Carbon-Free Energy Is Possible -- Without Nukes

[kristopher]

Eleanor LeCain
President, The Breakthrough Way

Carbon-Free Energy Is Possible -- Without Nukes

<snip>

I asked him what he discovered in his research that made him believe it is possible. He replied: "We are in the midst of a technological revolution that is making renewables more economically feasible. We can make this happen." Since the book was published, the pace of technology change has continued to accelerate.

- Wind power has been economical for years. In 2006, solar electric was five times more expensive than it needed to be to compete as a source for home energy, but it is becoming competitive.

- As demand goes up, the cost of production goes down: manufacturers can shift from custom-made to larger scale production. The price of silicon needed for solar cells is down. A few years ago, you'd pay $4 a watt for a solar panel, now it's 70 cents a watt.

"I thought we'd need major legislation such as a price on carbon through a carbon tax or trading emissions," said Dr. Makhijani. "But the technological developments are making renewables economically feasible without any major legislation." Thank God we don't have to rely on legislation passed by our increasingly dysfunctional Congress. He continued, "I thought it would take to the middle of the century; now, if we try hard, it could be much faster -- by 2035 or 2040."

Demand for renewables is coming from many directions. After the Fukushima nuclear disaster, Japan increased its use of renewables, and is now the second largest market for solar energy, bigger than the U.S. Among the largest buyers of solar electricity in the US is that great bastion of radicals, the Pentagon. They are also leading in alternative energy. It makes sense, given that the military understands our vulnerability to disruption in oil supplies: if our oil supply were cut from the Mideast and elsewhere, we'd need renewables to ensure enough stable energy at home. Of course, climate is a security issue: more extreme weather increases the need for more domestic energy supplies.

<snip>

Dr. Makhijani offers a clear goal -- a zero CO2 economy -- which gives policy coherence and a yardstick by which we can measure progress. He identifies 12 critical policies to be enacted to achieve it....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eleanor-lecain/carbonfree-energy-is-poss_b_4486153.html?utm_hp_ref=energy

Arjun Makhijani
Arjun Makhijani, President of IEER, holds a Ph.D. in engineering (specialization: nuclear fusion) from the University of California at Berkeley. He has produced many studies and articles on nuclear fuel cycle related issues, including weapons production, testing, and nuclear waste, over the past twenty years. He is the principal author of the first study ever done (completed in 1971) on energy conservation potential in the U.S. economy. Most recently, Dr, Makhijani has authored Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy (IEER Press), the first analysis of a transition to a U.S. economy based completely on renewable energy, without any use of fossil fuels or nuclear power. He is the principal editor of Nuclear Wastelands and the principal author of Mending the Ozone Hole, both published by MIT Press.

Short Curriculum Vita of Arjun Makhijani
http://ieer.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Short-Curriculum-Vita-of-Arjun-Makhijani.pdf

[kristopher]

2. Nuclear makes it far more difficult

All it does is preserve the status quo that depends on centralized thermal generation.

[kristopher]

3. National Renewable Energy Lab's 'Renewable Electricity Futures Study'

An important point regarding the 80% figure. It isn't a limit; it is just the target figure they chose for study. You can download the entire study at NREL's page linked below.
Their first key finding is

Renewable electricity generation from technologies that are commercially available today, in combination with a more flexible electric system, is more than adequate to supply 80% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2050 while meeting electricity demand on an hourly basis in every region of the country.

Renewable Electricity Futures Study

RE Futures Visualizations
These visualizations are based on RE Futures modeling and represent the transformation of the U.S. electric system to a high renewable system from 2010 to 2050 and the hourly operation and transmission flow of that system in 2050.

Transformation of the Electric Sector
(Compare to Baseline Projections)
Hourly Operation in 2050
(Compare to Baseline Projections)
Power Flow in 2050
(Compare to Baseline Projections)

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory's (NREL) Renewable Electricity Futures Study (RE Futures) is an initial investigation of the extent to which renewable energy supply can meet the electricity demands of the continental United States over the next several decades. This study explores the implications and challenges of very high renewable electricity generation levels—from 30% up to 90%, focusing on 80%, of all U.S. electricity generation—in 2050. At such high levels of renewable electricity generation, the unique characteristics of some renewable resources, specifically geographical distribution and variability and uncertainty in output, pose challenges to the operability of the nation's electric system.

Key Findings

- Renewable electricity generation from technologies that are commercially available today, in combination with a more flexible electric system, is more than adequate to supply 80% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2050 while meeting electricity demand on an hourly basis in every region of the country.

- Increased electric system flexibility, needed to enable electricity supply and demand balance with high levels of renewable generation, can come from a portfolio of supply- and demand-side options, including flexible conventional generation, grid storage, new transmission, more responsive loads, and changes in power system operations.

- The abundance and diversity of U.S. renewable energy resources can support multiple combinations of renewable technologies that result in deep reductions in electric sector greenhouse gas emissions and water use.

- The direct incremental cost associated with high renewable generation is comparable to published cost estimates of other clean energy scenarios. Improvement in the cost and performance of renewable technologies is the most impactful lever for reducing this incremental cost.

RE Futures provides initial answers to important questions about the integration of high penetrations of renewable electricity technologies from a national perspective, focusing on key technical implications. The study explores electricity grid integration using models with unprecedented geographic and time resolution for the contiguous United States to assess whether the U.S. power system can supply electricity to meet customer demand on an hourly basis with high levels of renewable electricity, including variable wind and solar generation.

RE Futures, funded by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, is a collaboration with more than 110 contributors from 35 organizations including national laboratories, industry, universities, and non-governmental organizations.

As the most comprehensive analysis of high-penetration renewable electricity of the continental United States to date, the study can inform broader discussion of the evolution of the electric system and electricity markets toward clean systems. RE Futures results indicate that renewable generation could play a more significant role in the U.S. electricity system than previously thought and that further work is warranted to investigate this clean generation pathway.

http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/re_futures/

[bananas]

4. "Our report became the basis of President Carter's energy policy."

