Technical Feasibility

That something is somehow technically feasible, doesn't mean it makes economic or even environmental sense.

Let's consider the following question:


1. Is it feasible for a country to transition to 100% renewable* electricity? (Assuming there are no financial or material constraints).

The answer is almost certainly yes.**

However, that is not the important question. The important question is:

a. What would be the purpose of generating all the electricity of a country with renewables?

If the answer is: to reduce CO2 emissions, then I think we first need to make our homework.

Off the bat, neither solar PV nor wind are zero carbon emitters (once their lifecycle is considered). Sure, no technology, not even hydro, is zero emissions but according to the IPCC**** utility scale solar PV has a median value of 48 grams of CO2 equivalent per kWh. Low, but not extremely low. Wind clocks in at 11 grams. Much better.

However, the numbers above do not include either the back up plant (usually fossil fuel powered) that is needed most of the time to support the relatively low capacity factors of renewable energy, nor the lifecycle emissions of the massive storage that would be required to somewhat wean renewables from fossil fuel plants.

So say, if on an annual basis wind supplies power 25% of the time and a natural gas power plant the rest of the time, the weighted emissions would be:

          25% x 11 grams/kWh + 75% x 490 grams/kWh = 370 grams/kWh

Yes, it is lower than a natural gas power plant by itself, (reduction of 120 grams/kWh) but are these modest CO2 reductions worth the double investment?

And, more important, is there a better way to invest our limited financial (and material) resources to achieve more bang for the buck?

As an exercise, the replacement of a coal plant with a natural gas plant would result in the following reduction:

          820 grams/kWh (coal) - 490 grams/kWh (natural gas) = 330 grams/kWh

The reduction in emission is almost three times larger and probably with a smaller investment that would last longer. (How long before wind turbines have to be replaced?).

Now, if we replace the coal plant with a nuclear one the numbers look this way:

          820 grams/kWh (coal) - 12 grams/kWh (nuclear) = 808 grams /kWh.

The reduction in emissions is almost seven times larger than with renewables.

Conclusion: technical feasibility by itself does not justify investments in renewable energy. More important is to consider the financial and environmental factors.

Feel free to add to the conversation in Twitter: @luisbaram


* By renewables we mean solar and wind in this article. Hydro is also a renewable but it is in a league by itself and we actually already have countries generating 100% of its electricity with it. Among them we have Paraguay and Albania.

** Sure, the manufacture of the wind turbines and solar panels would require massive inputs of fossil fuels, but for simplification we won't consider them at this moment.

***http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources

Political Will

We hear time and again in the climate discourse that what we need to solve the problem is "political will."

Well, maybe... but combating climate change through reducing our CO2 emissions is not something that can be done by passing a law or signing new regulations.

This is not a Manhattan Project, the Apollo Program or the Great Society of LBJ. It is probably the three of them combined and multiplied by ten, and even then...

We will not be free of fossil fuels by issuing an Emancipation Proclamation. If only it were that simple...

First, let's mention what we don't need respecting the transition to a low carbon economy:

1. To be told it will be easy. Because it won't.
2. To be told it will be cheap. Because it won't.
3. To be told it can be done fast. Because it won't.

Now, the first thing we need to understand is the MAGNITUDE of the energy we should transition from high carbon sources to lower carbon ones. And, by the way, the sooner we bury the "zero emissions" label, the better. No energy source is zero emissions. *

As we may see from the graph above, fossil fuels not only overwhelmingly dominate the energy market, but in absolute terms are the ones that are growing the fastest.**

Even though the OECD countries ARE taming their energy hunger, the non-OECD are increasing it as if they had an appointment. ***

And let's make no mistake: the overwhelming consideration for increasing energy consumption in these Non-OECD countries will be cost and ease of scalability.

The first thing we need to confront the climate challenge is to start telling the truth and this starts with Al Gore, Greenpeace, Paul Krugman and others. Here are some inconvenient truths:

a. Moving to a low carbon economy will be expensive. Very expensive. Thus the cost of energy for the final consumer will be higher, maybe even much higher.
b. If the cost of energy goes up, then the cost of almost everything else will also go up, including food.
c. After many trillions of euros of investment we will end up with less than we began with (lower carbon but more expensive energy). For the final user there would be little to see (except maybe much less pollution from coal burning).

All the people participating in a Climate March should go ahead and do it but be perfectly conscious that if they are FINALLY listened to by governments, THEIR cost of energy and everything else will go up. Is this a sacrifice they are willing to assume? Hopefully yes, but fully understanding what they are actually asking for and how it will affect them individually.

Now we are going to have to call names. It would be great just to leave this at the philosophical level but emissions won't drop just because we wish them to. No, we need MASSIVE deployments of low carbon energy. And here we have to face other truths (valid at least through the rest of this century):

1. Hydro was, is, and will continue to be the premier renewable energy.
2. Yes, wind and solar will conquer part of the energy pie but will almost certainly stay in single digits share of our global energy consumption. Why? Because they are intermittent, unreliable, diffuse and expensive.
3. (This is to some the worst of all the inconvenient truths), nuclear will have to perform the heavy low carbon lifting for our civilization. Sorry, but there is NO way around this. Make the math, it would be impossible in a financial / environmental sense to supply most of our global energy with renewables.

