The World Could Reach Peak Coal And Oil In Three Years, Thanks To Cheap Renewables

66 Comments on "The World Could Reach Peak Coal And Oil In Three Years, Thanks To Cheap Renewables"

rockman on Wed, 8th Feb 2017 6:21 am 



And then there are the facts as seen by the IEA: “Since the start of the 21st century, coal production has been the fastest-growing global energy source. While provisional IEA figures show a slight decrease in 2014 driven by a decline in China and some exceptional circumstances such as unrest in Ukraine, the IEA sees global supply increasing at an average rate of 0.6% through 2020.”

And: In April 2016 Aussi coal was running around $54 per short ton. By Nov it topped out $107/st and has since stabilized $92/st.

http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=coal-australian&months=60

Seems the author of the article has redefined the definition of “collapse”.

makati1 on Wed, 8th Feb 2017 6:39 am 



More bullshit from the dreamers. Alternatives will never replace coal, oil and NG until none are available and then only a small percentage of the electric we use today. Japan is building new coal power plants to replace the nukes. The U$ will be building more and probably China and India.

baha on Wed, 8th Feb 2017 6:43 am 



Rockman – I agree with your market driven analysis. I also agree with the author. Can your industry still function with a 10% reduction in demand in the next 5 years? The tipping point is here – now. You better start planning to downsize…

Davy on Wed, 8th Feb 2017 6:43 am 



I just wish both sides would be honest. I hate fake news and the hypocrisy. I hate people living one way talking another. I hate watching as nature is drawn and quartered in between these two forces of deception. I bothers me the younger generation is facing a horrible future and little is being done to prepare them. I call that whining but at this point that is all I see we can do.

Marty on Wed, 8th Feb 2017 8:35 am 



Yes, the innocent children and grandchildren, victims of the evil old folks who caused the problems. If the innocent children and grandchildren had discovered the same treasure trove of energy as did the evil old folks, they would have done exactly the same thing. Denial and pursuit of pleasure are baked into the human cake. Thoughtfulness is, with relatively rare exception, not in the DNA.

Cloggie on Wed, 8th Feb 2017 8:57 am 



Admit it Rockman, your profession is under grave threat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grantham_Institute_-_Climate_Change_and_Environment

I smell scientific competence associated with the Grantham Institute and part of the Imperial College London. There is no real energy problem in the long term.

penury on Wed, 8th Feb 2017 10:00 am 



Meanwhile out in the real world, coal and oil use continue to grow.

rockman on Wed, 8th Feb 2017 10:16 am 



baha/Cloggie – “Can your industry still function with a 10% reduction in demand in the next 5 years?” Obviously yes. Demand decline, lower oil prices, higher drillining costs, a pissed off public, a supportive POTUS, a POTUS that hates our guts, etc, etc: none of it ever has or ever will prevent us from functioning. It only effects our activity level. In 5 years the conditions will support a high level of activity or a low level. The industry functioned after oil prices went to $30/bbl in 1986, $17/bbl in 1998, $28/bbl in #2015.

Functioning has never been a problem for the industry. Finding another f*cking hole to drill has been a problem through out my 41 year career. LOL.

Davy on Wed, 8th Feb 2017 10:28 am 



Rock, I think you have better job security then the majority here. When big oil ends modern civilization will have ended. Oil whiners wipe the shit out of your eyes.

Greg on Wed, 8th Feb 2017 11:41 am 



Peak Oil is great. Also check out below: And let me know what do you think?
check out http://www.syncrude.org

Kenz300 on Wed, 8th Feb 2017 12:22 pm 



Clean energy production with solar panels / tiles and battery storage.
Clean energy consumption with electric vehicles. No emissions.
Sign me up. A new solar roof, battery storage, an electric car charger and an electric vehicle.
Solar panels are now being projected to have a much longer life and lower cost than just a few years ago.

