Global warming strikes again...

[Arwon]

OK, batteries. These are a bit tricky because they don't really add capacity, they redistribute the timing of supply to better match where demand is highest, and they thrive by leveraging the market opportunities inherent to that (buy power when it's cheap, discharge when expensive, mostly on a fiarly predictable daily cycle where they sell in the early evening).

South Australia is subsidising the 100 MW utility scale battery installed there last year on a bet with Elon Musk, to the tune of 50 million Australian dollars or 40 million USD. That's about 40 cents per watt installed, but it's a fee paid by the SA government for grid stability services, which need to be funded by paying someone to do them anyway (traditionally, conventional power plants are paid to be on call for these). I am not clear, however, what sort of a timeframe this fee covers. It could be a single year which makes it non-comparable to any other costs I've discussed. But on the other hand, since it's grid services spending that might happen anyway, it's not really an additional impost.

I can't speak to the net impact on consumers of the battery's wholesale price redistribution effects, but the expectation is that this storage should curb critical high price periods. I can't see the storage adding to average annual wholesale costs rather than just biting off a chunk of the existing generation market. The point of the large batteries is to use arbitrage to get more efficient market outcomes, so it won't necessarily have an extra end user cost vs business as usual.

 

[Arwon]

Anyway, to me, nuclear has a place. There are some situations where it makes sense

I can think of a few - you need nuclear weapons, you already have operating plants and want to keep them operating, you're using nuclear power for long-term operation of vehicles underwater or in outer space, keeping fusion research going, supplying medical needs.

I just don't think new building of nuclear power plants is a significant part of the picture for further decarbonisation of global electricity generation over the next two or three decades, under any sort of remotely market-exposed conditions or even for governments and monopoly utilities with a clear-eyed understanding of how to most efficiently spend a given amount of subsidy money.

 

[AdrienIer]

Let's put it this way. The Hinkley Point reactor in the UK is currently going to cost 30 billion pounds, about 42 billion US dollars, just to build. The plant is given a 93 pounds per MWh guaranteed price as an inducement to built and we must assume no nuclear plant without this. It's now which is roughly double the average wholesale price in the UK (which is falling). That, according to UK reported government figures, potentially takes it to 50 billion pounds or 70 billion US dollars via the actual amount paid by consumers to help support the plant. So that's 40 billion USD just in spending to build it, but maybe 70 billion USD all-up once you factor in all the costs ultimately paid by users of the electricity. That's to get 3.2 GW of installed capacity at a cost of about 22 dollars a watt. At a plausible US nuclear generation capacity factor of 90% that means about 25000 GWh a year in generation, or about 1200 TWh in 60 years. It means it is costing consumers about 6 cents per kWh to get electricity over a 60 year period.

What would you get spending 70 billion US dollars to instead built heaps of solar panel systems?

Well, that's a lot upfront, so you've gotta install it over time - but can presumably start generating immediately. Let's assume it takes 20 years to install the $70bn worth of panels, at a cost of $3.5 billion per year. Residential installation costs for solar panels are maybe $3 USD per watt including labour to install (there's some economies of scale here if we're talking a major installation program but let's go with that cost - acknowledging that the cost might be half that for big array projects). It's coming down really rapidly so you'd presumably be getting twice as much installed capacity by year 10, but let's assume the price of solar panels stops its 40 year pattern of halving every few years.

70 billion USD gets you about 23 GW, so roughly seven times as much installed capacity as the nuclear power plant but with a much lower capacity factor. It means that you'll start generating immediately. It means you'll always get more cumulative GWh from the solar installation program than from Hinkley Point for at least 70 years. Observe:

In year 1, your $3.5 billion buys about 1.2 GW of solar capacity .You'll keep adding that every year. If we assume a 15% capacity factor for solar you'll get about 1500 GWh in year 1. Twice that in year 2. By year 10, when the nuclear plant switches on and supplies 25000 GWh, your solar build, which has so far cost $35 billion, is generating 15000 GWh a year and has already generated 84000 GWH. Ten years later, your completed 20 years, $3.5bn a year, solar rollout is generating 30000 GWH per year (more than the nuclear plant is producing each year) and has cumulatively generated 320,000 GWh while the nuclear plant has generated 250,000 GWh across the 20 years. At this point, the 20 year mark, we'll assume the original solar panels have a 1% degradation rate per year, which means by year 60 they're generating 20500 GWh a year. In practice you'd be maintaining and replacing them, but I'm trying to be generous to nuclear power here by giving it a really long lifespan. At the 60 year mark, we've generated 1300 TWh of solar power over 60 years, using the same $70bn it cost to get 1250 TWh of nuclear power. In the 74th year, the nuclear investment finally passes the solar in how much cumulative electricity it has generated (assuming it hasn't been decommissioned by this time which is possible given the insane subsidy it's being given).