So, once it is boiled down to the essentials, this is the definition of political will respecting global warming:

Political will: paving the way for a massive, accelerated implementation of nuclear power.

All the rest is just talk, just platitudes, just expressing feel good words that change absolutely nothing.

Look around you! Is a massive nuclear power plant buildup currently happening in your country?

If yes, you are moving forward.

If no, it is business as usual and you are not going anywhere (except maybe to an overly hot planet).

Feel free to add to the conversation at Twitter: @luisbaram

Note: some people declare that renewable energy (solar or wind) is cheap but this is only because they piggy-back on the conventional energy grid (that ends up absorbing the costs of their intermittency). However, when all costs are considered, RE is expensive, intermittent and unreliable.

References:

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources

** bp.com/statisticalreview

*** www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/pdf/0484(2013).pdf

Memes in the Energy Discourse

Dear friends, for some months I have been creating memes for the energy discourse. The pictures themselves I got from the Internet.

Feel free to use them, or as we say here: feel free to steal shamelessly.

Thank you.

That is all. Feel free to add to the conversation in Twitter: @luisbaam

Thank you.

Intermittent and Unreliable

Intermittent energy is not necessarily such a bad idea.

This first graph shows the output of a half-wave rectifier that converts alternating current into pulsating direct current. Although it is intermittent, it is reliable: you know that every second 60 (or 50) pulses of electricity will be produced.

Electronic equipment requires constant direct current (not a pulsating one) but it is easy to convert the pulsating electricity into a constant one by the addition of storage.

In the case of power supplies for electronic equipment, this "storage" is usually one or more capacitors.

So, the output, once the "storage" is added looks much more appealing:

In real life, the "ripple" can be of very small amplitude.

The amount of storage needed can be very easily calculated (and implemented) because the energy output of a half wave rectifier is intermittent but completely predictable and reliable.

On the other hand, if the output of a system is not only intermittent, but also unreliable things begin to look more complicated.

Here, as an example, we can see the electrical output of a wind turbine:

We could classify this output as intermittent and unreliable. In this circumstance the amount of storage required is not as easily calculated and unless we pretty much decide to store weeks of power we will end up short at several instances during the year.

Storing vast amounts of electrical power for weeks is a very expensive proposition and that is the reason most renewable energy in the world has back-up, usually fossil fuel plants. Some people actually prefer to call these plants "primaries" because they end up supplying the required power most of the year.

Solar photo-voltaic (PV) is not inherently an intermittent / unreliable technology. For example, in geosynchronous orbit PV provides constant power most of the year (except near the equinoxes) and even satellites in LEO (low Earth orbit) produce intermittent but reliable power (and thus the size of the batteries required for storage is modest as they need to store only a few hours of energy).

The "problem" is that on Earth we have cloud cover and seasons (not to mention variable wind patterns with their respective seasonality in the case of wind turbines).

Conclusion: intermittent / reliable power, with a modicum of storage, can easily supply power continually.  On the other hand intermittent / unreliable power can hardly provide a constant supply even with storage.

Feel free to add to the conversation on Twitter: @luisbaram

Thank you.

By the Seat of Your Pants

Governments do things that would never pass muster in a disciplined corporation.

Imagine me going to the CEO of a company and telling him: give me 100 billion euros to invest in renewable energy (solar plus wind).

He would shower me with questions and demand a very carefully tailored plan.

The conversation would probably go this way:

CEO: what are you trying to achieve with those 100 billion euros?

Me: replace nuclear generation and reduce the carbon emissions of the electrical grid.

CEO: If nuclear is low carbon energy, why replace nuclear and not better fossil fuels?

Me: Because some people are afraid of nuclear.

CEO: Is that fear justified?

Me: For the most part, no.

CEO: Then why don't you spend a small part of that money in education / marketing / PR and better tackle the real culprits of Global Warming: fossil fuels?

Me: It makes sense.

CEO: Considering renewables need backup, usually fossil fuels, what is the floor of emissions an RE / FF electrical system would deliver?

Me: North of 300 grams per kWh if the backup is natural gas, north of 700 grams if the backup is coal.

CEO: Would that be enough to effectively combat global warming?

Me: No, sir, it wouldn't and today we already have important countries with electrical grid emissions well south of 100 grams.

CEO: How did those countries achieve their low carbon electricity?

Me: Without a single exception they did it mostly with hydro and / or nuclear.

CEO: Then, why are you proposing to spend loads of money on an unproven path?

Me: Well... Greenpeace says...

CEO: Greenpeace!  What do they know about energy?

Me: Not much, sir.

At this point, I was literally kicked out of his office.

Moral of the story: we cannot just pour gigantic amounts of money because we "feel" something might turn out to be a solution.

No, in the energy discourse we need to be disciplined, make our homework, evaluate alternatives and make rational choices not clouded by feelings.

Here is a suggestion respecting the basic questions we should answer during the homework phase:

http://gnwr1.blogspot.mx/2014/04/energy-discourse.html

Feel free to add to the conversation on Twitter: @luisbaram

Thank you.

