The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[sendler]

well obviously they can't do that now. The world economy would crash to 30% unemployment.

[sendler]

The discussion came up concerning electricity in Australia but the numbers would be the same for the USA if multiplied by 17.
.
Wikipedia says for 2014 Australia consumed 224,000,000,000 kWh for the year.
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ty_consumption
.
Change the prefix to Mega by moving the ecimal 3 places. 224,000,000 MWh.
.
Divide by 8760 number of hours in a year. 25,570.7 MW average electrical consumption for Australia. 25,570,700,000 Watts
.
The SolarWorld SW340 is a nice, high end panel. 17.29% efficiency. 180 W/ m^2. $1.03/ Watt. $355.00 each not delivered.
.
https://www.wholesalesolar.com/19223...no-solar-panel
.
25,570,700,000 W / 180 W/ m^2 = 14,205,944.44 m^2 and 7,520,794 panels. For a nameplate output.
.
$2,670 Billion. For the nameplate. Multiply times 5 assuming a 20% capacity when installed not in a high desert. SolarStar does 31%. Topaz does 24.4%. Desert Sunlight does 26.7%
.
Upstate NY, USA does 13%.
.
37,604,000 panels, $13,350 Billion dollars US. $13.35 Trillion. Just for panels not installed and no land or wires. And no inverters to make AC.
.
$2US/ W installed would double this to $26 Trillion with the inverters and construction costs. But no storage. So it still has a very limited usefullness.
.
71 km^2 panel area. How much more for the space between panels? Roads, buildings, ect?
.
Now add the batteries for just 12 hours storage. Which isn't nearly enough but we will all have to get used to working when the sun shines and waiting it out when it doesn't for a few days.
.
25,570,700 kW continuous average consumption for Australia in 2014. Times 12 hours. = 306,848,400 kWh. Times $400US/ kWh for gridscale Tesla PowerPacks with inverters.
.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/artic...020#gs.YpLl1kU
.
$12,274,000,000 dollars US. These batteries will drift down to 50% remaining capacity in 4,500 cycles/ 15 years to require replacement again. So $25 Trillion for batteries for 30 years.
.
30 years x 8760 hours x 25,570,700 kW continous production assuming there was never more than 12 hours of poor sun for the batteries to cover,
.
= 6.72 TWh over 30 years / $40 Trillion = $0.167 / kWh amortized over 30 years. Very few investors will buy in at $0.167/ kWh.
.
This is $0.055 just for the panels. with no installation. racks, wires, inverters, land. Nothing else but the panels. How do we keep getting news articles stating $0.03/ kWh?
.
Maybe the panels will last 50 years making them $0.033 just for the panels with no installation or any way to use them.
.
I'm sure there are better algorithms for adding Batteries a little at a time to maintain the 12 hours storage but I will leave that to someone else and just simplfy it to 2X sets of batteries over 30 years for this discussion.
.
So we are at $40 Trillion just for the parts. For something that will have several total days long blackouts per year. North East USA would be much worse due the rainy, snowy weather.
.
The USA would be 17 times this figure. $680 Trillion over 30 years to replace just 2014 electricity totals. Multiply by 3 to replace all energy. And double that in 30 years for growth worldwide.
.
Run the numbers.
.
A 1.05GW nuclear plant averages 1GW, rain or shine. For 50 years plus some refueling costs. We can get Gen3+ plants to $10 Billion ea if we buckle down and try to get good at it.
.
This is 433,500,000,000 kWh over 50 years / by $10,000,000,000 constuction cost = $0.023 over 50 years. Cheaper than the price of just solar panels not installed.
.
The average ongoing operating costs for a nuclear plant in 2008 was $0.0186 / kWh for fuel and operating and management. For some really good, high paying jobs.
.
https://atomicinsights.com/nuclear-e...vable-problem/
.
It is less for fuel at first but let's say $0.0186 would be the average.
.
$0.0416 / kWh for 50 years for nuclear. And they never need massive batteries or have blackouts between all of them on a grid.
.
Not to mention getting good at finding industrial co-uses for the waste geat.
.
Rock solid 24/7 nuclear is cheaper than installing just solar panels that can only help peaks at less than 15% of the grid and is 4 times cheaper than blackout prone solar plus batteries.

[JockoT]

Originally Posted by sendler

A 1.05GW nuclear plant averages 1GW, rain or shine. For 50 years plus some refueling costs. We can get Gen3+ plants to $10 Billion ea if we buckle down and try to get good at it.
.

And $100 Billion to remove it when it's done. Dounreay, here in Scotland, will cost £60 Billion and take 60 years to remove. And how much will that cost escalate, over that that time scale?

[sendler]

Originally Posted by JockoT

Dounreay

A very early experimental attempt at nuclear technology from 1950 using a fast breeder and direct liquid metal coolant.
.
When will you guys stop comparing 1950's technology to 2017? The whole progression of nuclear power has been held up for decades. It can obviously be much better now than in 1950.
.
We are still hung up in one way by the fact that new tech takes so long to certify, nobody can afford to even build any Gen4 reactor types to begin to push these designs forward.
Except China. Who will forge ahead with this tech while the rest of the world is tied in red tape. And get the jump on the rest of the world in owning the intellectual property. Giving them another 2:1 advantage in manufaturing with cheaper energy costs.

[JockoT]

Modern reactors will still cost Billions to decommission, which has to be added into the equation. And we all know the consequences if things go wrong,

[sendler]

We are turning our backs on the only techno solution that can realistically save us in the short term. The storage aspect of solar and wind prevents them from ever being more than 30-40% of the grid even with the most brute force battery production campaign.

[Frank Lee]

Could always, I don't know... conserve.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by sendler

well obviously they can't do that now. The world economy would crash to 30% unemployment.

https://qz.com/516023/if-nearly-40-o...re-they-doing/

Hmm labor force participation world wid I don't think gets much above 70% in recent history

So we are already at 30+ % unemployment

[sendler]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Could always, I don't know... conserve.

Not even close. Energy and GDP are tied together 1:1.. Everything you see and experience around you are made from vast amounts of fossil fuel energy. And small amounts of raw materials, harvested with huge amounts of fossil fuel energy. Whatever one person can do to minimize this is miniscule compared to total energy consumption of human civilization.
.
As I have been saying. Again. And again. And again.
.
Have any of you guys bothered to watch the Nate Hagens video I keep posting?
.
https://youtu.be/YUSpsT6Oqrg
.
Or read the Tom Murphy web site I keep posting?
.
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/post-index/
.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by sendler

Not even close. Energy and GDP are tied together 1:1.. Everything you see and experience around you are made from vast amounts of fossil fuel energy. And small amounts of raw materials, harvested with huge amounts of fossil fuel energy. Whatever one person can do to minimize this is miniscule compared to total energy consumption of human civilization.
.
As I have been saying. Again. And again. And again.
.
Have any of you guys bothered to watch the Nate Hagens video I keep posting?
.
https://youtu.be/YUSpsT6Oqrg
.
Or read the Tom Murphy web site I keep posting?
.
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/post-index/
.

The mechanics of our society will come to an end

We can try to stretch out our current system or do away with it now.