Science/Environment The Carbon Debate, pt III

[Partridge]

lol. I find it quite interesting that you have such strong opinions.

Can you tell me what you are doing to reduce CO2 emissions?

Isn't action what is more important than opinions?

I am investing heavily into reducing pollution (not just CO2) and I am not doing this because I think the sky will fall in or any other hype. I am interested in a calm, methodical transition to a better way of production.

Don't tell me you are an arm waving, hyped up loonie that thinks everyone else should do the heavy lifting?

Nope, more than happy to do my part. First step is actually learning about the topic. Not trust talking heads on television, actually gain and understanding of climate science. That's what I'm doing.

Second part is what you're doing. I agree entirely, you can't just close every coal mine in the world either, there needs to be a transition towards more efficient energy sources. But I do have strong opinions against those who deny the science when they have no actual knowledge of it themselves.

 

[Power Raid]

Nope, more than happy to do my part. First step is actually learning about the topic. Not trust talking heads on television, actually gain and understanding of climate science. That's what I'm doing.

Second part is what you're doing. I agree entirely, you can't just close every coal mine in the world either, there needs to be a transition towards more efficient energy sources. But I do have strong opinions against those who deny the science when they have no actual knowledge of it themselves.

fair enough

 

[Power Raid]

I think it is quite interesting to see the carbon spike in japan post fukushima, france's enviable emissions, germany's relatively high emissions given their much publicised renewable energy programs and look forward to revisiting the graph in 10 years time when China has rolled out many of their aggressive build program.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/China--Nuclear-Power/

 

[SaintsSeptember]

View attachment 47462


I think it is quite interesting to see the carbon spike in japan post fukushima, france's enviable emissions, germany's relatively high emissions given their much publicised renewable energy programs and look forward to revisiting the graph in 10 years time when China has rolled out many of their aggressive build program.


http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/China--Nuclear-Power/

I'm not sure that gross domestic product is a good basis for comparison though. Industries such as education, financial services , medicine and farming contribute to GDP but will have a much lower affect on energy than manufacturing.

It does highlight nuclear though, have a look at france.

 

[Power Raid]

Imagine the pollution levels when India finally gets its act together

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Imagine the pollution levels when India finally gets its act together

View attachment 47469

For god sake when will idiots learn to take autoscale off excel charts so that a proper graphical comparison can be observed.

 

[Footy Smarts]

View attachment 47462


I think it is quite interesting to see the carbon spike in japan post fukushima, france's enviable emissions, germany's relatively high emissions given their much publicised renewable energy programs and look forward to revisiting the graph in 10 years time when China has rolled out many of their aggressive build program.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/China--Nuclear-Power/

Japan's spike was completely predictable. They had the fossil fuel infrastructure there ready to use so of course when they decide to shut down nuclear reactors that's what they'll turn too. The question is what happens in the long-term. Do they go back to nuclear to reduce the spike, move massively towards renewables or stick with fossil fuels? Hopefully it's not the last one. Germany's recent renewables push is barely a blip on the end of that graph and has been counteracted by their (dumb) move away from nuclear. France shows clearly that the world would be better off if everyone had gone nuclear back when it was cheap and easy. Unfortunately Chernobyl ended those hopes.

China's an interesting one. They've certainly got a very ambitious nuclear program trying to get to 58GW by 2020. Currently they're at around 14GW so that means they'll need to install about 7GW a year nuclear to make the target (some recent reports have them even surpassing that). In contrast they installed 12GW of solar last year and 16.1GW of wind. The wind number has stabilised recently after rapid growth but the solar number is exploding (0.53GW installed in 2010, 2.5GW in 2011, 5GW in 2012, 12GW in 2013...). So China's installing similar amounts of wind power at the moment as what they aim for nuclear out to 2020 (once capacity factors are taken into account). My bet is that solar will also be a similar amount by the end of this year and then dwarf the other two as it is the easiest of the 3 to implement on a massive scale and all predictions suggest it's going to be the cheapest.

