I wrote this in November 2021, and in light of the change of government, I think it has become even more relevant:
The transition to clean energy - time for specifics, isn't it??
I mean, there is a strong tendency for the media to jump to catastrophic predictions about what may be (relatively) short term energy problems:
Australia is on the "precipice" of a UK-style energy crisis that could send many of its power retailers broke and fuel a surge of households unable to pay their bills, a leading expert has warned.
And:
I also do not doubt stories that the easily scared - like old pensioners - will take such headlines as a sign that they need to risk ill health by not turning on any heat in their homes out of fear of the cost.
But part of the reason for such stories having legs is the impression (well justified I think) that while governments are busy committing to reduce emissions, there is scant detailed explanation of how we are going to get there.
But with the timelines being talked about, that's just not good enough now, surely?
I don't think that everything can be worked out right now, but my post made suggestions as to what I think government could do to help, but seemingly isn't.
14 comments:
you need to reform the grid. It is based on where large coal fired power stations were.
When you do this prices will fall and be more reliable
I had another *quick* look at the economics of nuclear power. A big problem is that commercial interests are bailing out. There are many other considerations. Have a look at the cost blowouts of the Hinkley nuke plant in the UK. Unfortunately current infrastructure issues impede energy efficiency. Governments won't confront the difficult questions about infrastructure, rather they make claims that renewables+batteries will do the trick. I don't think that is enough. In the future it might be possible but time is of the essence. Energy economics is extremely complex and like myself I suspect most politicians can't get their head around it so just trot our the usual answers.
Yes, John, I am very very sceptical of nuclear power for Australia, given the position of the country and the vast area available for solar and wind. Energy storage and a better grid are the problems, of course, but some country has to be the first to try innovative storage systems (such as flow batteries, or the heat storage system that MIT is promoting in the video I recently posted.) As I said in the November post, I am also not convinced that we know enough about how far roof top solar and storage can go in reducing the need for grid storage. This seems to me to be the stuff that government here need to be studying with a view to specific plans as to where (and when) renewable power plants are to be built and fossil fuel ones can be shut down.
I have said for years, though, that I found it hard to believe that very cold winter locations could ever get by on renewables alone, and nuclear for those locations may be the best option. Although even on that, I could be wrong!
forget about nuclear power.
They take 15 years to build and then need a 460-70 price on carbon to be competitive with coal plants. solar and wind are much cheaper.
modular plants exist only in subs.
I am also not convinced that we know enough about how far roof top solar and storage can go in reducing the need for grid storage.
That's part of the reason I mentioned the infrastructure issue. Technology improves over decades and there is a huge research effort to optimise and develop new approaches to renewables. Recently I watched a vid on wind power without blades. The modern nuclear power plant designs are theoretically meltdown proof. I'll trust the judgment on that. Your point about some countries needed those plants has merit. The trend though is clearly towards developing non-nuclear options. As for fusion power, we'll just have to wait another 20 years.😀 I still think it is feasible but will arrive far too late to address AGW.
"we'll just have to wait another 20 years"
I think it's kind of scandalous, the way the pro fusion research lobby participates in misleading reporting of the incremental improvements so to give the false impression that we are getting close to something useful.
I assume you watched Sabine Hossenfelder's video about that, which I posted here?
I think it's kind of scandalous, the way the pro fusion research lobby participates in misleading reporting of the incremental improvements so to give the false impression that we are getting close to something useful.
I assume you watched Sabine Hossenfelder's video about that, which I posted here?
I did. It is scandalous. I still think it will happen.
forget about nuclear power.
They take 15 years to build and then need a 460-70 price on carbon to be competitive with coal plants. solar and wind are much cheaper.
modular plants exist only in subs.
The economics depends on which analysis you choose to believe. The initial costs are huge but the long term outcome is favorable. As Steve pointed out some countries may not have a choice. I'm not convinced solar and wind can provide the necessary baseload requirements.
It appears modular plants could be put in old coal fired power plants as they were small enough to do that.
BUT it still takes a long time to build and still needs a large price on carbon to be competitive
My preference is to avoid nuclear, fission and fusion, but we're at a point now where if renewables + storage don't happen very quickly we might not have any choice. There are still plenty of people my age, the age range that still dominates the major decision making for the world, who think it is a far off problem. It probably won't be until my lot are out of the way that real progress will be made.
If you're wondering why I'm concerned ...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sweltering-india-turns-to-superheating-coal-for-cooling/
https://www.afr.com/world/north-america/mini-nuclear-reactors-have-a-big-waste-problem-warn-scientists-20220601-p5aq52
My best post and you killed it.
Oh sorry my fault. It must have been tripped by the swear word.
"I had another *quick* look at the economics of nuclear power. A big problem is that commercial interests are bailing out."
Thats not a big problem. Thats not a problem at all. We ought not have gone to the privateers in the first place. The problem is not that they don't want to get involved. The problem is the mentality which said we should have consulted them. Its not that kind of project.
To be a powerful country we need to be an exporter of energy. We can do that without nuclear but when we do so, we find that we are effectively exporting our capital stock. Contrary to popular understandings, hydrocarbons do regenerate pretty quickly. But not at the rate which would stop us from depleting our capital stock. To be secure we want to have our neighbours as addicted to our energy as Western Europe is addicted to Russian energy. The rise of Russia to number one superpower has been masterful. And they didn't need to go on bended knee to multinational privateers to put together this power matrix. For the most part it was neutralising the power of international finance which has made them number one.
Our good future is in thorium/uranium enhanced synthetic methane, aviation fuel, and diesel. Any other future is sub-optimal. If we need to kow-tow to superstitions to do with CO2's effects in the atmosphere, its much better to hydrate the continent then to undertake irrational battery fetishes, or put up with leftist idiocy in any other way. We can build great soil faster than the rest of the world can release CO2 if we choose to. I think we should. What do you think?
Post a Comment