Extreme weather

[Alan Klein]

Unfortunately in many regions, obesity and wrong type of food are today a greater health risk than hunger.
...

I was a terrible eater when I was a kid, a problem long since corrected.  My mother would yell at me at the table as the food lay dormant, "Alan, finish your food.  There are starving children in China." What would mothers tell their children today? "No seconds. Look at all those obese children in Africa."

[Alan Klein]

No, nothing is being ignored. The need for non-intermittent power generation remains, but this type of power generation will reduce the need for it. So there will be a net reduction of CO2-emissions.

Renewable Energy Intermittency Explained: Challenges, Solutions, and Opportunities
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/renewable-energy-intermittency-explained-challenges-solutions-and-opportunities/

While it's true that the need for fossil fuel would be reduced with green energy, you still need fossil fuel running plants as backup as long as the earth stays dark at night.  So you have the attendant costs of providing for these plants.  This may account for why Germany has not been able to reduce its electricity costs despite a 40% level of renewable electricity production. 


Also, people still on the grid have to pay more to electricity suppliers to cover the lost revenue from private and commercial buildings who have installed solar power.  When the utility company sells less electricity,  the per-unit costs go up because they still have to maintain their plants.


Ray makes a good point about batteries.  His Australia paid millions to Tesla to provide storage for green energy production.  But those millions were a drop in the ocean. There's no way we'll have batteries to support the whole world's needs.  A breakout technology has to be developed.  Hopefully that will happen. 

[Ray]

No, nothing is being ignored. The need for non-intermittent power generation remains, but this type of power generation will reduce the need for it. So there will be a net reduction of CO2-emissions.

You missed my point, Bart. It is the claims that solar and wind power is no more expensive, and even cheaper than energy from fossil fuels, that ignores, or does not take into full consideration, the cost of ensuring reliability of supply with back-up fossil power plants and/or battery storage.

Of course there are solutions to the intermittency of supply from solar and wind, and those solutions are not being ignored, but electricity from back-up fossil power plants which are used only part of the time, is more expensive than electricity from the same plants that are productive most of the time.

Countries such as Germany and Portugal that produce the highest percentage of their power requirements from renewable sources, have the highest electricity prices in the world.

Reducing CO2 emissions is not a concern for me. However, pollution and degradation of the environment is a concern. Messing up the environment with hundreds of bird-killing windmills is not something I endorse.

[Alan Klein]

Ray, what's fascinating is that here you and I are, 12000 miles apart, on different sides of the world, and we post statements generally aligned to be read by the entire rest of the world just 40 seconds apart.  That's amazing! Well, it amazes me.  Maybe because I'm old,  Youngsters can't imagine just how amazing this is.  Someday we'll be able to send photos around the world in a jiffy. 

[kers]

...
Countries such as Germany and Portugal that produce the highest percentage of their power requirements from renewable sources, have the highest electricity prices in the world.
...

They pay a price for being the first to make this changeover, but will have lower pollution costs that are not accounted for.
Also they will have an advantage for dealing with these new techniques that wil bring them some economic advantage in the end; also not accounted for.
For it is clear this century there will be a diversion from burning carbon fossil fuel to clean energy as there have been shifts like these in the past.
Meanwhile there are new promising techniques coming up to store electrical energy for use later.
In the Netherlands the price for electricity is getting lower and new off shore windmill-parks are placed without the need of any government funding.
Electric driving is taking af, now 1 % of all cars are electric. The Tesla 3 being the most wanted lease car.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

You missed my point, Bart. It is the claims that solar and wind power is no more expensive, and even cheaper than energy from fossil fuels, that ignores, or does not take into full consideration, the cost of ensuring reliability of supply with back-up fossil power plants and/or battery storage.

Apples and oranges. The cost of burning fossil fuel will be paid by the next generations, so it is only artificially low now. The fuel of wind and Solar powered generators is free, so while demand increases, the power gets relatively cheaper. Replacing slow ramp-up (12 hours) coal powered plants, by quick-start (10 minutes) plants on natural gas already reduces CO2 emissions. Only having to use them part of the time achieves yet another reduction.

