Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
For this post I’ve taken as my departure point a couple of very interesting graphs from over at Not A Lot Of People Know That. I’ll repeat them here:
(NOTE: I’ve been informed in the most genteel and lovely way that I’ve not given full credit for the source of these graphs. As the lower graph notes, they are from the Strom Report, Source: Strom-Report. My thanks to them for the heads-up.)
Interesting, no? But I’m a numbers guy, I wanted to actually analyze the results. Using the data from those posts and adding the US information, I graphed the relationship … Figure 1 shows the result:
Figure 1. Electricity costs as a function of per capita installed renewable capacity. Wind and solar only, excludes hydropower. [Updated to add Australia and correct the units]
That is a most interesting result. Per capita installed renewable capacity by itself explains 84% of the variation in electricity costs. Not a big surprise given the crazy-high costs of renewables, but it is very useful for another calculation.
Today, President Obama said that he wanted 28% of America’s electricity to come from renewable energy by 2030. He has not detailed his plan, so I will assume that like California and other states with renewable targets, and like the EU graph above, hydropower is not included in counting the renewables, and thus the energy will have to come from wind and solar. (Why? In California, they admitted that hydropower was excluded because it would make it too easy to meet the renewable goals … seriously, that was their explanation.)
Currently, we get about 4% of our electricity from wind and solar. He wants to jack it to 28%, meaning we need seven times the installed capacity. Currently we have about 231 kW/capita of installed wind and solar (see Figure 1). So Obama’s plan will require that we have a little less than seven times that, 1537 kW/capita. And assuming that we can extend the relationship we see in Figure 1, this means that the average price of electricity in the US will perforce go up to no less than 43 cents per kilowatt-hour. (This includes the hidden 1.4 cents/kW cost due to the five cents per kilowatt-hour subsidy paid to the solar/wind producers).
Since the current average US price of electricity is about 12 cents per kilowatt-hour … that means the true price of electricity is likely to almost quadruple in the next 15 years.
And given that President Obama famously predicted that under his energy plan electricity prices would necessarily “skyrocket” … it looks like he finally might actually succeed at something.
Since this is being done illegally or at least highly improperly by means of Obama’s Imperial Presidential Fiat, there seems to be little we can do about it except to let your friends and neighbors know that thanks to Obama and the Democratic Party, their electric bill is indeed about to skyrocket … otherwise, Obama is likely to blame it all on President Bush.
Best to everyone,
w.
My Usual Plea: If you disagree with someone, please quote the exact words that you object to. That way we can all understand exactly who and what you are objecting to.
Prediction Notes: It is always dangerous to try to predict the future. In this case, we have a couple of issues. First, we don’t know if this relationship will continue to work in the future. And we don’t know if America’s path will be like that of the other countries. The good news is, the fact that there are 19 countries which differ greatly in both installed capacity and level of economic development gives some comfort.
Next, outliers. I tested to see whether it would change the trend if I removed Denmark and Germany … it barely changed. That was very encouraging, because it means that the same relationship held when we extended the data from 600 kW/capita (Spain etc.) out to about 1000 kW/capita, a projection of about 60%. Since the extension to the projected US installed capacity/capita (1000 out to 1500 kW/capita) is of about the same size, this increases confidence in the estimate.
Finally, we have to make some assumptions about US electricity use in 2030. It will increase … but by how much? Fortunately, the independent variable is installed renewable capacity per capita. This means that extending the line contains a tacit assumption that the electricity consumption will increase at about the same rate as the population. While we have no way to know if this is true, US per capita electricity consumption has been about flat for the last two decades, so it is the most reasonable assumption.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This shorthand of saying KW when we mean KWH per year (or MW when we mean MWH/year, as in the first chart) can be damn confusing. I see Wikipedia says “watts per person” in the last column where it means KWH/year per capita: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_consumption
Professional shorthand should be identified from the start. –AGF
Sorry, Wiki got it right: average power per capita. And those are evidently the units used in the first chart–all that was missing was “average.” –AGF
Then where we read, “Currently we have about 231 kW/capita of installed wind and solar (see Figure 1),” we must understand 231 KWH/year/capita. This is more reading between the units than should be expected of non-professionals. –AGF
Re AGF
But when you look at figure 1 you find that the US is placed at 231 watts per head, not kW/head. Forget all the extra units – they only confuse.
