The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

'was looking at EIA data in the 2019 World Almanac yesterday.A few observations:
*It took,from 1970,to 1996,for nuclear power to have a capacity factor as good as a current G.E. 12-MW off-shore wind turbine.
*In 2017,for domestic energy production,renewables exceeded natural gas condensates.
*In 2017,renewables exceeded nuclear.
*In 2017,the US economy lost $77,137,000,000 to imported petroleum.
*In 2008,crude oil was $140-bbl,and gasoline @ $4.00/gallon.(depending upon global circumstances,we could experience these numbers again)
*We criticize China's carbon footprint,while glossing over the fact that we're responsible for all the greenhouse gases it took for them to produce the $222-billion in trade goods we've purchased from them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*yesterday it was claimed that to go to a zero-carbon electrical grid,with the Green new Deal, it would cost $5.4-trillion,over 10-years.
That works out at $4.54/day, per capita.About the cost of a cheeseburger.
Obviously an impossible goal.
There was no arguing whether it could,or could not be done,but simply that it would wreck the economy.

In 2016 for the US nuclear made almost 20%, hydro made 6.5% wind made 5.5% and everything else made 4%.
I don't think those add up to 20%

[redpoint5]

I don't know what capacity factor of nuke has to do with anything either. If the available capacity is being underutilized, then there is huge potential for delivering much more electricity for practically no more cost. In other words, it would drive the cost per kWh down and make it more cost competitive.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

That sounds like a pretty good idea.
Generate power and heat homes.

*The 'co-gen' heat recovery is great.
*If they can capture and sequester the carbon it's great.
*The solid waste(heavy metals) will need to be better protected than in last year's hurricanes.
*The fine particulate matter, of an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less,(PM 2.5) killed 3.5-million people in 2007.It's a global,transboundary air pollutant,which doesn't respect borders,which hitch hikes rides on the transpacific warm conveyor belt.
PM 2.5s are linked to premature deaths even in the US.
You're looking at:
*ischaemic heart disease
*stroke
*lung cancer
*chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
*Coal industry lobbyists have fought hard to prevent the US EPA from listing fine particulates as a 'pollutant,so as to be free from any regulation.As have Diesel fuel manufacturers.
*Some 'listed' pollutants,lobbyists have had success in having the EPA 'de-list',so they can legally pollute.(Gotta love the American Bar Association!)
*Also,there's the specter of when we do turn off all the coal-fired plants,and Earth heats up another 0.5-degrees within a couple of months, as the sulfate aerosols precipitate out of the atmosphere.
Whoopy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jcp123]

If Chernobyl and TMI hadn't choked nuke power off, Fukushima certainly did.

The newest generation of reactor designs have multiple passive safety systems, and some are "breeder" reactors, making viable again what would otherwise have been spent fuel, elongating the lifecycle of nuclear fuel and delaying the need for secure disposal.

That said, the ongoing need for disposal is a real issue, and neither the market nor regulators are in a mood for more nuclear power. A few hours on something as simple as Wikipedia would dispel some of that, but I think at least for the foreseeable future, nuclear will die a slow death.

I am much more optimistic about solar. Ivanpah solar station in California is a wonderful prototype for solar thermal stations going forward. The environmental lobby stepped on its own toes making noise about bird deaths before the situation was corrected, though, so that tech is now in some jeopardy as well. It's solar power able to be generated for many hours after sundown. In some ways, it's moving towards a perfect solution.

[redpoint5]

Environuts either don't care if we live in the stone-age, or are ignorant of the fact that if you have a problem with every single man-made thing, then you don't get electricity. Fortunately, the nuts are the minority of people, but they can still cause a lot of disruption and expense to complete projects.

I'm a humanist; all other factors are secondary and should serve the human interest.

Short term I see nuke floundering, but long term I think it will be the dominant electricity source. People will forget the 3 nuke accidents and technology will improve. Waste is a non-issue because storing it isn't a problem, and it's potentially useful as fuel again.

Wind is cheaper than solar, so I expect that to have greater gains outside of CA.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

In 2016 for the US nuclear made almost 20%, hydro made 6.5% wind made 5.5% and everything else made 4%.
I don't think those add up to 20%

The values I posted were for 2017,EIA.
And they are for only energy actually produced domestically,no foreign energy (of which we bought 23.7-quads).
*Natural gas was 31.77%
*Crude oil was ... 22.31%
*Coal was ......... 17.82%
*Renewable was . 12.7%
*Nuclear was ..... 9.6%
*Natural gas liquids 5.76%
Total domestic production was 87.64-quadrillion Btus.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I purposely left out foreign energy sources to illustrate 'actual' US energy capacity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
One glaring omission from the EIA data,is that they do not parse out 'feedstock' energy inputs,versus net produced energy output.
For instance,a light water reactor only harvests about 1% of the energy contained in the fuel rods.
And the best Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle coal-fired power plant has a thermal efficiency of,say,44%,so if it wheeled 15.62 quads of electric power onto a hub,it burned 35.5 quads worth of coal to get there,losing 56% of it's fuel's chemical energy potential to entropy.
*As of 2010,the best turbine was rated at 52% conversion efficiency,and after the cost is amortized out,it's 'fuel' is free.

[oil pan 4]

If it's a breeder nuke it's going to have a real low service factor from constantly shutting down to swap fuel rods.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I don't know what capacity factor of nuke has to do with anything either. If the available capacity is being underutilized, then there is huge potential for delivering much more electricity for practically no more cost. In other words, it would drive the cost per kWh down and make it more cost competitive.

*There has been a bit of criticism here at EcoModder,directed towards renewable energy sources such as wind and solar,with respect to their actual production,compared to their nameplate rating.
*I was surprised to learn that today's GE wind turbines have better performance than all nuclear power plants had,for a mean,average,between 1970 and 1995.
Some of the nukes were rated as low as 47.8%.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by aerohead

*In 2017,for domestic {{{energy}}} production,renewables exceeded natural gas condensates.
There was no arguing whether it could,or could not be done,but simply that it would wreck the economy.

"Renewables" including hydro (which has topped out decades ago and no one will let us build anymore) for ELECTRICITY production.
.
The words renewable electricity and the word energy are commonly erroneously conflated. Multiply electricity production 5x to get it's proportion of energy. The fact that big hydro is actually (foolishly) being lobbied to tear down rather than increase also makes lumping it into the word "renewables" misleading when the inference is that someone is referencing wind and solar build out.
.
The PROPOSED data on the new 12 MW wind turbine is vaporware. We must wait and see what the actual output over a year is.
.
Pollyanna optimism of wind and solar replacing all energy along with a complete electrification retrofit of all systems breeds complacency to undertake the real societal changes that are required for a controlled step back down toward sustainable levels.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

*I was surprised to learn that today's GE wind turbines have better performance than all nuclear power plants had,for a mean,average,between 1970 and 1995.
Some of the nukes were rated as low as 47.8%.

What capacity factor are the best wind doing? I can't imagine 50%+. That would mean that on average, the wind was blowing such that the turbine was producing an average of at least half the maximum rated output. So days where it produced less than half would have to be made up on days that produced more than half.

I thought 1/3 was what to expect from wind and solar?