ALL Are Here to Stay

Today, in the energy discourse there are constant skirmishes between the proponents of different types of energy.

Depending on the respective camp, people want to eliminate (pick one) fossil fuels, nuclear, wind, solar, what have you.

Well, we have news for all the groups: NONE of the current energy sources is going away, at least not this century. Whether we like it or not, on a global scale, we'll have to learn to live with them.

Now, after saying the above, it doesn't mean we should write a blank check to any particular technology without FIRST doing our homework.

As an example, let's analyse solar photo-voltaic (PV).

What is the highest PV penetration that makes economic / environmental sense in a national grid?*

Since PV is intermittent, it probably makes no sense to go much above low single digits. Why? Let's do our homework with an example:

Say a country uses, on average, 40 GW of electricity. At peak hour, they consume 40% more than the average, in other words, 56 GW.

Thus, the maximum output of the solar panels at any particular moment should not exceed 56 GW (unless we want to embark in expensive / environmentally challenging massive storage which today is not ready for prime time).

Consequently, the PV installed capacity in this country should be capped at 56 GW.

If the solar annual capacity factor in this country is 15%, then the average annual production of the PV installation will be: 56 GW x 0.15 = 8.4 GW.

The country itself consumes 40 GW average, so the PV component would be: 8.4 / 40 = 21%.**

The above means that at peak solar production ALL other generating capacity would need to be idled / shut down. At night (and to a lesser extent during cloudy days), the other types of generators would have to supply the electricity requirements.***

Non intermittent power sources such as fossil fuels and nuclear are not constrained by the above mentioned "cap."

Hydro is somewhere in the middle since its intermittency is not daily but seasonal or from year to year.

Conclussion: intermittent energy has a "natural" cap that would make no economic / environmental sense to exceed.

Feel free to add to the conversation on Twitter: @luisbaram


Notes:
* Sure, one country could "dump" excess power into another, but if that second country uses the same type of technology to produce its electricity, they would have surpluses at the same time.

** This is really an optimistic number since, for example, in Europe more electricity is required in winter when solar produces the least energy. I propose the "rule of thumb" for solar should be to cap it at the annual capacity factor. e.g. if the annual capacity factor is 15%, then at the most 15% of the annual electricity should be solar. However, even this number might be too high.

*** The costs per GWh of the modulated / idled / shut down power plants are higher than if they could produce continually at their capacity. These costs ultimately affect the overall prices of the electricity in the grid.

Nuclear Energy: Let's Get Real

First let me say off the bat that I consider nuclear power one of the best energy sources we have. Why?

Because nuclear is dense, reliable, constant, low carbon, relatively safe, scalable and proven technology.

It also generates little (although dangerous waste).

Actually, nuclear is so good that if humanity didn't have it, we would need to invent it.

Again, off the bat let me say that I consider that eventually nuclear will supply more than 50% of humanity's energy. By nuclear I mean fission and fusion. In fission we are including uranium and thorium and all sorts of reactor designs. On the other hand, "eventually" doesn't necessarily mean soon.

So, after stating the above, we don't want to sound like Greenpeacers promoting renewable energy and thus here is a dose of reality:

In a previous post,* we calculated that to expand nuclear generation to comprise 50% of global electricity requirements (and say, 25% of global energy requirements) we would need to commission 87 one GWe nuclear reactors every year for 30 years. Or, if you prefer, half that amount of reactors for 60 years.**

Today, only China seems serious about massively increasing their nuclear capacity and currently have 28*** reactors under construction. Comendable, but hardly enough.

Remember, if we want to produce 50% of our electricity with nuclear by 2040 we need to commission 87 reactors in 2014; 87 more in 2015; 87 more in 2016; 87 more in 2017; 87 more in 2018; 87 more in 2019...

Sure, we might say, we are not starting now, but later, still it is inescapable that a dramatic nuclear buildup is required. 

Thus, we have to differentiate what is technically feasible from what is probable.

Is it feasible to produce 50% of the global electricity with nuclear? If France is already producing close to 80% of its annual electricity with nuclear, there shouldn't be any insurmountable technical limitations for the world to "go the way of France." 

However, now we have to ask how probable it is that we will commission 87 reactors (average) per year for 30 years. I would say the probability is extremely low, almost zero.

OK, what about 43 per year for 60 years? Hmmm... that seems more probable.

And what about 29 for 90 years? This looks awfully more probable.

The EIA estimates that by 2040 nuclear energy will supply 14.1% of global electricity (and say, half of that for total energy usage).

For the other low carbon energies, the EIA estimates the following penetrations in global electricity generation:****

Hydro: 16%.

Wind: 4.7%

Solar: 1.2%

Adding all of the above (including nuclear) we reach a total of 36%. Thus the rest, 64% would still be comprised of combustible fuels by 2040.

And let's remember this is only electricity generation. The rest of our energy requirements would be even more heavily represented by fossil fuels.

Thus and if you ask me, the responsible thing to do is to plan for a world where fossil fuels continue to dominate the energy market for the rest of this century.