Anonymous on Wed, 8th Feb 2017 2:29 pm 



Kenzbot, a less verbose, but more repetitive version of cloggo. Hey Kenz, you should move to hollandia, according to cloggo, the dutch have all that and more. Solar powered roads, millions of EV’s, tulips too cheap to meter, decriminalized marijuana. Hell, they way cloggster goes on, the dutch probably even got anti-gravity hoverboards too. You and cloggo would have a blast. What are you waiting for kenzbot, paradise (holland) awaits. Im sure cloggo wont mind if you crash at his place and use his computer so you keep telling the world how EVs(and trump) will save the…world.

dave thompson on Wed, 8th Feb 2017 3:05 pm 



Global dimming, check it out. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=17&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwiolcars4HSAhXG1IMKHYDwD5MQFghvMBA&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftopdocumentaryfilms.com%2Fglobal-dimming%2F&usg=AFQjCNEWSc5v0ntPu6Ea7Vuatlyslxd2mw&bvm=bv.146496531,d.amc

Antius on Thu, 9th Feb 2017 6:25 am 



I managed to stop drooling long enough to write a post 🙂

I would strongly recommend reading ‘Without Hot Air’ by David McKay. You can access it for free here:
http://www.withouthotair.com

McKay carries out a detailed analysis of what would be needed to meet the UK’s energy demand using renewable energy. The results provide sobering reading. The power density of wind power plants (at maximum build density without wind shadowing) is limited to 2W/m2. Height is irrelevant because bigger turbine must be spaced at greater distance about. For solar power plants, power density is ~5W/m2.

Adding up UK energy consumption for present electricity loads, plus heating and transport and assuming some mix of solar, wind, wave, tidal, etc. one quickly reaches the conclusion that renewable power plants must be country sized. For the UK, with a 50/50 mix of solar and wind, the infrastructure would need to dominate some 30,000km2 of land – even more when storage losses are accounted for. That’s fully 1/4 the area of England, 1/8 the area of the UK as a whole.

The material and energy investment required for that much infrastructure is formidable – several tens of millions of tonnes of steel and concrete for the wind turbines alone.

At present, we are living in an economic bubble with cheap Chinese products (produced using coal energy) and razor thin interest rates allowing cheap capital investments. Neither of these things can be maintained long term.

makati1 on Thu, 9th Feb 2017 6:42 am 



Bingo Antius. You are correct.

Davy on Thu, 9th Feb 2017 7:13 am 



Great reference Antius!

Cloggie on Thu, 9th Feb 2017 8:30 am 



McKay carries out a detailed analysis of what would be needed to meet the UK’s energy demand using renewable energy. The results provide sobering reading. The power density of wind power plants (at maximum build density without wind shadowing) is limited to 2W/m2

No it is not; Antius wants to ram us his nuclear energy through the throat instead.

About these 2W/m2… that must onshore, right, on your attic? Or you on the loo, after a hefty meal of beans.lol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_profile_power_law

On the North Sea (and the UK has a huge amount of suitable area there) it is:

800 – 2000 W/m2 at 50m with the average wind speed of 10 m/2.
Not your insane 2 W/m2
You of the mark with a factor 400-1000.

What’s next? The British invited William III rather than that the Dutch kicked your Allerwertesten in 1688?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2s6E8GWWKU

Bingo Antius. You are correct

You don’t have a f* clue what you are talking makati1, but you eagerly jump on any conclusion, true of false, to see your catastrophic world view confirmed.

Gotcha (again)

Cloggie on Thu, 9th Feb 2017 9:17 am 



OK, forgot Betz law:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betz%27s_law

So that’s a conversion loss of say 70%.

That means that Antius is still a factor 100-250 off the mark.

But the latest Siemens 6 MW machine has a swept rotor area of 18,600 m2.

That’s 323 W/m2 and not your silly 2 W/m2 or a factor of 150. So that’s not 1/4 of England but merely 1/600 of England, if you were stupid enough to put them on land, which you won’t.

There is more than enough space at sea, see map:

https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/01/07/gold-mine-north-sea/#more-60619

Cloggie on Thu, 9th Feb 2017 9:33 am 



Oh my, it looks like the English would indeed have far less onshore space than previously imagined.

Hilarious scene in British parliament, Scottish MP’s whistle Euro-hymn in a protest against Brexit:

http://www.spiegel.de/video/unterhaus-schottische-politiker-pfeifen-gegen-brexit-an-video-1741565.html

(unsure if der Spiegel streams outside Germany)

Epic! ROFL

Brexit could very well meant the end of the UK. The only reason why Scotland is a member of the UK in the first place is because the English bailed the Scots out in 1707.