 

[Power Raid]

Japan's spike was completely predictable. They had the fossil fuel infrastructure there ready to use so of course when they decide to shut down nuclear reactors that's what they'll turn too. The question is what happens in the long-term. Do they go back to nuclear to reduce the spike, move massively towards renewables or stick with fossil fuels? Hopefully it's not the last one. Germany's recent renewables push is barely a blip on the end of that graph and has been counteracted by their (dumb) move away from nuclear. France shows clearly that the world would be better off if everyone had gone nuclear back when it was cheap and easy. Unfortunately Chernobyl ended those hopes.

China's an interesting one. They've certainly got a very ambitious nuclear program trying to get to 58GW by 2020. Currently they're at around 14GW so that means they'll need to install about 7GW a year nuclear to make the target (some recent reports have them even surpassing that). In contrast they installed 12GW of solar last year and 16.1GW of wind. The wind number has stabilised recently after rapid growth but the solar number is exploding (0.53GW installed in 2010, 2.5GW in 2011, 5GW in 2012, 12GW in 2013...). So China's installing similar amounts of wind power at the moment as what they aim for nuclear out to 2020 (once capacity factors are taken into account). My bet is that solar will also be a similar amount by the end of this year and then dwarf the other two as it is the easiest of the 3 to implement on a massive scale and all predictions suggest it's going to be the cheapest.

You are comparing apples with oranges.

Renewable energy is at its infancy like nuclear power in the 1950s. It has a long way to go before it can be considered a part solution let alone a major solution. Using the UKs recent wind production vs capacity it is running at 0.86% efficiency which means the 16.1GW is really 116 times less than that (0.13GW or 130MW = one tenth just one nuclear power plant). In time they will improve this but I see renewable energy as a great supplement to the energy mix but will not displace coal, gas and oil power production, for 50 years, but nuclear can today.





and raising Chernoybl in the context of modern nuclear power is ridiculous, due to the age of the plant design and the fact it was a plutonium producer first and power station second.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Amazing how much oil is still being burnt for Power production. Surely ANYTHING is more viable that that.

 

[Partridge]

Amazing how much oil is still being burnt for Power production. Surely ANYTHING is more viable that that.

Not if you work in that industry. Money is a nice thing especially to those who have lots of it.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Yet again the fruits which the population got rid of voted against the repeal. Seriously how about you get out of the way and let Liberal do their job! The population want the tax gone!

 

[Partridge]

Yet again the fruits which the population got rid of voted against the repeal. Seriously how about you get out of the way and let Liberal do their job! The population want the tax gone!

Won't be the only thing gone if enough morons get their way.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Won't be the only thing gone if enough morons get their way.

Good! The less rubbish climate taxes the better! Just a Gillard tax to blow the Greenies!

 

[Partridge]

Good! The less rubbish climate taxes the better! Just a Gillard tax to blow the Greenies!

Yeah that sounds really measured. Rubbish climate taxes, you think it's all a myth or something?

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Yeah that sounds really measured. Rubbish climate taxes, you think it's all a myth or something?

I think it costs me more to live, and frankly I care about my family first and foremost. Not that these climate taxes have done anything considering Asia is pumping more into the air lol

 

[Partridge]

I think it costs me more to live, and frankly I care about my family first and foremost. Not that these climate taxes have done anything considering Asia is pumping more into the air lol

China is also investing far more heavily in renewable technologies. You think China owns everything now, just wait 20 years.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

China is also investing far more heavily in renewable technologies. You think China owns everything now, just wait 20 years.

Then we can wait until they do something! No need to cripple families, industries, etc just to be more 'green'. It isn't worth it at this stage! I find it funny that the Greens/Labor whinge when an industry goes down "wa wa...what about the workers"...when the silly tax had a massive influence!

 

[Footy Smarts]

You are comparing apples with oranges.

Sure. But I was just comparing the relative contributions of the 3 sources to new electricity in China which will affect the dip that we're likely to see in 10 years time.

Renewable energy is at its infancy like nuclear power in the 1950s. It has a long way to go before it can be considered a part solution let alone a major solution. Using the UKs recent wind production vs capacity it is running at 0.86% efficiency which means the 16.1GW is really 116 times less than that (0.13GW or 130MW = one tenth just one nuclear power plant). In time they will improve this but I see renewable energy as a great supplement to the energy mix but will not displace coal, gas and oil power production, for 50 years, but nuclear can today.