Since Dr. Makhijani was the principal author of the first comprehensive review of US energy efficiency in 1971, I asked him, "Where did we make progress in the past 40 years, and where do we still need to act?"

I was a staff member of the Energy Policy Project of the Ford Foundation during the 1973 energy crisis. Our report became the basis of President Carter's energy policy. Today we use less than half of the energy we thought we'd use by now: energy use has not grown much, but the economy is 2-3 times bigger.

So that's good progress. We'd be in even better shape if the U.S. hadn't dropped the ball on energy policy in the 1980s. Since Carter, we haven't had a coherent overall energy policy, so we tend to scatter limited resources on bits and pieces.

[kristopher]

5. I believe things are different today; take the of evaluation of the CEO of NRG

I see Crane's take below as a direct reflection of this statement in the interview:

"I thought we'd need major legislation such as a price on carbon through a carbon tax or trading emissions," said Dr. Makhijani. "But the technological developments are making renewables economically feasible without any major legislation." Thank God we don't have to rely on legislation passed by our increasingly dysfunctional Congress. He continued, "I thought it would take to the middle of the century; now, if we try hard, it could be much faster -- by 2035 or 2040."

NRG CEO: Power grid will soon be 'last resort'

By Ethan Howland Dec. 11, 2013 |

Dive Brief:
- In a few years, most power will come from distributed sources and the centralized power grid will become a "last resort," according to David Crane, NRG Energy's president and CEO.

- Utility power sales have entered an “inexorable decline,” the "massive excess capacity" needed to meet peak demand "will become unnecessary" and the need for new power plants and transmission infrastructure "will be eliminated," Crane posits.

- Crane says three trends will lead consumers to stop buying power from utilities: cheap rooftop solar, automated conservation and extreme weather.

- But Crane sees a possible compromise between utilities and their customers on solar. Utilities should buy back excess supply that coincides with peak use, instead of offering average power supply costs, Crane said. Solar customers should pay for grid use at night or on cloudy days.

http://www.utilitydive.com/news/nrg-ceo-power-grid-will-soon-be-last-resort/204998/

[4dsc]

6. BS alert here

Nothing mentioned can be made without the use of oil aka carbon. Nice try though to fool some of the people some of the time.

[cprise]

7. Care to educate us? n/t

[FBaggins]

8. It's likely the same old spin

Kris used "carbon free" - which is an entirely reasonable shorthand for the difference between hydro/solar/nuclear/wind/etc and fossil generation. Yes... to build a dam you have to make concrete and steel (etc) which involved mining and other carbon-intense activities...

... the question is whether that technicality adds anything to the discussion.

[PamW]

9. What is carbon "free"

FBaggins,

Yes - what is really carbon "free".

Hydro, nuclear, wind and solar all use steel in their construction.

So what is really carbon "free" since steel making is carbon intensive.

PamW

[madokie]

13. So is making cement

so is mining the material for nuclear power plant fuel. Refining that material into fuel is an energy hog too.

[kristopher]

10. I don't think that's it.

4 dsc's recurring theme is that the only energy carrier worth talking about is petroleum and nothing can be built without a social structure propped up by oil. Any solution that isn't a 1:1 replacement for oil is therefore "BS".

Your use of the ambiguity as an opportunity to slip in a plug for nuclear as a carbon free source of power is, however, noted.

Now if we could just eliminate the high cost, safety, nuclear waste, nuclear proliferation and inflexibility issues that are part and parcel of it you might have something to offer worth discussing.

[FBaggins]

11. I'll take your word for it.

I'm not familiar with his posting history.

Your use of the ambiguity as an opportunity to slip in a plug for nuclear as a carbon free source of power is, however, noted.

Nothing hidden there. I support all forms of low-carbon generation - I don't see any reason to leave nuclear out of the conversation when it fits the model (not really "zero carbon"... but close enough).

Now if we could just eliminate the high cost, safety, nuclear waste, nuclear proliferation and inflexibility issues that are part and parcel of it you might have something to offer worth discussing.

I doubt it. Because you don't appear to support low-carbon in general. You supp.ort specific solutions and consider any attention paid to anything else to be a distraction from the "real" solution. There are designs that are more flexible (though it's hilarious to hear a renewables-only advocate harping on flexibility)... and some that deal well with the waste and proliferation issues... the newer models are demonstrably safer. Which leaves only price... and you know that you wouldn't support the programs that are necessary in order to lower those prices

[kristopher]

12. No, I support a 'path' that is well documented as most effective

That path doesn't include nuclear for many reasons - all of them valid. It also doesn't include 'carbon capture and sequestration', for a similar list of excellent reasons.

There are designs that are more flexible
and some that deal well with the waste and proliferation issues...
the newer models are demonstrably safer.
Which leaves only price...
and you know that you wouldn't support the programs that are necessary in order to lower those prices

5 problems that you say are addressed - but you omit to mention that you're jumping on the nuclear merry-go-round where these different 'solutions' are all in different, unproven designs that are mutually incompatible. We won't even go into the fact that most of them don't even come close to actually solving the problems they claim to solve.

If we didn't have a better solution, I'd be behind nuclear and carbon capture; however, since we do have a more effective solution it becomes necessary to examine the effect that support for nuclear and carbon capture has on the rollout of that better solution. What we find is that they are both a diversion of valuable resources and that they act to block the dismantling of the energy system that is built around carbon. Support for nuclear and carbon capture may be a political necessity, but it is a scientific absurdity.

[PamW]

14. Well documented by WHO?

Well documented by WHO?

Certainly not the scientists.

The scientists from the National Academy of Science on down say that renewables can only be a portion of our energy supply, and they recommend nuclear power.

How about the scientists that wrote the open letter in support of nuclear power.
How about Dr. James Hansen saying that believing renewables alone can do it is like believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.

As a non-scientist, I don't know how you can cloak yourself in the mantle of science for credibility, and say that nuclear power is a scientific absurdity; when the the vast majority of scientists support nuclear power.