Scotland is a nice-to-have for Paris-Berlin-Moscow: nice landscape, fine whiskey and ample room for naval bases.

Davy on Thu, 9th Feb 2017 9:35 am 



I am listening Clog. I appreciate your references but I am always suspect of any optimism coming out of you as just more techno agenda. But I am listening and I look forward to Antius clarifications. He has offered some great comments in the past.

I want to believe your world is possible Clog so keep preaching but I am very suspicious of overly optimistic claims from anyone these days as just more fake new or embellishment for effect. This is especially true out of techno optimist and greens who are desperate to sell a civilization transition. They have become so passionate it is now like a pseudo religion.

Antius on Thu, 9th Feb 2017 10:10 am 



Cloggie, I am talking about the power density of wind turbines distributed over a large area of land, or sea, if you prefer, not power density at an individual hub.

Wind turbines need to be spaced apart to avoid ‘wind shadowing’. The bigger they are, the longer the wind shadow. Basically, there is a maximum amount of power you can generate per square mile of land or sea. You drain the air of its kinetic energy and have to wait until diffusion and mixing with the air above it replaces the energy you have removed. That takes distance. To avoid turbines interfering with each other due to turbulent effects, they need to be spaced in the perpendicular direction too. Under UK conditions, maximum power density works out at about 2W/m2, averaged over a year. Power density is a little more in some places, less in others.

If you don’t believe me, I suggest you read Dr McKay’s work yourself. Check his references, play with his numbers. Depending upon the optimism behind your assumptions, you should reach similar conclusions.

Another point of interest, the amount of kinetic energy contained within the atmosphere is large but not infinite. By removing it, you are interfering with the Earth’s ability to redistribute energy by convection. At a small scale of wind energy penetration, the effect is negligible. If we build thousands of square miles of these things, there may be side effects for regional climatic systems that we cannot presently predict.

Nothing comes for free on a finite world. There are no exceptions. Nuclear energy really needs a separate post, as this one is already long winded.

Cloggie on Thu, 9th Feb 2017 11:25 am 



Antius, I now see the confusion; I thought you were talking about energy density related to vertical planes, perpendicular to the wind vector, but in reality you were talking about the yield of horizontal areas. OK.

The point about wind shadow is also clear.

Point of criticism, if you say that you need 1/4 of the English area to harvest sufficient energy to power England, that is a deceptive way of putting it. It suggests that you need 25% of England for wind energy and that that land can’t be used for anything else anymore. But that is not the case, as you can verify here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BkyTBE7d8E

(This btw is the largest of the 8 wind parks that supposedly power the trains of Dutch Rail; capacity 144 MW)

Per turbine you need perhaps an area of 15 m diameter and that’s it. Negligible really.

But more important, the energy yield at sea is far greater than on land (power proportional with wind speed power 3) and Britain has suitable sea space in abundance in the North Sea and Irish Sea.

The real decisive figure therefor is not this deceptive “1/4 of England” but an kWh price for offshore wind of 5.45 euro cent.

https://cleantechnica.com/2016/12/14/shell-consortium-sets-new-lowest-offshore-wind-price-700-mw-borssele-iii-iv-wind-farms/

That’s unbeatable, even with your nuclear strategy. But in 2017 nuclear is a no-no anyway.

Wind has won the battle.

Recently the British government declined to proceed with developing its enormous underground coal gasification reserves. There can be only one explanation: wind is far cheaper (and cleaner).

Cloggie on Thu, 9th Feb 2017 11:56 am 



China more than doubles its solar PV capacity in merely 1 year.

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/02/09/china-doubled-solar-capacity-2016/

But remember folks: it is meaningless as renewable energy is an extension of fossil fuel, it’s hopium, it’s a techno-fix, the EROEI is below 1, it is bad for the birds, we are running out of rare earths and we are all going to die anyway because of global warming.

Wouldn’t be surprised if China doubles its capacity this year yet again.

