Cost of green energy 40% higher than government estimates: new study

[Mass_nerder]

The more people invest in greener alternative energy now, the sooner the cost will decline.
I'm glad government has started the process now, even if it's painful at first.
We're not going to be able to rely on fossil fuels for many more years...

[ernie]

The developing world like China and India will turn to nuclear (china already is). on the low side, IAEA predicts an addition 90 reactors added to the current world fleet numbers by 2030 (432 operating reactors right now). The high estimate is an additional 350 reactors.

[Muta]

I'm a huge proponent of green energy, and the time to invest in it is now. I don't think there's much time left to wait. We need to start exploring alternative sources of energy on a serious level (much like what Germany is currently doing). Like mass-nerder said, the intiial investments will be painful; but worthwhile in the end.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

This is really a simple matter of pay now or pay later. But countries that solve their energy through renewable sources are really going to be in an amazing position going forward.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Mass_nerder

The more people invest in greener alternative energy now, the sooner the cost will decline.
I'm glad government has started the process now, even if it's painful at first.
We're not going to be able to rely on fossil fuels for many more years...

We have about eleventy billion years of natural gas supply.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

We have about eleventy billion years of natural gas supply.

Is it clean? I actually don't know much about natural gas at all.... what are the advantages and disadvantages?

[GP_Matt]

A rough pro and con list for Natural gas is that it is has lower emissions than oil or coal and is cheap and plentiful. I think it runs about half the cost of oil when looking at dollars per unit of energy and there is no apparent end to the amount of stuff in the ground.

Cons of natural gas are the practicality of using it for some applications. Natural gas has to be compressed quite a bit more than propane to be used as a transportation fuel so this brings up safety concerns. There are also complaints about the amount of water and chemicals required for fracking, (breaking up the earth so that the gas will flow). This is being addressed through new technology and better reuse.

As far as power generation goes, a big advantage that natural gas has over solar or wind is that the natural gas can be moved without loss to the source of consumption and converted into electricity nearby with production matched to demand. Solar and wind have to be located near the source of wind or steady light which doesn't means that electricity has to be moved long distances and transmitting electricity is comparatively inefficient due to line loss. As well, wind and solar production can not be scaled to meet fluctuating daily demand.

I think that the above is a fair assessment but as with anything it is all debatable and some issues are more important to different people.

[crazy_eoj]

Another thing to consider is that solar and wind must be always buffeted with new coal or gas generation to make up for the times when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing and also to meet the peak demand period.

Natural Gas generation does not need to be backed up, except by more gas production.

[GP_Matt]

I like to picture the future of wind production as a big closed system where the windmills pump water uphill to a lake with a hydro electric dam that drains the water back down to the lower lake.
I know the idea has a ton of problems, but it would solve the peak demand power issues and if done right would result in the creation of two new lakes in Alberta. I think we can all agree that this province has a dearth of lakes.

[Mass_nerder]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

We have about eleventy billion years of natural gas supply.

Even if we have access to vast reserves of natural gas, it's still a temporary fix. Any solution involving a finite resource is not the answer.
I'm not even arguing from an environmental conservation standpoint.
I don't see a problem with a natural resource being utilized; it just needs to be closely regulated.
"Eleventy billion years" is going to start getting shorter if we're tossing it at everything, like we did with oil, as Earth's population continues to grow.
7 billion at the end of October? How long before we're hitting 8,9,10 billion?
All the while, developing countries continue to grow, using a larger percentage of the finite resource.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Mass_nerder

Even if we have access to vast reserves of natural gas, it's still a temporary fix. Any solution involving a finite resource is not the answer.
I'm not even arguing from an environmental conservation standpoint.
I don't see a problem with a natural resource being utilized; it just needs to be closely regulated.
"Eleventy billion years" is going to start getting shorter if we're tossing it at everything, like we did with oil, as Earth's population continues to grow.
7 billion at the end of October? How long before we're hitting 8,9,10 billion?
All the while, developing countries continue to grow, using a larger percentage of the finite resource.

One day natural gas will be about the same price per mWh as renewables, and obviously then there is no reason to not choose renewables.

Whether this happens by the diminishing of our natural gas supply (not good) or technological developments reducing the cost of renewable energy (good). It will happen. Problems like this take care of themselves.

[tjinaz]

The achilles heel of renewables is variance. In the grid what is put in has to match the load nearly instantly. When dealing with fluctuating sources of power such as wind and solar you have to have something solid to make up the difference and be able to increase and decrease at roughly the same interval as your "green". This and putting in the infrastructure to connect the new wind farms and solar sites are what makes them cost so much. The capital expenditures necessary make these projects losers unless you take a very very long view..

Renewables other than hydro (which comes with its own environmental issues) can never be base load as you can never say with the needed degree of certainty what your outputs are going to be.

[Cheese]

The issue with talking about the price of green energy now is what are you comparing it to?
In Ontario we have an aging infrastructure that will need to be revamped/replaced/changed over the next few decades. If we left things as they are the price of electricity would still rise, albeit at a slower pace than it might over the next few years. Short term gain for long term pain I would suggest. In the long term, costs for renewables will decrease significantly, as they already have, while costs for carbon based energy will continue to rise. Replacement of existing infrastructure (including Ontarios existing fleet of nuclear plants) will cost m<b>illions and by the time renewables are on line and providing Ontarians with clean green energy, we will not have to spend as much replacing this aging infrastructure thereby "saving us money in the long run".
With the existing renewable programs and others such as Demand Response, Ontario will be able to shut down its dirty coal burning generators either next year or the year after. Im sure most here understand the benefits of that.
Alberta is also nearing crunch time with its energy usage. Your increased population and production due to your new immigrants are putting a significant strain on your grid. Programs to help ease that burden have started in Alberta such as the LSSi Demand Response, Load Shedding program and are now part of your future energy costs.
The costs associated with Nuclear are huge and the biggest issue surrounding nukes is "who wants them in their backyard"? Im not sure many here on CP would raise their hands to have a Nuke built near their home. (Remember Nukes dont last a lifetime)
We are all part of this issue, noone will escape it. We will all have to pay for the changes one way or the other, and who is to say which is the correct or the cheapest way. Lets discuss it again in 20 years for the right answer. The key is to get started now, and I am happy that Ontario's Liberal government is doing it the right way...not the way the Conservatives wanted during the election.
Build more nukes at any cost....and that was one reason they lost even though they held a sizeable lead going into the campaign.