You're right that renewable energy is in its infancy. I'd say more the 60s when nuclear suddenly started growing quickly rather than the 50s when it was still test plants and proof of concept. We're beyond that with renewables and we're starting to see a massive ramping up of scale. But there are a couple of things that make ramping up solar far, far easier than ramping up nuclear.

1) Solar can bypass the need to transport electricity. The cost of the grid is huge. Rooftop solar doesn't need to beat the costs of producing electricity via coal it only needs to beat the costs of producing electricity via coal AND transporting it to your house. Solar PV already does this in most places. The demand from this is forcing down prices for large-scale solar which is predicted to be the cheapest form of generation in coming decades.

2) It's an incredibly simple technology. No massive safety concerns, no high-level engineering. Basically it just requires standard manufacturing and construction. Unlike nuclear it doesn't require a massive team of nuclear engineers to get a big industry. That's perfect for China with a huge population without a lot of tertiary education (at least as a % of population).

3) It can be implemented practically anywhere immediately. No massive prior engineering and potential solar energy is many, many times our power usage.

These combined means solar is likely to explode in the near future like we've seen in the last 5 years.

Your claim that nuclear can replace fossil fuels "now" is just wrong. Sure the technology can but even if Australia decided today that nuclear was the answer it would likely be 15 years before a nuclear plant was actually finished here. Maybe in 40 years we could build enough to replace our fossil fuels if everything goes right. That's not even taking into account the fact that we'd have to at least triple our wholesale electricity prices for nuclear power to make it economically viable (see the new UK reactor).

Also your example of wind is just wrong. Standard wind capacity factors are ~30% (in the UK between 2007-2012 it averaged 27.5%) and these are increasing with newer turbines. So 16.1GW wind at 30% is 4.83GW effective while 7GW of nuclear at 85% capacity factor (again this is standard although the UK was down at 61.9% between 2007 and 2012) is 5.95GW. So what they're hoping to do for nuclear out to 2020 is a little bit higher than what they're currently doing for wind.

and raising Chernoybl in the context of modern nuclear power is ridiculous, due to the age of the plant design and the fact it was a plutonium producer first and power station second.

I'm not raising Chernobyl in saying that's a legitimate concern. I'm raising Chernobyl because it generated fear that has never dissipated. Fear is a strong motive and despite it being pretty much completely baseless it's incredibly ingrained and widespread. If you want to build widespread nuclear power in Australia you're going to have to overcome that. Good luck with it because you're going to need it.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Sure. But I was just comparing the relative contributions of the 3 sources to new electricity in China which will affect the dip that we're likely to see in 10 years time.



You're right that renewable energy is in its infancy. I'd say more the 60s when nuclear suddenly started growing quickly rather than the 50s when it was still test plants and proof of concept. We're beyond that with renewables and we're starting to see a massive ramping up of scale. But there are a couple of things that make ramping up solar far, far easier than ramping up nuclear.

1) Solar can bypass the need to transport electricity. The cost of the grid is huge. Rooftop solar doesn't need to beat the costs of producing electricity via coal it only needs to beat the costs of producing electricity via coal AND transporting it to your house. Solar PV already does this in most places. The demand from this is forcing down prices for large-scale solar which is predicted to be the cheapest form of generation in coming decades.

2) It's an incredibly simple technology. No massive safety concerns, no high-level engineering. Basically it just requires standard manufacturing and construction. Unlike nuclear it doesn't require a massive team of nuclear engineers to get a big industry. That's perfect for China with a huge population without a lot of tertiary education (at least as a % of population).

3) It can be implemented practically anywhere immediately. No massive prior engineering and potential solar energy is many, many times our power usage.

These combined means solar is likely to explode in the near future like we've seen in the last 5 years.

Your claim that nuclear can replace fossil fuels "now" is just wrong. Sure the technology can but even if Australia decided today that nuclear was the answer it would likely be 15 years before a nuclear plant was actually finished here. Maybe in 40 years we could build enough to replace our fossil fuels if everything goes right. That's not even taking into account the fact that we'd have to at least triple our wholesale electricity prices for nuclear power to make it economically viable (see the new UK reactor).