PamW

[kristopher]

16. We can start with posts #1 & #3.

We've already established that you are not a scientist. You may be a technician of some sort who works with those pursuing science, but you lack the most fundamental prerequisite for "a scientist"- basic honesty and integrity.

Two threads that demonstrate your "scientific qualifications"
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/112755755
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112754771

There are plenty more if you'd like to see them.

[PamW]

18. NO such thing has been established

kristopher,

As a non-scientist, you don't get to tell the scientists who is and who is not a scientist.

I have a PhD from MIT, and I am a staff scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

kristopher doesn't count me as a scientist saying I'm dishonest because I support nuclear power.

However, the vast MAJORITY of scientists support nuclear power. I support nuclear and say that renewables won't cut it. That's what the MAJORITY of scientists say.

That's what Dr. James Hansen says. Hansen helped author the recent open letter to environmentalists in support of nuclear power. Hansen also says believing that renewables can cut it is like believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.

Hansen says the same things I say; albeit more eloquently. Does that mean Hansen is dishonest and therefore not a scientist.

kristopher doesn't know what scientists promote. He likes what scientist say about global warming; but not what to do about it.

Sorry kristopher, but scientists are NOT politically in your corner. We have our own values which are quite orthogonal to your political agendas.

After all, scientists are the ones that INVENTED nuclear power in the first place. Why do you think we would give up on something we invented? We don't discard the invention if it doesn't measure up. We FIX it so it does measure up.

Sorry, but non-scientists that can't even understand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics don't get to tell scientists what to believe or who to welcome into their fold.

PamW

[kristopher]

19. No, I'm saying you aren't a scientist because you falsely report the results of research and data.

A perfect case in point is the straw man argument you just created about why I say you are not a scientist.

[PamW]

20. My reporting is ACCURATE

My reporting is ACCURATE; the fact that you don't like what scientists say is not my problem.

In any case, you are NOT a scientist, so you don't have any say in who is / is not a scientist.

If you don't belong to the Elk's Lodge, then you don't get to say who can / can not join the lodge.

Simple as that.

PamW

[kristopher]

21. ROFLMAO

Don't forget to stomp your foot and hold your breath until you turn blue.

[madokie]

22. How do you come to the conclusion that everyone who doesn't agree with you

doesn't understand the 2nd law of Thermodynamics? I mean this is shit most of us picked up before we graduated from high school.
You make me laugh and I mean that as at you not with you.

You are about to wear poor old Dr. Hansen out don't you think. Is he the only Scientist you know or read by any chance
Give it a rest Pam, I don't think anyone here actually believes you are a scientist, I know I sure the hell don't.
I've noticed that in the majority of replies you feel you have to remind us that you are a scientist, in fact you use that as a debating tool, not cool
I'm sorry but I just don't believe you, never did for that matter, probably never will.

Anyways I'm off to the bowling alley for some down time and hell I might even drink a beer. Something I rarely do now a days.
Peace
Have a wonderful evening

[PamW]

23. You misunderstand..

Last edited Sun Dec 29, 2013, 11:47 AM - Edit history (2)

madokie states:
How do you come to the conclusion that everyone that doesn't agree with you doesn't understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics

madokie,

I DON'T conclude that people who disagree with me don't understand the 2nd law.

I remember some of the times when you attempted to demonstrate that you understood the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and you got it WRONG.

If memory serves, you agreed with kristopher in his contention that we should have heat engines that don't reject any waste heat. People who understand the 2nd Law know that the 2nd Law forbids that. Courtesy of the Physics Dept. at Georgia State University:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c2

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is impossible to extract an amount of heat QH from a hot reservoir and use it all to do work W . Some amount of heat QC must be exhausted to a cold reservoir.

It's on the basis of your ERROR that I conclude that you don't understand the 2nd Law. It has nothing to do with disagreeing with me.

PamW

[madokie]

24. Show me a link where I got it wrong

Your problem is you think you're always right and everyone else is always wrong.

BTW, your memory doesn't serve you very well does it?
Like I said give us some links where I demonstrated that I don't understand the second law of thermodynamics.

[PamW]

25. Good for the goose; good for the gander

madokie states
Your problem is you think you're always right and everyone else is always wrong.

Because when it comes to Physics; I AM right. Physics is my profession; so I am damn certain to get it correct.

Wouldn't you expect a medical doctor to be correct all the time when the questions are ones of simple anatomy?

The type of Physics questions that you get 100% WRONG on multiple occasions are TRIVIAL to someone with my intellect and education.

I know that galls you; but facts are facts.

Also I happen to like those links from Dr. James Hansen who states that we can't run our electric grid on renewables only; and that anyone that so believes would believe in the "Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy".

I've been saying here that we need to address the global climate problem, that renewables won't do it; and that nuclear power is the answer. Dr. James Hansen has made those EXACT points in recent weeks.

So why can't you and other anti-nukes accept what legitimate scientists say?

For Heaven's sake, you've pilloried the Republicans for not listening to the scientists. The Republicans didn't like what the scientists said with regard to global warming, and you and others rightfully attacked them as not being too bright.

However, when the tables are turned and now the scientists say something that you don't like; well that's a different story.

NOPE - what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

PamW

[madokie]

26. Well the goose didn't find any links to back up your absurd statements

That I asked you for. Why is that??

You're full of lies, bullshit and misdirection, hardly anyone to take seriously about anything. Thats what my first impression was to begin with and as time goes by with more and more of the same from you thats what I've come to believe is true.

Have a nice day, I am.
I think you need that
It must be rough where you are My apologies for adding to your burden

Links girl, I want to see links I asked you for to back up your claims about me. Either that or go away

[madokie]

27. PamW you're always throwing around all this about how you're a scientist and all

and using it to berate anyone who post something you don't agree with. How about some links to some of the peer reviewed work you've done. That way we could make up our own minds whether we want to pay any attention to you and your caustic ways. How about it???
I know you must have a ton to pick from so how 'bout it

As the old saying goes, shit or get off the pot.