Conclusion: nuclear energy will eventually supply more than 50% of humanity's energy. "Eventually" means 100 to 150 years in the future. From now until then, fossil fuels will continue to provide the heavy lifting for our civilization.

Feel free to add to the conversation on Twitter: @luisbaram



* http://gnwr1.blogspot.mx/2014/04/going-nuclear.html

** Considering energy requirements won't continue to increase after 2040.

*** http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Start-up-nearing-for-Chinese-units-2503144.html

**** http://gnwr1.blogspot.mx/2013/08/international-energy-outlook-2013.html

Types of People in the AGW Discourse: Revisited

Dear friends and colleagues: this is an updated version of the April 7, 2014 post. The reason we are updating it is that through your comments, we understood important additional categories needed to be added. So, here they are.

The Anthropogenic Global Warming discourse is supposed to be happening between the Deniers and the Believers but this is an oversimplification that does not fit well into the actual reality, so we are presenting below a more useful classification.



1. The Deniers: they don't believe AGW is happening and no evidence will make them change their mind.

2. The Believers: they believe AGW is happening but they have their feet on the ground.

3. The Naivers: they believe Renewable Energy (RE) will replace fossil fuels (FF) and save the day.

4. The Black Swanners: they believe in AGW but at the same time understand that humans will not voluntarily reduce their standards of living. Thus humanity will NOT reduce their FF consumption for many decades to come. The way out? A serious black swan event that will solve the emissions problem "through the back door." Examples:
     a. A gigantic volcanic eruption in Indonesia.
     b. An ebola like virus that drastically decimates human population.
     c. What have you.

5. Gamblers: they do believe AGW is happening but decide to wait and see. There might even be some unintended positive consequences of climate change. If nothing else, their investments in Greenland may become more valuable.

6. Opportunistic: the ones that make loads of money by selling the RE to the Naivers (above).

7. Liars / Lobbyists: what they believe in their heart is irrelevant. They follow the money and fully support their sponsors no matter how much they have to bend themselves backward to seem reasonable.

8. Divesters: believe that once institutional investors divest from fossil fuel stocks the carbon concentration in the atmosphere will return to normal.

9. Defeaters: they believe everything is lost and thus have decided not to do anything and wait quietly for the end to come.

10. Alice in wonderlanders: have confidence that the last freak energy experiment in an obscure laboratory will be massively scaled in a matter of years and come to our rescue.

11. Extreme libertarians: the free market, like magic, will take care of EVERYTHING.

12. Religious zealots: God won't allow humanity to destroy the Earth.

Framing people is never good, but it is certainly better to frame them in TWELVE camps rather than limit them to only two.

We hope the above classification adds something positive to the energy discourse.

Solar Photo-voltaic: Let's Get Real

This exercise is a simplification in which we try to explain why solar photo-voltaic (PV) has difficulty in living up to its hype.

Let's consider an isolated country that consumes on average 40 GW of electricity.

To simplify things, let's consider they consume this amount of power 24 hours a day. In real life, consumption has peaks and valleys.

They plan to install enough solar PV to supply 100% of the electrical energy of the country at peak solar production.

Again, to simplify, let's consider a perfectly cloudless day during the spring or fall equinox. The output would look like this:

So, from midnight to 6 AM, another energy source would supply 100% of the electricity.

Then again, from 6 PM until midnight, another energy source would supply 100% of the electricity.

Then, from 6 AM until 6 PM solar would provide continually variable production and will reach 100% of this country's energy needs at local noon. In other words, at local noon, solar PV would be producing 40 GW of power. (8)

What would happen if this country decided to go above 100% solar at peak production (as an isolated country, they couldn't "dump" the excess production into another country. Also, we are not considering storage that could be an article in itself).

Then, they would have to curtail (disconnect) solar capacity at peak production hours. This is how the graph would look (100% peak vs. 125% peak comparison):

As we may see, there is not too much sense in taking the PV capacity above the peak requirements.

Now, how would the production of the "other" sources (usually fossil fuels) look to compensate for the variable nature of PV. Here we can see it:

In other words, from midnight to 6 am, and from 6 pm until midnight, the other source would supply 100% of the electricity. Then from 6 am to 6 pm it would have to continually adjust its output to compensate for the PV production. 

If the Earth were a perfectly cloudless planet, this sort of arrangement would allow PV to provide close to one third the energy requirements of a country. What would be the carbon intensity of such electricity? Here we calculate it:

According to the table referenced below, solar PV has a carbon intensity of 46 grams per kWh, and let's say the rest of the electricity is produced by natural gas (469 grams per kWh), thus the combined carbon intensity would be:

     46 x 0.33 + 469 x 0.67 = 329 grams per kWh.

However, in real life the Earth is not cloudless and thus the actual annual capacity factor of solar PV is closer to 15%. If we re-calculate with this more realistic number, we get:

     46 x 0.15 + 469 x 0.85 = 406 grams per kWh.

If a component of coal is used in the "other" energy then the emissions would rise even higher. 

Again, this article is a simplification, but the point is to explain in simple terms why solar PV is not living up to its hype.

Thank you.