Roger, perhaps you could space out your table so that we can see what is happening. Put a table through word and it removes the separation into discrete columns. You have to add either tabs or spaces to get things roughly correctly aligned so it is readable. This especially applies to headings of more than one line which just get completely mangled.
So I was wrong again: megawatts/million (watts per person) on the first chart is max available power per person–wind blowing, sun shining–not average of anything. –AGF
The last time I checked the cost to manufacture in the US was down to about 105% of the cost in China, virtual parity. This was due in no small part to low energy costs. It would appear that the current administration would rather increase the minimum wage for burger flippers than provide real living wage jobs in the manufacturing sector.
Curious why people are even trying to compare Denmark’s use of ruinables (love that) versus the U.S.?
Denmark is only 1/4th the size of North Dakota and has a population of, what? 5.6 million?
We would need now many millions of bird choppers to equal them? relatively speaking of course….
I appologize — when charts, liberals and such use Denmark and other miniscule countries in comparison to the U.S. I have to giggle.
This graph is silly. Its like showing that a dog tail wags the dog. Renewable energy is NOT setting the cost of electricity in these countries. In science we know that correlation is not necessarily causation.
What sets the cost of electricity in a country that uses fossil fuels for over 50% of it electricity?
Cost of electricity is set by fossil fuel prices and regulatory agencies. Carbon tax is part of the reason for increased cost of electricity. The EU countries with high electrical costs have carbon tax, USA does not have carbon tax.
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/05/the-state-of-carbon-pricing-around-the-world-in-46-carbon-markets/
This silly correlation graph can only be valid if
1. more countries than just EU countries are included
2. carbon tax is removed from cost of electricity
3. other regulatory taxes are removed from cost of electricity
According to your link Sweden has the highest CO2 tax, but the chart shows Sweden well below the the trend line. And to the extent that a CO2 tax is diverted to fund renewables, the force of your objection is further weakened. Do you deny that renewables are expensive or that they raise the cost of energy? And the truth is good correlation always implies some causation to be discovered–only spurious, accidental correlation doesn’t. But we have both fair correlation and likely causation. What factors are involved?
1) Not all renewables cost the same.
2) Not all penalties go to funding renewables.
3) Not all subsidies come from energy fees; some come from general tax funds.
My guess is a thorough investigation of the economics involved with each country would explain all the scattering away from the trend line, and the primary criterion would remain the high cost of renewables. –AGF
Sweden gets almost all its power from Hydro 50% and Nuclear 30%. Sweden has only about 10% from other Renewable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Sweden#/media/File:Electricity_generation_in_Sweden.svg
The silly graph in WUWT is wrong for not showing Hydro and Renewables as a combination. Hydro is a renewable source of power. Also Sweden’s Hydro and Nuclear plants are old and amortized, so their only costs are operations, maintenance and fuel. That is why electrical costs are low in Sweden.
Renewables are not that expensive. Government taxes unrelated to power generation have a big impact on electricity costs.
Hydroelectric power is appropriately not included because it is old, proven, and cheap (and reliable). It’s the only renewable that isn’t expensive. Wind is as expensive as it is unreliable–in fact it’s expensive because it is unreliable, and always needs backup, which is expensive. Solar is quite reliable in the Sahara desert during the day, but its components are causing considerable pollution in China. Many old folk in England can no longer afford to heat their homes in winter–need paupers’ subsidies. Industry is fleeing the country–a steel mill just shut down a week or two ago–energy prices are too high. England can’t afford to manufacture its windmills at home: energy it too expensive. It’s all one big horror story. Where have you been? The only countries that have the storage capability to incorporate a non-negligible fraction of wind and solar in their energy mix are those with plenty of hydro: they can pump water uphill during surplus. But it doesn’t take much to outmatch hydro storage with wind power; that limit is rapidly being reached in most countries that have hydro storage capability. –AGF
You tell some whoopers! England’s energy costs less than Germany according to the silly graph. England has less renewables than Germany, Denmark and Sweden.