Antius on Thu, 9th Feb 2017 12:10 pm 



“Oh my, it looks like the English would indeed have far less onshore space than previously imagined.
Hilarious scene in British parliament, Scottish MP’s whistle Euro-hymn in a protest against Brexit:
http://www.spiegel.de/video/unterhaus-schottische-politiker-pfeifen-gegen-brexit-an-video-1741565.html
(unsure if der Spiegel streams outside Germany)
Epic! ROFL
Brexit could very well meant the end of the UK. The only reason why Scotland is a member of the UK in the first place is because the English bailed the Scots out in 1707.
Scotland is a nice-to-have for Paris-Berlin-Moscow: nice landscape, fine whiskey and ample room for naval bases.”
This isn’t really the right place for a discussion of Anglo-Scottish politics is it? As someone with both English and Scottish ancestry, who has spent a fair amount of time in both places, I would be happy to discuss it, but not on this thread.

On this thread we are discussing something very specific: Can we realistically expect a mix of solar power, wind power and smaller amounts of other renewables to replace the energy presently generated using fossil fuels? I think there are serious obstacles. They are obstacles that relate to the core problems of renewable energy sources – intermittency and low power density – things that we can try and work around, but cannot really change. We also tend to assume that the energy is both infinite and free, that we can use it in any amount without any consequence to the environment. But that is never going to be true on a finite planet, especially when we are so many and consume so much. The realistic limits are beginning to look like they are a lot less than we need, especially in parts of the world with both high population density and diffuse sunlight. That happens to be our part of the world, Cloggie.

These are problems that are not easy to overcome. Improving technology, more materials efficient solar panel technology, new storage, etc., will help to a limited extent. But the fundamental problems with renewables are about the basic nature of the resource. We are constantly trying to work around them, but we cannot change the nature of the wind or sunshine. If we lived on a planet with far fewer people, it would be easier to imagine scraping together a living using sources like this.

Nuclear energy is no panacea. As Clog rightly points out, there are problems surrounding the use of fission as an energy source. Really, when we say ‘nuclear power’ we are talking about a huge number of possible technologies. Lumping them together is a bit like comparing a steam engine to a gas turbine. The one thing they both have in common is that they all get their energy from combustion, but economics, safety and sustainability depends very much on specifics of the technology and how it is deployed. For this reason, we cannot really talk generally about nuclear. Every concept (i.e. molten salt, gas-cooled fast reactor, PWR) needs to be examined on the basis of its own pros and cons and we should remember that we really are only at the beginning of the nuclear age. Better things may eventually be developed, although we can only base our discussion on what we can foresee today.

All nuclear technologies have problems of their own; there are no perfect solutions in this world. The worst problem I think is that a truly scalable nuclear technology would provide a means of extending a growth based economic model on a planet that is increasingly mutilated by that growth. Living on a finite ball of rock 8000 miles wide, we really cannot exploit any resource or build anything without degrading the rest of the natural world in some way. When you look at it from that point of view, even our greatest successes begin to look like failures. We would peak at a higher level, only to face a planet even more over populated and damaged than we have now. But back to nuclear energy. Its advantages stem from unrivalled energy density – literally millions of times greater than any chemical fuel. Its disadvantages mostly stem from the fact that fission products are extremely toxic and must be contained until they have decayed into more stable elements. Designing a system that can harness the enormous power of the atom, whilst keeping the radioactive nasties away from people, without being unwieldy, is a challenge, but even state-of-the-art LWRs that are commercially available today can meet those requirements to a good extent.

The bottom line is we are facing apocalypse and a soylent green future. Billions of people are going to die miserable deaths; many more will live impoverished lives if we cannot find a substitute for fossil fuels. It really is as grim as that. I am a lot more frightened of that future than I am of the occasional nuclear accident somewhere in the world. Modern Gen 3 reactors are safer than 1970’s era Gen 2 LWRs, Gen 4 will be safer still. But if the worst does happen and there is a nuclear accident close to where I live, the resulting radioactive pollution may knock a few years off of my life expectancy, assuming that I cannot move. Am I really willing to live a third-world lifestyle and shorten my life due to poverty in order to avoid a 1 in 1million risk of that? I don’t think many people would if they understood the choice they were making. Nuclear power is an imperfect substitute for fossil fuels but it is the only one that we presently have. In the time it takes to develop nuclear fusion or something better, it provides our only hope of holding the line against the coming night. But scaling it up is a race against time and the dreams of political idealists can only work against us at this point. Time to bite the bullet. We all have children and grandchildren that deserve better than soylent green.

