Scotland's wind turbines cover all its electricity needs for a day

[jpak]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/11/scotland-completely-powered-by-wind-turbines-for-a-day

<snip>

Environmental group WWF Scotland said an analysis of data by WeatherEnergy shows wind turbines in Scotland generated power equivalent to more than cover the entire country’s electricity needs.

Turbines in Scotland provided 39,545 megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity to the National Grid on Sunday while the country’s total power consumption for homes, business and industry was 37,202 MWh – meaning wind power generated 106% of Scotland’s electricity needs.

WWF Scotland director Lang Banks said: “While Sunday’s weather caused disruption for many people, it also proved to be a good day for wind power output, with wind turbines alone providing the equivalent of all Scotland’s total electricity needs.

“This major moment was made possible thanks in part to many years of political support, which means that across the year now renewables contribute well over half of our electricity needs.

<more>

[hunter]

1. A couple of nuclear power plants could do this for years at a time, not just a day.

[kristopher]

2. "1. A couple of nuclear power plants could do this for years at a time, not just a day."

Yep, you're against high impact modern culture, that's for sure. Supporting nuclear power (and it's been obvious for years that you are helping promote nuclear) paints all of your professed beliefs in a simpler society as being a complete and total sham.

[hunter]

3. I thought it was a perfect use of the evil grin smiley. Oh well...

I find most sorts of evangelism annoying.

Yes, wind power was queen for a day in Scotland, but day in, day out, fossil fuels still rule.

Once these wind turbines exceed the capacity of the grid to absorb power, the electricity they produce is worthless, and there is less incentive to install more wind turbines.

Storing electricity for more than a day or two at a time is horribly expensive.

In this economic environment wind power can only be supplemental to fossil fuels.

Scotland is a fossil fuel economy, and Germany which also enjoys these "queen for a day" solar and wind moments, is a fossil fuel economy also.

It's window dressing. It's not making the world a better place.

The only possible solution is to ban fossil fuels and see how it shakes out. That's not going to happen, nor are solar and wind going to magically replace fossil fuels.

A hypothetical solar and wind powered economy looks nothing like our existing world economy. A hypothetical nuclear powered economy looks nothing like our existing world economy.

I'm not selling or buying anything and that's anathema to our current economic system.

I still maintain that economic productivity as we now define it is a direct measure of the damage we are doing to the earth's natural environment and our own human spirit.

It really doesn't matter what you are selling -- solar, wind, nuclear power, electric cars, "geothermal" heat pumps, whatever. It's just more stuff. I'm enjoying the six new LED can lights I installed in my kitchen, but I'm not going to pretend that's saving the world.

If I can convince more affluent people to use birth control and celebrate gentle low energy lifestyles, then maybe I'm getting somewhere.

[kristopher]

4. Blah, blah blah blah...

Your positions are ethically inconsistent and transparently false. You are here for no purpose other than to trash talk renewable energy (apparently on behalf of nuclear power).

[hunter]

6. Here's my question:

Is it possible to promote large scale wind and solar projects or to oppose nuclear power without becoming a deliberate or accidental shill for the "natural" gas industry?

In our current economic system the best these large scale solar and wind projects can do is supplement fossil fuels.

An electric grid primarily powered by combined cycle gas plants is not desirable, it does not reverse global warming, it doesn't even slow it down in a world where economies are "growing." Gas is hardly any better than coal, and in the case of fracked gas, it's probably just as bad.

As I said, I have six can lights in my kitchen ceiling and I can replace them with LED lamps as I please. This fact alone almost certainly places me in the top 1% of the world's "consumers." I'm not somebody living in a shack in Cairo, Mexico City, Mumbai, or Rio de Janeiro who might be lucky to have a single light bulb dangling on a wire from the ceiling that only works sometimes. I'm not living on an American Indian reservation with no electricity at all but maybe some solar powered lamp a charity gave me.

Selling solar and wind to wealthy people and opposing nuclear power doesn't address the underlying problems of Environment & Energy.

What's the answer? I don't know. Maybe there isn't one. I do know that cult-like opposition to nuclear power and promotion of huge solar and wind projects that can never be more than supplemental to fossil fuels are not the answer. The math simply doesn't work.

If people in a nation like France or Sweden look at the German or Scots experiment with large scale solar and wind power and the underlying dependence on fossil fuels, and they decide instead that nuclear is not so bad, it's no skin off my nose. But fossil fuels burned anywhere are harmful to the entire planet. There's no denying that.

I'm going to post this link to German electricity numbers again:

https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm

Some people see a glass half full of shit, some see a glass half empty of shit.

Either way, it's a glass of shit.

Germany is a high energy industrial society with a strong work ethic. No matter their dislike of fossil fuels or nuclear power, they were unwilling to give up that economic system. Therefore their high energy industrial society is powered by cheap coal. Transportation, even electric transportation, is powered by fossil fuels. Without some absurdly inexpensive way to "store" surplus electricity for many months, the German energy mix can't be improved upon. Scotland can hardly do any better.

[kristopher]

7. All those faces in your mirror....

[hunter]

8. Hey, hey, hey, hey-now. Don't be mean...

[kristopher]

9. The simple, low impact lifestyle you say you long for....

Russian bear stealth attack for control of #Ukraine nuclear power-generating company
August 15, 2016


Under cover of the aggressive radio noise and propaganda created by Russia’s sabre rattling in the Baltics, Crimea and eastern Ukraine this weekend, Russia is trying by stealth to take over control of Energoatom, the state-owned nuclear power generating company in Ukraine, writes James Wilson.

It is no secret that Russia has coveted this jewel in Ukraine’s industrial crown for many years. Control would give it not only strategic advantage in dictating energy policy to Ukraine, as Energoatom produces more than half of Ukraine’s electric power and is vital for Ukraine’s energy security during the winter. It would also enable Moscow to reverse the steps taken by the current management of the company to diversify supply of nuclear fuel, to build nuclear waste storage facilities in Ukraine, working with Western suppliers such as Holtec and Westinghouse to make Ukraine energy independent.

Nothing would suit Russia better than to return to the old soviet crony style of doing business with monopolistic supply of Russian materials and anti-competitive services from Russian contractors, rewarded with handsome commissions to the corrupt intermediaries in the Ukrainian State Administration that they like to do business with.

The stakes are big, because not only are these huge multi-billion dollar contracts in their own right, but Ukraine has successfully demonstrated to other EU countries which themselves have Russian built nuclear reactors that there is an alternative to relying 100% on the supply of nuclear fuel from Russia. By opening an industrial front in parallel to its military threats, Russia could win this commercial battle without firing a single shot.

According to reliable...

https://www.eureporter.co/frontpage/2016/08/15/russian-bear-stealth-attack-for-control-of-ukraine-nuclear-power-generating-company/

[hunter]

10. I already live a simple low impact lifestyle.

I have no influence on disagreements between Russia and Ukraine.

There's plenty of non-nuclear things that are just as scary as nuclear things.

Nuclear power has fallen off my list of scary things. What else can I say?

The one thing I learned from Fukushima is that if I ever find myself in such a situation, I'll bring my animals along with me or stay with them, no matter what the authorities are saying. I'll also remember that 18,000 people can die in a catastrophe but everyone will be freaking out about far less deadly things. To me that's always seemed horribly disrespectful to those who drowned or were crushed in the churning waters of the tsunami.

[kristopher]

11. You incessantly attack renewables, which push societies to a low impact lifestyle...

...while embracing nuclear, which (as the article shows) push societies towards authoritarian, high impact cultural choices.

[hunter]

12. I'm rather fond of solar parking lots and other solar improvements on already developed land.

Heck, it's a sunny Monday so I'll bet this post is made from a solar powered computer and router, courtesy the excess electricity generated by my solar powered neighbors. (We don't need air conditioning here, so they generate excess on any sunny day.)

What I despise is big solar developments fucking up my previously undeveloped deserts. Or solar panels and wind turbines manufactured in places with lax environmental laws, from materials mined in places with lax environmental laws.

I also think it was despicable how every anti-nuclear cultist saw Fukushima as a god damned Christmas present. For fucks sake, a monster tsunami hit a nuclear power plant and it made a mess. Shit happens.

An oil refinery burned too, and nobody cares what other toxins were spilled, because fucking radioactive toxins are BLACK MAGICAL, unlike fossil fuel wastes, which are apparently no big deal, even though many of them have a half life of FOREVER. Mercury in my fish, pshaw, but a little bit of tritium, oh no, where's my fainting couch?!!

Really? You should see the shit they put in ordinary gasoline. Does that make you fear the self-service pumps?

wikipedia

My brother lives an easy jog from the site of the Santa Susana nuclear accident. As an unrepentant trespasser, especially when I'm jogging, I've been there. When we were kids we used to see how close we could get to rocket engine tests. That was exciting.

