasonable need to think a wee bit more on the topic. And big wind, pun intended, really blows. With a delivery rate of at best 20% stated capacity, and with thousands of generators to break and demand service, it is a terribly expensive non-solution.
#46 kdk,
Absent government interference or regulation on frakking, $6/MMbtu gas may be a thing of the past. At least for the foreseeable future. I’ve got gas priced at $2.50.
I would caution against making conclusions on the long term price of natural gas in an ‘abnormally warm’ winter.
http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/weekly/#jm-prices
The natural gas rotary rig count, as reported March 2 by Baker Hughes Incorporated, fell for the eighth week in a row, decreasing by 19 to 691 active units, the lowest since August 2009.
I would note that in July ’08 there were 1600 active natural gas drilling rigs in the US. In March ’08 the price of natural gas spiked above $12/MMBtu.
It’s clear that below a wellhead price of $4/MMBtu drilling rig count drops.
Whether $4/MMBtu allows for a return on investment on ‘initial field development’ I don’t know. There was a lot of ‘over-investment’ in 2008.
Tom Scharf Says:
</i>But Progress Energy has swung some deal with the regulators were us lucky consumers “pre-pay” for the nuclear power plant to be built…And if it doesn’t get built, PE gets to keep a lot of the money anyway. .</i>
PE will get to ‘keep the money’ they actually spent getting a site permit and other ancillary expenses like making reservations for long lead time forgings.
Site specific permitting takes about 2-3 years and costs quite a lot of money. But once you have your ‘site permit’ instead of being 8-10 years away from having a new plant you are 6 years away.
Think of it as purchasing an ‘option to build. If PE doesn’t pay for an ‘option to build’ and a carbon tax comes along or the price of natural gas spikes Florida consumers will be ‘paying the price’ for 3-4 years longer then if they had paid for the ‘option to build’.
Florida isn’t the only state that is allowing utilities to recoup the cost of having an ‘option to build’. The Iowa Senate just voted yesterday to do the same.
The future electric energy market is generally ‘murky’ at the moment. Where demand will be in 10 years time is anyone’s guess.
Tom Scharf,
Demand is really not that difficult to estimate. In a stable and developed country it is pretty straightforward to calculate projections of GDP per capita and projected population increase and come up with a magically precise figure that in actuality is probably pretty good.
And again, in a stable and developed country supply constraints are not really an issue, even at a regional level.
The only uncertainty 10 years out would be the portfolio mix of fuels that will be delivered to satisfy the demand.
I haven’t broken out energy demand by U.S. state, but if the data for GDP and population increase is broken out at a state level it wouldn’t be difficult–just punching the calculator for fifty calculations instead of one.
The Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration thinks U.S. energy consumption will be about 101 quads in 2020.
My figures are different. The U.S. Census Bureau conducted four projection cases for population. The one everyone (including the DOE EIA) uses is the middle case. However, the one that corresponds best to what has happened since the projections were done is the high case. After 10 years it is bang-on correct. The middle case underestimated U.S. population by a whopping 10 million after only a decade.
Using the high population estimate and conventional projections for growth in GDP per capita I come up with an estimate of almost 110 quads for the country–a 10% difference driven almost completely by different population projections.
Tom Fuller,
The only uncertainty 10 years out would be the portfolio mix of fuels that will be delivered to satisfy the demand.
Between 1999 and 2001 average electricity demand in the Pacific Northwest dropped 16% back to levels not seen since the mid-1980’s. It’s been pretty flat ever since.
When WPPS ordered the 5 nuclear power plants in the 1970’s demand was projected to rise 5% per annum. It never happened and 4 of the plants were canceled in some state of being built. We haven’t built anything other then a handful of peakers in the PNW in more then 20 years.
A real power plan for the PNW –
http://www.nwcouncil.org/energy/powerplan/6/final/SixthPowerPlan.pdf
Electric demand growth expected to grow 1.4% per year with 85% of that being offset thru efficiency and conservations measure. So realized demand growth is expected to be 0.2% per year.
Between 1999-2001 demand in the Pacific Northwest declined 16% back to mid 1980’s levels and has never really recovered.
Things change…Aluminum Siding went out of style..a big ‘projected’ demand disappeared. A carbon tax gets passed in Australia and Alcoa moves some production from Australia to Washington State.
If Carbon Fiber cars become stylish electricity demand in the Pacific Northwest will skyrocket.
Demographics, Industrial mix, migration patterns all effect demand.
Yesterday’s ‘stylish place to move to’ becomes tomorrow’s place to move away from.
Demand on a regional level is extremely difficult to predict.
Actually, I am seeing and hearing coverage of all elements of the tragedy: 20,000 deaths and 350,000 left homeless by the earthquake/tsunami; and the 80,000 nuclear refugees. Perhaps Mark is pretending otherwise for the purpose of simplifying his current position on nuclear. That is not necessary.
“what’s the quickest (and most realistic) path to a low-carbon energy economy”
It will probably require nuclear energy to maintain current overconsumption.
However, many current analyses suggest that making a substantial dent in emissions quickly and without too seriously limiting energy requirements (especially the energy requirements for developing nations) requires that we focus on efficiencies. An outrageous level of energy inefficiency continues to be the overall approach to managing the economy, and production.
” An outrageous level of energy inefficiency continues to be the overall approach to managing the economy, and production. ”
best of luck arguing the ‘$20 bill lying on the sidewalk’ angle. i haven’t had much success. Too many people it seems apparently really do believe that we are perfectly rational actors with full information and that the market really is ‘free’.
on a completely unrelated note, does anyone have a jet i could borrow for a couple weeks? i need to get to fort myers and these guys apparently aren’t up for the job (or a refund) so i’m looking at a good 48 hrs of family time on the road. absent a jet, i’ll also take suggestions on audiobooks and/or restaurants on the i75/77/79….
did i forget to mention how much i love unregulated free markets where consumer protection laws amount to caveat emptor?
Marlow,
Would you be happier in Cuba?
We still have much work to do getting government out of the markets so they can be truly free. It pleases me to know you are on board with the fight. Letting people make decisions for themselves and all.
Welcome!
Harry,
USGC Nat Gas was historically $6-$8 mmbtu. That was before shale gas, a game changer. It won’t return to those levels unless something – eg government intervention – happens to neutralize that change.
Prices for just about everything were wacked in ’07 and ’08, so those years make for bad comparisons.
$4 mmbtu might be a reasonable equilibrium, long term. For now, it looks more like $3. Today (or actually yesterday) it is less than $2.50.
Petrochemical companies are announcing crackers, ethane and condensate crackers believe it or not, which is utterly amazing. Shale gas changes things. A lot.
just sayin’
Martha @ 54
Marlowe @ 55
First – to be clear – I agree wholeheartedly that there is gross inefficiency in energy use in the developed economies and that some real-world potential exists for reducing this over the next two decades.
But I also know that global projections are for increased demand.
There are 1.5 billion people without electricity. Do they stay in the dark? What of the implications for population growth? Several billions more are transitioning from marginal electrical consumption to a higher rate (eg BRIC). How might this be prevented without injustice?
In developed economies demand is projected to rise – eg the electrification of personal transport and the continuing evolution of the digital infrastructure. Some clouds do not have silver linings (unless you own shares in Apple).
How do we square this circle without a substantial expansion of nuclear in the energy mix?
kdk33 Say
USGC Nat Gas was historically $6-$8 mmbtu. That was before shale gas, a game changer.
All the information I’ve seen says extraction costs are higher for shale gas. So I don’t see how the current prices of gas can be maintained below historical norms.
These guys seem to think to produce an 8% return on investment natural gas prices need to be about $7/MMBtu. At zero return the price needs to be about $5-$6.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8212
Then we have stories like this –
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/royale-reports-16-million-in-cash-flow-from-operations-for-2011-2012-03-15
As a result of this increased rate of production and the significant decline in the price of Natural Gas, the company sustained an impairment of its Oil and Natural Gas Properties. This resulted in a non-cash expense of $4,529,058 for the year ended December 31, 2011, and was the most significant factor in the Net Loss of $4,104,338 or $(0.39) per basic share.
I
I guess it depends on what you mean by “substantial”. New generation nuclear shows some promise. Is it the solution to climate change i.e. is it broadly applicable? I don’t think so. Is it going to play a role? Yes.
The recommended role of nuclear in the future is unclear but the risks are frankly well-known. Among other things, countries demonstrate an overall inadequate capacity for contingency planning and risk management as those who have been paying attention to the world can plainly see; and developing countries do not have the overall resources for even minimal contingency planning without enormous external assistance. If there is to be a continuting or new role for nuclear, it requires advances in shared public, government and private risk planning and monitoring with communities. Is that possible? Yes.
The conversation includes many approaches. Large-scale renewable makes sense in some geographical and economic situations but very obviously not others. Anyone remotely familiar with the absolutely incredible extent of energy waste in the United States knows the potential for really significant dents in the problem and responsibility-taking in the short-term, relatively quickly and cheaply. Etc.
#60
Among other things, countries demonstrate an overall inadequate capacity for contingency planning and risk management as those who have been paying attention to the world can plainly see;
Events that occur globally at 25 year or greater intervals are difficult to plan for…which is probably an argument for having a global incident response team rather then a local incident response team.
The odds of a local response team ever doing anything but planning are extremely low. The opportunity to ‘gain experience’ is just too low.
The contingency planning for a nuclear reactor accident is pretty simple….dump the milk. The Russian’s didn’t ‘dump the milk’ and ended up with 4,000 thyroid cancers.
The Japanese dumped the milk.