Cloggie on Thu, 9th Feb 2017 12:11 pm 



Very good wind year in the US as well:

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/02/09/us-installs-8-2-gw-new-wind-energy-2016-finishes-second-strongest-quarter-ever/

The wind equivalent of 8 large conventional power stations was new installed.

Cloggie on Thu, 9th Feb 2017 12:45 pm 



Antius, I am not denying that a nuclear future is possible (ignoring depleting resources in this field as well, “peak uranium”), but there is a lot of resistance against that future. It is true that nuclear is extremely energy dense, but is that a valid argument?

Solar and wind are on a human scale truly infinite (“renewable”). The price is no longer an argument. 5.5 euro cent/kwh for offshore wind is fantastic. I agree that substantial problems need to be solved, most of all storage. The situation:

Hydro-storage potential Europe: 30,000 GWh

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/jrcsh/files/jrc_20130503_assessment_european_phs_potential.pdf

Annual electricity consumption: 100 times as much, meaning we can set up a hydro-battery for 3 days. That’s a start.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/norway-wants-to-offer-hydroelectric-resources-to-europe-a-835037.html

There are almost endless additional methods of storing electricity. The expectation is that soon the storage price can be sunk to ca. $100/kwh, so every household (in the West) can have its own 24h or longer private storage facility.

Alternatively excess electricity from renewable con be converted into burnable gas:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_to_gas

Efficiencies are not as good as pumped hydro but it comes close (more than 70%).

Germany for instances has a massive storage capacity for this kind of gas of 200 TWh, or many months worth of consumption.

It can be done, a renewable energy future. We already have all the technology we need and the EU has taken the decision to do it.

If Britain wants to go nuclear, nobody is going to stop them, now that they decided to Brexit.

Scotland is a different matter 😉

Apneaman on Thu, 9th Feb 2017 12:45 pm 



Yep, the only reason for coal decline is renewables and nothing else.

Shale gas, not EPA rules, has pushed decline in coal-generated electricity, study confirms

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161007105548.htm

These desperate alt energy/enviros never seem to want to discuss aggregate numbers. Generating electricity without coal is good – less polluted air. Even if you obtained 100% electricity generation from alts, what about the transportation? What I want to know is how much of ocean shipping has been converted to alt powered instead of nasty bunker fuel (as bad or worse than coal)? How much of the land based heavy transport, rigs & trains, has been converted to alts? How much of the air transport is alt powered? How much of the global passenger vehicle fleet is alt powered? Give me a call when any of them hit 10%. Whether it’s a new country industrializing or neoliberalizing or a new industry, the first growth spurt tends to be the easy part.

Cloggie on Thu, 9th Feb 2017 1:02 pm 



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFQ2zQiDIJ4

This Is The Worlds First Four-Seat Hydrogen-Powered Aircraft

Four months ago, Stuttgart airport.

speed 124 mph
range 900 miles

Apneaman on Thu, 9th Feb 2017 1:35 pm 



Cloghope, that’s awesome – we saved.

Airlines to Welcome 3.6 Billion Passengers in 2016

“Geneva – The International Air Transport Association (IATA) released an industry traffic forecast showing that airlines expect to welcome some 3.6 billion passengers in 2016. That’s about 800 million more than the 2.8 billion passengers carried by airlines in 2011.”

“International freight volumes will grow at 3% per annum to total 34.5 million tonnes in 2016. That is 4.8 million more tonnes of air cargo than the 29.6 million tonnes carried in 2011.”

http://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/2012-12-06-01.aspx

Antius on Thu, 9th Feb 2017 3:01 pm 



I have run out of time. I suggest you give David McKay’s website a good read and download his book. In terms of the cost of offshore wind, I do not have up to date data. But I do know that on a per GW-year basis, offshore wind turbines would require 22 times as much steel and concrete as new generation PWRs. And PWR power plants are not impressive in terms of whole system power density compared to other options. And that is before we start looking at the need for storage – which would need to be scaled to TWh levels.