Notes:

1. In real life, clouds reduce the output of the solar panels.

2. Seasonality also greatly impacts power generation: winter days are shorter and possibly cloudier.

3. The "other" power plants need to be idled, modulated, shut down, restarted and this causes inefficiencies in the system and additional emissions.

4. From a purely operational point of view, "nothing would happen" if all solar capacity were disconnected.

5. Yes, a solar + fossil fuels system produces less emissions than a purely fossil fuel one, but at the cost of duplicated investment.

6. Yes, excess solar energy could be "dumped" into another country, but if that country also installed significant solar capacity, this wouldn't be an option anymore. 

7. The other option is storage but currently this (expensive) technology hasn't been widely deployed. Also, storage would add to the emissions per kWh (once life-cycle emissions are taken into consideration).

8. "Local noon" doesn't happen at the same time in all the country, so the curve would be a little bit flattened. 

References:

http://gnwr1.blogspot.mx/2013/01/clean-energy.html 

Emissions and Renewable Energy

Does Renewable Energy (sun and wind) reduce emissions?

The short answer is: in theory it does reduce emissions.

But what about in practice?



Here things look quite differently. Let us show why with an example.

This is obviously going to be an over simplification, but please bear with us.

Let's consider an isolated country that decides to go all out for renewable energy, in this case wind turbines.

Let's make our estimates below with a wind annual capacity factor of 30%.

So, this country will get 30% of its energy from wind turbines and the rest, say, from natural gas powered plants.

The emissions of the turbines are ~ 12 grams per kWh.

The emissions of natural gas plants are ~ 469 grams per kWh.

Thus, the emissions of the whole system would be:

     (0.30 x 12) + (0.7 x 469) = 332 grams per kWh.

If we replace natural gas by coal (with 1001 grams per kWh) then the numbers look less attractive: 704 grams per kWh for the system.

The same exercise with solar photo-voltaic would result in larger emissions since the capacity factor of solar is even lower than that of wind.

Sure, it could be argued that renewable energy could be "stored" but for the most part those systems have not been deployed and would require important investments and additional emissions during their manufacture.

Conclusion: in real life we have to consider the emissions of systems, not of individual components and when the system is considered, the ability of renewable energy to reduce emissions is limited.

This is one of the reasons why German emissions per kWh remain stubbornly high in spite of all the renewable capacity they have installed.

Peace Proposal

Since it seems that a substantial, if not most, of the efforts of many environmentalists are focused on attacking nuclear (the pre-eminent of all low carbon energies) instead of actually trying to curtail fossil fuels, the true climate culprits, this is a Peace Proposal with the intention of achieving harmony in the quest for lower emissions.

The proposal is really very simple:

Let's remove ALL subsidies from ALL energy sources: Fossil Fuels (FF), Renewables (RE), Nuclear, what have you.

Once all subsidies / tax breaks are removed, let each energy compete on its own merits. Let's not try to pick winners / losers from our desk. 

Yes, it could be argued that carbon taxes need to be applied to FF to somehow internalize their externalities, but let's start by just eliminating their subsidies.

Also, it could be argued that for RE to have priority access to the grid is a sort of covert subsidy (and it is), but let's leave it this way for the moment.

Independent of other benefits, the mentioned proposal would cause energy to increase in cost in the short term and thus waste would be reduced.

Is this proposal acceptable to both camps that are trying to reduce emissions?

Thank you.

Do We Need Subsidies for Solar and Wind Power?

Well, "we" don't need the subsidies, only the solar and wind companies need the subsidies. 

However, let's face it, these industries are pretty much mature and there is really no reason to continue subsidizing them. Spain and Germany are a perfect example of where this road leads to: very expensive energy, loads of debt and then a very difficult uphill battle to remove the subsidies once these industries get used to them. 

Besides, "renewable" installations for the most part are NOT replacing conventional energy installations or preventing additional investments in conventional energy (because "renewable" energy is not constant or reliable). So at the end of the day, "renewable" energy installations are just surplus capacity that makes life more difficult for conventional generating plants (that have to adjust their output to the variability of "renewable" energy).

Let's analyze the German example. First, yes, it is true that a substantial share of this country's electricity is produced with renewables: biomass, hydro, wind and sun. Solar photo-voltaic panels, however, represent only close to 3% of the total and they have been receiving most of the subsidies for renewable energy.

For anyone interested in the facts, we would kindly recommend the main story in Der Spiegel English Edition of October 10, 2012. The story is titled: German Energy Plan Plagued by Lack of Progress.

A few excerpts below:
"With the new rates, German citizens will be paying a total of more than €20 billion ($25.7 billion) next year to promote renewable energy. This is more than €175 for an average three-person household, a 50 percent increase over current figures."
And by the way, even before these price increases, Germans were already paying +37% more per kWh than the average in Europe (as a comparison, the French pay 23% less).
"The rising cost of electricity is also a burden on businesses. According to Oettinger, energy costs now represent the biggest liability for Germany as a place to do business, especially in light of the marked increase in the number of blackouts and voltage fluctuations in the grid."
"As long as there isn't enough storage capacity, virtually every solar plant and every wind turbine has to be backed up by a conventional power plant. Without this double structure, the power supply would collapse."
And finally: 
"At the same time, however, the boom in subsidized renewable energy is ensuring that conventional power plants are no longer profitable. Since the law requires that preference be given to green energy, if it's available, gas-, oil- and coal-fired power plants frequently have to be shut down to avoid overloading the grid. This reduces their revenues while increasing costs because powering plants up and down consumes a lot of fuel and inflicts additional wear and tear on the equipment."

