The Energy Transition and technologies

[Torture]

Originally Posted by GGG

Which would give you about 26TW of energy, world wide energy use is about 160,000TWH obviously not all electricity so 131 trillion doesn’t seem out of step with the order of magnitude that needs to be spent.

https://ourworldindata.org/energy-pr...on-consumption

Am I missing something where governments committed to IERNAs vision for net 0 by 2050 because I don’t understand the backlash over the number.

The number is completely reasonable. It's a huge number yes, but it's grounded in reality.
If it doesn't include nuclear it's not worth doing anything at all apparently.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Torture

The number is completely reasonable. It's a huge number yes, but it's grounded in reality.
If it doesn't include nuclear it's not worth doing anything at all apparently.

That's the thing though, I'm not sure it is grounded in reality. As I pointed out in my post here, the goals don't seem physically possible. Which is why we keep bringing up the obvious lack of a key piece that could make it achievable.



https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpo...&postcount=376

[Azure]

I agree with Fuzz, the numbers are not practical at all and to me it seems to just be a 'oh big number = things will change' stupidity.

In addition to 10-K data, the Electric Utility Cost Group and the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) have complied data on capital expenditures (capex) within the industry. This includes uprates, extended operations, equipment replacement, and regulatory spending. Based on this data, regulatory capex has more than tripled from 2006 to 2015, from $629 million annually to $2 billion. This is by far the fastest-growing category of capex in the surveys. Because the number of nuclear plants has declined since 2006, the cost per plant has also increased by more than 340 percent. How many industries can withstand a 3.4-fold increase in regulatory costs in just one decade? On a per plant basis, this equates to $9.6 million in 2006, to more than $32.7 million in 2015.

Not only are regulatory expenditures increasing, but the ratio to overall capex is also rising. For instance, in 2008, regulatory capex comprised 18.8 percent of overall capex. By 2010, regulatory spending increased to 24 percent of total capex. In 2015, the most recent year data are available, the percentage of regulatory spending has climbed to 32 percent of total nuclear capex, as much as any other category, only narrowly trailing equipment replacement (33 percent). Total capex in the industry has actually declined from $7.3 billion in 2010, to $6.3 billion in 2015, but regulatory costs continue to escalate.

Notice that for six plants, $30 million in regulatory costs would exceed their profitability. For 15 plants on the list, the regulatory costs as a percentage of profitability would exceed the U.S. corporate income tax. Again, some regulatory costs are built into the operation, maintenance, and fuel costs, but even assuming $20 million in regulatory burdens would make five of these plants unprofitable. The power plant owners know the regulatory obstacles and profitability implications better than anyone, so if they remain open, there is likely a good reason. On the other hand, there is a reason nuclear plants are closing across the country.

It should be no surprise that Oyster Creek (116 percent) and Pilgrim (47 percent) are set to close in 2019 and politicians are hoping to bail out the Fitzpatrick (1,287 percent), Nine Mile Point (147 percent), R.E. Ginna (87 percent), Davis Besse (69 percent), and Beaver Valley (39 percent) plants.

https://www.americanactionforum.org/...costs-context/

Not shocking at all that red tape is a big reason that these plants are being shuttered.

[opendoor]

Nuclear needs tons of oversight and red tape because of the risk of catastrophe if something seriously goes wrong; that's one of its inherent downsides.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Nuclear needs tons of oversight and red tape because of the risk of catastrophe if something seriously goes wrong; that's one of its inherent downsides.

Also has a habit of going way over budget in construction and it's VERY expensive compared to renewables (or even renewables + storage) as those prices have come down.

I'm not saying Nuclear's not part of the solution, but it's not the silver bullet.

NSFW!

[Fuzz]

Solar is deceptive though. $68/MWh is installed capacity, presumably nameplate. You get about 15-18% of nameplate output averaged over a year in Alberta. And it's not comparable to nuclear on it's own, because it doesn't do the same thing. You would need to add in storage costs, and by storing it, you need enough power to generate and store for later use. So you really need far more MW of installed solar, + storage to make a proper comparison, particularity in the future where we imagine no gas plants. Just looking at the purchase price of a PV panel doesn't really tell you the real cost, so those comparisons never feel valid to me.

[GGG]

Nuclear isn’t the full solution either because of limited ability to turn down. Hydro is really awesome because it’s got built in storage. So you probably want a nuclear base with renewables backed by Gas to cover the rest.

[Fuzz]

Ya, it's definitely a balance. Every single generating technology has it's own sets of benefits and drawbacks. Getting the proper mix will be the key, and that is going to require more regional cooperation. Any analysis that presents wind and solar on their own as the choice for the future is a plan for failure.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Any analysis that presents wind and solar on their own as the choice for the future is a plan for failure.

And a lethal plan, especially in northern climates.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GGG

Nuclear isn’t the full solution either because of limited ability to turn down. Hydro is really awesome because it’s got built in storage. So you probably want a nuclear base with renewables backed by Gas to cover the rest.

I'm not a big fan of hydro because I'm not sure how environmentally friendly it really is. Sure, there's no waster directly, but the disruption to the waterways and ecosystem is far from negligible. I think that the main issue environmentally is actually water cleanliness and pollution in general, but for some reason that doesn't get the same traction as a lot of other concerns.

And for nuclear, I think that the way forward is quite clearly fusion. There are some incredibly encouraging projects underway and once we crack that it's an absolute game-changer. I wish that Canada was more involved and really it would be incredible if something took place in Alberta in that area.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm not a big fan of hydro because I'm not sure how environmentally friendly it really is. Sure, there's no waster directly, but the disruption to the waterways and ecosystem is far from negligible. I think that the main issue environmentally is actually water cleanliness and pollution in general, but for some reason that doesn't get the same traction as a lot of other concerns.