[PamW]

28. Evidently madokie doesn't understand

madokie,

Have you not been listening; I've told you where I work.

I work at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

Do you think that an LLNL scientist in the defense field is going to have a public published CV?

Sorry, but everything I've written is in the non-public realm.

But that doesn't mean I'm not a scientist.

Besides, I give you links to public websites like Universities.

Like when you post some nonsense about understanding the 2nd Law; I give you a reference to the Physics Dept. at Georgia State University.

I can't prove my credentials online; but I can give you links to Universities that show you to be in ERROR.

PamW

[madokie]

30. LOL Sure you do

We believe you LOL


How about that link you claimed that shows I don't understand the second law of thermodynamics, where's it at, pamW
You are not who you claim to be and if I was a betting man I'd bet money on that.

I want you to put up or shut up on what you were saying about me, links girl, links

[kristopher]

29. Yeah! You don't understand.

It's classified.

caraher
response to PamW

51. bananas and kristopher certainly win on source credibility here

Unlike any of us asserting unverifiable credentials on this board, it's easy to tell that Selden is immune to the oft-leveled charge of not being a SCIENTIST or bomb designer, as he is both. From his NNSA bio:

ROBERT SELDEN is currently a private consultant in defense science and research management. He retired in 1993 as an associate director at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. His career in the DOE national laboratories began at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the 1960s when he was one of the two participants in the Nth Country Experiment to design a nuclear explosive from unclassified information. After moving to Los Alamos in 1979, he served as the Division Leader of the Applied Theoretical Physics Division, as Associate Director for Theoretical and Computational Physics, and as the first Director of the Los Alamos Center for National Security Studies. Dr. Selden served as the Chief Scientist of the U.S. Air Force from 1988 to 1991 where he received the Air Force Association’s Theodore von Karman Award for outstanding contributions to defense science and technology. He has been a member of the Strategic Advisory Group to the Commander of the United States Strategic Command since 1995. Since 2003 he has served as Chairman of the Advisory Group's Stockpile Assessment Team, which has the responsibility to conduct a detailed annual review of the United States nuclear weapon stockpile. He also is currently a member of the Joint Advisory Committee on Nuclear Surety to the Secretaries of Defense and Energy. He was a member of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board from 1984 to 2005. Dr. Selden received his BA degree from Pomona College, Claremont, California, in 1958, and his Ph.D. degree in Physics from the University of Wisconsin in 1964.

PamW:
Response to caraher (Reply #51)Thu Dec 5, 2013, 01:48 PM

52. NOPE!! They do NOT!!

caraher,

The key point is that Selden RETIRED in 1993.

When you retire; you don't have access to the CLASSIFIED information any more.

It was about 1993 that the CLASSIFIED techniques to insure that IFR can NOT be used for weapons were developed.

I don't care how many awards someone gets; even if they get the Nobel Prize in Physics.

If they no longer have the CLEARANCE to know HOW the IFR can achieve weapons-free capability;
then they just plain DO NOT KNOW.

PamW

caraher

Response to PamW (Reply #52)Thu Dec 5, 2013, 02:05 PM

53. Well, it seems you are a liar, traitor or a fool - your choice

If you're telling us that classified information proves IFR poses no proliferation risk, you are a traitor to your country by revealing the existence of classified information.

If this information does not exist, your are telling lies.

If you think any sane person should prefer to accept your unverifiable claims over the considered opinion of a man who spent a decades-long career studying these issues, is still an active consultant on these questions and worked on these problems at the highest levels of the scientific nuclear security establishment, you are a fool.

If PamGregG actually has a clearance, it wouldn't last long if they knew of the erratic behavior on display here; the shrinks would have a field day with the breakdown of reason involved in his narratives.

For example:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112758716

[madokie]

31. The pseudo scientist has about wore me out

I don't know about you or some of the others but I've had it with her and her holier than thou, smarter than everyone else fake ass bullshit attitude

[PamW]

33. We can't all be geniuses...

We can't all be geniuses.

But it is nice to be among the chosen few.

PamW

[madokie]

34. LOL

As my mother would say, buy you for what you're worth and sell you for what you think you're worth and retire for life LOL

Gawd you're funny

PamW I want you to provide a link that supports your contention about what you said about my not understanding the 2nd law of thermodymanics. otherwise retract that bit of false bullshit.
Heres a link to the reply where you said that: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=61044

[PamW]

32. Nothing erratic

Of course there is absolutely NOTHING erratic about a SPOT ON critique of the article from "The Nation". The bonehead that wrote it didn't understand the first thing about the science; especially when stating that fission produced Plutonium, when the actual mechanism is radiative capture.

Besides, the only thing classification officials care about is whether classified information is revealed, and certainly that has not been the case here. It is totally unclassified that the materials produced by the IFR can NOT be used to make nuclear weapons. US Senators Simon and Kempthorne stated that in the following rebuttal to a New York Times editorial:

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/05/opinion/l-new-reactor-solves-plutonium-problem-586307.html

You are mistaken in suggesting that the reactor produces bomb-grade plutonium: it never separates plutonium; the fuel goes into the reactor in a metal alloy form that contains highly radioactive actinides. A recent Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory study indicates that fuel from this reactor is more proliferation-resistant than spent commercial fuel, which also contains plutonium.

The fact that IFR Plutonium can not be used to make nuclear weapons is totally unclassified. How the IFR accomplishes this feat has not been revealed by either Senators Simon, Kempthorne, nor myself. So the secrets are safe and that is ALL that classification officials care about.