The scariest thing about the Santa Susanna Field Laboratory wasn't the nuclear crap, it was all the non nuclear toxins they were careless with. Sometimes they'd throw it all in a pit, add leftover rocket fuel, and light it on fire.



But it's all okay now, they've cleaned all that shit up so now it's safe for developers who will sell their shiny new houses with radioactive granite countertops to silly people will live happily ever after on lands they saturate with toxic pesticides and herbicides because everyone knows the most important thing in the world is a green lawn and no insects.

[kristopher]

13. That's a great sample of the double standards and transparently contrived reasoning ...

...that characterizes your positions. Thanks.

What I despise is big solar developments fucking up my previously undeveloped deserts. Or solar panels and wind turbines manufactured in places with lax environmental laws, from materials mined in places with lax environmental laws.
I also think it was despicable how every anti-nuclear cultist saw Fukushima as a god damned Christmas present. For fucks sake, a monster tsunami hit a nuclear power plant and it made a mess.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=104178

[hunter]

14. Double Standards?

Meanwhile the earth gets hotter... and the only way to stop it is to quit fossil fuels.

Is anybody quitting fossil fuels?

It's dark now. My computer and router are now powered by fracked gas. I've also turned on a light. It's maybe fifty watts electric overall, or 150 watts gas thermal (100 watts of that dumped into the ocean and dissipated in distribution) but clearly I've lost the ethical high ground. I'm spewing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and probably contaminating the groundwater somewhere with fracking waste.

On the other hand, it's yet another fine day I didn't have to drive anywhere. The spiders who live on my car were undisturbed.

I can go really, really low when it comes to fossil fuel use. My baseline is dumpster diving homeless guy. Been there before, and I may be there again someday, but for now my meds are working.

Anybody who participates in this world economy has little claim to be making the world a better place. This world economy is powered by fossil fuels, and fossil fuel use is increasing. Any dollars you make, any dollars you spend, are tainted by fossil fuels.

Doesn't mean we can't try.

[kristopher]

15. Everyone agrees on the problem; it's the solution that is under discussion.

You are maligning the accepted path to a solution and supporting your contrarian position with transparently dishonest arguments related to values surrounding a simple lifestyle. You recall, right? The simple, low impact lifestyle you say you long for? Yet you incessantly attack renewables - which push societies to a low impact lifestyle - while embracing nuclear, which (as the article shows) push societies towards authoritarian, high impact cultural choices.

Russian bear stealth attack for control of #Ukraine nuclear power-generating company
August 15, 2016


Under cover of the aggressive radio noise and propaganda created by Russia’s sabre rattling in the Baltics, Crimea and eastern Ukraine this weekend, Russia is trying by stealth to take over control of Energoatom, the state-owned nuclear power generating company in Ukraine, writes James Wilson.

It is no secret that Russia has coveted this jewel in Ukraine’s industrial crown for many years. Control would give it not only strategic advantage in dictating energy policy to Ukraine, as Energoatom produces more than half of Ukraine’s electric power and is vital for Ukraine’s energy security during the winter. It would also enable Moscow to reverse the steps taken by the current management of the company to diversify supply of nuclear fuel, to build nuclear waste storage facilities in Ukraine, working with Western suppliers such as Holtec and Westinghouse to make Ukraine energy independent.

Nothing would suit Russia better than to return to the old soviet crony style of doing business with monopolistic supply of Russian materials and anti-competitive services from Russian contractors, rewarded with handsome commissions to the corrupt intermediaries in the Ukrainian State Administration that they like to do business with.

The stakes are big, because not only are these huge multi-billion dollar contracts in their own right, but Ukraine has successfully demonstrated to other EU countries which themselves have Russian built nuclear reactors that there is an alternative to relying 100% on the supply of nuclear fuel from Russia. By opening an industrial front in parallel to its military threats, Russia could win this commercial battle without firing a single shot.

According to reliable...

https://www.eureporter.co/frontpage/2016/08/15/russian-bear-stealth-attack-for-control-of-ukraine-nuclear-power-generating-company/

[Nihil]

16. FWIW, you're spot on with this bit:

> I also think it was despicable how every anti-nuclear cultist saw Fukushima
> as a god damned Christmas present. For fucks sake, a monster tsunami hit
> a nuclear power plant and it made a mess. Shit happens.
>
> An oil refinery burned too, and nobody cares what other toxins were spilled,
> because fucking radioactive toxins are BLACK MAGICAL, unlike fossil fuel
> wastes, which are apparently no big deal, even though many of them have
> a half life of FOREVER. Mercury in my fish, pshaw, but a little bit of tritium,
> oh no, where's my fainting couch?!!

Not that you'll get anywhere talking to the person who has been an active
supported of fossil fuels (in the form of "natural" gas) ever since he arrived
here but WTH ... your honest opinion is appreciated amongst all of the misdirection,
FUD and downright spam ...

[kristopher]

17. Knowledge is the key, not dogma

I realize that those immersed in dogmatic thinking have trouble recognizing informed opposition to their ideas, but surely you recall that natural gas emissions are less than coal. The traditional accounting placed it at about 40% of coal, bu, although that number has grown as ongoing research into the well-site management of emissions is being taken into account, it is still overall considerably less than coal.

Please pay attention here as that reduction is only a side benefit of focusing on natural gas as the "bridge" to a renewable, sustainable ultra-low carbon world:
The Primary Benefit is the flexibility that it brings to the grid as coal and nuclear are fundamentally unable to phase directly into a distributed grid built around variable renewable generation.

It isn't complicated conceptually; in fact, it's really simple. Coal and nuclear need to run flat out as much as they can. And every wind turbine or solar panel that is built is taking a bite out of fossil fuel revenues.

Key point:

If it's a fossil fuel (or nuclear) generator that can be operated flexibly, it can adapt economically to decreased market share as a result of increased penetration of variable renewables. If it's a fossil fuel (or nuclear) generator that cannot be operated flexibly, it will not adapt economically to increased penetration of variable renewables. As a consequence, it will either a) fight successfully to derail the expansion of variable renewables, b) go out of business, or c) prevail on the government to throw good money after bad through some very large subsidies of the most counter productive sort as far as carbon emissions planning goes.

The altered economics that the natural gas "bridge" have created are combining with the economic impact of the rapid expansion of solar and wind (which act directly) to strip out the profitability hidden for large scale inflexible generation (coal and nuclear) in short term power auctions. And when you add in regulatory pressure on other toxic coal emissions the shutdown of COAL is well underway.

I presume that is a goal you approve of?

Let me shout: IT IS WORKING.

Did I mention that the 4 largest US coal companies lost 90% of their market capitalization last year?

I presume that is an outcomel you approve of?

And this renewable drive is happening globally. Which is critical, because the declining cost curve of all the elements of grids based on distributed energy resources (DER) is no longer dependent on the patronage of political factions in a small handful of advanced countries.

http://about.bnef.com/press-releases/clean-energy-defies-fossil-fuel-price-crash-to-attract-record-329bn-global-investment-in-2015/

It is now a system where the DER winners out-power (literally and figuratively) the competition. Let me repeat that, it is now a system where the renewable forces are the winners in competition. Several recent analysis have shown that progress is far outstripping projections with most putting us by 2025 at nearly 15 years ahead of where we thought we'd be only 5 years ago. (Hope that makes sense with all the time references.)

Bloomberg also points out:

1) “New markets” run the show. An expanded list of emerging countries committed billions to clean energy last year with record increases, including Mexico ($4.2bn, up 114%), Chile ($3.5bn, up 157%), South Africa ($4.5bn, up 329%) and Morocco ($2bn, up from almost zero in 2014).

2) Costs keep falling. The 2015 renewables installation record is all the more remarkable as cost-competitiveness improvements in solar and wind power mean that more megawatts can be installed for the same price.

3) Wind and solar’s capacity share rises. The 122GW of wind and solar installed in 2015 made up about 50% of the net capacity added in all generation technologies (fossil fuel, nuclear and renewable) globally.

4) No impact from low fossil fuel prices. Neither the 67% plunge in the oil price in the 18 months, nor continuing low prices for coal globally and natural gas in the US restrained the boom in clean energy investment.

5) Europe falls behind. The region saw investment fall 18% to $58.5bn in 2015, its lowest figure since 2006. While UK investment bucked the trend and grew 24%, Germany and France saw their investment levels fall by 42% and 53% respectively.
http://www.bloomberg.com/company/clean-energy-investment/

And allowe me close with these 2 comments from a recent Goldman Sachs analysis:

This is not the beginning of the end for fossil fuels; but marks the end of the beginning for the low carbon economy. Oil, gas and coal generate two-thirds of electricity, power over 75% of industry and fuel 95% of the global transport fleet. However, they also emit c.32 gigatonnes (Gt) of CO2e per annum, and public pressure to find ways to reduce this is increasing (a theme we have highlighted in past reports, see GS SUSTAIN Change is coming: A framework for climate change May 2009; GS SUSTAIN What is the climate for change? October 2013). Solutions range from switching from coal to less polluting gas, boosting efficiency (e.g. in cars), as well as introducing transformative low- carbon technologies, the focus of this report.