Heres a decent report on renewables in Ontario from the Pembina Institute...
http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/behi...itch-final.pdf

[MarchHare]

The costs associated with Nuclear are huge and the biggest issue surrounding nukes is "who wants them in their backyard"? Im not sure many here on CP would raise their hands to have a Nuke built near their home

How near, exactly?

I assume any nuclear power plants would be built in industrial areas, not immediately next door to a residential neighbourhood. I have absolutely zero problem with a nuclear plant being built in the nearest industrial area to my home. In fact, I welcome it. Bring on more nuclear power!

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Another thing to consider is that solar and wind must be always buffeted with new coal or gas generation to make up for the times when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing and also to meet the peak demand period.

Natural Gas generation does not need to be backed up, except by more gas production.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-use-solar-energy-at-night

What do you do when the sun is not shining and at night?
The answer: store sunlight as heat energy for such a rainy day.
Part of a so-called parabolic trough solar-thermal power plant, the salts will soon help the facility light up the night—literally.

During part of 2008 wind provided almost 40 per cent of Spain’s power. Areas of northern Germany generate more electricity from wind than they require to meet their needs. Northern Scotland could easily generate 10 or even 15 per cent of the UK’s needs for electricity at a cost that would match today’s fossil fuel prices.

http://energybusinessdaily.com/renew...-energy-myths/

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Cheese

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-use-solar-energy-at-night

What do you do when the sun is not shining and at night?
The answer: store sunlight as heat energy for such a rainy day.
Part of a so-called parabolic trough solar-thermal power plant, the salts will soon help the facility light up the night—literally.

During part of 2008 wind provided almost 40 per cent of Spain’s power. Areas of northern Germany generate more electricity from wind than they require to meet their needs. Northern Scotland could easily generate 10 or even 15 per cent of the UK’s needs for electricity at a cost that would match today’s fossil fuel prices.

http://energybusinessdaily.com/renew...-energy-myths/

Those are some wonderful ideas and potential future applications but in today's reality they only serve to reinforce the fact that there are HUGE problems in moving towards green energy sources.

Likely, future technologies will make these sources more realistic but in today's world they are just a huge money pit and incredibly inefficient projects that don't do much to help anyone.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Enough to ever be economically competitive with fossil fuels? Unlikely.

As has been observed, the environmental impact has lessened immensely along with the huge technological improvements in combustion efficiency.

A move to natural gas would be the cheapest and most effective way to reduce carbon emissions at the moment. Followed closely by Nuclear.

I would think that natural gas and nuclear should be considered green power.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Mass_nerder

Even if we have access to vast reserves of natural gas, it's still a temporary fix. Any solution involving a finite resource is not the answer.
I'm not even arguing from an environmental conservation standpoint.
I don't see a problem with a natural resource being utilized; it just needs to be closely regulated.
"Eleventy billion years" is going to start getting shorter if we're tossing it at everything, like we did with oil, as Earth's population continues to grow.
7 billion at the end of October? How long before we're hitting 8,9,10 billion?
All the while, developing countries continue to grow, using a larger percentage of the finite resource.

Don't assume that we'll always use electricity like we do now. As time goes by we'll become more efficient and smarter with just about everything we own that needs electricity.

Natural gas and nuclear are the future, and the longer it takes for people to accept that, the longer we'll rely on coal. And we are already at the point technologically, where coal should not be the #1 generator of electricity in North America.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

How near, exactly?

I assume any nuclear power plants would be built in industrial areas, not immediately next door to a residential neighbourhood. I have absolutely zero problem with a nuclear plant being built in the nearest industrial area to my home. In fact, I welcome it. Bring on more nuclear power!

Why even in the industrial area? Alberta has huge open areas where nobody lives. Why not put 10 plants there and just build huge lines back to the city.

[comrade]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

A rough pro and con list for Natural gas is that it is has lower emissions than oil or coal and is cheap and plentiful. I think it runs about half the cost of oil when looking at dollars per unit of energy and there is no apparent end to the amount of stuff in the ground.

Cons of natural gas are the practicality of using it for some applications. Natural gas has to be compressed quite a bit more than propane to be used as a transportation fuel so this brings up safety concerns. There are also complaints about the amount of water and chemicals required for fracking, (breaking up the earth so that the gas will flow). This is being addressed through new technology and better reuse.

As far as power generation goes, a big advantage that natural gas has over solar or wind is that the natural gas can be moved without loss to the source of consumption and converted into electricity nearby with production matched to demand. Solar and wind have to be located near the source of wind or steady light which doesn't means that electricity has to be moved long distances and transmitting electricity is comparatively inefficient due to line loss. As well, wind and solar production can not be scaled to meet fluctuating daily demand.

I think that the above is a fair assessment but as with anything it is all debatable and some issues are more important to different people.

What about the flaring of sour gas? Surely that's a negative (in that it produces SO2 and burns large quantities of propane).