What does it take to succesfully transition to a green energy economy?

[Willem]

As for nuclear, the Dutch government is planning two new reactors. The snag is we are a small and densely populated country. The two regions with the lowest population densities are the northeast, but that region is prone to earthquakes, and the south west but that has an increased risk of flooding.

 

[RandomEar]

So how do you feel about Germany closing down nuclear electricity generation? To it sound collosally stupid to me. The way I've heard it, renewable energy projects have managed to replace the nuclear capacity but have made no dent in the use of fossil fuels for generation.

I'm all in favor of maximizing the use of renewable sources but base power has to come from somewhere. Nuclear is probably the best for the foreseeable future. I've already pointed out that where I live generation is nuclear generates almost 60% of a electricity and had for many years without any serious incidents ... electrical powers generation in Ontario, 2019. (Note the over 90% of your power comes from non-greenhouse gas sources.) ...

All factors considered, nuclear power generation is one of the very safest and most environmentally friendly methods ...

You are right that on average, nuclear is safe and has a low environmental impact. One problem with nuclear is, that serious accidents can make whole regions uninhabitable for hundreds of years, if they happen. The probablility of accidents is low, but the dimension of accidents can be enormous.

What you also have to consider with nuclear is that keeping existing plants running generates very cheap electricity, but building new ones does not - in fact, it is amongst the most expensive options available for new builds. Only residential rooftop solar can be more expensive under some circumstances [1]. Seeing that the cost for PV keeps declining, that won't be true for much longer, though [2]. Further, the total Uranium reserves known today are only good for just below 100 years if consumption stays at current levels [3]. You can assume that new deposits may be found and they typically are, but the reserves are limited and if you increase consumption now by building new reactors at scale, the reserves can quickly come down to a couple of decades.

Therefore, keeping existing plants running, keeping them safe and upgrading them to some extent is a reasonable choice. Building new ones now is debatable. Relying on nuclear in the long term (50+ years) isn't even a choice. Other solutions are required for base load applications. The only viable solutions for that are large scale storage + renewables or - if we ever get that running - fusion power.

 

[Gorgonzola]

You are right that on average, nuclear is safe and has a low environmental impact. One problem with nuclear is, that serious accidents can make whole regions uninhabitable for hundreds of years, if they happen. The probablility of accidents is low, but the dimension of accidents can be enormous.

What you also have to consider with nuclear is that keeping existing plants running generates very cheap electricity, but building new ones does not - in fact, it is amongst the most expensive options available for new builds. Only residential rooftop solar can be more expensive under some circumstances [1]. Seeing that the cost for PV keeps declining, that won't be true for much longer, though [2]. Further, the total Uranium reserves known today are only good for just below 100 years if consumption stays at current levels [3]. You can assume that new deposits may be found and they typically are, but the reserves are limited and if you increase consumption now by building new reactors at scale, the reserves can quickly come down to a couple of decades.

Therefore, keeping existing plants running, keeping them safe and upgrading them to some extent is a reasonable choice. Building new ones now is debatable. Relying on nuclear in the long term (50+ years) isn't even a choice. Other solutions are required for base load applications. The only viable solutions for that are large scale storage + renewables or - if we ever get that running - fusion power.

No doubt new nuclear generation stations are expensive. Accidents are very rare but expensive, though current examples don't definitively indicate the lands will be uninhabitable for "hundreds of years".

As I understand some "base" generation capacity is necessary for when the sun doesn't shine and the winds don't blow. Hydro generation is important in many regions but new hydro dams have high negative impacts on environments. Geothermal and tidal sound great but have limited applicability. That leaves nuclear as things stand; granted uranium/thorium reserves are limited but "breeder" reactors might extend the feasibility for several hundred years.

What might radically shift things in favor of renewables would be vastly improved spare capacity storage. Presently it's not clear what large-scale grid storage would look like. Batteries might work in some locations but currently don't seem feasible on the large scale.

 

[Noske]

Unfortunately, there are many failing family farms in our area desperate for additional income that would or have already signed a contract.
Corporate dairy farms have driven most family based diary farms in Wisconsin under and it's getting worse with each passing year.

I know that folks like Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and other zillionaires are accumulating substantial slabs of American agricultural farmland, traditionally owned and operated by modest families, the heritage of which may often be traced back many generations.

I do not pretend to know the details of Wisconsin dairy farms, of course, but from what you have said your son seems to be a reasonably articulate bloke. I would encourage you to encourage others in similar troubling circumstances to say, hey, hang on, let's take a look at this proposal and work out if we can negotiate a better deal.

Because the dudes cowboys who operate these windmill/turbine farms must be loaded. And the individuals probably have key performance objectives. Watch their eyes go cross-eyed when you say no.