While the policy debates often center on 2030 forecasts and 2050 targets, we expect the greatest market dislocations to occur between 2015 and 2025. We estimate that in 2015-2020, new wind and solar installations will add the oil equivalent of 6.2 mn barrels per day (mbpd) to global energy supply. This is more than the 5.7 mbpd US shale oil production added over 2010-15. Our analysts expect China to add 23 GW coal and 40 GW gas power capacity by 2020, but this compares to 193 GW of wind and solar the country will add at the same time. In lighting, our analysts forecast that LEDs will account for 69% of light bulbs sold and over 60% of the installed global base by 2020. In autos, our analysts expect carmakers to sell c.25 mn hybrid and electric vehicles by 2025 –10x more than today and a $600 bn+ revenue opportunity.

The Low Carbon Economy
GS SUSTAIN equity investor’s guide to a low carbon world, 2015-25
Nov. 30, 2015

[hunter]

18. My language and occasional hyperbole is not based in any dogma.

I've got some formal training as a evolutionary biologist and I can do the math. That's not dogma, it's science.

Cultish opposition to nuclear power and blind support of destructive wind and solar projects, turning a blind eye or even covertly supporting the expansion of the "natural" gas industry... now that's some dogma. Squid ink statistics are another characteristic of dogmatic behavior, little different than a preacher who spews a bunch of Bible passages whenever someone challenges his dogma.

As you might have guessed, I don't give a fuck what Goldman Sachs thinks. I wouldn't ask for advice about birth control from the Pope either.

[kristopher]

19. Science is the last thing that underpins your contributions.

You are maligning the accepted path to a solution and supporting your contrarian position with transparently dishonest arguments related to values surrounding a simple lifestyle. You recall, right? The simple, low impact lifestyle you say you long for? Yet you incessantly attack renewables - which push societies to a low impact lifestyle - while embracing nuclear, which (as the article shows) push societies towards authoritarian, high impact cultural choices.

Russian bear stealth attack for control of #Ukraine nuclear power-generating company
August 15, 2016


Under cover of the aggressive radio noise and propaganda created by Russia’s sabre rattling in the Baltics, Crimea and eastern Ukraine this weekend, Russia is trying by stealth to take over control of Energoatom, the state-owned nuclear power generating company in Ukraine, writes James Wilson.

It is no secret that Russia has coveted this jewel in Ukraine’s industrial crown for many years. Control would give it not only strategic advantage in dictating energy policy to Ukraine, as Energoatom produces more than half of Ukraine’s electric power and is vital for Ukraine’s energy security during the winter. It would also enable Moscow to reverse the steps taken by the current management of the company to diversify supply of nuclear fuel, to build nuclear waste storage facilities in Ukraine, working with Western suppliers such as Holtec and Westinghouse to make Ukraine energy independent.

Nothing would suit Russia better than to return to the old soviet crony style of doing business with monopolistic supply of Russian materials and anti-competitive services from Russian contractors, rewarded with handsome commissions to the corrupt intermediaries in the Ukrainian State Administration that they like to do business with.

The stakes are big, because not only are these huge multi-billion dollar contracts in their own right, but Ukraine has successfully demonstrated to other EU countries which themselves have Russian built nuclear reactors that there is an alternative to relying 100% on the supply of nuclear fuel from Russia. By opening an industrial front in parallel to its military threats, Russia could win this commercial battle without firing a single shot.

According to reliable...

https://www.eureporter.co/frontpage/2016/08/15/russian-bear-stealth-attack-for-control-of-ukraine-nuclear-power-generating-company/

[hunter]

20. It's no secret that Russia craves natural gas exports to nations with hard currencies...

I like this one (of many):

Tokyo Gas Wants to Build a Natural Gas Pipeline to Russia

A consultant with Japan’s largest gas company said they are interested in building a $3.5 billion pipeline to obtain Russia’s natural gas at half the cost of its LNG

Tokyo Gas, Japan’s largest gas company, would like to build a gas pipeline from Sakhalin, Russia, to central Japan, Shigeru Muraki, a consultant for the company, said at the third annual Russian-Japanese Forum on Cooperation in Business, Technology and Culture in Tokyo. Muraki said the 1,500 long pipeline would cost $3.5 billion, reports Russia Beyond The Headlines.

According to Muraki, this pipeline would offer an economical alternative to liquefied natural gas (LNG). The Tokyo Gas consultant said that the pipeline gas would cost half as much as the LNG Japan currently imports from Russia, even considering the costs associated with building the pipeline.

http://www.oilandgas360.com/tokyo-gas-wants-to-build-a-natural-gas-pipeline-to-russia/

--more--

Of course it will be more politically acceptable for Japan to import gas from one of the monster Australian gas projects.

None of this stuff makes the world a better place.

I don't think I've yet heard you say anything bad about gas.

The expansion of the gas industry has always been essential to the sort of energy economy you promote, just as it is essential to the "success" of these wind turbines in Scotland.

[kristopher]

21. Still more transparently dishonest arguments?

1) You completely fail to admit the obvious and extreme connection between the nature of nuclear power, high security and technological risks, and the requirement for strong centralized authority. Your article highlights that the recalcitrant authoritarian government which has emerged in Tokyo out of the Fukushima nuclear disaster (it wasn't the tsunami that birthed Abe) is dedicated to both fossil fuels and nuclear. They have no intention of relinquishing the power base those closed nuclear reactors represent to them and they will spend any sum to ensure that chokepoint on energy supply remains under their direct control.

2) Nuclear power is does not shut down coal or gas plants. It's far too expensive even for advanced economies, to say nothing of the needs of the rest of the world. It is inferior to renewables, not superior.

3) Your attempt to slander me due to my science based knowledge on the nature of the problems facing us and the attributes of the technologies available to deal with those problems is par for the course. It's entirely consistent with the bulk of your fact free, empty rhetoric. Natural gas is what natural gas is. I don't treat it in isolation from all other parts of the problem/solution matrix because to do so is either simple-minded idiocy or deliberate sabotage of objective analysis.

4) Lastly, you claim that natural gas turbines are "essential to the sort of energy economy (I) promote". That is a return to the "transparently dishonest" slant you can't seem to stop using. As you well know, EVERY power system configuration is going to incorporate the flexible attribute of natural gas turbine, at a minimum, as a part of reshaping the energy system. Renewable energy, energy efficiency and storage offers the economic profile that can and will steadily supplant the role performed by natural gas. As those resources become less and less expensive, natural gas turbines are able to operate less and less to meet their costs. Unlike nuclear, their operational role as a part of the grid will legitimately command rates that will keep them operating even as their role diminishes.

Should the transition be fundamentally in the direction of nuclear, the nuclear alternatives for load following will be just as they've been with the core element solidly natural gas for the foreseeable future. Also, when I mention load following, that includes the substantial amount of natural spinning reserve that is required in the event any given nuclear plant demonstrates it's lack of reliability with an unannounced, unpredicted SCRAM.

Your assertions are absurd.

[hunter]

22. You have an astonishing ability not to answer direct questions...

...or to reveal anything about your own personal motivations.

Is the market for "green" market instruments and consulting gigs really so fragile that I'm a threat? (Or perhaps you are selling modern nimble combined cycle gas power plants.)



Makes no matter to me, I have no financial interests in the energy industry beyond my utility bill, or the gasoline I occasionally top up my car's gas tank with. (I've heard if you leave your tank near empty for long periods you'll have problems with condensation and corrosion and stuff.)

You're a believer in "natural gas" as a transitional fuel. You just said it in so many words.

I'm not. It's a recipe for catastrophe.

While inexpensive gas is available, and it appears it will be for this century, it will be the primary industrial fuel. Solar and wind are not going to displace it. Nuclear power is not going to replace it. That's not the way our economic system works. Solar panels could be as inexpensive as cheap plywood and they still wouldn't displace gas as a primary energy source. The infrastructure required to support intermittent solar or wind energy sources will always be expensive.

It's astonishing to me how you fear monger about the relationship between authoritarian government and nuclear power. Have fossil fuels caused fewer problems? (I know I wouldn't want to live in Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Iraq...)

Increasing problems with changing climates will also lead to more authoritarian governments. We've seen a little of that in the California drought. Fights over water are serious business, and dealt with in authoritarian ways. Meanwhile the nuclear power plant at Diablo Canyon really hasn't caused me any trouble with the authorities lately. I suppose it would if I decided to trespass, or take a menial temp job there for the purpose of digging through their trash, but I've generally avoided that kind of mischief since I got married and had kids.

