Guest essay by Bjørn Lomborg
Globally, renewables have been *declining* for the last two centuries, and have remained stuck at about 13% for the past 40 years.
People expect them to rise dramatically to 30% by 2035 — the honest answer is that they’re likely to rise a meagre 1.5 percentage points to 14.5%
Actually, the UK set its record for wind power in 1804, when its share reached 2.5% – almost three times its level today!
As Al Gore’s climate adviser, Jim Hansen, put it bluntly:
“Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and [the] Tooth Fairy.”
We need to get real on renewables. Only if green energy becomes much cheaper — and that requires lots of green R&D — will a renewables transition be possible.
Data for graph: “A brief history of energy” by Roger Fouquet, International Handbook of the Economics of Energy 2009; Warde, Energy consumption in England and Wales, 1560-2000; http://www.tsp-data-portal.org/Energy-Production-Statistics#tspQvChart, and EIA data (DOI: 10.1787/enestats-data-en)
Read my new oped on the topic from Project Syndicate:
Oh… Almost forgot. After LFTRs heat inert gas to 1400C to spin gas turbine generators (no water needed), The gas leaves the turbines at 900C, so this “waste” heat can be used to desalinate sea water, chemically synthesize fertilizers and/or jet/diesel fuel for another revenue stream for the plant.
Try doing that with wind/solar power.
Like I said, neat stuff.
He documents the futility of using renewables. Yet, at the end, he states the solution is to research ways to reduce their cost. News: that tech is far into the declining returns phase. Not going to happen.
Chris and Eve, burning processed wood pellets in specialized equipment is one thing, but burning actual wood is quite another.
Burning wood produces far more particulates, toxins, and carcinogens than does the burning of even coal, much less cleaner derived fuels.
Renewable percentage of the total mix depends on the location, available resources, and policies.
California generated 29.2 percent of its electricity in 2010 by non-nuclear and non-fossil fuel sources, including hydroelectric, geothermal, wind, solar, and biogas.
Electricity (2010)
In-State Generation
Source
Natural Gas 53.4%
Nuclear 15.7%
Large Hydro 14.6%
Coal. 1.7%
Renewable 14.6%
http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/overview/energy_sources.html
considering investment in “renewables” depends on a high price for “carbon” –
15 Aug: Bloomberg: Matthew Carr: Brokered EU Carbon Trade Plunges as Banks Scale Back
Carbon trading via brokers including ICAP Plc (IAP) and GFI Group Inc. (GFIG) plunged to its lowest since at least January 2011 as banks scaled back buying and selling amid tighter regulation and a record glut of permits.
The volume of EU allowances handled by six members of the London Energy Brokers’ Association dropped 61 percent in July to 84.1 million metric tons from a year earlier, according to an Aug. 8 report by the lobby group. Trading in Certified Emission Reductions, the United Nations-regulated offsets, plunged 81 percent. Activity on ICE Futures Europe in London, the biggest exchange for carbon contracts, slid 19 percent in the month.
“A significant factor is that a few key players have exited,” Ilesh Patel, a partner in London at Baringa Partners LLP, said Aug. 9 by phone. “Banks need more money to trade carbon, power and other commodities because of new financial regulations that require them to set more risk capital aside.” …
Coal trading jumped 69 percent in July, according to LEBA. Demand for the fuel isn’t enough to boost trading activity much beyond compliance buying of carbon permits, Baringa’s Patel said…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-14/brokered-eu-carbon-trade-plunges-as-banks-scale-back.html
from Bloomberg, under the category “Wars on Things”!
15 Aug: Bloomberg: Eric Roston: ‘War on Coal’ Gains Steam Amid Wars on Terror, Crime, Drugs, Science, Christmas
Navigant Research estimates that there will be 137 plant closures in North America and 144 in Europe by 2020, Martin said, totaling 53 gigawatts and 49 gigawatts, respectively…
Elsewhere, notably China and India, the number of coal plants is growing…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-14/-war-on-coal-gains-steam-amid-wars-on-terror-crime-drugs-science-christmas.html
Fossil Fuels are the ultimate renewable – they go WAY back.
pat says:
August 14, 2013 at 6:42 pm
meanwhile, over at fukushima…
======================================
LFTRs are completely different than Light Water Reactors (LWRs) as the don’t require any water to run steam generators, or cool the nuclear core. LFTRs don’t require any cooling as the liquid salts naturally maintain a heat range of 400C to 1,600C.
LFTRs also run at single atmospheric pressure compared to 70 atmospheres required for LWRs, so there is no need to build expensive containment domes or water cooling towers.
LFTRs have a passive/failsafe safety system that depends on gravity. As long as gravity works, LFTRs are safe. Thorium 231 is a fertile fission material that requires a neutron source to fission. If there is ever a breach in the liquid salt pipes, the liquid salts simply drains by gravity to a drain tank away from the neutron core, cools and become solid.
There is no need for expensive back-ups of back ups of back ups required by LWRs. Gravity works just fine.