This is all based on present day costs and on the cost per watt of residential solar installs, which is being incredibly generous to nuclear power because solar panels are getting cheaper quite rapidly and have economies of scale for building a large arrays instead of small installations at a time.

It's also ignoring that a significant chunk of the cost of the nuclear is explicit subsidy via a guaranteed wholesale price, while a significant chunk of the solar spend can at this point easily be private investment and provide a return over 20 years without subsidy - subsidy is good and desirable more just to accelerate the change.

Hinkley Point is going to be an economical disaster. The technology still hasn't proven that it works efficiently (neither the Finland site nor the Flamanville site are active so far), and it's known that the cost will be far more than what is expected (like the cost of Flamanville). EDF's nuclear branch only pushed for the deal because without the immediate money it got in the deal it was going to be bankrupt in a matter of months (of course this deal is certain to produce a huge deficit which will make EDF bankrupt in a few years but at least they bought some time for themselves).

 

[Birdjaguar]

I like nuclear too, what I don't like is shoddy engineering and poor safety so that capitalists can extract a nice profit.

Absolutely. But the question is more 'is delaying action on nuclear worth it?'. Any delay here gives a different branch of capitalists increasing returns on their profits, to compound upon their last 20 years of rapacious behaviour. Right now, all of these people are long on oil, which means that you can crush one group even though you benefit another.

And then there's the underlying question regarding the current victims of this delay. If you're waiting to have a plan that properly taxes the rich before you implement this solution, then all of the delay has compounded its damages. Meanwhile, a proper plan to tax the rich can be used on either the oil barons or the nuclear barons.

The subsidy for safety concerns is easypeasy. It's functionally not different from paying the carbon tax we owe elsewhere.

This is the only path for growing nuclear power in the near term:

https://www.theguardian.com/sustain...small-nuclear-reactors-power-plant-technology

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Yeah, well, I wonder whether that might have been due to jet stream meandering because of a weak polar vortex. I'm not really sure where to start looking for that kind of info. Maybe I can join a meteorology forum or something.

I honestly couldn't say. It was the summer of 1971 or maybe 2-3 years later, if memory serves.

 

[carlosMM]

Of course there are sources--same as you use. For example.



This shows a rate of less than one degree per century. That is manageable, even beneficial, for example to Alberta Canada. Vast areas of marginally arable land lie in Siberia and Canada. A small temperature rise is helpful.

Also note the exaggerated scale. It uses 1/10th degree increments, because this is necessary to show any fluctuation at all. Consider the graph would look with a normal one degree increments.

J

In fact, you raped the data here, as you simply fitted a simple linear regression without any check if one linear regression can reasonably be expected to fit the data and have any meaning.
The period from 1900 to 2000 (or 1910 to 2010, etc.) cannot be EXPECTED to show am linear trend! The cooling effect of the massive atmospheric pollution evident especially in the 60s and 70s is well known and studied - your fit ignores that there is a known trend of artificial cloud cover increasing and decreasing. Thus, it is more fitting to use a polynomial regression. But hey, as long as you can produce a nice showy graph, hu?

So, what do we get if we separate out the period of KNOWN artificially albedo increase? Something like this (hand-drawn, making a point here not a scientific analysis):

Graph_2

• carlosMM
• Mar 6, 2018

graph

Ooopsie! That is a LOT more warming per century evident since we started stopping the use of the air as a dump for coal dust.

 

[onejayhawk]

If you are going to do that sort of thing, you need a wave form. Either way, the graph is well under two degrees, top to bottom. That is, the scale is magnified by an order of magnitude (at least ten times) to show any movement at all. It's flatter than most dinner tables.

J

 

[Angst]

I didn't know you could rape data. The more you know.

Joking aside, that is actually a good point.

And now J calls a growth of 0.7 degrees Celsius over fifty yers flat.

I don't think you understand climate.

Or understand how these developments are incredibly hard to slow after you've polluted.

About 80% of known remaining oil reserves need to stay in the reserves and not get extracted in order for us not to reach the disastrous 2 degree warming.

So let's say the scientists are wrong about this number because of whatever ridiculous reason you want to put forward. Let's say it's 40% that needs to remain in the reserves.

You really think it's going to stay there with the current tendencies?

With the corruption present, with the massive interest of one of the world's most powerful industries?

Especially when people like you keep acting as their sockpuppet among unaffiliated?

 

[El_Machinae]

I'd have to say, even the people 'on my side' fail to heed how much society needs to wean and how quickly. Given that nearly no one actually helps, anyone who's capable of helping should be targeting about two hours per month, whether it's in the form of donated wages or in actual dedicated activism (i.e., an output similar to what you can achieve in your specialty). If you're not as good at activism as you are at say, painting fences, then the time devoted to activism should be scaled appropriately.

 

[onejayhawk]

And now J calls a growth of 0.7 degrees Celsius over fifty yers flat.