Additionally, the post from caraher demonstrates that he doesn't understand "compartmentalization" which is de riguer in the world of classified information. Not everybody gets access to classified information; unless they are "in" the compartment. In the 1990s, Selden worked for Los Alamos. DOE gave the job of evaluating the IFR proliferation resistance to Lawrence Livermore. So people from Los Alamos had no "need to know"; and hence Selden was NOT privy to the specifications of the IFR. The Lawrence Livermore scientists had that covered. Since Selden wasn't privy to the specs on the IFR; he can't know how the IFR accomplished its proliferation resistance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_%28information_security%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Need_to_know

The only scientists that were privy to the information and had the expertise to make their conclusions, were the weapons scientists at Lawrence Livermore. The conclusion of the Lawrence Livermore scientists, as detailed by US Senators Simon and Kempthorne in their rebuttal to the New York Times editorial is that the IFR could NOT be used to make nuclear weapons. End of story.

PamW

[4dsc]

15. Nice straw man apporach to your failed attempts

Sorry but I have never stated oil is the only energy carrier worth talking about I just like pointing out that FACT that you appear to think oil is not to be considered in any so called alternative energy source.

Simply put, nothing can be produced or manufacture without OIL. nothing is going to replace oil in our society on the scale you believe is possible either.

[kristopher]

17. You're funny.

Sorry but I have never stated oil is the only energy carrier worth talking about..

Simply put, nothing can be produced or manufacture without OIL.

You're not correct, but I'm sure that doesn't matter to you. What applications are "OIL" fulfilling where there are no substitutes?

[kristopher]

35. Cost-minimized combinations renewables powering the grid up to 99.9% of the time

... we simulated fluctuating power input to a large regional electric system, seeking the least-cost combinations of renewable generation and storage to provide sufficient power for load. Unlike many prior studies, we do not employ storage in order to balance generation capacity more closely to load—we only care about reliably making load at the least cost.

We find that 90% of hours are covered most cost-effectively by a system that generates from renewables 180% the electrical energy needed by load, and 99.9% of hours are covered by generating almost 290% of need. Only 9–72 h of storage were required to cover 99.9% of hours of load over four years. So much excess generation of renewables is a new idea, but it is not problematic or inefficient, any more than it is problematic to build a thermal power plant requiring fuel input at 250% of the electrical output, as we do today.

At 2008 technology costs, 30% of hours is the lowest-cost mix we evaluated. At expected 2030 technology costs, the cost-minimum is 90% of hours met entirely by renewables. And 99.9% of hours, while not the cost-minimum, is lower in cost than today's total cost of electricity.

Over-generation is cost-effective at 2030 technology costs even when all excess is spilled. If excess generation displaces heating fuels, the cost is lowered further. Today's electricity is rarely used for heating because fuel cost dominates electric generation costs and energy is lost in generating electricity, so when heat is desired it is cheaper to burn fuel on site where the heat is needed. By contrast, renewable generation's primary costs are capital and the fuel is free—once built, we will want to run renewable generators whenever electricity has any value at all. Again, the cost-optimization model forces us to think about system design differently. Today we build dispatchable generation, and design for enough capacity to meet peak load plus a reserve margin. If we applied the findings of this article, in the future we would build variable generation, designing for enough capacity to make electric load for the worst hours, and as a side effect we will have enough extra electricity to meet thermal loads.

In the 99.9% case, using fossil generation to fill the gaps in the remaining 0.1% of hours (9 h year−1) requires maintaining less than half of today's legacy generation capacity, with that capacity producing only 0.017% of the energy needed for load. Thus, further pollution-reduction will provide scant motivation to retire old fossil generation. However, maintaining old fossil plant may be uneconomic if rarely used, in which case, other existing mechanisms—such as demand management, interruptible rates, or preloading storage from lower capacity fossil—could be used to retire old fossil plants.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378775312014759

Conclusions from the 'Journal of Power Sources'
Cost-minimized combinations of wind power, solar power and electrochemical storage, powering the grid up to 99.9% of the time

[Searay60]

36. Not a good reference

Kristopher
The paper you listed is a pure theoretical balance the load study and specifically excludes the necessary components to make a large scale renewable grid work. The study focus is to look at reduced cost and does not consider stability and the need for additional transfer capability from transmission lines and FACTSs devices. Without a stiff power source large scale integration is not achievable. The scope exceptions and corrigendum (correction) of the paper make this point. A conventional power source is still needed. I prefer grid storage but Nuclear and Combustion Turbines are the lower Carbon and lower cost alternative. If you look at the PJM cue you will see the replacement of coal fired units come from these two types of generation. The controls and protection systems of both PV and Wind still need more communication and development to work at the levels stated in the paper.

[kristopher]

37. It's an outstanding reference

It isn't a study designed to address every single potential aspect of what will be involved in moving away from fossil fuels, so manufacturing bullcrap as a pretense for dissing what the study DOES tell us isn't particularly a relevant contribution to the discussion.

Your claim that conventional power sources are going to be needed simply isn't true - which is EXACTLY what the study shows. There are a variety of avenues for grid stabilization that have nothing to do with fossil or nuclear.

[Searay60]

38. Read The Paper Again

Its a load study nothing more. Power every now and then is not a viable option. Blackouts of the grid are the major requirement of design by FERC, NERC and DOE. If you do not mind power outages on a large scale every now and then this approach is great. I would also look at the author and where the paper was published. If the paper were a seminole work you would expect PSERC or IEEE as the published forum. The paper was rejected by the IEEE as nothing new. There have been many papers presented on this subject with the same or similar scope. The paper does not provide necessary information on numerical or simulation method required by pier review in the power standards industry.
The only available alternative to fossil or nuclear for grid stability is energy storage. Large amounts of energy storage and the ability to deliver (transmission lines) will be needed to consider the premise anything other than a theoretical exercise. Currently practical attempts to achieve what was presented in the paper have created major blackouts. ERCOT outage and the Spanish grid in 2009 are great examples. This paper is not a reference I would use since the scope does not provide the means need to achieve large integration only load matching.