Of course there are solutions to the intermittency of supply from solar and wind, and those solutions are not being ignored, but electricity from back-up fossil power plants which are used only part of the time, is more expensive than electricity from the same plants that are productive most of the time.

More expensive? And FlexiCycle plants also require less cooling water.

Countries such as Germany and Portugal that produce the highest percentage of their power requirements from renewable sources, have the highest electricity prices in the world.

Which includes the costs of early retirement of coal-powered plants and Nuclear power plants in Germany. Apples and oranges again.

[Ray]

Electric driving is taking af, now 1 % of all cars are electric. The Tesla 3 being the most wanted lease car.

Only 1% in the Netherlands!! I've seen reports that worldwide the percentage is over 2%. 

[Ray]

The cost of burning fossil fuel will be paid by the next generations, so it is only artificially low now.

The children of the current generation are already bearing the consequences of the move towards renewables. They're suffering anxiety and stress because of the unfounded alarm about CO2 emissions, and many are wondering if they should refrain from having children because the future is so bleak.

Have you considered that cost?

[Ray]

Ray, what's fascinating is that here you and I are, 12000 miles apart, on different sides of the world, and we post statements generally aligned to be read by the entire rest of the world just 40 seconds apart.  That's amazing! Well, it amazes me.  Maybe because I'm old,  Youngsters can't imagine just how amazing this is.  Someday we'll be able to send photos around the world in a jiffy. 

Or send electricity to the USA, in the middle of the night, from solar panels in the Australian desert, via Ultra HVDC Transmission lines under the sea. 

[jeremyrh]

I was a terrible eater when I was a kid, a problem long since corrected.  My mother would yell at me at the table as the food lay dormant, "Alan, finish your food.  There are starving children in China." What would mothers tell their children today? "No seconds. Look at all those obese children in Africa."

"Look at those obese children next door" more likely.

[Alan Klein]

Good point.  😏

[LesPalenik]

Ray makes a good point about batteries.  His Australia paid millions to Tesla to provide storage for green energy production.  But those millions were a drop in the ocean. There's no way we'll have batteries to support the whole world's needs.  A breakout technology has to be developed.  Hopefully that will happen.

There could be all kinds of batteries - electrical, chemical, geo-thermal, water reservoirs, etc.

[John Camp]

The amount of energy used by cars and trucks today, in the form of diesel and gasoline, is roughly equivalent to the output of our electrical generating capacity. So if we went to 100% electric cars, we'd have to (roughly) double our generating capacity, which means dozens of new power plants. Does anybody think that dozens of new generating plants are going to be built in this age of NIMBY? I'm really curious about how this will work (and as an aside, I have a car that runs partially on plug-in electricity. I only get about 27 miles on the battery, before the gasoline engine kicks on, but I live in a small city, Santa Fe, NM, and can often run all my daily errands purely on electric power. Recharging from 220 outlet takes about two hours.)

Ray, IMHO there is of course a lot of pollution, but it's slowly being brought under control, and would be greatly reduced if there were brutally harsh laws concerning dumping in the oceans. But CO2 and other aerosols that are creating global warming are literally an existential problem, as pollution no longer is. You can clean up pollutants, but you can't clean up heat. Further, IMHO, I think the world needs to quickly go to electric vehicles powered by advanced nuclear energy plants. Doing that would solve many of our problems, but it might already be too late.

[Alan Klein]

The amount of energy used by cars and trucks today, in the form of diesel and gasoline, is roughly equivalent to the output of our electrical generating capacity. So if we went to 100% electric cars, we'd have to (roughly) double our generating capacity, which means dozens of new power plants. Does anybody think that dozens of new generating plants are going to be built in this age of NIMBY? I'm really curious about how this will work (and as an aside, I have a car that runs partially on plug-in electricity. I only get about 27 miles on the battery, before the gasoline engine kicks on, but I live in a small city, Santa Fe, NM, and can often run all my daily errands purely on electric power. Recharging from 220 outlet takes about two hours.)

Ray, IMHO there is of course a lot of pollution, but it's slowly being brought under control, and would be greatly reduced if there were brutally harsh laws concerning dumping in the oceans. But CO2 and other aerosols that are creating global warming are literally an existential problem, as pollution no longer is. You can clean up pollutants, but you can't clean up heat. Further, IMHO, I think the world needs to quickly go to electric vehicles powered by advanced nuclear energy plants. Doing that would solve many of our problems, but it might already be too late.

John, Nice to get your input.  Santa Fe is a great town.  My wife and I spent three days there in the Spring last year as part of our trip through the southwest's national parks in Utah and Arizona.  Here are some of the pictures I took. https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157694819890421  My wife wanted to vist "artsy" Santa Fe and we really enjoyed the SW cutlture and art there.  We went to the Georgia O'Keeffe Museum with all her paintings and photos.  We also saw some amazing native American Indian art. 

Speaking of electricity for cars, we recently visited Thomas Alva Edison plant close to where we live in New Jersey.  He was an amazing guy who did so many things with electricity including making it.  Across the street they had a parking lot for visitors.  A local bank had installed free charging stations for electric cars parked there.  What better place to install those things then right across from Edison's place.  If you ever get up here with your hybrid car, that would be a good place to get a re-charge.

We also visited Edison's home about 1/4 miles away.  When he bought it, the lights were gas operated.  They had a dangerous gas distribution system in the home.  So Edison got rid of it and pulled an electric line up from his plant and switch his home to electric, the first one in the town.  He even got his neighbors to switch over from gas and he sold them his electricity.   He was as good at business as he was an inventor. 

I agree about NIMBY.  When I lived in NY, our governor there closed down the nuclear generating electric plant on Long Island for political reasons.  All that non-polluting with no CO2 either.  Then the same governor went ahead and is spending $3.2 billion dollars to install offshore wind generators off Long Island for about a million homes ($3200 a home), not including cost overruns which always happen with the government.   Coincidentally, he has to build separate new fossil fuel plants to backup the wind generators when the wind stops blowing.  All at additional cost.  Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.  We all would have been better off if he left the nuclear plants. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I agree about NIMBY.  When I lived in NY, our governor there closed down the nuclear generating electric plant on Long Island for political reasons.  All that non-polluting with no CO2 either.  Then the same governor went ahead and is spending $3.2 billion dollars to install offshore wind generators off Long Island for about a million homes ($3200 a home), not including cost overruns which always happen with the government.   Coincidentally, he has to build separate new fossil fuel plants to backup the wind generators when the wind stops blowing.  All at additional cost.  Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.  We all would have been better off if he left the nuclear plants.

$3200 a home, divided by 25 years operations = $128/year, add some maintenance and sell 'free fuel'. Sounds like a plan.

How much CO2 emission reduction will have been avoided?

How long had the Long Island Nuclear plant left of useful life?
What would it have cost to build a new facility?

[Alan Klein]

$3200 a home, divided by 25 years operations = $128/year, add some maintenance and sell 'free fuel'. Sounds like a plan.

How much CO2 emission reduction will have been avoided?

How long had the Long Island Nuclear plant left of useful life?
What would it have cost to build a new facility?

Bart, you left out key cost components.  First: Cost overruns.  Offshore wind is the most expensive form of renewable energy. The estimates are just that.  Government here never gets that right.  It always goes over budget.

"Some maintenance"??  It's offshore.  That means you can;t jump into a service truck and go change a fuse.  You have to pay extra a lot extra for boats, helicopters, pilots, captains of vessels, etc plus the men who are going to get extra pay to maintain these things.  It's 30 miles off shore not around the corner. 

You left out the cost for fossil fuel plants for backup that will have to be built. That will be more billions. 

Then there's an annual subsidy of $528 million to the utility company.  That's $528 for each of the million customers per year or over $13,200 for a 25 year period.  The costs will be even higher because the governor is politically motivated to have only union workers only doing the construction work and they're negotiating a new union contract which will raise all these costs.  The subsidy will actually be paid by upstate  New York customers who are poorer than the rest of the states and can't afford higher rates that will be used to pay down the costs of the wind generators.  So electric rates will go up in these areas. The governor has ordered that the utilities don't reveal in the bills that portion of the charges that are related to this project.  That way voters will just blame the utility companies for higher prices and not the politicians who are the real ones raising their rates.   

Now I see why Germany's electric costs have gone up with free renewable energy. It's just so much more expensive.

[Alan Klein]

Here's an article about it.
https://nypost.com/2019/07/22/cuomos-incredible-wind-power-pander/

[LesPalenik]

Now I see why Germany's electric costs have gone up with free renewable energy. It's just so much more expensive.

In all fairness to Alan's analysis, cost of electricity in Germany went in the last decade through the roof. And it is expected to rise again.
OTOH, the German homes are much better insulated than the houses on this continent, so the real heating and cooling costs might be comparable to ours. Actually, most German homes don't have air-conditioning, but the thick walls help to keep the summer temperatures quite tolerable.   

[Alan Klein]

In all fairness to Alan's analysis, cost of electricity in Germany went in the last decade through the roof. And it is expected to rise again.
OTOH, the German homes are much better insulated than the houses on this continent, so the real heating and cooling costs might be comparable to ours. Actually, most German homes don't have air-conditioning, but the thick walls help to keep the summer temperatures quite tolerable.   

I believe Germany is generally colder than America, so the US, especially the southern half of the US uses more A/C which is very expensive because of the high electrical requirements.  We tend to build a lot with wood but all newer homes are insulated well.  The products just didn't exist a few decades ago.  Mine house is great.  I can't believe how efficient it is.  6" insulation in all exterior walls and attic ceiling and double pane windows help enormously.  I also switched 90% of my lighting to LED's.  We heat and cook with natural gas, not smelly, more expensive oil.  I use time as well as temperature controlled thermostats for more efficiency and cycle outside light based on dawn and dusk lighting requirements.  I'd raise the thermostat in the summer to save even more energy but wife complains it's too hot. 

[Peter McLennan]

But Peter,  since Germany now has 40% renewables, their electricity costs have skyrocketed costing 2 1/2 times what the average American pays .  And my town just negotiated an electricity contract with a new supplier for two years that will lower my costs another $150 over the 24 months.

Alan, that's about the tenth time you've brought up the fact that Germany pays more for electricity than you do. We get it. However, there are factors at play that you don't mention.  For example, undoubtedly some significant share of your apparently inexpensive NJ power comes from up north: from the socialist, government-ruled, liberty-free societies of Labrador and Quebec, where they generate power efficiently, renewably and cheaply from falling water. You're welcome.

Besides, low prices aren't necessarily a good thing; just ask any small town what happens when a Walmart or Dollar General moves in.

Americans also pay among the lowest prices in the western world for gasoline and diesel, but many American highways (and bridges) are in atrocious shape. I've experienced them first hand. This fact is according to Americans, not just me. Try driving on European highways, compared to, say those in Pennsylvania. Or NYC. Or NM. Or, perish the thought, New Jersey. Potholes anyone?  Poor infrastructure maintenance is irresponsible, third world stuff.

Taxes have benefits.  Drive I-5 the length of relatively high-tax Oregon and be amazed at just how pleasurable smooth asphalt and clearly painted highway markings can be.

In any case, getting back to low prices, fossil fuels (especially and immediately, coal) are doomed. They're too expensive. Renewables are not only better for everyone and everything, they're rapidly becoming cheaper.

Imagine, if you will, a solar powered steel mill.  Pueblo, CO will have one soon.  Not because it's greener or more politically correct, because it's cheaper.

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/360/xcel-energy-plans-to-close-2-of-its-coal-fired-plants-in-pueblo-to-make-way-for-a-greener-future