And for nuclear, I think that the way forward is quite clearly fusion. There are some incredibly encouraging projects underway and once we crack that it's an absolute game-changer. I wish that Canada was more involved and really it would be incredible if something took place in Alberta in that area.

LOL. Yes, Fusion. Just another 30 years and we'll get there.

[Boreal]

https://www.fastcompany.com/90687369...-electric-bill

Doucet has built a prototype for a single spinning rod and run simulations based on that. The average annual electricity consumption for an American home uses a little over 10,000 kilowatt-hours per year. One of these walls would be enough. But where Doucet sees true potential is in larger-scale commercial buildings and even cities. “Instead of the typical retaining walls along roads and freeways, you’d have an array of these,” says Doucet, who says he’s in conversation with several manufacturers to help him bring the product to market. “With the added wind boost from trucks, our highways could take care of all our energy needs.”

Sometime in the near future then, anywhere with enough span for a 25-foot wall could become a potential source of energy. “In urban areas, there’s not a lot of open sunlight for solar to work, says Doucet. “Wind is always there.”

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

LOL. Yes, Fusion. Just another 30 years and we'll get there.

Yeah, but I have read a couple of articles about this recently and they seem to suggest that it's actually coming along pretty well. Some countries have put a lot of money into this and it seems like we're years away instead of decades away now.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Slava

Yeah, but I have read a couple of articles about this recently and they seem to suggest that it's actually coming along pretty well. Some countries have put a lot of money into this and it seems like we're years away instead of decades away now.

At this point, no one has successfully managed to use fusion to produce more power than it consumes for even a millisecond. The current best is 70% (i.e. something like 20 MW of input power producing 14MW of output power) and that was for a few milliseconds I believe. The output needs to be more like 500-1000% of input power and able to be sustained indefinitely for it to be useful.

Getting from where we are now to commercially viable plants is still decades away (if it ever even happens).

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Slava

Yeah, but I have read a couple of articles about this recently and they seem to suggest that it's actually coming along pretty well. Some countries have put a lot of money into this and it seems like we're years away instead of decades away now.

Yes, there are tens of billions being spent on research, and they are making progress. But it's so far away from overspecialization it's not even worth imagining as part of the energy mix. Take ITER, for example...

The reactor was expected to take 10 years to build and ITER had planned to test its first plasma in 2020 and achieve full fusion by 2023, however the schedule is now to test first plasma in 2025 and full fusion in 2035.

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

I now there are plenty of other experiments out there. This is a good article on it, that is fairly bullish, but ends with this:

Hawker says First Light hopes to initiate its first fusion reaction this year and to demonstrate net energy gain by 2024. But he acknowledges that those achievements won't be enough. “Fusion energy doesn't just need to be scientifically feasible," he says. “It needs to be commercially viable."

No one believes it will be easy, but the extraordinary challenge of fusion energy—not to mention the pressing need—is part of the attraction for the many scientists and engineers who've recently been drawn to the field. And increasingly, they have the resources to finance their work.

“This notion that you hear about fusion being another 30 or 40 or 50 years away is wrong," says TAE's Binderbauer, whose company has raised more than $600 million. “We're going to see commercialization of this technology in time frames of a half decade."

Veteran fusion researchers such as Dorland and Horton tend to have a more tempered outlook. They worry that grand promises that fall short may undercut public and investor support, as has happened in the past. Any claims of commercialization within the decade “are just not true," says Dorland. “We're still a lot more than one breakthrough away from having a pathway to fusion power."

What few will argue with, though, is the dire need for nuclear fusion in the near future.

“I think it's not going too far to say that fusion is having its Kitty Hawk moment," says MIT's Greenwald. “We don't have a 747 jet, but we're flying."

https://spectrum.ieee.org/5-big-idea...ty#toggle-gdpr

I think the reality is, best case they prove in a lab it can be done by 2025. After that I'd imagine it's a decade before commercialization. That's the optimistic timeline.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

LOL. Yes, Fusion. Just another 30 years and we'll get there.

Pessimist. It's only always ten years away.

[Slava]

Yeah, I realise we don't have fusion and commercially it will be a while, but companies like TAE are suggesting that they could have something viable within a decade. When you have these kinds of things (along with ITER), it gives me some hope that the technology is going to come along. I don't think that this is a quick fix, and of course nothing is cheap. But if we're serious about net-zero, nuclear is a must in my opinion, and the cleanest and best nuclear is going to be fusion.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Slava

Yeah, I realise we don't have fusion and commercially it will be a while, but companies like TAE are suggesting that they could have something viable within a decade. When you have these kinds of things (along with ITER), it gives me some hope that the technology is going to come along. I don't think that this is a quick fix, and of course nothing is cheap. But if we're serious about net-zero, nuclear is a must in my opinion, and the cleanest and best nuclear is going to be fusion.

That decade is the "we'd like more funding" estimate, not the "this is how long it will reasonably take" estimate.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

That decade is the "we'd like more funding" estimate, not the "this is how long it will reasonably take" estimate.

We spend money on all kinds of garbage though, so I’m fine with that.

[Fuzz]

France will start building its first new nuclear reactors in decades as part of efforts to meet its promises to reduce planet-warming emissions, French President Emmanuel Macron announced Tuesday.
He spoke as climate negotiators in Glasgow debate how to speed up efforts against climate change, and amid concerns around Europe about recent spikes in energy prices and the continent's dependence on global gas and oil producers, including Russia.

https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nc/coa...-climate-goals


France seems to be the only one on the ball, here.