Moreover, LFTRs convert 99% of thorium to energy as opposed to LWRs, which only convert 0.5% of U235 to energy before xenon gas degradation requires the fuel rods to be replaced. Accordingly, there is 200 TIMES less nuclear waste with LFTRs compared to LWRs and what nuclear “wastes” that are created are in high demand and can be sold at a profit. There are some nuclear waste materials but are very small and most of these have half lives of around 300yrs; many orders of magnitude shorter than LWR waste..
Samurai, Xenon 135 is irradiated and converted in the reactor to Xenon 136, which has a much lower neutron capture cross section. That’s what happens when it captures a neutron, it’s ability to capture another is degraded.
And Thorium in a Thorium cycle reactor is not itself fissible, but is converted to U233 in the reactor, and it is that isotope that provides the energy. Since it’s still Uranium being fissioned, the LFTRs also produce Xenon at about the same rates.
In most reactors about half of the U235 is consumed before the fuel needs to be replaced, though this varies depending on the initial enrichment concentration and the moderator’s efficiency and neutron capture cross section.
BTW, the CANDU reactor can use the Thorium cycle without any equipment design changes.
Liquid salt reactors are not without their design problems either:
http://theenergycollective.com/charlesbarton/64177/what-are-problems-lftr-technology
From his oped:
Dr. Bob, Why do you not mention wood pellets? How do your numbers relate to Drax requiring 7.5 million tonnes per year from North Carolina. A 2,000 tonne per day plant cannot do that.
Lynn- Xenon gas is a huge absorber of neutrons but it is a gas that boils out of the liquid salts and is easily removed. The uranium 233 is also easily removed by recycling a portions of the liquid salts, adding Fluoride gas which then converts the uranium tetra fluoride (salt) to uranium hexafluoride (gas), which also boils out. You then add hydrogen to the uranium hexafluoride gas, which then converts it back to UF4, which is then added back to the neutron core…
So there isn’t a problem. Again, a LFTR was built and ran flawlessly for 5 years (1965-1969). It’s not a hypothetical idea. LFTRs work great.
Neat trick…
This is an excellent article and accurately portrays the real potential for renewables which is nil and the unnecessary problems will create especially for the poor.
The only reason renewables are as high as they are is because of government mandates imposed by uninformed or agenda driven legislators and federal/state executive branch leaders. The cost of electricity is rising because many states are mandating renewable content and ethanol mandates are forced into the gasoline supply. Mandated % of renewable electricity generation is scarce and exchanges have been set up that force distributors to purchase electricity at exorbitant rates from rich investors (who received tax payer subsidies) who have often contributed to political campaigns. Over 60 cents per kilowatt hour is not uncommon for renewable electricity.
In the case of gasoline cellulosic mandates are forcing gasoline blenders to use non existent cellulosic ethanol in the gasoline pool, besides the huge amounts of corn ethanol.
Without such mandates the % of renewables would be a fraction of the present, nobody wants 19% or 15% ethanol in their gasoling .
The big problem we have is that the politicians and MSM have blatantly been lying and misinforming the public to believe that a greater % of renewables is viable and realistic whereas Jim Hansen is correct in this case.
“Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and [the] Tooth Fairy.”
“
James Hansen is absolutely right as far as the ‘renewables’ of wind and solar are concerned . For an excellent and well documented article of why this is, see: Lastganglinien als Erfolgskontrolle der Energiewende mit Windenergie- und Fotovoltaik-Anlagen (http://tinyurl.com/k5kvrmb). It is in German but the graphs are very easy to interpret: installed wind and solar (W+S) ‘nameplate’ capacity in Germany versus the actual kilowatt-hours generated and kilowatt-hours needed. The total installed W+S capacity in Germany is currently about the same as fossil+nuclear+hydro. The actual W+S kilowatt-hours are the ‘grass’ in the graphs at a fraction of what is needed.
The last graph of the article (diagram 7) is telling, it shows the total W+S energy generated in Germany during the winter of 2012-2013 applied to actual use for Baden-Württemberg (one of the 16 states of Germany). At times the excess MWh generated by the ‘renewables’ is double the needed energy, however, at other times there is virtually none (the red areas in the graph). Increasing W+S, regardless of price, will make for higher peaks but without storage it does not change the hard truth that a backup system is still needed for the full capacity to supply power during windless/sunless intervals.
This is all very much understood and it is difficult to believe that in a country like Germany with a stellar history of science and engineering, led by a physicist, could be stampeded into changing from fossil/nuclear to renewables (the vaunted ‘Energiewende’).
Maybe a ploy to show W+S is a massively expensive pipe dream and have voters approve nuclear when reality sets in?
Just in case anyone comes toodling along this thread who is ignorant about solar power and how very little it can do….
BACK! BY POPULAR DEMAND! It’s Ozzieeeeee Zehner!
Starring in “Solar Cells and Other Fairy Tales”
Solar Power Lecture at Berkley, CA
from Zehner’s book Green Ilusions
Glynn- CANDUs are a dead end. They require 70 atmospheres of steam pressure to run, and are still extremely inefficient in only converting less than 1% of nuclear material to energy compared to LFTRs, which convert 99% of thorium to energy. CANDUs also generate 200 times more nuclear waste per megawatt of energy produced compared to LFTRs and they’re much more expensive to build and run compared to LFTRs. They make no sense compared to the safety, efficiency, running costs and decommissioning costs compared to LFTRs.
Renewables fail on all counts:
They can never be made economic, even with energy storage (which only adds to their cost).
They are a waste of scarce capital and other resources desperately needed for other purposes.
They are far more destructive to the environment than fossil fuels.
They are a device for redistributing wealth from poor to rich.
They are a pretext for more intrusive regulation and interference in people’s daily lives.
Toto says:
August 14, 2013 at 8:43 pm
From his oped:
“. . . postponed global warming by 62 hours.
“his” meaning Bjørn Lomborg
and about the 62 hours –
That would be based on the idea of CO2 being the driver of global warming. Any such number is rather meaningless because, while such a calculation can be made, Earth marches to a large number of drummers. A more appropriate statement would be that Spain’s massive investment will have, to the nearest whole number, zero impact on Earth’s climates. The phrase “stupendously stupid” comes to mind.
Kees van der Pool,
Danke for sharing that excellent solar-wind power article (albeit in Deutsche). Yes, indeed, the pictures were “worth a thousand words.” “Grass,” indeed! Tiny little shoots of grass, lol.
LOL, I scanned the comments and the name “Barth” caught my eye, “What are they doing talking about Barth? lol, got off topic just like we do here, sometimes, I suppose…” Then, I discovered it was one of the commenters. #[:)] Ich spreche keine Deutsche, but, I think I read someone making the point that solar does not work very well at night, heh, heh.
Eike looks like a fine Truth in Science site. And my admiration goes out to you for your mastery of (at least) three languages (English, German, and, I think, your native Nederlandish (Dutch)). You hail from the country of one of my greatest mentors: Corrie ten Boom of Haarlem.
Take care, over there!
Janice (in America)
Janice Moore said @ur momisugly August 14, 2013 at 9:27 pm
OTOH the presentation is being made by a human being who is the result of a long-term solar engineering project begun by bacteria 2.8 billion years ago. I’d say humans are a very big accomplishment for organisms measuring a couple of micrometres in size. Just show me an organism engineered by humans that’s 10^6 bigger than a human!
“We need to get real on renewables. Only if green energy becomes much cheaper — and that requires lots of green R&D — will a renewables transition be possible.”
The reality is green R&D will do nothing and is waste of tax dollars.
One could make cars lighter and as safe as current cars -that is possible and make a difference.
If want to do R&D, government should focus some effort towards the developing Methane
Hydrates. This could be moderate government program or for not costing tax payers anything by improving laws regarding future Methane Hydrate mining. Give incentives towards mining it, which would encourage the private sector to do the R&D needed to get to point of commercial mining ocean methane hydrate deposits. Or little of both.
We know have to lower CO2 emission. Nuclear power. Nuclear power mostly needs government to improve laws regarding nuclear power- better technology would developed if government was vaguely sane on the topic.
But best path toward is developing markets in space. This will lower costs to get into space. And if costs are lower a lot, then we can harvest solar energy in space.Solar power in space is constant
source of energy and has much higher energy density than anywhere on Earth.
Chad Wozniak said @ur momisugly August 14, 2013 at 9:38 pm
No they don’t; they merely fail when used where they are inappropriate. Firewood provides me with space heating, hot water and most of my cooking for ~3 cents per KWHr, less than 10% of what I pay for electricity. I have a friend in NSW who uses PV electricity and battery storage because the cost of being connected to the grid was several times the cost of the PV array and batteries. Here in Oz we say: horses for courses.
Dr. Bob says:
August 14, 2013 at 5:46 pm
Thanks Dr. Bob.
Energy density, and reliability (meaning when the sun doesn’t shine, the wind doesn’t blow, and reactors that over-vibrate their pipes [recent San Onofre episode], et al), are key.
I would be interested in any documentation you can provide.
Thanks again,
William
“… begun by bacteria …” BEGUN BY BACTERIA?
Mister Git! Ahem.
And just what (or who) designed those bacteria? Space aliens? Do you realize how much ordered complexity is in just ONE CELL? Do you seriously believe that all that complexity, much of it necessarily simultaneous, simply “happened” by “chance”? Before you say, “Yes! It is EASY for me to believe it happened by random mutations and random selection,” find out what the odds are that such random, non-directed, processes could create a mammal (the whale) that lives in the sea (evolutionists say its ancestor was a land, air-breathing, animal). When you find out those odds, and realize what a very IM-probable chance it would be of the roulette wheel’s turning up 17 that many times, you might (just might) pause and…… think about it. No? Perhaps, another time, then.
No doubt you will angrily tell me to jump in a lake, but, in the slight possibility you genuinely want to learn more about Intelligent Design Theory (don’t confuse implications of it for evidence for it — it does not require you to believe in God or even in a god), let me know. I have lots of good reading and videos you might find helpful.
Anyway, I hope you are enjoying another good book with a cup of your premium Darjeeling.
DON’T WORRY, EVERYONE, I WON’T KEEP ON DEBATING ID THEORY.
Janice