So in summary, no, we shouldn't subsidize "renewable" energy. Being fair, we shouldn't be subsidizing any other energy source, either.

Is Hydrogen a Viable Alternative?

Feelings, feelings and more feelings are what we see in many energy discussions. If we are talking about religion or maybe even about politics, it is OK to mix as much feelings as we want, but not when we are talking about energy. In this subject we should stay cozy to the facts, the laws of physics and yes, economics. 

Can renewable energy provide 100% of our energy? Yes but at a prohibitive cost. Consequently renewables are not really a total solution (yes, they have their place in our energy mix but their penetration is and will continue to be quite modest in a global scale).

For example, some renewable enthusiasts mention that excess electricity produced by the sun can be converted into hydrogen and then burned when we need the power. 

Technically this is 100% feasible, but economically... 

1. A say, one megawatt solar installation in a nice and sunny place produces on an annual basis only close to 200 kW average power (five times less than the "plate" rating).

2. The efficiency of electrolysis (to produce the hydrogen) is around 70%.

3. The efficiency of the hydrogen turbine (to move the generator) is probably less than 50%.

4. The efficiency of the generator should be in the order of 90%.

So, just the last three steps above result in a combined efficiency of 31.5%. In other words, 68.5% of the energy produced by the solar panels is lost in this hydrogen conversion process! And you still have to add the capital expenditures of the electrolysis plant, turbines, generators, storage tanks, etc. It makes absolutely no sense. 

Besides we wouldn't have to beat so much around the bush, there is something called rechargeable batteries with much better conversion efficiencies than the above. We could use them to store the excess electricity, but again it requires considerable investment that will impact the cost of the electricity produced: the batteries themselves, the inverters, warehouses, replacement of the batteries every so often, etc., etc. And sure, it is not particularly "green" to produce and then dispose of so many batteries. Even then if the sky were cloudy for several days the batteries would be completely depleted and conventional energy will have to come to the rescue. In other words, solar (or wind) cannot really replace conventional power plants.

Let's face it, the reason renewables require subsidies to survive is because they are more expensive than conventional energy and, specially, that they fully depend on the conventional electrical grid. 

So, let's not talk about wishes, let's talk about facts: when Japan shut down its nuclear plants after the tsunami almost 100% of the replacement energy came from fossil fuels. That's right: not solar, not wind but fossil fuels. They imported more coal, more natural gas and more oil. Their emissions went up and their balance of trade suffered. These are the FACTS. Not the wishes.

Now Germany is embarking in a very expensive renewable experiment and the only reason Germany will not go exactly the way of Japan (that is in substituting all nuclear with fossil fuels) is that France and other neighboring countries will gladly sell them nuclear electricity. Sure, German carbon emissions will go up (because they will increase their coal and natural gas use in generating electricity) but not as much as could be expected if France were not there to help.

As we all know the country at the center of the nuclear hurricane, Japan, is already re-starting its nuclear plants. It is time for all of us to also stop running away scared from nuclear power.

Carbon Emissions 101

This is a fictitious interview with an energy expert that is not afraid of saying things as they really are, rather than as many wish they were.  

For the purpose of this exercise, let's say the energy expert is Mr. EE and Global News and World Report is interviewing him.

GNWR: what would be required to drastically reduce humanity's carbon emissions, in other words, what we need to do to prevent a global climate catastrophe?

EE: drastically reduce our fossil fuel use.

GNWR: but, what would be required to drastically reduce our fossil fuel use.

EE: a drastic increase in the prices of fossil fuels. And I want to stress here the word "drastic". Even though there is in general an upward trend in the cost of fossil fuels, if we leave it to "the market" the price increases won't be big enough or arrive soon enough to stop a runaway climate crisis.

GNWR: but, won't people understand the importance of reducing our carbon emissions and modify their behavior accordingly?

EE: maybe one percent or so of the Earth's population will voluntarily take this path but most people won't substantially modify their behavior until overriding economic factors force them to do so.  And the words I want to stress here are "force them." 

GNWR: can´t we just support wider use of renewables?

EE: Once you factor all the direct and indirect costs, renewables are not only more expensive than fossil fuels, they are vastly more expensive.

GNWR: so, please stop beating around the bush and tell us what exactly needs to be done.

EE: I would like to offer a much more imaginative, innovative, and interesting answer but as we stand today the only viable solution to our carbon problem are carbon taxes.  And again, we are not talking about "timid" taxes, but ones that would increase the price of fossil fuels by say, three, four or even five times their current level. This should obviously go hand in hand with the elimination of all subsidies both to fossil fuels and to renewables. Believe it or not, globally we are currently subsidizing fossil fuel consumption to the pitch of more than 500 billion dollars per year!

GNWR: if those carbon taxes were fully implemented, what would be the immediate result?

EE: first, our carbon emissions will truly drop dramatically.  This would obviously be a very welcomed result.  On the other hand the world economy will tank.  This would be a serious side effect, to say the least.

GNWR: why is that so?

EE: today the world economy almost single-handedly depends on cheap fossil fuels.  Some analysts even state that the 2008 world recession was REALLY caused (or at least triggered) by $150 dollar oil.  The carbon taxes we are envisioning would bring this price to, say, $450.  It would be a completely different ball game.

GNWR: but then, isn't the medicine worse than the sickness?

EE: THAT is the crux of the matter.  In other words, how do we reduce our emissions fast enough to avert a climate catastrophe while at the same time prevent the destruction of the world's economy in the process.

GNWR: could this conceivably be done?

EE: From a technical point of view, absolutely. The number one source of our carbon emissions is electricity production. In theory, all electricity can be generated with nuclear plants and nuclear produces almost no carbon dioxide during operation.  France already produces close to 80% of its electricity with nuclear plants.

GNWR: and renewables?

EE: aside from hydro, renewables have just been a costly diversion.  However, if they can survive by themselves without subsidies, then they would stay, but they will always be just a small part of our total energy mix.  Even hydro will face problems.  Climate change is already impacting countries where hydro is big, such as Brazil which may have to begin rationing electricity as early as this year. Venezuela and Colombia may not be far behind. So let me stress this even if Greenpeace doesn't want to listen: the future will be nuclear. Even Japan is already re-starting its nuclear plants.  Germany doesn't have any choice either so sooner or later they will continue investing in nuclear.

GNWR: what else needs to be done?

EE: another big contributor to our carbon emissions is transportation.  Here we need much more efficient cars, which at this moment means hybrids, and at the same time much less cars.  We have to  make public transportation attractive to many people that currently mostly use their car.  Also, we need to be more "bicycle friendly".

GNWR: anything more?

EE: yes, efficiency, efficiency, efficiency that will allow us to reduce our consumption of raw materials, energy, land, etc., while at the same time not overly affect our well-being.

GNWR: so then, there is hope!

EE: as mentioned, technically it is completely feasible but the real issues are political and here we can kill ourselves without really trying. 

GNWR: Thank you very much, Mr. EE.

EE: you are most certainly welcomed!

Low Carbon Economy

Let's make no mistake: every alternative to fossil fuels is considerably more expensive.  The reason we have not moved to a "low carbon" economy is not a philosophical one, it is an economical one. 

However, just as a mind experiment, let's imagine how the world would change if the fundamental means to reduce humanity's carbon emissions was implemented: behavior modifying (in other words, painful) carbon taxes.

Sure, the only way for governments to proceed with this measure is if their citizens, in general, supported these taxes, if not, the governments could be brought down overnight.

But again, this is a mind experiment and thus let's assume that most of the seven billion plus persons on Earth support these taxes.

In order for these taxes to be "behavior modifying" they would have to increase the price of natural gas by, say, 300%, oil 400% and coal by 500%.  The differences in taxing obey to the relative "carbon intensity" of each energy source.

Not to tax all economies to death, these taxes will go hand in hand with the total elimination of all energy subsidies (both to renewables as well as to fossil fuels).  Let's say (and since we are in a planetary emergency) that in five years the full burden of these taxes goes into effect.  On the other hand, these carbon taxes could be "revenue neutral" for governments.

This is what we anticipate will happen:

• SUVs will completely be a thing of the past.
• Car sales will plummet but hybrids will dominate the (much reduced) market.  The smaller the car, the better.  Even then, full electrics will barely dent the market. 
•  Public transportation will flourish as well as "alternate" means of transportation: bicycles, electric scooters, Segways, etc.
• Buildings all over the place will be carefully insulated.
• Public lightning will be upgraded with LED technology and presence sensors: only when a person is near them will the lamps turn on.  These same technologies will be used at home and business: no longer will illumination be left on all night for decorative or safety purposes.
• Air travel will become extremely expensive and consequently its use will plummet.
• There would be an uptick on solar and wind power, but the lion's share of low carbon energy will be supplied by nuclear power.  Massive investments in new nuclear generating capacity will happen all over the world.
• Standards of efficiency will go up on all types of devices: air conditioners, fridges, TVs, computers, etc., but at the same time people will turn them off as soon as they are done using them.
• World trade will decline since fossil fuel vessels transport almost all merchandise.
• Almost everything will go up in price so people and companies will drastically curtail their consumption. 
• Zoning laws will change all over so that tight-nit communities can again be the norm: school, shopping, work, will tend to be walking distance away. 
• Innovation to replace fossil fuels will blossom.  However, no amount of innovation will stop the outrageous increase in energy prices. 
• In spite of efficiency improvements A/C will be so expensive that weather related migrations will be common place. 
• People will NOT necessarily be less happy, because consumption above a certain point doesn't add to happiness. 
• Carbon emissions WILL go down very significantly.

Now, what would happen at the global stage?

• Nations that depend on oil for most of their revenue will fall into a profound depression.  The price of oil (aside from the carbon taxes) will sink almost overnight and its consumption will be severely curtailed. Revolutions will bring down governments on these countries, but the new governments will not be able to cope either with the sudden and catastrophic reductions in revenue.  
• Car companies, airlines, trucking companies will fold left and right.  The wave of bankruptcies won't stop there as almost every other sector of the economy will be profoundly affected.
• China will be among the most affected countries since most of its manufacturing energy comes from coal and additionally transportation costs for its products will rise exponentially. 
• European countries and the USA would be relatively less affected, but the standards of living of their populations will also suffer greatly.
• Highways will be eerily empty and eventually many will be reclaimed for other uses. 
• Although the 21st Century will still be firmly in place (we'll still have our smart phones and other sophisticated technology), energy-wise we will return to the early 1900s.  Energy will be an expensive luxury and only rich people will be able to consume as much as they want.  Anything combustible, including our forests, will be under siege. 
• Food prices will skyrocket. 
• Serious social upheavals will happen all over the world.  The human population will drop considerably. At the same time the climate crisis will seem to be getting even worse due to the inertia of the Earth's systems.

Conclusion: no wonder humanity resists with all its might any reduction in carbon emissions.  In the very short term the medicine certainly seems worse than the sickness, but in the medium and long term not starting to fix the sickness today will almost certainly mean even worse consequences.

Let's all stay tuned...

Greenpeace

This blog entry is dedicated or at least directed to Greenpeace.  It is unbelievable that such an important global organization can be so naive.  It seems that for them all the solutions to the main energy problems of humanity start with a) attacking large corporations and b) converting everything to "renewable" energy.

For example, this Arctic drilling thing.  Why are oil companies trying to do business in one of the most expensive and risky places on Earth? Because of the hunger for oil WE the people have.  If we tamed drastically our craving for oil, then no Arctic oil production would be needed.  As long as humanity doesn't curtail it´s oil use, the Arctic will get more and more attractive.  Why? Because the more difficult it gets to supply the demand, the more the price of oil will increase and the more interesting it will get to drill in the Arctic despite its inherently higher costs (and risks).

So Greenpeace may win this round with the oil industry BUT if we the people don't reduce our oil use, next time drilling in the Arctic will be unavoidable.

Now, with respect to "renewable" energy, it is and it will continue to be a niche energy source.  Why? Because it is not reliable (aaand it is more expensive than conventional energy).

Let's start with solar: sometimes there is sun, and sometimes there is no sun.  By definition at night there is no sun, and in winter the days are shorter than in summer, but at any moment of the year we may have cloudy skies and then the output of the solar panels can drop by as much as 90%.  Bottom line: we need to backup all solar energy with conventional energy, so solar does NOT replace conventional generating capacity.

With wind it is exactly the same thing but the variations are even more dramatic in the sense that significant variations can happen in the span of a few minutes.  And again, all wind capacity needs to be backed up with conventional generating plants.

Sure, renewable supporters are going to say that sun and wind, specially if interconnected to a very large grid will pretty much even out and thus somehow provide base power.  Well, this is just not true and for example in the UK, the coldest days of winter (when the demand for electricity is the highest) have almost no sun and might have no wind either.

Now, for the conventional generating plants, renewable energy is a head ache.  THEY are the ones that have to continually adjust their power generation to adapt to the renewables.  And they cannot shut down and tell their employees to go home because in the next 10 minutes they may need to be back in the generating business.  They need to continue paying the salaries of their people and end up producing less than the capacity of their plants.  Yes, their fuel costs go down, but their costs per kWh go up.  Will they absorb the loss or pass the extra costs to the consumers?  Try to guess the right answer.

Renewables (solar panels and wind turbines) are mature technologies but even today need subsidies to survive and this is one of the reasons electricity rates in Germany are close to TWICE those in France.  Why the subsidies?  Well, first because in most first world countries very little new generating capacity is needed and thus renewables are almost completely surplus (in other words unneeded) capacity.  Spain is the perfect example, at peak hour they need 44 GW but they have a total of 100 GW of installed capacity.  In other words all their renewable capacity was nothing more than an expensive luxury.  Spain has already stopped the madness and thus have pretty much eliminated subsidies for renewable energy.  Germany is still going full steam ahead in this orgy of subsidies but sooner or later they will be forced by reality to change their ways.

So, if we really want to make a dent in humanity's carbon emissions what should we do?

1. REDUCE our energy consumption by a very substantial amount, say 40%.

2. Convert coal electricity generating plants to natural gas (where feasible).  This would reduce emissions by 50%!

3. Long term, the only solution for very low carbon electricity generation is nuclear (sorry, Greenpeace, but these are the facts and no amount of feeling will change them).

4. Buy only hybrid cars, or even better, buy no cars.  (Electric cars are NOT ready for prime time).

5. Commute and travel less (much less).

6. Buy less things (much less).

7. Go vegan.

8. Have less children (why not follow the Chinese in having only one per family?)

Greenpeace, IMHO, should focus its marketing muscle, which is considerable, on the true culprits of global climatic disruption and the destruction of the Earth: we the people.

Only if billions of people change their behavior would we be able to improve the road ahead for the planet and all of us that live on it.

Thank you.