I will give you a few sources that will illustrate the problems but system studies engineer in the industry learned understand what I am telling you from a formal education in Power Engineering. I have added a listing from a great text a book on power systems stability that has a great section on problems with current renewable controllers. I work with Solomon Yerga who was Kundor's grad student and put most of the book together. The good news is a lot of work is being performed in large scale renewable integration and the out look is doable if a new contolers and a transitional strategy can be worked out. My belief is grid storage on a large scale is a possible bridge. The control and protection systems currently sold simply can not keep the lights on as needed by our modern society.

http://www.amazon.com/System-Stability-Control-Prabha-Kundur/dp/007035958X
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5611140&queryText%3Drenewable+stability
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5666616&queryText%3Drenewable+stability
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6044370&queryText%3Drenewable+stability


http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5611140&queryText%3Drenewable+stability

[kristopher]

39. As I wrote, it's an outstanding reference.

It isn't a study designed to address every single potential aspect of what will be involved in moving away from fossil fuels, so manufacturing bullcrap as a pretense for dissing what the study DOES tell us isn't particularly a relevant contribution to the discussion.

Your claim that conventional power sources are going to be needed simply isn't true - which is EXACTLY what the study shows. There are a variety of avenues for grid stabilization that have nothing to do with fossil or nuclear.

I don't usually go to the issue of spelling, but let me say that if you can't spell "pier" (sic) review you might not be the best person to listen to on that particular topic. The same with PJM's "cue" (sic).

If you are working with this material on a regular basis the idea that those mistakes would be part of your writing is pretty far fetched.

As to the supposed criticisms of the authors and content - There are a lot of journals out there, and the idea that the paper must appear in a journal that meets your approval is as lame as it gets. You go further and assert that it was submitted and rejected by that particular journal - next you'll be telling us to trust you because you're a scientist/engineer, which is a go-to tactic for one particular poster on this forum who keeps coming back with different names. In short, you have no credibility established here and your approach is one that is unlikely to help build any.

The content of your criticism amounts to a claim that the study didn't explicitly look at the issue of grid stability. You pile on that with the implication that the authors aren't as knowledgeable as your anonymous self. In fact the expertise contributing to the paper is extremely deep; and, judging by your writing I'd wager it dwarfs your own. Kempton, for example is famous for his work on grid storage, electric vehicle integration and wind power variability - and his work has strongly influenced the direction of policy and planning at FERC (according to outgoing Chair Wellinghoff). Does Wellinghoff cite your work as the reason for how policies directing the nation's electric grid are structured?

The idea that they aren't aware of the concerns you are voicing is absurd and has no more substance than the usual ignorant appeal to prejudice against science.

While there is some merit in the basic point you raise, it isn't a relevant consideration when discussing the findings that this paper has produced. Sure, grid stability is one issue that is required to be addressed. That is true no matter the type of generation we use. However another fact is that a distributed grid is more robust and stable than the current structure built around centralized thermal. And it doesn't require coal or nuclear to accomplish that state. Dealing with stability will remain an ongoing issue that is a normal and expected part of transitioning AWAY from the grid that exists today.

There are changes coming and blithering about on the internets isn't going to slow them down even one second, much less derail them entirely.

NRG CEO: Power grid will soon be 'last resort'
By Ethan Howland Dec. 11, 2013 |

Dive Brief:
- In a few years, most power will come from distributed sources and the centralized power grid will become a "last resort," according to David Crane, NRG Energy's president and CEO.

- Utility power sales have entered an “inexorable decline,” the "massive excess capacity" needed to meet peak demand "will become unnecessary" and the need for new power plants and transmission infrastructure "will be eliminated," Crane posits.

- Crane says three trends will lead consumers to stop buying power from utilities: cheap rooftop solar, automated conservation and extreme weather.

- But Crane sees a possible compromise between utilities and their customers on solar. Utilities should buy back excess supply that coincides with peak use, instead of offering average power supply costs, Crane said. Solar customers should pay for grid use at night or on cloudy days.

http://www.utilitydive.com/news/nrg-ceo-power-grid-will-soon-be-last-resort/204998/



NRG Doubles Down on Distributed Generation

Enter the Utility Death Spiral
To be clear, NRG has flourished under David Crane’s leadership, its stock price nearly doubling in the past year alone. So why would Crane rock the boat, as he just has? The plan that Crane has put forward seemingly contradicts NRG’s current formula for success, and it threatens to alienate others in the industry, to boot. This is a serious challenge to the status quo.

One theory would be that Crane sees the writing on the wall: distributed renewables are forcing centralized fossil-fueled generation to go the way of the dinosaur, opening the door for customers to manage and meet their electricity needs with increased independence. Granted, at today’s pace it’s going to be a while before the electricity industry is no longer dependent on coal and nuclear, but Crane seems to be positioning NRG to get in front of the curve by establishing itself as the go-to provider of islandable micropower. Sun Tzu said: “though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been associated with long delays.” Crane would seem to have taken this to heart.

Should the electric utility industry be worried? At a time when utilities’ business customer satisfaction is already falling, the answer is an unequivocal ‘Yes.’ If NRG steps in and takes people off the grid, there are suddenly fewer customers remaining to pay for the infrastructure needed to make the system work (the same infrastructure that’s needed to bring renewables like Wyoming’s wind power to major load centers across the country). As a result, a utility would have to distribute these fixed costs over fewer customers, raising prices for individual customers and driving even more people to think about switching over to NRG and other options that may emerge. This phenomenon results in a positive feedback loop termed “the utility death spiral.” Investor-owned utilities are taking notice, as this death spiral could result in a cycle that continues shifting customers away from the utility until there’s nobody left.

NRG’s plan hinges on a belief that if a utility can’t prove that it offers more value to its customers, those customers will leave—kicking off the aforementioned death spiral. It’s for this reason that Crane believes that utilities think “distributed solar is a mortal threat to their business.” But does this have to be the case?
...

http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2013_04_11_NRG_Doubles_Down_on_Distributed_Generation

[Searay60]

40. Kristopher

The best I can say is you don't know what you don't know.

Oh and I became an engineer because my spelling sucks. Thank god for spell check. Both IEEE,IEC and CIGRE have editors as well as my colleagues and thankfully they judge my work for its content. Lots of great people in the standards community.