[kristopher]

23. totally transparent dishonesty

Just more of the same totally transparent dishonesty and personal attacks. You have yet to actually lay out a cogent factual argument on any position you espouse. You offer plenty of opinion, but no facts or reasoning based on the technologies out there.

I realize that those immersed in dogmatic thinking have trouble recognizing informed opposition to their ideas, but surely you recall that natural gas emissions are less than coal. The traditional accounting placed it at about 40% of coal, bu, although that number has grown as ongoing research into the well-site management of emissions is being taken into account, it is still overall considerably less than coal.

Please pay attention here as that reduction is only a side benefit of focusing on natural gas as the "bridge" to a renewable, sustainable ultra-low carbon world:
The Primary Benefit is the flexibility that it brings to the grid as coal and nuclear are fundamentally unable to phase directly into a distributed grid built around variable renewable generation.

It isn't complicated conceptually; in fact, it's really simple. Coal and nuclear need to run flat out as much as they can. And every wind turbine or solar panel that is built is taking a bite out of fossil fuel revenues.

Key point:

If it's a fossil fuel (or nuclear) generator that can be operated flexibly, it can adapt economically to decreased market share as a result of increased penetration of variable renewables. If it's a fossil fuel (or nuclear) generator that cannot be operated flexibly, it will not adapt economically to increased penetration of variable renewables. As a consequence, it will either a) fight successfully to derail the expansion of variable renewables, b) go out of business, or c) prevail on the government to throw good money after bad through some very large subsidies of the most counter productive sort as far as carbon emissions planning goes.

The altered economics that the natural gas "bridge" have created are combining with the economic impact of the rapid expansion of solar and wind (which act directly) to strip out the profitability hidden for large scale inflexible generation (coal and nuclear) in short term power auctions. And when you add in regulatory pressure on other toxic coal emissions the shutdown of COAL is well underway.

I presume that is a goal you approve of?

Let me shout: IT IS WORKING.

Did I mention that the 4 largest US coal companies lost 90% of their market capitalization last year?

I presume that is an outcomel you approve of?

And this renewable drive is happening globally. Which is critical, because the declining cost curve of all the elements of grids based on distributed energy resources (DER) is no longer dependent on the patronage of political factions in a small handful of advanced countries.

http://about.bnef.com/press-releases/clean-energy-defies-fossil-fuel-price-crash-to-attract-record-329bn-global-investment-in-2015/

It is now a system where the DER winners out-power (literally and figuratively) the competition. Let me repeat that, it is now a system where the renewable forces are the winners in competition. Several recent analysis have shown that progress is far outstripping projections with most putting us by 2025 at nearly 15 years ahead of where we thought we'd be only 5 years ago. (Hope that makes sense with all the time references.)

Bloomberg also points out:

1) “New markets” run the show. An expanded list of emerging countries committed billions to clean energy last year with record increases, including Mexico ($4.2bn, up 114%), Chile ($3.5bn, up 157%), South Africa ($4.5bn, up 329%) and Morocco ($2bn, up from almost zero in 2014).

2) Costs keep falling. The 2015 renewables installation record is all the more remarkable as cost-competitiveness improvements in solar and wind power mean that more megawatts can be installed for the same price.

3) Wind and solar’s capacity share rises. The 122GW of wind and solar installed in 2015 made up about 50% of the net capacity added in all generation technologies (fossil fuel, nuclear and renewable) globally.

4) No impact from low fossil fuel prices. Neither the 67% plunge in the oil price in the 18 months, nor continuing low prices for coal globally and natural gas in the US restrained the boom in clean energy investment.

5) Europe falls behind. The region saw investment fall 18% to $58.5bn in 2015, its lowest figure since 2006. While UK investment bucked the trend and grew 24%, Germany and France saw their investment levels fall by 42% and 53% respectively.
http://www.bloomberg.com/company/clean-energy-investment/

And allowe me close with these 2 comments from a recent Goldman Sachs analysis:

This is not the beginning of the end for fossil fuels; but marks the end of the beginning for the low carbon economy. Oil, gas and coal generate two-thirds of electricity, power over 75% of industry and fuel 95% of the global transport fleet. However, they also emit c.32 gigatonnes (Gt) of CO2e per annum, and public pressure to find ways to reduce this is increasing (a theme we have highlighted in past reports, see GS SUSTAIN Change is coming: A framework for climate change May 2009; GS SUSTAIN What is the climate for change? October 2013). Solutions range from switching from coal to less polluting gas, boosting efficiency (e.g. in cars), as well as introducing transformative low- carbon technologies, the focus of this report.

While the policy debates often center on 2030 forecasts and 2050 targets, we expect the greatest market dislocations to occur between 2015 and 2025. We estimate that in 2015-2020, new wind and solar installations will add the oil equivalent of 6.2 mn barrels per day (mbpd) to global energy supply. This is more than the 5.7 mbpd US shale oil production added over 2010-15. Our analysts expect China to add 23 GW coal and 40 GW gas power capacity by 2020, but this compares to 193 GW of wind and solar the country will add at the same time. In lighting, our analysts forecast that LEDs will account for 69% of light bulbs sold and over 60% of the installed global base by 2020. In autos, our analysts expect carmakers to sell c.25 mn hybrid and electric vehicles by 2025 –10x more than today and a $600 bn+ revenue opportunity.

The Low Carbon Economy
GS SUSTAIN equity investor’s guide to a low carbon world, 2015-25
Nov. 30, 2015

[hunter]

24. I remember attending a few lectures by Barry Commoner explaining his dreams for gas.

Much of that has come to pass. Well, except for the part about large scale production of methane from non-fossil sources, which we can be thankful for because most biofuels have utterly horrible environmental impacts.

What you are advocating is that we ride the express gas-fired train to hell, not the higher speed coal-fired train to hell.

Being better than coal is a pathetic thing to strive for.

Back to the original topic, here's something interesting:

NorthConnect granted Electricity Interconnector Licence

NorthConnect this week received the interconnector operating license from Ofgem. The project is now preparing for an application to the regulator for a financial arrangement which governs revenues on the 650km interconnector, known as “cap and floor". The NorthConnect partners strongly feel that the project offers good value to the UK consumer and once built would help forge a strong complementary industrial relationship between Scotland’s world class wind sector and Norway’s hydro capacity. On the Scottish side of the project, the development team is now preparing a planning application for subsea infrastructure works and near shore connections on the Aberdeenshire coast.

--more--

http://www.northconnect.no

Germany likewise expects to use Norway as a hydroelectric battery and backup power supply. At some point Norway will have to expand it's hydro capacity and burn more gas, especially now as they have embraced electric automobiles.

Hydro is not a benign power source, and furthermore, economic dependence on hydro in a changing climate is dangerous, as Venezuela has demonstrated.

Venezuela's energy mix was very similar to Norway's until the rain stopped falling. (Silly Venezuelans, they should have embraced capitalism, and borrowed lots of dollars and euros to build many shiny new combined cycle gas plants. What's good for Siemens is good for the world!)

Anyways, it's been fun seeing an enthusiastic cheerleader for the expanding international gas industry decloak.

Yes, I still maintain the solar and wind stuff is mere feel-good window dressing. Watching the ExxonMobil advertising on the NBC Olympic coverage, hearing the breathless financial reporting of Bloomberg and Goldman Sachs, only makes me more certain of that.

[kristopher]

25. You apparently can't make a post that isn't overtly dishonest

First a reminder - we're having this exchange because you are dedicated to maligning the roll out of RENEWABLE ENERGY in favor of NUCLEAR ENERGY.


Now you say in response to my clear arguments (reposted below):

What you are advocating is that we ride the express gas-fired train to hell, not the higher speed coal-fired train to hell.

Just more of the same totally transparent dishonesty and personal attacks. You have yet to actually lay out a cogent factual argument on any position you espouse. You offer plenty of opinion, but no facts or reasoning based on the technologies out there.

I realize that those immersed in dogmatic thinking have trouble recognizing informed opposition to their ideas, but surely you recall that natural gas emissions are less than coal. The traditional accounting placed it at about 40% of coal, bu, although that number has grown as ongoing research into the well-site management of emissions is being taken into account, it is still overall considerably less than coal.

Please pay attention here as that reduction is only a side benefit of focusing on natural gas as the "bridge" to a renewable, sustainable ultra-low carbon world:
The Primary Benefit is the flexibility that it brings to the grid as coal and nuclear are fundamentally unable to phase directly into a distributed grid built around variable renewable generation.

It isn't complicated conceptually; in fact, it's really simple. Coal and nuclear need to run flat out as much as they can. And every wind turbine or solar panel that is built is taking a bite out of fossil fuel revenues.