Also your example of wind is just wrong. Standard wind capacity factors are ~30% (in the UK between 2007-2012 it averaged 27.5%) and these are increasing with newer turbines. So 16.1GW wind at 30% is 4.83GW effective while 7GW of nuclear at 85% capacity factor (again this is standard although the UK was down at 61.9% between 2007 and 2012) is 5.95GW. So what they're hoping to do for nuclear out to 2020 is a little bit higher than what they're currently doing for wind.



I'm not raising Chernobyl in saying that's a legitimate concern. I'm raising Chernobyl because it generated fear that has never dissipated. Fear is a strong motive and despite it being pretty much completely baseless it's incredibly ingrained and widespread. If you want to build widespread nuclear power in Australia you're going to have to overcome that. Good luck with it because you're going to need it.

Wind capacity % is a bit over simplistic though.
You cant just build extra to allow for it. For example if you have 50 windmills on your windfarm and the wind isn't blowing, it wont help you to have 100 windmills at that farm.

 

[Footy Smarts]

Wind capacity % is a bit over simplistic though.
You cant just build extra to allow for it. For example if you have 50 windmills on your windfarm and the wind isn't blowing, it wont help you to have 100 windmills at that farm.

This isn't an issue at the moment since wind penetration is rarely high enough for this to be a worry with already built plants being able to load match. While having interconnected grids can somewhat overcome the problem you state you're right that it's still a problem...if we're using the same grid we are now.

The most important thing to recognise though is that electricity generation is about to go through a massive shift. The grid and traditional utilities are facing a problem of epic proportions. The timeline is something like this:

1) The utilities make massive and at times unnecessary investments in the grid under the assumption that people will continue to buy electricity at higher prices. This forces electricity prices up massively causing it to become a huge issue. This has already happened.

2) Solar roovftop PV is promoted through FiTs so that people can feel good about being clean and green. The utilities don't care because it'll never compete with them. Happened already.

3) Due to a couple of countries wanting to lead the world massive money is put into renewables and the costs of these crash. Solar PV is the biggest winner from this. Happened already and continuing.

4) The utilities in Australia panic as solar PV spreads due to huge subsidies and demand the subsidies be removed. This has happened and is happening.

5) But now solar PV is ahead on cost even without the subsidies that have been removed and the trend is for it to get cheaper while electricity from the grid gets more expensive. This has happened.

So what are the grid operators supposed to do? Their market is being cut into by solar in a massive way because you don't need to pay distribution costs. Even though rooftop solar PV can go nowhere near matching the 6c/KWh wholesale price it can comfortably beat the ~20c/KWh retail price. It still makes economic sense to go solar and, despite FiTs being massively reduced the installation rate is pretty solid. Nowhere near the boom before they were removed but it's still cutting into the utilities market. Every time a solar panel goes on a roof the utilities sell less electricity. Either they take a loss on that massive over-investment in the grid or they increase electricity prices to make up for it. Obviously the first one sucks and if they increase prices it just makes it more beneficial to go solar.

So what's going to happen from here?

I expect as solar prices drop and electricity prices rise solar will become far more widespread. Currently it's at about 14% penetration and those systems only cover a small fraction of that available roof space. As more people implement solar electricity prices have to go up. It also means that daytime demand will drop more and more leaving utilities having a harder time relying on cheap coal due to big spikes in the evening when PV stops. Gas is getting more expensive due to export capabilities too. It's just a vicious cycle for utilities where they have to increase prices to recoup costs but that in turn leads to them getting less market share.

Eventually we'll hit a point where solar and storage is preferable to relying on grid electricity and that spells doom for fossil fuels. With storage those people with small solar modules can now upgrade to much bigger ones and rely on the grid even less. It also means that wind, which is cheaper than fossil fuels already, and large-scale solar, which is predicted to be the cheapest of the lot, doesn't have to worry about intermittency since people can store their own electricity and just power up from the grid when it's available.

Currently we've got a bit over 3GW solar. In 5 years I expect that to more than double while electricity prices increase. People will start flirting with storage at that stage. That is when the grid operators are in massive trouble.

The fact is change can happen very quickly and nothing drives change faster than price. It is happening for rooftop solar and it's only going to speed up purely based on price. The logical conclusion for this is also very positive for other renewables since storage is likely to solve intermittency issues.

 

[11sjw]

How correct is the info presented and inferred in this article?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...LING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html

 

[SaintsSeptember]

This isn't an issue at the moment since wind penetration is rarely high enough for this to be a worry with already built plants being able to load match. While having interconnected grids can somewhat overcome the problem you state you're right that it's still a problem...if we're using the same grid we are now.

The most important thing to recognise though is that electricity generation is about to go through a massive shift. The grid and traditional utilities are facing a problem of epic proportions. The timeline is something like this:

1) The utilities make massive and at times unnecessary investments in the grid under the assumption that people will continue to buy electricity at higher prices. This forces electricity prices up massively causing it to become a huge issue. This has already happened.

2) Solar roovftop PV is promoted through FiTs so that people can feel good about being clean and green. The utilities don't care because it'll never compete with them. Happened already.

3) Due to a couple of countries wanting to lead the world massive money is put into renewables and the costs of these crash. Solar PV is the biggest winner from this. Happened already and continuing.

4) The utilities in Australia panic as solar PV spreads due to huge subsidies and demand the subsidies be removed. This has happened and is happening.

5) But now solar PV is ahead on cost even without the subsidies that have been removed and the trend is for it to get cheaper while electricity from the grid gets more expensive. This has happened.

So what are the grid operators supposed to do? Their market is being cut into by solar in a massive way because you don't need to pay distribution costs. Even though rooftop solar PV can go nowhere near matching the 6c/KWh wholesale price it can comfortably beat the ~20c/KWh retail price. It still makes economic sense to go solar and, despite FiTs being massively reduced the installation rate is pretty solid. Nowhere near the boom before they were removed but it's still cutting into the utilities market. Every time a solar panel goes on a roof the utilities sell less electricity. Either they take a loss on that massive over-investment in the grid or they increase electricity prices to make up for it. Obviously the first one sucks and if they increase prices it just makes it more beneficial to go solar.

So what's going to happen from here?

I expect as solar prices drop and electricity prices rise solar will become far more widespread. Currently it's at about 14% penetration and those systems only cover a small fraction of that available roof space. As more people implement solar electricity prices have to go up. It also means that daytime demand will drop more and more leaving utilities having a harder time relying on cheap coal due to big spikes in the evening when PV stops. Gas is getting more expensive due to export capabilities too. It's just a vicious cycle for utilities where they have to increase prices to recoup costs but that in turn leads to them getting less market share.

Eventually we'll hit a point where solar and storage is preferable to relying on grid electricity and that spells doom for fossil fuels. With storage those people with small solar modules can now upgrade to much bigger ones and rely on the grid even less. It also means that wind, which is cheaper than fossil fuels already, and large-scale solar, which is predicted to be the cheapest of the lot, doesn't have to worry about intermittency since people can store their own electricity and just power up from the grid when it's available.

Currently we've got a bit over 3GW solar. In 5 years I expect that to more than double while electricity prices increase. People will start flirting with storage at that stage. That is when the grid operators are in massive trouble.

The fact is change can happen very quickly and nothing drives change faster than price. It is happening for rooftop solar and it's only going to speed up purely based on price. The logical conclusion for this is also very positive for other renewables since storage is likely to solve intermittency issues.

Say an area needed 1000Mw.
Someone built a gas station that produces 1000Mw, they price the power to give themselves a 10 year payback.
Then someone built a subsidised wind farm. that produces 500Mw when the wind blows.
The people with the gas station do the math and put up their prices, when the wind isn't blowing they really jack up their prices.
When the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining you still need that 1000Mw and you still pay for the entire 1000Mw.

 

[Breeder Reactor]

Anyone suggesting solar panels on roof tops or concentrated solar thermal plants built in the outback, along with wind turbine power, is a "future" potential for human beings, as a replacement energy source, compared to fossil or nuclear power, needed for the future of mankind is a dopey bastard. Full stop.

Ignorance, incompetence, stupidity... coupled with moronic imbeciles, seems to sum up the current 21st century Malthusian Eco Fascists we all now see today defending this garbage "power source" called modern day renewable energy.

