Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
51. Another "I'd rather not have to admit I'm wrong" tangent, eh?
Fri Nov 8, 2013, 08:23 AM
Nov 2013

That's OK, it's a trait we all share so no hard feelings. But it's gone on long enough so let's cut to the chase:
You said an undeveloped fusion reactor "has a much greater chance of replacing fossil fuels compared to current renewables due to the high cost and low energy density of current renewable technologies" and "There really isn't a practical alternative except Thorium reactors ... solar and wind technologies really aren't ready for mass production"

The National Academy study says this:

In the panel’s opinion, increasing manufacturing and installation capacity, employment, and financing to levels required to meet the goals for greatly increased solar or wind penetration goals is doable. However, to do so would require aggressive growth rates, a large increase in manufacturing and installation capacity, and a large infusion of capital. The magnitude of the challenges is clear from the scale of such efforts. pg 321


It continues
t is reasonable to envision that, collectively, non- hydropower renewable electricity could begin to provide a material contribution (i.e., reaching a level of 10 percent level or more with trends toward continued growth) to the nation’s electricity generation in the period up to 2020 with such accelerated deployment. Combined with hydropower, total renewable electricity could approach a contribution of 20 percent of U.S. electricity by the year 2020.

In the period from 2020 to 2035, it is reasonable to envision that contin- ued and even further accelerated deployment could potentially result in non- hydroelectric renewables providing, collectively, 20 percent or more of domestic electricity generation by 2035. In the third timeframe, beyond 2035, continued development of renewable electricity technologies could potentially provide lower costs and result in further increases in the percentage of renewable electricity generated from renewable resources. However, achieving a predominant (i.e., >50 percent) level of renewable electricity penetration will require new scientific advances (e.g., in solar photovoltaics, other renewable electricity technologies, and storage technologies) and dramatic changes in how we generate, transmit, and use electricity. Scientific advances are anticipated to improve the cost, scalability, and performance of all renewable energy generation technologies. Moreover, some combination of intelligent, two-way electric grids; scalable and cost-effective methods for large-scale and distributed storage (either direct electricity energy storage or generation of chemical fuels); widespread implementation of rapidly dispatch- able fossil-based electricity technologies; and greatly improved technologies for cost-effective long-distance electricity transmission will be required. pg 322


That study was released in 2009 and it is based (note the dates on the references) on research released mostly around 2006 and 2007. That is significant in that since, China has entered the scene in both renewable energy manufacturing and installation. As an example of the nature of the impact, they are going to install 9GW of distributed solar this year, 12 next year and the year after - going from 2GW of capacity in 2011 to 35GW in 2015.

But solar isn't ready for mass production, according to you.

A more recent study is NRELs Renewable Electricity Futures Report. It is updated with research and data to 2010. It was released in 2012. But hey, since it is a government report with no copyright issues, let's let them tell you about what they have done. From "Renewable Electricity Futures Study Volume 4: Bulk Electric Power Systems—Operations and Transmission Planning." pg iii, iv

The Renewable Electricity Futures Study (RE Futures) provides an analysis of the grid integration opportunities, challenges, and implications of high levels of renewable electricity generation for the U.S. electric system. The study is not a market or policy assessment. Rather, RE Futures examines renewable energy resources and many technical issues related to the operability of the U.S. electricity grid, and provides initial answers to important questions about the integration of high penetrations of renewable electricity technologies from a national perspective. RE Futures results indicate that a future U.S. electricity system that is largely powered by renewable sources is possible and that further work is warranted to investigate this clean generation pathway. The central conclusion of the analysis is that renewable electricity generation from technologies that are commercially available today, in combination with a more flexible electric system, is more than adequate to supply 80% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2050 while meeting electricity demand on an hourly basis in every region of the United States.

The renewable technologies explored in this study are components of a diverse set of clean energy solutions that also includes nuclear, efficient natural gas, clean coal, and energy efficiency. Understanding all of these technology pathways and their potential contributions to the future U.S. electric power system can inform the development of integrated portfolio scenarios. RE Futures focuses on the extent to which U.S. electricity needs can be supplied by renewable energy sources, including biomass, geothermal, hydropower, solar, and wind.

The study explores grid integration issues using models with unprecedented geographic and time resolution for the contiguous United States. The analysis (1) assesses a variety of scenarios with prescribed levels of renewable electricity generation in 2050, from 30% to 90%, with a focus on 80% (with nearly 50% from variable wind and solar photovoltaic generation); (2) identifies the characteristics of a U.S. electricity system that would be needed to accommodate such levels; and (3) describes some of the associated challenges and implications of realizing such a future. In addition to the central conclusion noted above, RE Futures finds that increased electric system flexibility, needed to enable electricity supply-demand balance with high levels of renewable generation, can come from a portfolio of supply- and demand-side options, including flexible conventional generation, grid storage, new transmission, more responsive loads, and changes in power system operations. The analysis also finds that the abundance and diversity of U.S. renewable energy resources can support multiple combinations of renewable technologies that result in deep reductions in electric sector greenhouse gas emissions and water use. The study finds that the direct incremental cost associated with high renewable generation is comparable to published cost estimates of other clean energy scenarios. Of the sensitivities examined, improvement in the cost and performance of renewable technologies is the most impactful lever for reducing this incremental cost. Assumptions reflecting the extent of this improvement are based on incremental or evolutionary improvements to currently commercial technologies and do not reflect U.S. Department of Energy activities to further lower renewable technology costs so that they achieve parity with conventional technologies.

RE Futures is an initial analysis of scenarios for high levels of renewable electricity in the United States; additional research is needed to comprehensively investigate other facets of high renewable or other clean energy futures in the U.S. power system. First, this study focuses on renewable-specific technology pathways and does not explore the full portfolio of clean technologies that could contribute to future electricity supply. Second, the analysis does not attempt a full reliability analysis of the power system that includes addressing sub-hourly, transient, and distribution system requirements. Third, although RE Futures describes the system characteristics needed to accommodate high levels of renewable generation, it does not address the institutional, market, and regulatory changes that may be needed to facilitate such a transformation. Fourth, a full cost-benefit analysis was not conducted to comprehensively evaluate the relative impacts of renewable and non-renewable electricity generation options.

Lastly, as a long-term analysis, uncertainties associated with assumptions and data, along with limitations of the modeling capabilities, contribute to significant uncertainty in the implications reported. Most of the scenario assessment was conducted in 2010 with assumptions concerning technology cost and performance and fossil energy prices generally based on data available in 2009 and early 2010.

Significant changes in electricity and related markets have already occurred since the analysis was conducted, and the implications of these changes may not have been fully reflected in the study assumptions and results. For example, both the rapid development of domestic unconventional natural gas resources that has contributed to historically low natural gas prices, and the significant price declines for some renewable technologies (e.g., photovoltaics) since 2010, were not reflected in the study assumptions.

Nonetheless, as the most comprehensive analysis of U.S. high-penetration renewable electricity conducted to date, this study can inform broader discussion of the evolution of the electric system and electricity markets toward clean systems.

The RE Futures team was made up of experts in the fields of renewable technologies, grid integration, and end-use demand. The team included leadership from a core team with members from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and subject matter experts from U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) national laboratories, including NREL, Idaho National Laboratory (INL), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), and Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), as well as Black & Veatch and other utility, industry, university, public sector, and non-profit participants. Over the course of the project, an executive steering committee provided input from multiple perspectives to support study balance and objectivity.

RE Futures is documented in four volumes of a single report: Volume 1 describes the analysis approach and models, along with the key results and insights; Volume 2 describes the renewable generation and storage technologies included in the study; Volume 3 presents end-use demand and energy efficiency assumptions; and this volume—Volume 4—discusses operational and institutional challenges of integrating high levels of renewable energy into the electric grid.


Let me repeat what they call their central conclusion:
The central conclusion of the analysis is that renewable electricity generation from technologies that are commercially available today, in combination with a more flexible electric system, is more than adequate to supply 80% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2050 while meeting electricity demand on an hourly basis in every region of the United States.


I wish I could say thanks for the discussion, but it was too much like trying to communicate with a climate denier for me to say it honestly. But I will thank you heartily for a polite exchange; that does mean a lot.
"Within five years" for the last 50 years. Warren Stupidity Nov 2013 #1
The technology has advanced a lot recently johnd83 Nov 2013 #5
"the technology has advanced" Warren Stupidity Nov 2013 #6
There really isn't a practical alternative except Thorium reactors johnd83 Nov 2013 #7
alrighty then, your agenda is way out in the open. Warren Stupidity Nov 2013 #8
Lol johnd83 Nov 2013 #11
Yup crystal clear. Wow. FogerRox Nov 2013 #14
Isnt this just a mirror machine. FogerRox Nov 2013 #2
It used to be four years GreydeeThos Nov 2013 #3
Everyones budget got cut johnd83 Nov 2013 #4
That was almost a year ago. 1 + 4 = 5. You do the math. Warren Stupidity Nov 2013 #9
Lacking information why it can be smaller. FogerRox Nov 2013 #10
Did you actually watch the video? johnd83 Nov 2013 #12
In an ignition machine you either raise the temp or the pressure FogerRox Nov 2013 #13
The field gradient is inverted johnd83 Nov 2013 #15
Sketchy? More like they dont exist. FogerRox Nov 2013 #16
Crawl, before you walk, before you run. PamW Nov 2013 #18
pressure & temp vs acceleration FogerRox Nov 2013 #22
Don't believe it. PamW Nov 2013 #17
The truck is just to transport the core to the plant site johnd83 Nov 2013 #19
That 14.1 MeV FogerRox Nov 2013 #23
Has anyone confined a plasma with a magnetic field whose gradients FogerRox Nov 2013 #26
"In my opinion..." kristopher Nov 2013 #20
It is an opinion shared by many engineers johnd83 Nov 2013 #25
So your opinion is backed by the opinion of other nonspecialists? kristopher Nov 2013 #27
James Hansen, Ken Caldeira, Kerry Emanuel and Tom Wigley? johnd83 Nov 2013 #28
You think climate science and global energy use are the same field? kristopher Nov 2013 #29
IEEE spectrum article johnd83 Nov 2013 #32
Sorry, that isn't peer reviewed. It is an opinion piece. kristopher Nov 2013 #34
"Ability" and "Feasibilty" are two different concepts johnd83 Nov 2013 #36
Then you should be able to show peer reviewed analysis that support your claim. kristopher Nov 2013 #37
Yes, but not from journals you would be happy with johnd83 Nov 2013 #38
I don't agree with your characterization of peer review. kristopher Nov 2013 #40
I have done many peer reviews johnd83 Nov 2013 #43
Clean energy is every bit as settled as climate change. kristopher Nov 2013 #45
It still doesn't change the number... johnd83 Nov 2013 #46
Did you even read what I wrote about the study? kristopher Nov 2013 #47
Huh? johnd83 Nov 2013 #48
What I mean is... kristopher Nov 2013 #49
I skimmed through "Electricity from Renewable Resources: Status, Prospects, and Impediments" johnd83 Nov 2013 #50
Another "I'd rather not have to admit I'm wrong" tangent, eh? kristopher Nov 2013 #51
Cheap fusion? Oh, God no, I hope not... hunter Nov 2013 #21
I think that is the main reason that I don't agree with a lot of people here about energy johnd83 Nov 2013 #24
Pushing the core problem of our civilization deeper into the future is not my idea of a "solution." hunter Nov 2013 #30
We still consider "freedom" to include reproduction johnd83 Nov 2013 #31
"Current nuclear energy" is a catastrophe waiting to happen. GliderGuider Nov 2013 #35
Alrighty-then johnd83 Nov 2013 #39
Firstly, the tech has not advanced particularly intaglio Nov 2013 #33
Thats exactly why there has been more interest in the proton Boron 11 fuel recently FogerRox Nov 2013 #52
Back it up with facts, now it is worse than thin. ... CRH Nov 2013 #41
Magnetic Fusion, please repeat after me, ... CRH Nov 2013 #42
... Did you watch the video? johnd83 Nov 2013 #44
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»New magnetic fusion techn...»Reply #51