Key point:

If it's a fossil fuel (or nuclear) generator that can be operated flexibly, it can adapt economically to decreased market share as a result of increased penetration of variable renewables. If it's a fossil fuel (or nuclear) generator that cannot be operated flexibly, it will not adapt economically to increased penetration of variable renewables. As a consequence, it will either a) fight successfully to derail the expansion of variable renewables, b) go out of business, or c) prevail on the government to throw good money after bad through some very large subsidies of the most counter productive sort as far as carbon emissions planning goes.

The altered economics that the natural gas "bridge" have created are combining with the economic impact of the rapid expansion of solar and wind (which act directly) to strip out the profitability hidden for large scale inflexible generation (coal and nuclear) in short term power auctions. And when you add in regulatory pressure on other toxic coal emissions the shutdown of COAL is well underway.

I presume that is a goal you approve of?

Let me shout: IT IS WORKING.

Did I mention that the 4 largest US coal companies lost 90% of their market capitalization last year?

I presume that is an outcomel you approve of?

And this renewable drive is happening globally. Which is critical, because the declining cost curve of all the elements of grids based on distributed energy resources (DER) is no longer dependent on the patronage of political factions in a small handful of advanced countries.

http://about.bnef.com/press-releases/clean-energy-defies-fossil-fuel-price-crash-to-attract-record-329bn-global-investment-in-2015/

It is now a system where the DER winners out-power (literally and figuratively) the competition. Let me repeat that, it is now a system where the renewable forces are the winners in competition. Several recent analysis have shown that progress is far outstripping projections with most putting us by 2025 at nearly 15 years ahead of where we thought we'd be only 5 years ago. (Hope that makes sense with all the time references.)

Bloomberg also points out:

1) “New markets” run the show. An expanded list of emerging countries committed billions to clean energy last year with record increases, including Mexico ($4.2bn, up 114%), Chile ($3.5bn, up 157%), South Africa ($4.5bn, up 329%) and Morocco ($2bn, up from almost zero in 2014).

2) Costs keep falling. The 2015 renewables installation record is all the more remarkable as cost-competitiveness improvements in solar and wind power mean that more megawatts can be installed for the same price.

3) Wind and solar’s capacity share rises. The 122GW of wind and solar installed in 2015 made up about 50% of the net capacity added in all generation technologies (fossil fuel, nuclear and renewable) globally.

4) No impact from low fossil fuel prices. Neither the 67% plunge in the oil price in the 18 months, nor continuing low prices for coal globally and natural gas in the US restrained the boom in clean energy investment.

5) Europe falls behind. The region saw investment fall 18% to $58.5bn in 2015, its lowest figure since 2006. While UK investment bucked the trend and grew 24%, Germany and France saw their investment levels fall by 42% and 53% respectively.
http://www.bloomberg.com/company/clean-energy-investment/

And allowe me close with these 2 comments from a recent Goldman Sachs analysis:

This is not the beginning of the end for fossil fuels; but marks the end of the beginning for the low carbon economy. Oil, gas and coal generate two-thirds of electricity, power over 75% of industry and fuel 95% of the global transport fleet. However, they also emit c.32 gigatonnes (Gt) of CO2e per annum, and public pressure to find ways to reduce this is increasing (a theme we have highlighted in past reports, see GS SUSTAIN Change is coming: A framework for climate change May 2009; GS SUSTAIN What is the climate for change? October 2013). Solutions range from switching from coal to less polluting gas, boosting efficiency (e.g. in cars), as well as introducing transformative low- carbon technologies, the focus of this report.

While the policy debates often center on 2030 forecasts and 2050 targets, we expect the greatest market dislocations to occur between 2015 and 2025. We estimate that in 2015-2020, new wind and solar installations will add the oil equivalent of 6.2 mn barrels per day (mbpd) to global energy supply. This is more than the 5.7 mbpd US shale oil production added over 2010-15. Our analysts expect China to add 23 GW coal and 40 GW gas power capacity by 2020, but this compares to 193 GW of wind and solar the country will add at the same time. In lighting, our analysts forecast that LEDs will account for 69% of light bulbs sold and over 60% of the installed global base by 2020. In autos, our analysts expect carmakers to sell c.25 mn hybrid and electric vehicles by 2025 –10x more than today and a $600 bn+ revenue opportunity.

The Low Carbon Economy
GS SUSTAIN equity investor’s guide to a low carbon world, 2015-25
Nov. 30, 2015

[hunter]

26. Here's a Barry Commoner article from 1979.

I was up to all sorts of mischief in 1979.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1979/04/23/i-the-solar-transition

The stuff you're selling is past its expiration date.

No matter how many times you tell me I'm dishonest the crap on the table just sits there getting stinkier and stinkier.

If you support improved standards of living for increasing numbers of humans then a gas powered economy with a greenwashing of wind and solar isn't going to cut it. Increasing gas consumption will only make climate change worse, which means increasing numbers of people will suffer and die.

Gas consumption is increasing.

Barry Commoner was wrong. Amory Lovins was wrong.

The only way to quit fossil fuels is to quit fossil fuels. Nothing is going to "supplant" fossil fuels in the twisted and cruel economic system you celebrate; not solar, not wind, not nuclear power. Goldman Sachs and Bloomberg are blind, all they see is money. Money makes its own reality until that reality collapses, sometimes catastrophically.

Oh, you'd better call me dishonest again. I don't care. It's your reality, not mine.

[kristopher]

27. You have an opinion. The facts on the ground say you are wrong.

And the hypocrisy of someone making the claims you make while also promoting nuclear energy is staggering.

[hunter]

28. On the ground, and in support your cut and paste habit...

INTERNATIONAL ENERGY OUTLOOK 2016

Chapter 3. Natural gas

Overview

Consumption of natural gas worldwide is projected to increase from 120 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) in 2012 to 203 Tcf in 2040 in the International Energy Outlook 2016 (IEO2016) Reference case. By energy source, natural gas accounts for the largest increase in world primary energy consumption. Abundant natural gas resources and robust production contribute to the strong competitive position of natural gas among other resources. Natural gas remains a key fuel in the electric power sector and in the industrial sector. In the power sector, natural gas is an attractive choice for new generating plants because of its fuel efficiency. Natural gas also burns cleaner than coal or petroleum products, and as more governments begin implementing national or regional plans to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, they may encourage the use of natural gas to displace more carbon-intensive coal and liquid fuels.

World consumption of natural gas for industrial uses increases by an average of 1.7%/year, and natural gas consumption in the electric power sector increases by 2.2%/year, from 2012 to 2040 in the IEO2016 Reference case. The industrial and electric power sectors together account for 73% of the total increase in world natural gas consumption, and they account for about 74% of total natural gas consumption through 2040.

Consumption of natural gas increases in every IEO region, with demand in nations outside the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (non-OECD) increasing more than twice as fast as in the OECD (Figure 3-1). The strongest growth in natural gas consumption is projected for the countries of non-OECD Asia, where economic growth leads to increased demand. Natural gas consumption in the non-OECD region grows by an average of 2.5%/year from 2012 to 2040, compared with 1.1%/year in the OECD countries. As a result, non-OECD countries account for 76% of the total world increment in natural gas consumption, and their share of world natural gas use grows from 52% in 2012 to 62% in 2040.



--greater horrors follow at link--

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/nat_gas.cfm

But fear not, there's plenty of room for further solar and wind development on this train to hell.

[kristopher]

29. That barely responds to the points raised

Only this section is even marginally relevant to the discussion we've been having - how the US is to transition away from carbon.

Natural gas consumption in the non-OECD region grows by an average of 2.5%/year from 2012 to 2040, compared with 1.1%/year in the OECD countries. As a result, non-OECD countries account for 76% of the total world increment in natural gas consumption, and their share of world natural gas use grows from 52% in 2012 to 62% in 2040.

Energy-related CO2 emissions from natural gas surpass coal as fuel use patterns change


Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Short-Term Energy Outlook (August 2016) and Monthly Energy Review
Republished on August 17, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. to correct the units for carbon dioxide intensities.

Energy-associated carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from natural gas are expected to surpass those from coal for the first time since 1972. Even though natural gas is less carbon-intensive than coal, increases in natural gas consumption and decreases in coal consumption in the past decade have resulted in natural gas-related CO2 emissions surpassing those from coal. EIA's latest Short-Term Energy Outlook projects energy-related CO2 emissions from natural gas to be 10% greater than those from coal in 2016.

From 1990 to about 2005, consumption of coal and natural gas in the United States was relatively similar, but their emissions were different. Coal is more carbon-intensive than natural gas. The consumption of natural gas results in about 52 million metric tons of CO2 for every quadrillion British thermal units (MMmtCO2/quad Btu), while coal's carbon intensity is about 95 MMmtCO2/quad Btu, or about 82% higher than natural gas's carbon intensity. Because coal has a higher carbon intensity, even in a year when consumption of coal and natural gas were nearly equal, such as 2005, energy-related CO2 emissions from coal were about 84% higher than those from natural gas.

In 2015, natural gas consumption was 81% higher than coal consumption, and their emissions were nearly equal. Both fuels were associated with about 1.5 billion metric tons of energy-related CO2 emissions in the United States in 2015.



Annual carbon intensity rates in the United States have generally been decreasing since 2005. The U.S. total carbon intensity rate reflects the relative consumption of fuels and those fuels' relative carbon intensities. Petroleum, at about 65 MMmtCO2/quad Btu, is less carbon-intensive than coal but more carbon-intensive than natural gas. Petroleum accounts for a larger share of U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions because of its high levels of consumption.

Another contributing factor to lower carbon intensity is increased consumption of fuels that produce no carbon dioxide, such as nuclear-powered electricity and renewable energy. As these fuels make up a larger share of U.S. energy consumption, the U.S. average carbon intensity declines. Although use of natural gas and petroleum have increased in recent years, the decline in coal consumption and increase in nonfossil fuel consumption have lowered U.S. total carbon intensity from 60 MMmtCO2/quad Btu in 2005 to 54 MMmtCO2/quad Btu in 2015.

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=27552

Nuclear is built on a business model of growth in energy consumption.
Renewables are built on a business model that embraces and encourages energy conservation and efficiency.

The developing countries are going to follow the most cost effective path to energy security. Contrary to the nearly-always-wrong EIA's projection, that is increasingly to be found in renewable development. If you have a reality based way to do it more quickly, let's hear it.

[caraher]

30. Whoever posts last wins the thread, right?

The tenacity on display here by both participants is something to behold!

[kristopher]

31. Can't deny that is part of the dynamic...

But speaking for myself, I'm really, really tired of the pronuclear/anti-renewable nonsense that goes unchallenged.

[hunter]

32. I was going to post those same charts as something terrifying, not with any optimism.

Sure, someday soon, carbon dioxide emissions from gas are going to surpass those of petroleum, just as they've surpassed those of coal.

Big fucking deal. It's like claiming you've quit smoking because you switched to "light" cigarettes, or you've quit drinking by switching to "light" beer.

As I said, everyone who believes in the Commoner/Lovins plan for reducing carbon emissions is a willing or witless shill for the gas industry and a climate change denier.

My own perspective is not pro-nuclear or anti-nuclear. I'm largely indifferent to nuclear power and that's what irritates the hell out of Kristopher who somehow thinks I should be terrified that California might become a fascist radioactive hell if we don't shut Diablo Canyon RIGHT NOW! Well, I suppose some nuclear catastrophe is possible, but TODAY, in this REALITY, climate change and unwise development are biting California in the ass.

I still think we can crash land this high energy industrial society softly, but it won't be because affluent people are buying more stuff, even if that stuff is combined cycle gas power plants pimp dressed with shiny solar and wind power bling. I'm already living in a place with that sort of power mix and it's not good enough, and it can't be expanded to impoverished people worldwide without dire consequences.

Other than being amazed that I'm alive to witness one of earth's great extinction events, since I am by inclination an amateur paleontologist with some formal training, I do think there are some things we affluent people can do to escape the worst of terrors we have wrought.

We can accept climate change refugees gracefully. We can encourage family planning. We can reject war. We can subsidize and encourage people who are exploring lifestyles that have low environmental impacts. (Do I need a refrigerator or a clothes dryer or a car? Can I survive as an artist? Can I work at home? Can I enjoy life as a vegetarian? What are the basic things I need to be happy?)

Most of all we have to recognize that this thing we now call economic "productivity" is a direct measure of the damage we are doing to the natural environment and our own human spirit.

[kristopher]

33. Overtly dishonest and contrived arguments

"Big fucking deal. It's like claiming you've quit smoking because you switched to "light" cigarettes, or you've quit drinking by switching to "light" beer."

No it isn't; it is NOTHING like that. That's a contrived, strained and totally inapt analogy which is self serving hogwash. We are discussing the energy system that powers civilization - try to stay focused.

As I said, everyone who believes in the Commoner/Lovins plan for reducing carbon emissions is a willing or witless shill for the gas industry and a climate change denier.

Bullshit. You've presented no viable argument to support that assertion and the facts in opposition to that claim are crystal clear about it being false. It's just an empty and false claim by a nuclear power supporter. You seem to think that if you say it enough times it will somehow become true. That isn't the way it works.

My own perspective is not pro-nuclear or anti-nuclear. I'm largely indifferent to nuclear power and that's what irritates the hell out of Kristopher who somehow thinks I should be terrified that California might become a fascist radioactive hell if we don't shut Diablo Canyon RIGHT NOW! Well, I suppose some nuclear catastrophe is possible, but TODAY, in this REALITY, climate change and unwise development are biting California in the ass.

Your writing over nearly 10 years says that you ARE a strong supporter of nuclear power. You attempt to have your anti-renewable efforts legitimized by claiming indifference, but you're preferences are as clear as a lovesick teen mooning over his first romantic crush.
We can see that self-delusion at work in your twisting of the objections raised against your love. Acting as if a snapshot in time of one instance (California, now, Diablo) disproves everything we know about culture and the way infrastructure shapes our social structure is the behavior of an oblivious adolescent who is in the irrational, hormone dominated thrall of their first love.
Stability in societies is more the exception than the rule. Building an infrastructure around dual-use, dangerous technologies like nuclear is nothing short of stupid. Especially when there is a functionally better, far less expensive alternative staring you in the face.
https://www.eureporter.co/frontpage/2016/08/15/russian-bear-stealth-attack-for-control-of-ukraine-nuclear-power-generating-company/

And here is the kicker - you want hard path nuclear to perform the soft path task we KNOW it cannot perform.

I still think we can crash land this high energy industrial society softly, but it won't be because affluent people are buying more stuff, even if that stuff is combined cycle gas power plants pimp dressed with shiny solar and wind power bling. I'm already living in a place with that sort of power mix and it's not good enough, and it can't be expanded to impoverished people worldwide without dire consequences.

No hunter, that isn't true. You've shown no path were nuclear can do what you claim to desire. Have you EVER seen a nuclear oriented system that promotes efficiency or reduced power usage? No, you haven't. Nuclear is a black-box system where end users are encouraged by investors to consume more in order to fill up the excess generating capacity created when planners designed the plant. And what happens as consumption expands to where it approaches the limits of the new generator? Planners get nervous about not being able to meet future demand and start planning for more generation.
That is a well known and established cycle that we've seen play out untold times with coal and nuclear. They are two sides of the same centralized generating coin. Nothing is changed unless something fundamental is changed about that system itself.
That is what DISTRIBUTED GENERATION does - it moves us to a system where the internal dynamics of investment and decision-making have completely different consequences. The benefits of that distributed system are what you are trying to claim flows from the fossil/nuclear CENTRALIZED GENERATION system. No one in the world who understands power systems and culture accepts your proposition as anything other than the overtly contrived propaganda which it is.

[hunter]

34. It's a horrible realization for any affluent person...

... that they could be making the world a better place simply by sitting down on their front porch and popping open a can of beer or lighting a joint.

I used to belong to the Sierra Club in a very wealthy city. It was a bunch of white people who were among the biggest fossil fuel hogs on the planet. They'd be flying to places like Tibet for their spiritual environmental experiences, and in their work as "successful" people, and in their day-to-day lives as "consumers," they were fucking over the ecosphere and their fellow human beings.

I'm simply not buying what you are selling, Kristopher. What's the problem? Isn't that the way free markets are supposed to work?

[kristopher]

35. You are selling known false claims and pure, pronuclear/antirenewable bullshit.

Now you are drifting (as always) into conflating your false claims about the known technical issues with an attempt to prosecute liberal activists that serve the public interests. It's the same tactic that climate deniers employ when they try to negate the message of Al Gore by criticizing his lifestyle.

Your arguments, such as the are, have been shown to be completely dishonest and contrived idiocy.

[hunter]

36. I'll be here all week, thanks.

Meanwhile, examine the German experience. Cut away the hypocrisy of coal fired heavy industry and fossil fueled transportation, embrace HVDC lines to Norway and god knows where else. What have you got?

Make the math work for me...

When Buckminster Fuller was asked by a 12 year old boy, How would you suggest solving international problems without violence? he answered: I always try to solve problems by some artifact, some tool or invention that makes what people are doing obsolete, so that it makes this particular kind of problem no longer relevant. My answer would be to develop a world energy grid, an electric grid where everybody is on the same grid.

http://www.geni.org/globalenergy/library/newsletters/1995/buckminster-fuller-on-the-global-energy-grid.shtml

When I was 12 years old I knew fucking everything.

Now I realize I don't know anything.

[kristopher]

37. Just as soon as you honestly address the dozen or so points ...

...you've tried to slink away from above.

Some light reading while we wait:

See http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/many-in-nation-tired-of-explaining-things-to-idiots
Hat tip to http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028107945

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/comparing-energy-poverty-germany-countries-79480

http://cleantechnica.com/2016/08/15/44-ways-can-slow-solar-century/


http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/people-power-secret-reliable-clean-energy-53147
+
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/fossil-fuel-generators-demand-kings-ransom-for-energy-security-24707

[hunter]

40. Nope, that's not math.

And I've read it all.

When I was twelve our family was Quaker.

My mom had been kicked out of many churches before that, sometimes by big guys who were by all appearances bouncers.

Churches with bouncers, who knew?

The Quakers would listen to my mom respectfully and then they would move on. And some of the stuff she said stuck. There was no such thing as heresy.

I'm a heretic in religion and many other aspects of my life.

Bloody hell I can even participate in a Catholic Mass which is something that became impossible for my mom, who had wanted to be a nun until she met a hard drinking, hard smoking, lecherous but hands off Catholic Priest. But then my mom met my dad and made a big Catholic family, and she kept on going until she decided that maybe more kids wasn't a good idea and she became an evangelist for birth control. Me and my siblings knew everything about sex and birth control before having sex was in issue for us. Later on me and my siblings reproduced with great care and thoughtfulness, averaging less than two children each.

My wife's Catholic family is similar. She has many siblings too but our kids and their cousins represent a declining population.

It is math.

So is energy.

Your promotion of distributed energy is an old idea, just as I've demonstrated to you. Buckminster Fuller's apostles claim 1938.

I first met Fuller when I was twelve, but I won't claim to be that kid.

At twelve I was an autistic spectrum freak obsessing about network topologies, a kid with a religiously insane mom. Any sanity I claim today I owe to my more practical artist dad. His dad was an engineer rocket scientist for the Apollo project. My grandpa could keep it together for work, he was a wizard with titanium, but his personal life was always a flaming catastrophe. He'd quit alcohol and cigarettes for amphetamines prescribed by sketchy doctors. I think Paul Erdős was a similar soul, but with greater brilliance. Hah, hah, my grandpa lived into his nineties and it was the Type II diabetes that killed him. My grandma, his wife, was my only normal grandparent.

Back to math. I see no evidence of you doing the math. All you do is cut and paste. Dogmatically.

Yep, in my sordid youth, I've met and corresponded with Buckminster Fuller, Barry Commoner, Amory and Hunter Lovins, even Helen Caldicott. I've burned many bridges too. But I won't claim to be any sort of iconoclast because I don't believe any of that shit matters anymore. My fun recollections include dinner with Hans Bethe and a fantastically random lunch with Robert Ballard where we discussed the evolution of sharks and dolphins.

Show me the math.

Otherwise it's just a pile of Amory Lovin's "more interns, more interns!" crap.

Here's a question for you to ponder:

Why are tree leaves green?

If nature gave a flying fuck about "efficiency" wouldn't tree leaves be black?

[kristopher]

42. more of your transparently contrived avoidance...

How does a nuclear centric grid enable a transition away from carbon and what are the economic forces that work to make it better than coal?

How does a nuclear centric grid work without larger quantities of natural gas than renewables Remember, we can add renewables rapidly and economically at a small scale.

How does nuclear get financed? The negative learning curve has propelled the price into the stratosphere; how does that overcome the price advantage of even coal, let alone natural gas?

These questions are where the arithmetic that is meaningful to change is focused.

[NickB79]

38. I wonder if that article factored in the fugitive gas emissions from expanding nat gas use

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/earth/methane-regulations/

If Ingraffea is right, the amount of methane released into the atmosphere from oil and gas wells, pipelines, processing and storage facilities has a warming affect approaching that of the country’s 557 coal fired power plants. Reducing such a high rate of emissions by 40–45% would certainly help stall climate change. It would also likely be much more difficult to achieve than the cuts industry and environmental groups are currently debating.

http://www.livescience.com/52715-natural-gas-not-as-clean-as-people-think.html

Natural gas produces about half as much carbon dioxide as coal, but it can wreak havoc if it escapes into the atmosphere unburned. That's because natural gas is comprised mostly of methane, an extremely potent greenhouse gas. Over the course of a century, methane will trap 34 times as much heat as an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide.

Problematically, natural gas is prone to leaking from pipelines, wellheads, and the nooks and crannies of processing and storage facilities. "Accounting for methane leakage throughout the supply chain of natural gas, natural gas might actually be worse for the climate than coal," said Lena Moffitt, director of the Sierra Club's Stop Dirty Fuels Campaign, at a panel on energy hosted by Politico.

As NOVA Next reported, it's conceivable that leaked methane from the U.S. oil and gas sector is warming the atmosphere as much as America's 557 coal-fired power plants. [Nearly 6,000 Natural Gas Leaks Found in Washington, D.C. ]

Thus, while the United States' embrace of natural gas has cut carbon dioxide emissions, the country might not have put a dent in total greenhouse gas emissions, which include methane.

Oh, who the fuck are we kidding, we all know they didn't.

[kristopher]

39. You'd probably be better off addressing your question to hunter

He's the one that selected EIA as his source:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=104258

The front page of their website is here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=104260

My comments on the topic were much earlier in the thread, here:

I realize that those immersed in dogmatic thinking have trouble recognizing informed opposition to their ideas, but surely you recall that natural gas emissions are less than coal. The traditional accounting placed it at about 40% of coal, bu, although that number has grown as ongoing research into the well-site management of emissions is being taken into account, it is still overall considerably less than coal.

Please pay attention here as that reduction is only a side benefit of focusing on natural gas as the "bridge" to a renewable, sustainable ultra-low carbon world:
The Primary Benefit is the flexibility that it brings to the grid as coal and nuclear are fundamentally unable to phase directly into a distributed grid built around variable renewable generation.

It isn't complicated conceptually; in fact, it's really simple. Coal and nuclear need to run flat out as much as they can. And every wind turbine or solar panel that is built is taking a bite out of fossil fuel revenues.

Key point:

If it's a fossil fuel (or nuclear) generator that can be operated flexibly, it can adapt economically to decreased market share as a result of increased penetration of variable renewables. If it's a fossil fuel (or nuclear) generator that cannot be operated flexibly, it will not adapt economically to increased penetration of variable renewables. As a consequence, it will either a) fight successfully to derail the expansion of variable renewables, b) go out of business, or c) prevail on the government to throw good money after bad through some very large subsidies of the most counter productive sort as far as carbon emissions planning goes.

The altered economics that the natural gas "bridge" have created are combining with the economic impact of the rapid expansion of solar and wind (which act directly) to strip out the profitability hidden for large scale inflexible generation (coal and nuclear) in short term power auctions. And when you add in regulatory pressure on other toxic coal emissions the shutdown of COAL is well underway.

I presume that is a goal you approve of?

Let me shout: IT IS WORKING.

Did I mention that the 4 largest US coal companies lost 90% of their market capitalization last year?

I presume that is an outcomel you approve of?

And this renewable drive is happening globally. Which is critical, because the declining cost curve of all the elements of grids based on distributed energy resources (DER) is no longer dependent on the patronage of political factions in a small handful of advanced countries.

http://about.bnef.com/press-releases/clean-energy-defies-fossil-fuel-price-crash-to-attract-record-329bn-global-investment-in-2015/

It is now a system where the DER winners out-power (literally and figuratively) the competition. Let me repeat that, it is now a system where the renewable forces are the winners in competition. Several recent analysis have shown that progress is far outstripping projections with most putting us by 2025 at nearly 15 years ahead of where we thought we'd be only 5 years ago. (Hope that makes sense with all the time references.)

Bloomberg also points out:

1) “New markets” run the show. An expanded list of emerging countries committed billions to clean energy last year with record increases, including Mexico ($4.2bn, up 114%), Chile ($3.5bn, up 157%), South Africa ($4.5bn, up 329%) and Morocco ($2bn, up from almost zero in 2014).

2) Costs keep falling. The 2015 renewables installation record is all the more remarkable as cost-competitiveness improvements in solar and wind power mean that more megawatts can be installed for the same price.

3) Wind and solar’s capacity share rises. The 122GW of wind and solar installed in 2015 made up about 50% of the net capacity added in all generation technologies (fossil fuel, nuclear and renewable) globally.

4) No impact from low fossil fuel prices. Neither the 67% plunge in the oil price in the 18 months, nor continuing low prices for coal globally and natural gas in the US restrained the boom in clean energy investment.

5) Europe falls behind. The region saw investment fall 18% to $58.5bn in 2015, its lowest figure since 2006. While UK investment bucked the trend and grew 24%, Germany and France saw their investment levels fall by 42% and 53% respectively.
http://www.bloomberg.com/company/clean-energy-investment/

And allowe me close with these 2 comments from a recent Goldman Sachs analysis:

This is not the beginning of the end for fossil fuels; but marks the end of the beginning for the low carbon economy. Oil, gas and coal generate two-thirds of electricity, power over 75% of industry and fuel 95% of the global transport fleet. However, they also emit c.32 gigatonnes (Gt) of CO2e per annum, and public pressure to find ways to reduce this is increasing (a theme we have highlighted in past reports, see GS SUSTAIN Change is coming: A framework for climate change May 2009; GS SUSTAIN What is the climate for change? October 2013). Solutions range from switching from coal to less polluting gas, boosting efficiency (e.g. in cars), as well as introducing transformative low- carbon technologies, the focus of this report.

While the policy debates often center on 2030 forecasts and 2050 targets, we expect the greatest market dislocations to occur between 2015 and 2025. We estimate that in 2015-2020, new wind and solar installations will add the oil equivalent of 6.2 mn barrels per day (mbpd) to global energy supply. This is more than the 5.7 mbpd US shale oil production added over 2010-15. Our analysts expect China to add 23 GW coal and 40 GW gas power capacity by 2020, but this compares to 193 GW of wind and solar the country will add at the same time. In lighting, our analysts forecast that LEDs will account for 69% of light bulbs sold and over 60% of the installed global base by 2020. In autos, our analysts expect carmakers to sell c.25 mn hybrid and electric vehicles by 2025 –10x more than today and a $600 bn+ revenue opportunity.

The Low Carbon Economy
GS SUSTAIN equity investor’s guide to a low carbon world, 2015-25
Nov. 30, 2015

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=104200

[hunter]

41. Keep on digging...

... somewhere in that hole you can start gleaning stories from the press about people heroically using guns for self defense.

[kristopher]

43. You can't address an objection or give a reasoned response to anything.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=104316

[hunter]

44. Like I said, I'm not buying your crap.

If you're an advocate of a high energy gas powered industrial society augmented by wind and solar, just say it.

Maybe climate change won't be so bad. We can all move to Canada or Alaska or Siberia if it gets too hot, right?

But if you think a high energy industrial society powered entirely by solar and wind is possible then you are peddling bullshit, and you are ignoring the monster in the closet.

A big corporation like Siemens loves solar and wind projects, they love HVDC projects, but they'll also be happy to sell you a turnkey gas power plant that fulfills the RMI promise of high energy efficiency.

Better than coal, yes, but these sorts of things won't stop climate change as the world economy grows and more and more people are assimilated into the high energy industrial way of life.

You might also ask why Russia is building new nuclear plants. Part of their reasoning is that it frees up fossil fuels for export, possibly to places like anti-nuclear Japan or Germany. Well maybe not so much Germany, since Germany seems perfectly comfortable with the hypocrisy of burning cheap coal to power their heavy industry while requiring smaller users to subsidize the low-and-no carbon bling and improvements to the grid.

I've laid out my arguments in a very personal way, with stories, in a manner you seem incapable of. Is that all you got, the RMI (or RMI-like) gospel??? Don't you ever question your own religion?

[kristopher]

45. As many times as it takes

I'll repost this from above as many times as it takes for you to read it and respond to the content. Your transparently false statements and contrived evasions are defining you, not me.

I realize that those immersed in dogmatic thinking have trouble recognizing informed opposition to their ideas, but surely you recall that natural gas emissions are less than coal. The traditional accounting placed it at about 40% of coal, bu, although that number has grown as ongoing research into the well-site management of emissions is being taken into account, it is still overall considerably less than coal.

Please pay attention here as that reduction is only a side benefit of focusing on natural gas as the "bridge" to a renewable, sustainable ultra-low carbon world:
The Primary Benefit is the flexibility that it brings to the grid as coal and nuclear are fundamentally unable to phase directly into a distributed grid built around variable renewable generation.

It isn't complicated conceptually; in fact, it's really simple. Coal and nuclear need to run flat out as much as they can. And every wind turbine or solar panel that is built is taking a bite out of fossil fuel revenues.

Key point:

If it's a fossil fuel (or nuclear) generator that can be operated flexibly, it can adapt economically to decreased market share as a result of increased penetration of variable renewables. If it's a fossil fuel (or nuclear) generator that cannot be operated flexibly, it will not adapt economically to increased penetration of variable renewables. As a consequence, it will either a) fight successfully to derail the expansion of variable renewables, b) go out of business, or c) prevail on the government to throw good money after bad through some very large subsidies of the most counter productive sort as far as carbon emissions planning goes.

The altered economics that the natural gas "bridge" have created are combining with the economic impact of the rapid expansion of solar and wind (which act directly) to strip out the profitability hidden for large scale inflexible generation (coal and nuclear) in short term power auctions. And when you add in regulatory pressure on other toxic coal emissions the shutdown of COAL is well underway.

I presume that is a goal you approve of?

Let me shout: IT IS WORKING.

Did I mention that the 4 largest US coal companies lost 90% of their market capitalization last year?

I presume that is an outcomel you approve of?

And this renewable drive is happening globally. Which is critical, because the declining cost curve of all the elements of grids based on distributed energy resources (DER) is no longer dependent on the patronage of political factions in a small handful of advanced countries.

http://about.bnef.com/press-releases/clean-energy-defies-fossil-fuel-price-crash-to-attract-record-329bn-global-investment-in-2015/

It is now a system where the DER winners out-power (literally and figuratively) the competition. Let me repeat that, it is now a system where the renewable forces are the winners in competition. Several recent analysis have shown that progress is far outstripping projections with most putting us by 2025 at nearly 15 years ahead of where we thought we'd be only 5 years ago. (Hope that makes sense with all the time references.)

Bloomberg also points out:

1) “New markets” run the show. An expanded list of emerging countries committed billions to clean energy last year with record increases, including Mexico ($4.2bn, up 114%), Chile ($3.5bn, up 157%), South Africa ($4.5bn, up 329%) and Morocco ($2bn, up from almost zero in 2014).

2) Costs keep falling. The 2015 renewables installation record is all the more remarkable as cost-competitiveness improvements in solar and wind power mean that more megawatts can be installed for the same price.

3) Wind and solar’s capacity share rises. The 122GW of wind and solar installed in 2015 made up about 50% of the net capacity added in all generation technologies (fossil fuel, nuclear and renewable) globally.

4) No impact from low fossil fuel prices. Neither the 67% plunge in the oil price in the 18 months, nor continuing low prices for coal globally and natural gas in the US restrained the boom in clean energy investment.

5) Europe falls behind. The region saw investment fall 18% to $58.5bn in 2015, its lowest figure since 2006. While UK investment bucked the trend and grew 24%, Germany and France saw their investment levels fall by 42% and 53% respectively.
http://www.bloomberg.com/company/clean-energy-investment/

And allowe me close with these 2 comments from a recent Goldman Sachs analysis:

This is not the beginning of the end for fossil fuels; but marks the end of the beginning for the low carbon economy. Oil, gas and coal generate two-thirds of electricity, power over 75% of industry and fuel 95% of the global transport fleet. However, they also emit c.32 gigatonnes (Gt) of CO2e per annum, and public pressure to find ways to reduce this is increasing (a theme we have highlighted in past reports, see GS SUSTAIN Change is coming: A framework for climate change May 2009; GS SUSTAIN What is the climate for change? October 2013). Solutions range from switching from coal to less polluting gas, boosting efficiency (e.g. in cars), as well as introducing transformative low- carbon technologies, the focus of this report.

While the policy debates often center on 2030 forecasts and 2050 targets, we expect the greatest market dislocations to occur between 2015 and 2025. We estimate that in 2015-2020, new wind and solar installations will add the oil equivalent of 6.2 mn barrels per day (mbpd) to global energy supply. This is more than the 5.7 mbpd US shale oil production added over 2010-15. Our analysts expect China to add 23 GW coal and 40 GW gas power capacity by 2020, but this compares to 193 GW of wind and solar the country will add at the same time. In lighting, our analysts forecast that LEDs will account for 69% of light bulbs sold and over 60% of the installed global base by 2020. In autos, our analysts expect carmakers to sell c.25 mn hybrid and electric vehicles by 2025 –10x more than today and a $600 bn+ revenue opportunity.

The Low Carbon Economy
GS SUSTAIN equity investor’s guide to a low carbon world, 2015-25
Nov. 30, 2015

[FogerRox]

5. Probably blew the earth of course in its orbit