As much as I can say in 5 minutes.

Cloggie on Thu, 9th Feb 2017 3:22 pm 



Steel costs nothing these days: $300/ton
Not scarce and not an issue.

The real point is simply rejection of the principle of nuclear fission: operational (Fukushima/Chernobyl) as well as the waste problem. Expecting that a society can guard waste for thousands of year is outright irresponsible. There are no societies that last that long. The Germans tried a 1000 year Reich, in the end it were only 12. It could be that in 50 years time, if it is up to George Soros and his water carriers like Friday, we Europeans are overrun by third worldlers, who are completely unable and unwilling to take care of the problem. You claim to worry about “soylent green”, but from that light it is absolutely incomprehensible why you choice is nuclear. Lobbyist? Forget it, rhetorical.

Don’t need McKay. The dice has been cast anyway in continental Europe and apparently also in Britain:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ra6sogF4lLE

Gave it enough thought in the past.

Cloggie on Thu, 9th Feb 2017 3:34 pm 



Antius, I did go to the website and remembered that I had browsed through a few years ago.

Synopsis:

http://www.withouthotair.com/synopsis10.pdf

Go to page 7, to see a map of Britain. His argument: if we choose for renewable we need most of our soil for energy generation. What he completely ignores is the two giant energy provinces on Britain’s doorstep: North Sea and Irish Sea.

The book is from 2008 so he is a little excused, because 9 years ago offshore was not really an option. But there has been a price collapse since so the picture has totally changed. The book is simply outdated.

Antius on Thu, 9th Feb 2017 4:37 pm 



‘Antius, I did go to the website and remembered that I had browsed through a few years ago.
Synopsis:
http://www.withouthotair.com/synopsis10.pdf
Go to page 7, to see a map of Britain. His argument: if we choose for renewable we need most of our soil for energy generation. What he completely ignores is the two giant energy provinces on Britain’s doorstep: North Sea and Irish Sea.
The book is from 2008 so he is a little excused, because 9 years ago offshore was not really an option. But there has been a price collapse since so the picture has totally changed. The book is simply outdated.’

There are none so blind as those that do not want to see. You have an obsession with renewable energy and you are not being rational about it. You aren’t doing the analysis and I don’t have time to shoot down every piece of nonsense and sophistry that you keep regurgitating. It is kind of like a religious belief, you feel compelled to defend it and the facts aren’t that important to you.

If you were the only one, that would be a tolerable loss. But Europe is full of idealistic fools that think the future can be shaped by whatever they happen to find fashionable at the time. It won’t be much satisfaction to any of us knowing that our energy comes from a ‘pure’ renewable source when we are waiting in the soup line.

Cloggie on Thu, 9th Feb 2017 4:41 pm 



You aren’t doing the analysis and I don’t have time to shoot down every piece of nonsense and sophistry that you keep regurgitating

The arguments I gave you in my posts above. But I get the emotional undertone in your latest message and gladly grant you the face-saving retreat.

peakyeast on Thu, 9th Feb 2017 5:13 pm 



@Cloggie: I was sitting and thinking about how many names you have been called here on this website. It is actually amazingly many.

They (the commenters) really do love you !!

I am happy for you that you seem to have found a good “niche” where you fit in and that accepts you.

Btw. It takes a while to get used to those traditional wooden cloggies.

Antius on Thu, 9th Feb 2017 5:42 pm 



Cloggie, you do not learn or listen and given the time this takes that is frustrating. It wouldn’t matter what anyone said, your opinion is a forgone conclusion.

But for what its worth, what you assert doesn’t correspond with the evidence on the ground. Germany and Denmark have the most expensive electricity in Europe. France has some of the cheapest. In the UK, we are facing big energy bill hikes to cover the cost of renewable energy projects.

At present, intermittent renewable energy has made a tiny contribution to Europe’s electricity grid. Already the costs are stacking up. And electricity is a small part of total energy use. Presumably, it will be needed for all heating and transport too. There is negligible energy storage capacity in place at present. We have not yet needed to expand offshore wind into deep water. As I have already noted, the infrastructure is country sized. Until all of these costs (both financial and embedded energy) are analysed it is impossible to make a full assessment. But the scale of the required infrastructure is huge and dwarfs that in place for fossil and nuclear energy at present. To brush this off so lightly without a proper analysis and pretend that this is the right course of action when the scale of the requirements is so overwhelming is foolhardy wouldn’t you say?