Actually Jon and I have had many conversations most recently on designs for extreme weather and single point of failure. I had dinner in Vancouver with he and Rick Bush recently at the summer 2013 IEEE meeting. Jon has been to my company and commends the work that we are doing on syncrophasors and three phase state estimation. I also advise for IMPO and represent the US for CIGRE and IEC. I have been a member of many FERC and NERC comities and tasks forces through the years and am a senior member of the PES IEEE. 2012 I was one of the judges for the IEEE PES paper session and panel chair for two sessions. I am the currently the chair of two IEEE standards comities. I review a lot of technical papers for CIGRE and IEEE and my comments were meant to be constructive as there are many papers like this submitted to IEEE and CIGRE every year. There is nothing new or promotional. I am on the advisory board for ECE at Virginia Tech and industrial advisory board at UTK's National Science foundation for Oak ridge labs. I work with Mark Lauby at NERC and Terry Boston at PJM if that helps with the name dropping silliness. So yes many of my opinions and my work shape policy in the US and Globally.

Professor Kempton's concept is good but is not achievable in the current grid because the infrastructure such as the service drops and transformers to EV's are not sized properly to achieve his idea. Only in areas where you have summer peaking with air conditioning is this concept possible with out expensive change. The EV's will have to be balanced on all three phases to prevent overloads and harm. You cant have all the houses with EV's on the same phase. The concept is a great idea and was discussed in great length at the DOE Smart grid standards meetings in 2011. The GIV concept may work in some regions but it will require smart meters to be paid for by the home owner. Sorry to say with out regulatory intervention the type of storage Professor Kempton is talking about will not happen any time soon. The communications infrastructure needs to be in place for any of this to work. I am interested on his views of hydrogen storage and generation for large scale regional needs. I rarely get to smart grid meetings anymore but will look him up if he is at the Summer IEEE meeting in DC.

As for Crane's ideas I have been doing position papers for my company for 20 years and his ideas are not new. Many have pontificated the same concept and none have come to fruition yet. I love Crane and he is a true capitalist and has made him self rich hedging renewable technology. Until we make a windmill that will last 20 years and PV's can be made with out rare earth metals I am not sure the cell phone market analogies will happen soon. But he has made a lot people believe so and drive up stock prices.


Distributed grids/mico grids are not common not cost effective and are not stable. The devices used for voltage regulation are not designed for the renewables and cause damage to the connected loads. The customer/home owners have significant damage as recently experienced in Queensland and Germany. I was in both countries talking to engineers about installation of distribution STATCOM's.

You have a habit of jumping to conclusions. I only offered some friendly advise. The paper you quote is not the paper I would use to make the case for large integration.There is no prejudice against science on my part which you have a habit of trying use to defined a position. I am in the industry trying to work through the hurdles and make the integration of renewables realistic. You unfairly take my comments as being anti or augmentative. My work promotes a reasoned and measured approach that will help the industry. I am not interested If I have credibility here since I do ok in the Power industry. Maybe thats something you should consider as people discuss difficult topics. I just enjoy sharing some incite if I can.

You do harm to the renewable cause being unfriendly with people who either have a different perspective or have more knowledge and experience. There is much to learn, my self included and you are obviously researching as much as you can. I only offer the perspective that electrical engineers in the industry seek solutions to real world problems and always question academic ideas. I only hope you change your tone as you have a lot to add and I enjoy your topic posts.

[kristopher]

41. Those are baseless claims

You are an anonymous voice on the internet. You are making assertions and claims that are not verified or verifiable as a means of arguing against an expert whose credentials we not only can, but have verified.

Do you grasp the problem?

That feeds interpretation of your assertions regarding the nature of supposed shortcomings in the paper under discussion; which are STILL not germane to the topic of the research itself. Before that paper, it would be common for the entrenched energy interests to attack renewable energy with the claim that it isn't possible to meet demand 24/7 with variable sources of generation. Now, however, because of this and several other detailed analysis comparing real world demand with knowln performance characteristics of renewable technologies that no longer has any legitimacy.

Now here you are (for the second time) claiming that the paper is no good because it doesn't address stabilizing the grid on a second by second basis.

You'll just have to forgive me for not considering your input credible.

[Searay60]

42. My posts was factual, practical and experienced.

I am no more anonymous than you. You are the one that wanted to drop names I just obliged. The "Do you grasp the problem" comment is condescending and really beneath you. I listed three IEEE papers and a Power Engineering text book that all that support my claim. Did you read any of them. Yes you have to pay for them. Education is not always free. The paper you quote is, what it is but it is not some kind of breakthrough. I guess thats what I was trying to bring out. By your response and derogatory comment, I cant tell if you read the Kempton paper or did not understand it. Its just another DOE paper which many universities seek for funding. Id pick a better paper but hey let the industry be the judge. Power stability, Power Quality, both voltage and frequency are regulatory requirements by FERC. You may not think it is credible or a big deal but the utilities that have to pay the fines do. I didn't make them up. You don't have to like them you just have to abide by the regulation or face a one million dollar per day per event penalty. If you rebut the premise or statement in a discussion you gain understanding.

You take my words as some kind of attack and you throw credibility around as if some how this blog is the source of all wisdom. Ill be the first one to raise a glass when we reach a large penetration of renewables but sadly I just do not see us this any time soon because there are scientific(technical) problems that must be overcome and the real costs are still large. Which you disagree with. I get that. Hey this is my experienced opinion. I guess my point as several (Spain, South Africa and Peru) have tried the large renewable approach and failed for reasons I have stated. I do think that we can use renewables 24/7 but not with todays technology. Its not because the large integration has not been tried. I will do my best as time permits to add a few links to offer a few scraps of information. Its up to the readers to decide on credibility I'm ok that you disagree.

[kristopher]

43. It's amazing...

...how your style of argumentation so precisely tracks that other poster I mentioned earlier.

You: "I am no more anonymous than you."
I never argued by appeal to my own supposed authority, but you did.