 

[Marc v E]

No doubt new nuclear generation stations are expensive. Accidents are very rare but expensive, though current examples don't definitively indicate the lands will be uninhabitable for "hundreds of years".

As I understand some "base" generation capacity is necessary for when the sun doesn't shine and the winds don't blow. Hydro generation is important in many regions but new hydro dams have high negative impacts on environments. Geothermal sounds great but has limited applicability. That leaves nuclear as things stand; granted uranium/thorium reserves are limited but "breeder" reactors might extend the feasibility for several hundred years.

What might radically shift things in favor of renewables would be vastly improved spare capacity storage. Presently it's not clear what large-scale grid storage would look like. Batteries might work in some locations but currently don't seem feasible on the large scale.

I think battery storage will play a big part. Simply because it's faster and cheaper to implement. What that requires for scaling is truly mind boggling.

I suspect the total size of battery storage will be determined by what's cheaper: building storage or extra wind/solar that generates overcapacity sometimes but covers the worst low generation days.

 

[Marc v E]

After listening to a podcast with Tony Seba, I think a transformation in producing protein for a growing population is about to catch on. He talks about precision fermitation, which is basically protein generated by micro organisms.

This could address the issue of emissions from large scale animal farming. A very contentious subject that is currently at the center of a political crisis in my country.

In 2012 the cost was 1 million dollar per kg. But like any new technology, scaling it up reduced costs which will result in price equivalence around 2025.

What that means is that for the food industry, precision fermitation from that point on will be cheaper than real meat. That is real meat as in : from animals. Because the proteins will be the same.

Only the production process changes to fermentation vessels. Practically no land usage. Far less energy usage and low susceptibility to diseases.

Because of above mentioned benefits, I think this could really catch on. What I think is that it will not be introduced as a piece of meat in the supermarket, but will be included as supplement in soups, frozen prepared meat products, pizzas, microwave/oven ready meals, McDonalds etc.

Precision Regulation – Policy as a key shaper of the new food system - Rethink Disruption

There is a major disruption coming to the food system, one that is well detailed in our report Rethinking Food and Agriculture. In the report, we identify the

rethinkdisruption.com

 

[Gorgonzola]

I think battery storage will play a big part. Simply because it's faster and cheaper to implement. What that requires for scaling is truly mind boggling.

I suspect the total size of battery storage will be determined by what's cheaper: building storage or extra wind/solar that generates overcapacity sometimes but covers the worst low generation days.

The way I've heard it is that stretching renewables to cover demand during their lowest generation intervals would have extremely high marginal costs, (hugely more renewables investment versus relatively small increased output). So the economically at least, the options remain fixed base demand capacity, (coal, gas, or nukes), or large over-capacity grid storage. Presently what might constitute cost-effective large-scale storage is vey unclear.

 

[JktHifi]

Solution from Toyota here. Probably this is why Tesla begin discounted EVs.
This is Hydrogen Internal Combustion Engine, not Fuel Cell. I'm at the combustion engine side.

 

[Willem]

PIty about the ICE like noise. Silence is so much nicer. Hydrogen is not only a possible fuel for car combustion engines, but also for home heating. In that case, distribution can be through existing pipelines for natural gas, so it is part of the planned transition in the Netherlands. Moreover, existing modern gas boilers can easily be converted I have been told.

 

[Willem]

The way I've heard it is that stretching renewables to cover demand during their lowest generation intervals would have extremely high marginal costs

I keep thinking that the combination of extending the geographical scope of the grid and thus enlarging the market, combined with dynamic pricing will be more important than storage solutions.

 

[JktHifi]

PIty about the ICE like noise. Silence is so much nicer. Hydrogen is not only a possible fuel for car combustion engines, but also for home heating. In that case, distribution can be through existing pipelines for natural gas, so it is part of the planned transition in the Netherlands. Moreover, existing modern gas boilers can easily be converted I have been told.

It's good for the consumer to have more choice. There will be battery EV, hybrid EV, or Hydrogen Combustion Engine, etc so those manufacturers compete to meet the consumer who need low cost and very reliable vehicle.

 

[Marc v E]

The way I've heard it is that stretching renewables to cover demand during their lowest generation intervals would have extremely high marginal costs, (hugely more renewables investment versus relatively small increased output). So the economically at least, the options remain fixed base demand capacity, (coal, gas, or nukes), or large over-capacity grid storage. Presently what might constitute cost-effective large-scale storage is vey unclear.

I think that depends on what source of renewable energy we use. In my country at least, wind power is pretty solid in winter time. Solar only during spring, summer and maybe a bit during fall.

The other option is long power transmission lines from south to north.