Cloggie on Thu, 9th Feb 2017 6:03 pm 



Btw. It takes a while to get used to those traditional wooden cloggies.

We don’t wear themselves as they are very uncomfortable and prefer to sell them to tourists. 😉

They (the commenters) really do love you !!

They sure know how to hide their affection! lol

It wouldn’t matter what anyone said, your opinion is a forgone conclusion.

So is yours, which is only natural. The one who gets angry first, loses the argument.

Germany and Denmark have the most expensive electricity in Europe.

Yes! Because the were the pioneers. Any idea how much NASA paid for the first solar panels?

France has some of the cheapest.

Sure. 16 ct vs 30 ct, however the economies of Germany and Denmark are apparently not exactly suffering from it. Compare both countries with France, they both look better and richer than France.

Furthermore kwh price says nothing about the huge subsidies the French state is giving to the nuclear industry. But the point is, both France en Britain are nuclear powers, so they are naturally tied to nuclear power generation.

Why not listen to and EDF insider who says that renewable energy is winning from nuclear:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/29/french-nuclear-power-worst-situation-ever-former-edf-director

French and certainly Belgian nuclear power stations are in very bad shape. If Doel melts Fukushima style, this guy won’t be posting any more (which will come in handy for many here.lol)

And electricity is a small part of total energy use. Presumably, it will be needed for all heating and transport too.

Nope. In Holland electricity is 25%, although that share will expand because i a couple of years everybody will be driving electric.

The Dutch government has recently decided in its energy accord that space heating will come from geothermal energy:

http://www.iftechnology.nl/rapid-development-of-geothermal-direct-use-in-the-netherlands

Where Denmark is #1 in wind energy, Holland is already #1 in geothermal and will rapidly expand in this field now that our natural gas is slowly running out.

At present, intermittent renewable energy has made a tiny contribution to Europe’s electricity grid.

Maybe, but there are huge differences between individual countries. Danish and German shares are huge and it is only 2017, not 2050, when the transition will be completed. Without nuclear.

To brush this off so lightly without a proper analysis and pretend that this is the right course of action when the scale of the requirements is so overwhelming is foolhardy wouldn’t you say?

We have been assessing the situation for decades since “Limits to Growth”. At some point that needs to stop and the building needs to begin. That moment is now.

Cloggie on Thu, 9th Feb 2017 6:12 pm 



On Thursday in Flamanville:

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/8hZlTYiNUmU/hqdefault.jpg

Not exactly great publicity for nuclear energy.

And your 16 cents per kwh will be a joke by the time we will have our Fukushima in Europe (hopefully never).

Antius on Thu, 9th Feb 2017 6:21 pm 



‘Efficiencies [power-to-gas] are not as good as pumped hydro but it comes close (more than 70%).’

That is the most optimistic projected efficiency using solid oxide fuel cells; storing the compressed gas underground and storing the heat at high temperature for reuse. It has never been demonstrated and has much greater capital cost than combined cycle gas turbine, which itself implies building an entire additional power plant to convert the gas back into electric power. Using CCGT it is 60% efficient. Even that would appear optimistic, as ccgt is typically around 55% efficient at converting fuel to electricity, to say nothing about the energy costs of the electrolysis.

These are extremely costly, wasteful means of storing expensive electricity. They have barely been demonstrated, the fuel cell option not at all. You brush over this issue as if it weren’t a big deal. Yet it alone could more than double the end cost of electricity.

This suggests to me that you want to win the argument, but don’t want to be bored with the facts. How many lives is your grand vision worth?

Cloggie on Thu, 9th Feb 2017 6:35 pm 



storing the heat at high temperature for reuse. It has never been demonstrated

Yes it has:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a038yZ7IGhE

http://www.merits.eu/

Cloggie on Thu, 9th Feb 2017 6:48 pm 



http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/11/28/national/cost-fukushima-disaster-expected-soar-¥20-trillion/#.WJ0MR5GkqfA

Fukishima cost: ca. 200 billion dollar. This will make these French cheap16 cents/kwh look silly.

https://phys.org/news/2016-01-belgium-ageing-nuclear-neighbours.html

If Doel goes down, the South of the Netherlands will become uninhabitable. It is not worth the risk.