England can manufacture:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/best-british-manufacturing-industries-keeping-3183313
England’s economy is doing well:
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-32720772
Wind is cheaper than nuclear and coal. The combination of wind turbines and natural gas CCGT is more efficient and costs less than either coal or nuclear at generating energy 24/7 and load following. Nuclear plants do not load follow in the US and very little anywhere else in the world.
jaagu
You are dead wrong.
The graph is pure data; what’s silly is you. According to the graph and common sense energy is cheaper in England than in Germany because Germany has wasted more investment in renewables, e.g.: http://www.abakus-solar.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Pic-1.jpg
…where it’s not worth controlling the weeds to let a little sunlight in.
A thousand years of experimentation yields the same result: windmills only work when the wind blows. Everyone who thinks wind is the answer is a know-nothing. Period. –AGF
The graph is silly because scientifically correlation does not mean causation as I said before.
Germany is a great manufacturer, even better than England.
Wind is cheaper than nuclear and coal. The combination of wind turbines and natural gas CCGT is more efficient and costs less than either coal or nuclear at generating energy 24/7 and load following.
If nuclear power is so great economically, then why are nuclear plants shutting down and new ones being scraped?
http://www.powermag.com/quad-cities-nuclear-plant-likely-doomed-exelon-says/?hq_e=el&hq_m=3127164&hq_l=6&hq_v=17b51a8303
http://www.powermag.com/ameren-scraps-planned-missouri-nuclear-unit-cites-falling-renewable-costs/?hq_e=el&hq_m=3127164&hq_l=8&hq_v=17b51a8303
Because the price of natural gas has plummeted. As for correlation, it has been noted that when the wind does not blow the windmills do not turn. This has led many to suppose a causal relationship between the two.
Think you can heat your house with solar panels? Think solar is cheap? Do you have panels on your roof? Of all the energy sources none loses efficiency through domestic installation as little as solar. Why don’t you have panels? Because they don’t work at night? You can’t afford them. Why not? You don’t know squat. –AGF
You don’t know squat. –AGF
=========================================
As a mechanical engineer and nuclear engineer who worked for over 35 years on the design, construction and operation of fossil, renewable and nuclear power plants. I know more than you think. But based on your statements, I realize that you are not a power plant engineer and do not understand the subject very well. Solar can generate all the electricity a properly designed home needs including heat by day and by night with battery backup. Of course I am discussing California, not Maine or Alaska.
jaagu August 9, 2015 at 10:02 pm
Mmmm … so you agree that solar is not enough to power your usual house, it needs to be “properly designed”, like say Amory Lovin’s house.
And you also agree that there are many parts of the world like Alaska and Maine where solar won’t work.
You also agree that every house so equipped will require a double fistful of expensive batteries for backup.
And since I’ve lived off the grid, I can assure you that such a house will also need a backup source of power (the grid, or a generator).
Finally, you haven’t said it but I assume you know that at present, by and large solar is totally uneconomical without subsidies, either for for grid-sized systems or house-sized systems.
So while you may be very knowledgeable about power plants, I’m not at all clear what your point is about solar.
Finally, you say:
jaagu August 6, 2015 at 3:12 pm
As a nuclear engineer, surely you know the huge pressures that are being put on the US nuclear industry. However, in the rest of the planet there are about sixty power reactors under construction. So while you may think they are uneconomical … I fear the world disagrees with you.
Regards,
w.
All of the data below is verifiable through links at Current and Future Generation/Plans For New Reactors Worldwide.
… etc, the list goes on …
Willis,
I agree solar is not yet developed enough for stand alone service in cold and northern latitudes and batteries are expensive. IMO solar, wind, batteries and efficient use of electricity in the next 10 years will change the mathematics of renewable energy.
I disagree with your rosy discussion of nuclear power. If you would read more about the problems with the nuclear power plants being built you would understand. For example:
1. The nuclear plants currently being built in Finland and France are years behind schedule and costing triple the fixed price agreed upon. Not economical and the French reactor builder Areva is going bankrupt.