You: "You are the one that wanted to drop names I just obliged."
It was your specific suggestion to "look at the author (sic) and where the paper was published" as part of your obvious attempt to undermine the findings of the paper - findings that are a refutation of the primary claim nuclear and coal try to use against variable renewables.
As it turns out, the credentials of the authors are excellent and the journal they published in is very well regarded. Wellinghoff's comments regarding Kempton's work are a matter of public record. But your boastful self promotion and lack of recognition of the limitations of this venue are absolutely remarkable. They track that other person so closely and in so many ways the chance that it is a coincidence is rapidly diminishing to the point of nothingness.

Your entire comment

"I would also look at the author and where the paper was published. If the paper were a seminole work you would expect PSERC or IEEE as the published forum. The paper was rejected by the IEEE as nothing new. There have been many papers presented on this subject with the same or similar scope. The paper does not provide necessary information on numerical or simulation method required by pier review in the power standards industry.

You also seem to have the same fixation on stalking me that the other poster exhibited.

[Searay60]

44. You Think A Lot Of Your Self

Is answering a challenge stalking. As long as you challenge I will meet the challenge. Again since you do not answer the technical points but only wish to attack and denigrate the person it means you have no point. Sorry you do not wish to answer reason or debate technical issues just denigrate the poster. Your attempt at debate is not worthy and spirals to a personal attack. By the way people in the power industry do not recognize

You do not wish to enlighten but argue. I thought maybe you were more enlightened but it is apparent you just wish to hammer a point of view that is detrimental to science and reason. You don't know anything about what you parrot. You have never worked or built anything you talk about. You seam to be a smart guy but you are wound to tight to be helpful to promote anything.

I am sorry I do not know who this other poster you talk about is. You may need to take a time out as you are a little more than defensive. You continue to attack and be overly aggressive with no facts. Id be glad to debate you face to face at an conference. The IEEE summer meeting is in DC this year id be glad to meet and discus all the above. Maybe Kempton would be there we could discus. I will seek him out if if he comes to the conference. There would be many more that could maybe enlighten you Dr Bernabaugh, Dr Thorpe, Dr Fadke, Dr Wang, Dr Lee, Dr Xia, DR Marti or DR Reed just to name a few. All of their credentials are golden. All of these professors are systems leaders in the power industry that could help you understand if you wanted. Without any education you could not possible understand what you don't know. That is why you do not refute my claims about renewable protection and Control systems. Its a topic that you can reference since research is on going and not resolved. Bottom line is renewables need a constant or stiff power source to work. When you send me an RTDS study that proves your point I will happy to say you were right. Id say have an open mind but you don't know what you don't know since you have no education to understand. Keep quoting papers and you might try to actual read more than the summary.

[kristopher]

45. Yeah, yeah yeah...

SSDD&P

[Searay60]

46. LOL

Exactly you made my point!

[PamW]

47. Unfortunately...

Unfortunately, the non-scientists don't appreciate something that for the scientists and engineers is trivially obvious; the grid not only needs sufficient capacity, but it also requires stability.

The non-scientists don't realize that the grid has to be balanced second to second and instant to instant. Generation has to equal demand plus losses moment to moment, or the grid collapses. It is fundamental Conservation of Energy, one of Mother Nature's most most important laws. If generation is less than demand and losses, then the grid would be creating energy out of nothing. If generation exceeds demand and losses, then the grid is destroying energy. Neither of those situations Mother Nature allows. So if there is a mismatch, Mother Nature will collapse the grid before she allows Conservation of Energy to be violated.

Unfortunately, the renewables community has only scratched the surface of solving the problem of dynamic balance.

Electric grids aren't the only engineered systems that require this. I analogize it to aviation systems. Not only must the wings and engines generate sufficient lift and thrust; but the aircraft has to be aerodynamically stable. There were lots of attempts at flight before the Wright Brothers in which inventors had the necessary lift and thrust; but didn't have aerodynamically stable craft. That is what the Wright Brothers brought to the analysis; and why they succeeded where all predecessors FAILED.

http://www.thebreakthrough.org/images/Death_of_Environmentalism.pdf

Engineers use a technical term to describe systems without feedback mechanisms; "stupid".

It is why scientists including the National Academy of Sciences have such reservations about these "all renewable" proposals. At the current time, non-dispatchable renewables require dispatchable power sources like coal, gas, hydro, and nuclear to do "load following" for them.

The issue won't be decided here. For all the hand-waving arguments from the non-scientists; Mother Nature will prevent them from realizing their ill-conceived proposals in practice.

It would be easy enough to prove; the renewabes community could power some city, state, or region with renewables but DISCONNECTED from any other source of dispatchable power. They don't do that; because the engineers that are actually developing renewables know better. They know their grid can't stand without help from dispatchable sources.

As Dr. James Hansen states:

http://www.masterresource.org/2011/08/james-hansen-renewable-energy/

“Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.”

Again, it matters not a whit from the protests of the "all renewables" crowd. They can bleat and blather and waste bandwidth and DU storage space all they want. Their problem is that they are at odds with science and Mother Nature; and Mother Nature will assure that they LOSE. The problem is that they will ensure that the rest of us LOSE with them.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[kristopher]

48. Talking to yourself again?

One of the most convincing arguments for the potential of renewable energy can be found in the amount of resources the nuclear and coal crowd expend trying to convince everyone they won't work.

[PamW]

49. Not at all

Last edited Wed Jan 1, 2014, 09:40 AM - Edit history (1)

The above statement is only convincing if you "think" only in terms of conspiracies and parochial agendas.

However, such "thinking" is totally devoid of any logic / reasoning in the scientific sense.

The Conservation of Energy argument above is powerful and yet to be addressed by the renewables crowd.

Is the Conservation of Energy argument really lost on you? Imagine you had 100% solar; do you really not see how you can't keep the grid balanced with a variable on-demand load and 100% solar?

Those devoid of scientific thinking and principles and those that "think with their politics instead of scientific logic and reasoning" will assure that we will ALL LOSE.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW