Landmark report explodes renewable energy myths

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2261182/landmark-report-explodes

Landmark report explodes renewable energy myths

Comprehensive study concludes 100 per cent renewable energy supplies are technically feasible and economically attractive

Rachel Fielding, BusinessGreen, 13 Apr 2010

Europe can switch to low carbon sources of energy without jeopardising reliability or forcing up energy bills to punitive levels, according to a major new study that claims to be the most comprehensive assessment to date of the viability of zero carbon power supplies.

Roadmap 2050: a practical guide to a prosperous, low-carbon Europe will be released later today and will demonstrate how transitioning to a low or zero carbon power supply based on high levels of renewable energy would have no impact on reliability, and would have little impact on the cost of producing electricity in the period up to 2050.

The report was developed by think tank the European Climate Foundation (ECF) in collaboration with a number of leading economists and energy industry experts, and includes contributions from McKinsey, KEMA, Imperial College London and Oxford Economics.

Its analysis argues that cost effective zero carbon power is not reliant on technology breakthroughs, although it warns that they would help to further reduce the cost of decarbonisation.

...

[kristopher]

1. Ahhh, the joy of knowledge.

[kristopher]

2. Link to download

www.eeac-net.org/workgroups.pdf/decarbonisation/ECF_22-3_RoadmapSummary_JKortenhorst.pdf

There is a similar study mentioned in article that's from PriceWaterhouse. Link to link at bottom of article.

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. A better download link

http://www.roadmap2050.eu/downloads.html

[kestrel91316]

3. Our favorite spittle-spewing renewables hater to piss all over this thread

in 3...2...1...

[Dead_Parrot]

4. Some interesting reading in there

Download in chunks from http://www.roadmap2050.eu/downloads.html

Runs to a few hundred pages, so I've only skimmed it: Ther're a bit too heavy on the clean coal for my taste and there's a bit of <insert magic here>, such as "A ... breakthrough in technology with enhanced geothermal was assumed" and "The preferred technologies for the backup service are yet uncertain" (although they then carefully calculate you need 270GW of magic backup for the 80% renewables path).

Still, any report that concludes building 200GW of new nuclear power plants is nearly a trillion euros cheaper than using 80% renewables and still gets a thumbs-up from Kris has got to be worth a read. :)

[Statistical]

5. Kris rarely reads past the headlines.

He often provides lots of pro-nuclear evidence without realizing it.

From the executive summary:

Nearly full decarbonization of the power sector is achieved by relying to varying degrees on renewables, nuclear and carbon capture and storage (CCS), along with a singnificant increase in transmission and distribution investments.

In the 40% RES pathway, about 1,500 TWh per year of nuclear production is required, compared to approximately 1,000 TWh per year today. Approximately 200 GW of new nuclear plants would need to be built, representing approximately over a hundred new nuclear plants entering construction by 2040. The 80% RES pathway requires that about half of the current level of nuclear production is replaced.

A hundred new reactors is easily achievable. It is only little more than 3 reactor starts per year.

What Kris fails to understand is that just because something IS possible doesn't mean that it is optimal.

"All of the above" is often the best solution to most problems. Nuclear, wind, hydro, solar, storage, smart grid, efficiency all growing independently. Breakthroughs will lower costs independently and the relative % shift based on those economics. The whole don't put all your eggs in one basket mentality. It is entirely possible (not probable but possible) that some unexpected breakthrough in solar drops installed cost to something like $0.10 per watt in our lifetime. That could make solar generation so cheap than even with storage it simply makes sense to power everything by solar (even in Siberia). So while we should concentrate on the more economic solution we should still research and use solar when beneficial.


Leaving any stone unturned could result in loss of a potential future savings. We can't predict the future so parallel independent research and capacity growth is the best avenue. Well it is the best avenue for those who care about the planet, ideologues need not apply.

[Dead_Parrot]

6. But Idealogues are so much fun!

Lets face it, without the steady supply of mis-spelt teabagger signs, GD would be pretty boring. :)

Yeah, a mix of techs is the best way forward. And since we don't exactly have a lot of time left on the meter, a mix of existing techs is probably our best shot (even if it's a long one).

Edit:
Vol1 (full text) p88:

Cumulative capital requirements, 2010-2050, € billion (share in total spent, capex + opex)

40% Renewables, 30% Nuclear, 30% CCS: 1,990
60% Renewables, 20% Nuclear, 20% CCS: 2,550
80% Renewables, 10% Nuclear, 10% CCS: 2,860

No figure for 100% renewables that I've found. Shame...

[Statistical]

7. Next thing you know he will be calling them nuclear shills because of these quotes.

Roughly speaking, for every 7-8 MW of intermittent capacity (wind and solar PV), about one additional MW of back up capacity is required. Back up plants form an important part of the system balancing and are required especially at times in winter when the solar power is low, wind lulls occur and the demand for heat pumps is the highest. The load factor of the back up plants is expected to be below 5% for the 40%/60%/80% RES pathways and up to 8% in the 100% RES scenario.

That is a lot of backup power required for a 100% RES model (only one that has no nuclear power). Adding some nuclear into the mix helps improve that backup equation.

Both nuclear and fossil plants with CCS can be compatible with intermittent renewable energy
sources. The combination of an expanded grid and increased back up plant capacity can balance a system that contains both some quantity of "baseload" generation as well as high levels of intermittent power. Load factors of nuclear and coal plus CCS remain high throughout the year, while curtailment of renewable energy remains below 3%.

So we can keep baseload / peaking model which has worked for 80+ years. We can run nuclear nearly 24/7 and provide a power floor with variable power sources and backup power ramping up (and down) as needed.

Nuclear and/or coal-with-CCS plants are not essential to decarbonize power while safeguarding system reliability. A scenario with 100% renewable energy was evaluated. It includes 15% imports from North Africa and 5% from EGS, qualified as a breakthrough technology. It was evaluated in particular from the perspective of system reliability and was found to be capable of delivering the same level of reliability; the cost of electricity for this scenario contains higher levels of uncertainty and warrants additional study, but it does not appear to be dramatically more expensive than the main decarbonization pathways studied. In this pathway, storage and/or biogas are needed to keep emissions from OCGT plants at reasonable levels.

So Europe could go no nuclear but it would require both storage and imports of energy from Africa as well as more price volatility and uncertainty.

Sounds like what I have been saying all along. Maybe this group really are super-secret "nuclear shills".

[Dead_Parrot]

9. Clearly, they must be burned.

[Statistical]

10. Strange how the practical guide to low-carbon isn't more popular.

Notice the PRACTICAL part.

As opposed to the zealots guide to low carbon power.

[OKIsItJustMe]

12. How are you measuring popularity?

A "zealots' guide" will likely draw more comments (both pro and con.)

[Statistical]

14. Yeah that was my point (maybe poorly worded).

Real solutions are often "less cool" because they are compromises.

Our resident nuclear booster for example hates any form of renewable energy.
Our resident wind booster for example hates any form of nuclear energy.

The reality is the only realistic chance to even come close to reaching the goal of low carbon economy is going to require both. We simply can not realistically, and economically build enough wind or nuclear to achieve the amounts of power necessary.

So if wind is a "toy" as someone likes to claim well we had better make it grow up quick because without it the planet dies.
If nuclear is a "Chernobyl" waiting to happen well be better fix it because without it the planet dies.

Even solar which current is not economical needs to be perused because of the potential it has (power output closesly matches demand unlike win which has no correlation).

[OKIsItJustMe]

16. Re: Real solutions are often "less cool" because they are compromises.

They're also unpopular, since any compromise means that purists (who tend to be the most motivated) must compromise their ideals.

[Statistical]

18. If you pissed off both sides then likely you are close to a real solution.

:)

[Nihil]

21. ... and it is a very good point at that ...

> Real solutions are often "less cool" because they are compromises.
>
> Our resident nuclear booster for example hates any form of renewable energy.
> Our resident wind booster for example hates any form of nuclear energy.
>
> The reality is the only realistic chance to even come close to reaching the
> goal of low carbon economy is going to require both. We simply can not
> realistically, and economically build enough wind or nuclear to achieve
> the amounts of power necessary.
>
> So if wind is a "toy" as someone likes to claim well we had better make it
> grow up quick because without it the planet dies.
> If nuclear is a "Chernobyl" waiting to happen well be better fix it because
> without it the planet dies.

(My emphasis)

[kristopher]

26. That isn't true, we don't need nuclear - remember that the focus is on NOW technologies.

1) The study is good in that it demonstrates that a transition to a non-carbon economy is able to be accomplished without great sacrifice. I've been telling this forum that for several years now.

2) The study is good in that it is based in what *absolutely* can be done and it cannot be criticized for being "pie in the sky" or "magic hand-waving" since it adheres to 1) above.

3) The study is weak because it is based in what *absolutely* can be done. In order to satisfy the requirement of 2) above the sacrifice is to relegate to the periphery or ignore emerging technologies that have a very, very strong probability of becoming mainstream, such as vehicle to grid (V2G) storage and third generation biofuels.

If you notice what is missing from the NOW mix and note the function of the technologies you'll see that they will all impact the percentage that is now allocated to nuclear and coal.

These technologies are far more than speculation, and they will be deployed.

[OKIsItJustMe]

33. From the study

...

The rationale for using a mix of sources rather than a few technologies in each of the pathways is that a) most technologies do not have sufficient theoretical capacity to supply all demand, b) a mix of technologies is more robust against delivery risks, and c) different technologies can be utilized to a greater extent in those regions where they are most suitable. A diversity of resources also enhances supply security. While the three main pathways employ some quantity of nuclear and coal-with-CCS plants operating in customary fashion, neither nuclear nor coal-with-CCS is necessary to deliver decarbonization while maintaining the current standard of reliability (as described in chapter 7 on Further opportunities, with the 100% RES being fully reliable), nor was the combination of nuclear or coal-with-CCS incompatible with high renewable shares. In each pathway, CCS is required to achieve significant abatements in industry. It should be noted that the resulting technology mix is not always similar to the forward-looking projections of industry associations and analysts, especially in the short term.

...

So, you're right, according to the study, nuclear power is not strictly necessary, on the other hand, the "three main pathways" all include some amount of nuclear power in the mix. So, let's just say that while not necessary, nuclear power makes the task easier.

I think it's important to note that (according to the report) Nuclear power currently provides 30% of European power production, which is the percentage it would provide in the "40% RES pathway." In the other two "main pathways," it would provide a lower percentage than it is currently providing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=241568&mesg_id=241898">Painting "statistical" as "a representative of the nuclear industry" does nothing to bolster your argument. If anything it only weakens it in the eyes of those who recognize an ad hominem attack.

Statistical has not advocated a "100% nuclear" path, indeed, quite the opposite:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=241568&mesg_id=241730

...

So if wind is a "toy" as someone likes to claim well we had better make it grow up quick because without it the planet dies.

...

V2G technology is discussed briefly in the report, as a "breakthrough technology" i.e. "... technologies that could become commercially available at scale in the next 40 years and be as attractive or more than the currently available technologies."

I think that's a fair classification. Don't you?

[Statistical]

34. Just a point to clarify.

lower percentage but on higher overall demand (demand expected to rise 60% by 2050) thus amount of nuclear power in nominal terms will need to expand.

When you account for the fact that every reactor operating in Europe today will be shutdown by 2050 all that capacity will need to be replaced also.

Not saying you were wrong rather than it may be unclear to someone. % can drop but that can still require more capacity to be built (in this case substantial amount of capacity).

[OKIsItJustMe]

37. That's not quite correct

I may have been somewhat unclear, although, I trust most people on this board recognize that demand will almost inevitably increase.

However, according to the study:

...

In the 40% RES pathway, about 1,500 TWh per year of nuclear production is required, compared to approximately 1,000 TWh per year today. Approximately 200 GW of new nuclear plants would need to be built, representing approximately over a hundred new nuclear plants entering construction by 2040. The 80% RES pathway requires that about half of the current level of nuclear production is replaced.

...

(Following these figures, it stands to reason that in the 60% RES pathway, the current European reactor fleet would be replaced, with its TWh capacity remaining roughly constant.)

I've pretty much resigned myself to nuclear power representing a significant portion of electrical generation for at least the next few decades. Like CCS-coal, I hope that nuclear (fission) will be eliminated from the mix eventually.

If we must continue producing electricity using nuclear fission, doing so with newer (presumably safer and cleaner) reactor designs is preferable to using the current (obsolete) designs.

[Statistical]

39. You weren't unclear. Just pointing out that more construction will be required.

The one thing kinda strange is this line:

"Approximately 200 GW of new nuclear plants would need to be built, representing approximately over a hundred new nuclear plants entering construction by 2040"


Sometimes term plant is confused with reactors. A nuclear plant is 1+ reactors at a single location (commonly 2 to 4). A reactor is a single entity. The number of plants isn't really important what is important is number of reactors. There are no 2GW reactors on the market so 200GW is going to require closer to 120 - 150 reactors. Now how you divided those reactors into plants isn't really materially. If you put 4 reactors at each plant it would only be 35-45 "plants" however the number of reactors will still be more.

GenIII reactors operating or under construction
AP1000 - 1150 MW
ABWR - 1350 MW
ESBWR - 1600 MW
EPR - 1650 MW
APWR - 1700 MW

To generate 1500 TWh @ 85% capacity factor would require 200GW however that would be more like 120 EPR reactors. Also it is unlikely EPR will get 100% marketshare (US has some allies in Europe). A 30% mix of AP100 would increase number of reactors by about 20 (due to lower capacity).

Lastly for simplicity sake the authors assumed a 50/50 split between fossil fuel CCS and nuclear. That split could vary. So it could be 80 reactors (with 50% more CCS) or 160 reactor (with 50% less CCS).

Still under the 40% scenario Europe is going to build about 80 to 180 reactors (not plants). 60% scenario would be half that and 80% scenairo would be about one quarter. Exact number of reactor will really depend on how competitive CCS is with nuclear.



Still if they started today that would be about 4 reactor starts per year. Delaying (and hoping for some future tech) is not a good idea. If you delay a decade that now requires 6 reactor starts per year. If they waited until most current reactors go offline (mid 2030) it would require 9 reactor starts per year.

[kristopher]

40. Agree and disagree

Nuclear isn't "necessary" nor does it make the task of transition "easier". It makes the *analysis* easier and more importantly, less subject to denialist style attacks (I've made this opinion clear already).

As to your jab at personal attacks, I don't agree that is what is happening. Just as in climate change, the discussion at the internet forum level is largely political, not technical. Stats is clearly engaged in an effort to serve the interests of the nuclear industry. Whether it is for pay or out of sincere (yet misguided) belief is known only to stats - I'm not able to address that. But he is surely representing the nuclear industry so that is just a straight call of fact, not a personal attack.

Given the obvious attempt in the paper to play it safe, it is reasonable that they leave out emerging technologies and yes, I agree that calling them breakthrough technologies is a fair characterization.

[OKIsItJustMe]

42. If not "easier" would you say "less expensive" (within the limitations of this study)

Would you say it is equally valid to say that Statistical is "a representative of the nuclear wind industry?"

[kristopher]

43. As I noted the study has a serious limitation

Why you want to elicit specific preselected statements from me is your business, but I don't like being herded ala Sean Hannity.

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. Just so we're clear

3 (or is it 4?) different pathways are examined.

"In each of the pathways, CCS is required. The three main pathways include CCS for power generation and all scenarios require CCS to abate industrial emissions e.g. for steel, refining, chemicals and cement. The realization of an extensive CO2 transportation and storage infrastructure across certain regions in Europe, depending on where and how CCS will be most intensively deployed."

[Statistical]

13. It is 4 (well 4 plus a baseline = "business as usual")

100%, 80%, 60%, 40% renewable.

CCS is still used even in the 100% renewable model because it is needed for non-power purposes (making steel for example).

I have nothing against CCS I just think Coal + CCS is a crutch. If CCS is going to be used for power generation natural gas w/ CCS is superior for non-carbon reasons.

Some things will always require CCS is we want to be low carbon. Making steel for example is going to require carbon and that carbon is going to make CO2 (as does production of aluminum).

[OKIsItJustMe]

15. However, one of the 4 is not fully examined

which is why it's 3. ;-)

[Statistical]

17. True. The 4th option really isn't an option.

Relying on importing power from Africa (um where is Africa going to get the power).
Enhanced Geothermal (which hasn't been invented yet).
Massive power storage system (unknown method and cost).
Substantial price volatility (Europe pays what Africa is willing to sell power at based on their own internal pressures).

[OKIsItJustMe]

19. Well, the Africa question is answered

There have been murmurs/rumors of an http://www.google.com/search?q=europe+africa+solar">Africa/Europe CSP project on both sides of the Mediterranean for a few years now.

The 4th scenario assumes this is the source of power from Africa.

[Nihil]

20. To be fair ...

... there have been "murmurs/rumours" of fusion power for a lot longer
than "a few years now" but they (correctly IMO) held back on including
that as an "option" because it has too many "miracle happens here" boxes
in the timeline ... maybe they should have done the same with the other
wishful thinking item?

:shrug:

[OKIsItJustMe]

23. This seems to be happening sooner than fusion

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=solar-thermal-power-europe-meditteranean-sea
http://www.commodityonline.com/news/Ambitious-NAfrica-solar-plans-export-to-Europe-26857-3-1.html

Ambitious N.Africa solar plans, export to Europe

Published on: March 26, 2010 at 08:20

RABAT, MOROCCO (Commodity Online): North Africa is taking a shine to solar power in a big way, with plants slated for Morocco and Tunisia as a German-led consortium pushes ahead with the world's most ambitious solar project in the Sahara Desert.

The $555.3 billion Desertec project is designed to turn the Sahara's endless sunlight into carbon-free electricity that will supply 15 percent of energy-hungry Europe's power and lessen its dependence on natural gas from Russia. Separately, the Moroccan government hopes to invest $9 billion in a solar energy program over the next decade.

...

Paris's Maghreb Confidential online newsletter says the French were lining up to join the program when Moroccan Energy Minister Amina Benkhadra presented her investment program to her French counterpart, Jean-Louis Borloo, March 8-9 in Paris.

The centerpiece of the Moroccan plan is a Franco-Moroccan solar power plant generating 20-40 megawatts and exporting up to 4 MW to France. That's a relatively modest project. But the Moroccans are hoping that it will lay the groundwork for more ambitious projects that will boost solar power exports to Europe and beyond.

...

[Statistical]

25. Still option #4 steep requirements are not limited only to imports from Africa.

It is:
a) the scope of the imports. 15% of all electricity consumed in Europe will be produced in Africa. That would be substantially larger than the Desertec project by a magnitude.

b) requires another 20% from so far theoretical enhanced geothermal.

c) requires large amounts of undeveloped energy storage.

d) subject to higher risk and higher price volatility.

Still it shows anything is "possible" although not optimal.

[OKIsItJustMe]

30. Which "order of magnitude" (10?)

http://www.commodityonline.com/news/Ambitious-NAfrica-solar-plans-export-to-Europe-26857-3-1.html

...

The $555.3 billion Desertec project is designed to turn the Sahara's endless sunlight into carbon-free electricity that will supply 15 percent of energy-hungry Europe's power and lessen its dependence on natural gas from Russia. Separately, the Moroccan government hopes to invest $9 billion in a solar energy program over the next decade.

...

Read more about Desertec here: http://www.desertec.org/en/concept/faq/

...

5. Aren’t the land areas required for the solar-thermal power plants enormous and an environmental threat?

According to a TRANS-CSP study, 17% of Europe’s energy requirements may be met by solar imports by 2050. This would involve 2,500 sq km of desert surface for the solar power plants and 3,500 sq km for the high-voltage direct-current transmission lines throughout the entire EU-MENA region (Europe – Middle East – North Africa). This total surface area of 6,000 sq km is as large as the Nasser reservoir near Aswan in Egypt. However, this reservoir provides only 3 Gigawatts (GW) of electric power, whereas the solar power plants would deliver 100 GW of electric power. Solar power is actually the most compact and efficient renewable energy source worldwide. The MENA region amounts to 12 million square kilometers, of which only 2,500 sq km (0.02% of the total area) will be required for the export power plants.

...

[Statistical]

35. I stand corrected.

I was thinking the project was more like 5% of current power and since power is doubling by 2050 it would be even less in 2050 terms.

The project has potential but as the study in OP pointed out there is a lot of potential for volatility. The question is does Europe want to become 15% dependent on foreign electrical power? Maybe they will but I doubt we will go that route in US (importing electrical power from Mexico). Doesn't seem to make sense to go from being dependent on foreign fossil fuels to being dependent on foreign electrical energy.



Also the larger issues with 100% renewable is:
a) amount of backup generation required (1 MW for every 8MW of variable power sources per the study). CCS plants are capital intensive so you are looking to build a large number of backup power plants that have low (8%) utilization. Thus the capital is spread over less generation.

b) amount of storage required. something that can't be achieved with current technology

c) reliance on innovative future technology.

So it is possible. As you pointed out in post upthread it certainly is possible but likely isn't optimal. I think taking the most optimal path to low carbon economy will be difficult enough (regulatory issues, NIMBY, cost, consumerism, transmission right of way, etc). Taking an non-optimal path is likely a dead end.

[OKIsItJustMe]

38. Regarding backup capacity, you may be somewhat surprised

...

With the additional transmission, and because the new supply is roughly as firm and dispatchable as the nuclear and fossil generation it's replacing, back-up capacity requirements are actually reduced somewhat compared to the 80% RES pathway (215 GW compared to 270 GW) but this back-up is used more extensively, and therefore emission levels reach 7% if back-up is assumed to be OCGTs and with demand response. This also implies higher operational costs from these back-up plants. These transmission and back-up plants cost implications are summarized in Exhibit 31.

...

[NNadir]

22. Landmark soothsaying by the "renewables will save us" industry thinks 2050 is OK, does it?

When exactly, do they anticipate climate change is going to become a, um, problem.

Who here is going to check up in 2050 to see if they weren't completely full of shit.

How is this different from the 2004 Pacala and Socolow report that made similar "it's easy" claims.

[Statistical]

24. How about you actually read it?

The conclusion they reach is the method involving 40% nuclear is optimal and we should begin building new energy production facilities prior to 2015.

[kristopher]

27. You'll glom onto anything that gives a hope of building more nuclear, won't you?

"All pathways can deliver power with roughly the same cost and reliability as the baseline with carbon price ≤€50/tCO"

"Confidence ranges for assumptions: likely outcomes are within 10-15% of each other across all pathways"

And then there are the technologies they didn't include - V2G, 3rd Generation Biofuels, rock batteries etc.

This study shows just what the headline says, we can do this all with renewables.

'nnads is right to be worried.

[Statistical]

28. "All pathways considered" are 40%, 60%, 80% renewable energy.

The 100% renewable pathway cost wasn't calculated for this study because it required imports from Africa, stored energy, and experimental geothermal to be effective.

The 80% renewable plan would require extensive backup (fossil fuel) power plants.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Statistical]

31. "A PRACTICAL guide to a prosperous, low-carbon Europe"

So are you claiming the authors are now part of you (ever growing) list of nuclear shills?

They (not nuclear industry) left that option off because the focus was PRACTICAL pathways to low-carbon Europe.

All practical pathways to low carbon Europe include nuclear energy (and/or CCS Coal).

Not all possible paths to low carbon ecnomy involve nuclear power but according to the authors all PRACTICAL paths do.

100% renewable requires massive energy storage and even more massive amounts of backup fossil fuel plants. Storage that isn't available. It also requires substantial imports of energy from Africa and lots of yet undeveloped technology. So it may be possible to go to low carbon with 100% renewables but according to the authors it isn't the practical path.

Nuclear power will be part of the mix and all your bogus "studies" and claims will do nothing to change that.

In 10 years, 20 years, 30 years from now we will have nuclear plants in US, Europe, and Asia.

[kristopher]

32. My words were clear; why do you have a compulsive need to build straw men?

They did just what Jacobson did - they used ready to go technologies in order to avoid the denier style criticisms by nuclear and fossil fuel fans of "magic hand waving" etc.

That is called "making a conservative evaluation" by "using conservative assumptions".

I agree that nuclear will still be here in 30 years, but it will be less than the 2.1% of global consumed energy it produces now and it will be declining steadily.

Let's review a bit of Renewable Transition 101:

The market for storage is still small because the grid works great for meeting the need. The focus is (and should be) on building out wind since it is the least expensive of the renewable options. Concurrently solar is moving into the range of affordability (already there for peaking power) and its penetration numbers will be increasing while its costs are decreasing.
The market niches for geothermal, wave/current/tidal, biofuels and various storage technolgies are going to explode as carbon prices *ramp up* and start having an effect on perceptions of future need. They have the distinct advantage over nuclear of being small scale, affordable, flexible and easy to build. They are going to dominate the market and deprive nuclear of the ability to sell its power at the price needed to pay for it.

Previous experience with policy tools like cap and trade tell us that one of the most important parts of the policy is the perception that it is going to be an inevitable reality. Most analysis that predict performance based on carbon costs do not incorporate the repeatedly observed behavior of corporations in response to that perception. They don't wait to be forced to change. When they see an inevitable cost on the horizon, they take preemptive action to adapt and try to turn that new market condition into profits by being early adopters.

Let me repeat that - repeatedly observed behavior shows that a policy like carbon pricing causes rapid change - not change at the predicted pace of implementation.

Stew on that a while.

[Statistical]

36. Huge assumptions.

If wave, tidal, current, blah blah blah can get cheap, and widely deployed, and get over NIMBY issue (how much offshore wind has been built in US) and can undercut nuclear then you are right nuclear will die on the vine.

I don't think that is going to happen. Carbon tax and rising fuel prices will help nuclear just as much as it help any low carbon source of power.

Coal is the major competitor to nuclear not wind. Wind will squeeze out higher marginal power providers but given the small amount of wind (even with rapid growth) and rising energy demand it will be a long time before they are squeezed out.

A carbon tax of $45 per ton makes new nuclear lower cost than even existing coal plants. A carbon tax of $150 per ton makes non CCS coal prohibitive.

[kristopher]

41. If you want HUGE assumptions, just look to the claims you make for nuclear.

You are trapped by a lack of ability to visualize complex systems. That's not your fault, it's just a limiting factor you have to live with.

[NNadir]

44. I have read it.

They're local boys, Pacala and Socolow. Their 2004 Science paper is an example of what's wrong with the energy discussion in this country, which should not be glib but should be serious.

They have a really, really, really, really, really awful and delusional list of how to address climate change, with a breezy, "it's easy" kind of air.

Their "wedges" are horribly unrealistic, and include things, like um, "substitute wind power for coal power." (#10 in their list.)

It's 6 years later. It was dumb then, dumb now. Wind is not an alternative to coal, given that the capacity utilization of wind is lucky to be 25% and coal in this country comes in at 72%.

Only nuclear can displace coal.

# 11 is even worse: Substitute PV solar for coal. In this area of the country, and in Ohio where they burn the coal that poisons my air and land here in New Jersey, solar PV capacity utilization is 10%.

Worthless discussion, not even worth dignifying with a giggle.

#8. Capture CO₂ at coal to syn fuels plant.

It makes me want to vomit, and is essentially a clear cut case of extremely bad thinking.

#1 also makes me sick: Increase the fuel efficiency for 2 billion cars from 30 mpg to 60 mpg.

Where is the carbon to manufacture these cars going to come from?

# 12 "Wind based hydrogen fuel cells in cars" is pure Amory Lovins gunk, and comes, ironically 1 year before Amory the shithead said that "hydrogen HYPErcars" would be in showrooms.

Pacala and Socolow are delusional.

I don't favor 40% nuclear. I favor a much, much, much, much, much higher number than that.

[kristopher]

45. Kick