Apart from Hydro electricity, renewable is sh*T!


A nation still drawing 18,000MW in it’s sleep can’t go solar…

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/a-nation-still-drawing-18000mw-in-its-sleep-cant-go-solar/

 

[Ripper]

Amazing how much oil is still being burnt for Power production. Surely ANYTHING is more viable that that.

Think you will find that that is mostly used for heating and transport.

 

[Breeder Reactor]

This isn't an issue at the moment since wind penetration is rarely high enough for this to be a worry with already built plants being able to load match. While having interconnected grids can somewhat overcome the problem you state you're right that it's still a problem...if we're using the same grid we are now.

The most important thing to recognise though is that electricity generation is about to go through a massive shift. The grid and traditional utilities are facing a problem of epic proportions. The timeline is something like this:

1) The utilities make massive and at times unnecessary investments in the grid under the assumption that people will continue to buy electricity at higher prices. This forces electricity prices up massively causing it to become a huge issue. This has already happened.

2) Solar roovftop PV is promoted through FiTs so that people can feel good about being clean and green. The utilities don't care because it'll never compete with them. Happened already.

3) Due to a couple of countries wanting to lead the world massive money is put into renewables and the costs of these crash. Solar PV is the biggest winner from this. Happened already and continuing.

4) The utilities in Australia panic as solar PV spreads due to huge subsidies and demand the subsidies be removed. This has happened and is happening.

5) But now solar PV is ahead on cost even without the subsidies that have been removed and the trend is for it to get cheaper while electricity from the grid gets more expensive. This has happened.

So what are the grid operators supposed to do? Their market is being cut into by solar in a massive way because you don't need to pay distribution costs. Even though rooftop solar PV can go nowhere near matching the 6c/KWh wholesale price it can comfortably beat the ~20c/KWh retail price. It still makes economic sense to go solar and, despite FiTs being massively reduced the installation rate is pretty solid. Nowhere near the boom before they were removed but it's still cutting into the utilities market. Every time a solar panel goes on a roof the utilities sell less electricity. Either they take a loss on that massive over-investment in the grid or they increase electricity prices to make up for it. Obviously the first one sucks and if they increase prices it just makes it more beneficial to go solar.

So what's going to happen from here?

I expect as solar prices drop and electricity prices rise solar will become far more widespread. Currently it's at about 14% penetration and those systems only cover a small fraction of that available roof space. As more people implement solar electricity prices have to go up. It also means that daytime demand will drop more and more leaving utilities having a harder time relying on cheap coal due to big spikes in the evening when PV stops. Gas is getting more expensive due to export capabilities too. It's just a vicious cycle for utilities where they have to increase prices to recoup costs but that in turn leads to them getting less market share.

Eventually we'll hit a point where solar and storage is preferable to relying on grid electricity and that spells doom for fossil fuels. With storage those people with small solar modules can now upgrade to much bigger ones and rely on the grid even less. It also means that wind, which is cheaper than fossil fuels already, and large-scale solar, which is predicted to be the cheapest of the lot, doesn't have to worry about intermittency since people can store their own electricity and just power up from the grid when it's available.

Currently we've got a bit over 3GW solar. In 5 years I expect that to more than double while electricity prices increase. People will start flirting with storage at that stage. That is when the grid operators are in massive trouble.

The fact is change can happen very quickly and nothing drives change faster than price. It is happening for rooftop solar and it's only going to speed up purely based on price. The logical conclusion for this is also very positive for other renewables since storage is likely to solve intermittency issues.

"Eventually we'll hit a point where solar and storage is preferable to relying on grid electricity and that spells doom for fossil fuels. With storage those people with small solar modules can now upgrade to much bigger ones and rely on the grid even less. It also means that wind, which is cheaper than fossil fuels already, and large-scale solar, which is predicted to be the cheapest of the lot, doesn't have to worry about intermittency since people can store their own electricity and just power up from the grid when it's available."

I'm laughing my arse off!

Go forth smart man and use solar power and wind power to keep Perth running 24/7. TODAY! with current power usage Detail your plan. No country in the world has solved this problem.


LMAO ... solar and wind!