0.8° per century is the slope of the regression line. Yes, I call that flat. If it was 50% larger it would still be flatish, but more worrisome. This qualifies far a watch but take no action posture.

J

 

[El_Machinae]

0.8° per century is the slope of the regression line. Yes, I call that flat. If it was 50% larger it would still be flatish, but more worrisome. This qualifies far a watch but take no action posture.

You're not watching and taking no action. You're adding fossil carbon. And you're maybe even making purchases that make future weaning more painful for you (e.g., new vehicles, etc.)

 

[onejayhawk]

You're not watching and taking no action. You're adding fossil carbon. And you're maybe even making purchases that make future weaning more painful for you (e.g., new vehicles, etc.)

If you mean, continue as we are going, that is correct. I applaud your efforts to remove the toxic byproducts of combustion, but carbon dioxide is not such a byproduct.

Further, you assume cutting back will have the desired effect. You have offered not evidence, nor has it been discussed, in this thread at least.

J

 

[FriendlyFire]

0.8° per century is the slope of the regression line. Yes, I call that flat. If it was 50% larger it would still be flatish, but more worrisome. This qualifies far a watch but take no action posture.
J

Time for Texas to get smashed again, by a 1 degree C warmer ocean
(No El nino this year so maybe The south gets a reprieve for this year, on the other hand Australia had record breaking heat again so you probably going to get smashed again but not so good and hard)

Honestly though, it would be nice to fund more science even as an insurance policy because its going to get mighty expensive as the world continues warming and the warming accelerates

 

[Timsup2nothin]

0.8° per century is the slope of the regression line. Yes, I call that flat. If it was 50% larger it would still be flatish, but more worrisome. This qualifies far a watch but take no action posture.

J

LOL...so slopes are flat where you come from. Interesting.

 

[stfoskey12]

0.8° per century is the slope of the regression line. Yes, I call that flat. If it was 50% larger it would still be flatish, but more worrisome. This qualifies far a watch but take no action posture.

J

The problem is that the warming is not equal everywhere on the planet. It's warming faster in the Arctic, and if the permafrost there melts, warming will accelerate. Plus, if the ice sheets in Greenland melt, that will significantly increase sea level rise. Any individual place warming 2C might be bothersome for local inhabitants, but not disastrous in most cases. If OKC had Dallas' climate, I'd be disappointed by the increased warmth, but it wouldn't kill me.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The problem is that the warming is not equal everywhere on the planet. It's warming faster in the Arctic, and if the permafrost there melts, warming will accelerate. Plus, if the ice sheets in Greenland melt, that will significantly increase sea level rise. Any individual place warming 2C might be bothersome for local inhabitants, but not disastrous in most cases. If OKC had Dallas' climate, I'd be disappointed by the increased warmth, but it wouldn't kill me.

Do you really think facts, logic, and just plain sense are going to have an effect on a GOP shill who just said that slopes are flat? I mean, I wish you luck and all, but seriously?

 

[El_Machinae]

I cannot get over how insanely complicated it gets with sea-level rise.

Currently, there is a bunch of ice on top of Greenland. This is actually pushing down on the land, and so the surrounding water is further up the shoreline than it would be without that ice.

As it melts, the water is flung towards the Equator (due to the Earth's rotation), and so Greenland itself doesn't receive as much sea level rise while the middle of the planet receives more. (by analogy, swirl a cup of water for awhile. Then see how adding new water makes the water more likely to swirl over the sides).

Meanwhile, all the ice on top of Greenland actually has gravitational mass. It is literally sucking water closer towards the poles. So, as this mass leaves, there's another reason why water will also be less-high along the Greenland shoreline. So 'less-high' that the shoreline there could actually recede.

https://harvardmagazine.com/2010/05/gravity-of-glacial-melt

 

[Lexicus]

Do you really think facts, logic, and just plain sense are going to have an effect on a GOP shill who just said that slopes are flat? I mean, I wish you luck and all, but seriously?

The much more basic problem is that global warming is a nonlinear process, and so "it's currently warming at x degrees per century, it will keep doing that forever" is not the correct premise to reason from. Much more warming is projected even as a best-case scenario in by the end of the 21st century than took place in the 20th.

 

[onejayhawk]

The much more basic problem is that global warming is a nonlinear process, and so "it's currently warming at x degrees per century, it will keep doing that forever" is not the correct premise to reason from. Much more warming is projected even as a best-case scenario in by the end of the 21st century than took place in the 20th.

This is certainly true. What is not true is the assertion that cutting fossil carbon use will change that fact. It would be true if there were no humans on the planet.

J

 

[Lexicus]

What is not true is the assertion that cutting fossil carbon use will change that fact. It would be true if there were no humans on the planet.

Well up until now you've done a good job arguing against the facts while largely refraining from directly making obviously false statements, but now that's over.