2. The nuclear plants in construction in Georgia and South Carolina are years behind schedule and hundreds of millions of dollars over budget with many construction quality problems. The Watts Bar Unit 2 is an old plant that was in mothballs for years and is now being finished. No other nuclear plants will go forward in the next 5 years and maybe much longer in the US. Several old nuclear plants may shutdown in the next 5 years in the US.
3. Chinese are building some nuclear plants, but compared to their building of wind, solar and hydro the nuclear is peanuts. The same is true in India, they are building more wind, solar and hydro than nuclear.
4. The ones and twos in the many of the other countries will never proceed.
Nuclear power is being out performed in cost and schedule by natural gas CCGT and wind turbines. You should read the latest report from Department of Energy showing that wind energy is beating even natural gas CCGT in cost per KWH in some areas of the US.
Thanks, jaagu. You may or may not be right that the number of nuclear plants planned in China is “peanuts” compared to wind, solar, and hydro … but that’s just changing the goalposts. That wasn’t your original claim. Your claim was:
jaagu August 6, 2015 at 3:12 pm
I pointed out that your claim is clearly untrue, because nuclear plants are being built in big numbers around the world. Do you truly think that the Chinese are building them because they are uneconomical? For example:
Are you truly claiming that China is doing all of that knowing that they will lose money because jaagu says they are uneconomical?
Or should we just realize that perhaps China knows more about the economics of their nuclear plants than jaagu does, and thus pays no attention to his bleak predictions …
Look, jaagu, if you want respect around here, changing the goalposts when your claims are shown to be false won’t do it. Admit you were wrong and move on.
Finally, as near as I can tell your claim that “the number of nuclear plants planned in China is “peanuts” compared to wind, solar, and hydro” is simply not true. I cannot find a single citation to back up your claim. Note above that the planned nuclear is some 130 GWe by 2030. Where is your citation for the idea that this is “peanuts” compared to renewables? I find things like this:
“Only 4.82 GW of new hydropower capacity was actually given the go-ahead for construction last year, according to data released by the engineering society last month. Since 2011, only 26.8 GW of new capacity has gone into construction, it said.”
Regards,
w.
Willis,
You do not reference where you g0t this wild and unrealistic forecast for China: “150 GWe by 2030, and much more by 2050”. That means 150 reactors in 15 years. Your source must be the nuclear industry, not any agency or entity that looks at realistic forecasts.
The economics of nuclear power in China is a mystery. Nuclear power is government owned which means
designed, constructed and operated by the government and financed by the government. They do not need to have the same strict licensing and environmental regulations as in the OECD countries. So no one can compare the cost of China’s nuclear power plants to OECD nuclear power plants. It is like comparing water melons to tangerines.
———————————————————–
You should read BP Energy Outlook 2035 about the future of global energy and China’s energy:
http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/about-bp/energy-economics/energy-outlook/energy-outlook-downloads.html
Looking ahead, the shares of nuclear and hydro continue to decline, but the scaling up of renewables is sufficient to lift the aggregate non-fossil share from 32% in 2013 to 38% by 2035.
Within the OECD, renewables dominate the growth of non-fossil power, and contribute 90% of the net growth in power generation from all sources.
The growth of non-fossil fuels in the non-OECD is broader based. The increase in renewable power is roughly the same in volume terms as in the OECD. But there are also significant increases in nuclear and hydro. Renewables account for 16% of the growth in power generation in the non-OECD.
Despite losing share in the global power sector, nuclear and hydro are still expected to grow by 1.8% p.a. and 1.7% p.a. over the Outlook.
Global nuclear growth is driven by China with an estimated growth rate of 11% p.a. – adding over 1000 TWh by 2035. This is an ambitious target, roughly equivalent to completing a new 1 GW reactor every 3 months for the next two decades. [80 reactors by 2035 – not 150 by 2030]
Nuclear capacity in Europe and North America declines as ageing plants are gradually decommissioned, and the difficult economics and politics of nuclear energy stunts new growth. Japan is assumed to restart its reactors gradually from 2015 but is not expected to recover to pre-Fukushima level of nuclear power generation by 2035.
Global hydro growth is also driven by the non-OECD, with China and Brazil projected to grow by 450 TWh (1.4% p.a.) and 250 TWh (1.9% p.a.) respectively. Africa is the fastest growing region at 3.8% p.a., adding 150 TWh over the period.
———————————————————-
China is leading in the race for renewable energy:
China has both motive and means to build a new green growth system.
It has abundant motives due to the appalling pollution problems it has created in over three decades of unbridled economic growth.(These problems are reviewed in telling detail in the YouTube video “Under the Dome” by Chinese journalist Chai Jing).
China also has the means in the form of a strong state. The government is prepared to intervene in the economy to drive the promotion of manufacturing industries that are producing green energy and resource devices.
http://www.theglobalist.com/china-vs-the-west-the-renewables-arms-race/
I hope these points help you to see that the economics of nuclear power is what is holding back the industry.
With regard to moving goal posts – I see no point in your comment. My comment was directed at nuclear power plants in the US as noted by my examples. I welcome more discussion on the economics of nuclear power.
jaagu
jaagu August 12, 2015 at 1:01 pm
Glad to read it, jaangu, thanks for the link, I’ve bookmarked it. From your cited work, in their section on China:
Do you see which one of those shows the greatest growth? Nuclear.
It also says:
So let’s see where their numbers lead us.
Total electrical generation in China in 2013 was 5361.6 TWh/year, of which 110.6 TWh/year was nuclear (BP figures for those). This agrees with 2% nuclear figure given in your citation.
By 2035 an increase of 81% means China will be generating 9705 TWh/year of energy. If the nuclear share goes up to 11%, the nukes will be putting out 1067 TWh/year of electricity.
And to generate 1067 TWh/year of nuclear electricity figuring a 90% capacity factor means that by 2035 they will need 135 GWe of nuclear generating capacity, per your figures.
Now, recall that the other source I quoted said 150 GWe by 2030, which you heaped scorn on … but your own citation says 135 GWe by 2035, which is most assuredly of the same magnitude. Given that these are two different forecasts of one of the more enigmatic parts of the world, those are quite close. So save your sneering about how my source is the “nuclear industry”, it just exacerbates the fact that you didn’t do your homework.
Next time, jaangu, run the numbers before trying them out on me. I assure you, handwaving doesn’t often work with me. I’m not impressed by anything until I actually run the numbers and do the calculations myself, and understand them thoroughly.
Regards,
w.
Willis,
Your getting irritated by my numbers and calling my arguments hand-waving while you make mistakes. Well I am just trying to get the facts straight. You made the following mistake when you said:
“And to generate 1067 TWh/year of nuclear electricity figuring a 90% capacity factor means that by 2035 they will need 135 GWe of nuclear generating capacity, per your figures.”
You forgot that China already has nuclear plants generating electricity. You need to subtract those and get your new correct number. China currently has 28 operating reactors and 24 in construction.
So going back to the real numbers in the literature:
BP numbers: 80 reactors in 20 years = 4 reactors per year
Willis numbers: 150 reactors in 15 years = 10 reactors per year
To me as a nuclear engineering manager the difference between 4 and 10 reactors per year is significant. China has not yet achieved 10 reactors per year and you claim they will do it. That is wishful thinking.
You have also totally ignored my discussion about the economics of nuclear power in China and else where. You have done a lot of hand-waving arguments that nuclear power is economical and that I do not know the economics of nuclear power. But you present no facts or references that nuclear power is economical. I blew your hand-waving ideas about Chinese nuclear power economics out the window.
jaagu
jaagu August 12, 2015 at 9:08 pm
Nice try, but wrong. The statement I quoted was not about additional nuclear capacity. It was about total nuclear capacity, viz:
So no, I don’t “need to subtract those [existing plants] and get your new correct number”. The number I quoted clearly refers to an increase in total nuclear capacity TO at least 58 GWe, and not an increase in nuclear capacity OF 58 GWe. As a result, the numbers I calculated were for total nuclear capacity, and need no adjustment.
The figures I originally quoted said 150GWe total nuclear capacity. The BP figures said 135 GWe total nuclear capacity … I call that close, for a couple of guesses at what a bunch of inscrutable Chinese might do in a couple decades.
As to the economics, nuclear plants are being built (as I have cited and discussed) all over the world. Your claim that all of those countries, from France to Belarus, from Pakistan to India, from Poland to China, are all building expensive power plants knowing that they are uneconomical, that is a joke. People don’t do that.
w.
PS—You say “BP numbers: 80 reactors in 20 years = 4 reactors per year”. I don’t understand this. I didn’t see anywhere that BP gave numbers of reactors, just amounts of GWe. A link to your source for that would be good. Also, I believe you are using your incorrect figures.
Additionally, you say:
Again, I find nothing in what I quoted about “150 reactors in 15 years”. Instead, it says China will have a TOTAL nuclear capacity of 150 GWe in 15 years … but it says nothing about numbers of reactors. The new Chinese reactors are almost all either 1.25 or 1.5 or 1.7 GWe, so I don’t know how you got numbers of reactors.
In any case, your use of the incorrect figures renders your comparison meaningless.
You say “BP numbers: 80 reactors in 20 years = 4 reactors per year”. I don’t understand this. I didn’t see anywhere that BP gave numbers of reactors, just amounts of GWe. A link to your source for that would be good. Also, I believe you are using your incorrect figures.
BP says: Global nuclear growth is driven by China with an estimated growth rate of 11% p.a. – adding over 1000 TWh by 2035. This is an ambitious target, roughly equivalent to completing a new 1 GW reactor every 3 months for the next two decades.
To me that means 20 years x 4 reactors/year = 80 reactors by 2035. I think they are assuming a capacity factor of 80-90%.
With regard to nuclear economics we can agree that nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation, except where there is direct access to low-cost fossil fuels and renewable energy.
1. Fuel costs for nuclear plants are a minor proportion of total generating costs, though capital costs are greater than those for coal-fired plants and much greater than those for natural gas-fired plants.
2. Nuclear power plant construction is typical of large infrastructure projects around the world, whose costs and delivery challenges tend to be under-estimated.
I disagree with your statement:
“As to the economics, nuclear plants are being built (as I have cited and discussed) all over the world. Your claim that all of those countries, from France to Belarus, from Pakistan to India, from Poland to China, are all building expensive power plants knowing that they are uneconomical, that is a joke.”
Poland, United Kingdom, Sweden, Spain, Italy, Mexico, South Africa, Egypt, Israel, Iran and many other countries are not building any nuclear reactors. Some may have plans, but nothing is firm.
France is building 1 large, uneconomical reactor
Finland is building 1 large, uneconomical reactor
Belarus is building 2 large reactors
Pakistan is building 2 small reactors
India is building 6 small reactors
Japan had 2 large reactors in construction before Fukushima disaster
United Arab Emirates is building 3 large reactors
Brazil is building 1 large reactor
Russia is building 9 large reactors
Korea is building 4 large reactors
Slovak Republic is building 2 small reactors
Ukraine is building 2 large reactors
Taiwan is building 2 large reactors
USA is building 5 large reactors
China is building 3 small and 21 large reactors
53 large reactors
13 small reactors
This equals ~ 60 GW of new nuclear generation
This is about 1% of the total world installed electrical generation capacity ~ 6000 GW
http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=2&pid=2&aid=7&cid=regions&syid=2011&eyid=2012&unit=MK
Thus nuclear power is not a major investment for any of these countries when compare to their total installed electrical generation capacity. But yes some countries may build expensive nuclear reactors because they have not other cheaper alternatives or they want to diversify or they want more energy independence. But their small new build of nuclear shows economics are against nuclear power.
Many old nuclear reactors will be permanently shutdown in the next 5 to 10 years in USA, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, Sweden and France. Japan has permanently shutdown ~ 10 reactors after Fukushima accident and more will be shutdown permanently.
jaagu