You probably have your own interests you are trying to promote (nuclear industry? Nuclear weapons?), but I can’t be persuaded. Have thought about the subject all my life and made up my mind.

Cloggie on Thu, 9th Feb 2017 6:50 pm 



dave thompson on Wed, 8th Feb 2017 3:05 pm

You f* up this thread.

Boat on Thu, 9th Feb 2017 7:01 pm 



One point to remember. Renewables have life cycles. Turbines installed in the eighties are nothing like the ones installed. The turbines installed today will be old tech in a decade. The mirical of tech. Ditto for solar. Just look at the price and efficiency changes of the last 5 years.

makati1 on Thu, 9th Feb 2017 9:00 pm 



Boat, in a decade, there will be no ‘new’ tech, or any tech except patching up existing tech to try to keep it working. Be patient.

BTW: The “PAST” is no guarantee of the future”. LMAO

Boat on Thu, 9th Feb 2017 9:43 pm 



mak,

You have to look to the future because your track record of your past predictions has been almost completely wrong. Make more of them, your bound to be right someday.

Apneaman on Thu, 9th Feb 2017 9:50 pm 



Boat, why worry about alt energy when you people can’t even fix the fucking pot holes, nor will you.

The Great Recovery of America’s Infrastructure: Cancelled

“Such a moment may well have come this week for the people who still believe — or have believed since Donald Trump was elected president — that we are going to experience a Great Recovery of this country’s rotting roads and decrepit bridges, which will in turn create millions of jobs, restore the middle class, eliminate poverty, homelessness and cancer, save the economy and make it 1958 in America once more. And Mexico is going to pay for it. (Actually, candidate Trump promised $50 billion for the purpose, double Hillary Clinton’s proposed spending. But neither of them explained where they were going to get the money.)”

“Maybe the Child President will remember his concern about the roads (infrastructure is way too long a word, get outta here) long enough to try to do something about them. Maybe his excellent Cabinet can come up with a way to pay for fixing them (Rex Tillerson could just write a check, but that would probably be a conflict of interest).

But here’s the thing. In a few weeks, this massive project won’t even be possible, even if Canada pays for it in cash. Because the largest asphalt plant in the United States is shutting down for lack of business. According to Bloomberg, Axeon Specialty Products is converting to other uses a plant in New Jersey capable of producing 50,000 barrels of asphalt per day. U.S. consumption of asphalt has been hovering below 350,000 barrels a day since 2009. To support a meaningful overhaul of the road system the county would need to manufacture at least an additional 200,000 barrels per day.”

http://www.dailyimpact.net/2017/02/08/the-great-recovery-of-americas-infrastructure-cancelled/

America’s Biggest Asphalt Plant Is Shutting When the Country Might Need It Most

-Axeon says it will close New Jersey asphalt refinery

-U.S. asphalt demand declines even after federal funding boost

“The planned shutdown comes as President Donald Trump has pledged to build new roads, highways and bridges across the country. The U.S. would need 63 percent more asphalt than its consumes now just to pave roads at the rate it reached a decade ago, Energy Information Administration data show.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-03/trump-plans-road-building-as-biggest-u-s-asphalt-plant-shuts

makati1 on Thu, 9th Feb 2017 10:10 pm 



Boat, all in good time. All in good time. Everything I have “predicted” will come to pass in time. Be patient. You will see it in YOUR lifetime. Maybe sooner than you think. lol

Kenz300 on Thu, 9th Feb 2017 10:28 pm 



Wind and solar are cheaper and cleaner than fossil fuels.

Cheaper WINS !

Dooma on Thu, 9th Feb 2017 11:07 pm 



How long until Lithium becomes rare and fought over?

makati1 on Thu, 9th Feb 2017 11:42 pm 



Dooma, maybe a better question is: How long will lithium be able to be mined and processed at a profit? The cost to the consumer is beginning to be more important than what is left of the resources. Oil for example.