 

[Timcognito]

The source for hydrogen is still electricity, however it could solve the peak production of solar issue. The cost of the hydrgen filling stations will be in the millions of dollars where the cost of an all electric charging station box without land is $10k each (guessing). Hydrogen seems like great solution for nighttime powerplants, aircraft, large trucks, ships and trains where the fueling stations are fewer and more centrally located. The transition to hydrogen will be long and expensive but still could the ultimate in renewable energy.

 

[RandomEar]

Solution from Toyota here. Probably this is why Tesla begin discounted EVs.
This is Hydrogen Internal Combustion Engine, not Fuel Cell. I'm at the combustion engine side.

I like your humor

Just to clarify, the total efficiency (electric power input -> axis driven on a vehicle) of different drivetrain concepts is roughly the following:

• EVs: ~75%
• Hydrogen FCVs: ~30%
• Hydrogen ICEs: <20%

The cost of the primary energy (in the form of electricity) used for these technologies is the same. Thereby, the cost of fuel per kilometer driven is about 2.5 times as high for fuel cell vehicles compared to EVs and about 4.5 times as high for Hydrogen ICE based vehicles. That is not accounting for the higher running costs of FCVs and Hydrogen ICEs due to their higher complexity. This cost advantage of EVs will never change significantly, it is inherent to the physics involved.

Hydrogen will be required for certain use cases. Maybe for airplanes and/or ships, certainly for the production of steel and many processes in the chemical industry. Maybe for long range trucks, but even that is slowly being questioned. Hydrogen in normal consumer cars will never gain any significant market share. This is a good thing, because we need the electricity (and Hydrogen) that these technologies would waste for different purposes.

 

[JktHifi]

I like your humor

Just to clarify, the total efficiency (electric power input -> axis driven on a vehicle) of different drivetrain concepts is roughly the following:

• EVs: ~75%
• Hydrogen FCVs: ~30%
• Hydrogen ICEs: <20%

The cost of the primary energy (in the form of electricity) used for these technologies is the same. Thereby, the cost of fuel per kilometer driven is about 2.5 times as high for fuel cell vehicles compared to EVs and about 4.5 times as high for Hydrogen ICE based vehicles. That is not accounting for the higher running costs of FCVs and Hydrogen ICEs due to their higher complexity. This cost advantage of EVs will never change significantly, it is inherent to the physics involved.

Hydrogen will be required for certain use cases. Maybe for airplanes and/or ships, certainly for the production of steel and many processes in the chemical industry. Maybe for long range trucks, but even that is slowly being questioned. Hydrogen in normal consumer cars will never gain any significant market share. This is a good thing, because we need the electricity (and Hydrogen) that these technologies would waste for different purposes.

It's the solution from the global market leader. And it's normal to follow the leader, right?
Also it's abnormal to follow the new comer because I don't want to be the first victim for the experiment.

 

[Marc v E]

The way I've heard it is that stretching renewables to cover demand during their lowest generation intervals would have extremely high marginal costs, (hugely more renewables investment versus relatively small increased output). So the economically at least, the options remain fixed base demand capacity, (coal, gas, or nukes), or large over-capacity grid storage. Presently what might constitute cost-effective large-scale storage is vey unclear.

I did a quick search on total energy produced and percentage of green energy produced per month in my country. I wanted to see if a baseload could be reached in the toughest months.

Light blue is windenergy from sea based installations. Dark blue from land based. Yellow from solar. As you can see, wind energy delivers a steady supply during winter time. In summer solar energy is the top performer. To be honest I don't see any problem here.

Then on to the problem of total energy versus the percentage produced by renewables. I took Januari 2022 as an example, as it's usually worst case. Total produced was 10,824 million kwh; wind 2285, solar 274. Renewables percentage was (2559/10,824)*100%= 23.8% Therefor in my country we need to build 3x the amount of wind turbines to have a 100% renewable supply. That seems very much within reach.

Elektriciteitsbalans; aanbod en verbruik

www.cbs.nl

 

[Marc v E]

It's the solution from the global market leader. And it's normal to follow the leader, right?
Also it's abnormal to follow the new comer because I don't want to be the first victim for the experiment.

In my experience it's better to follow the data. It's science (cause and effect, inherent efficiency) and economics (who can produce the cheapest, makes the most profit) that makes a winner.

 

[Willem]

The Dutch and UK governments have just agreed to build a second 2 Gigawatt grid cable between the UK and the Netherlands, with a connection to a major Northsea windturbine park as well. The purpose is to supply each other when there is a national shortage or surplus.
This was announced at the meeting today of government leaders and energy ministers from the EU and the UK, plus the European Commission in Oostende in Belgium. The meeting is to plan the extension of windturbine parks in the Northsea and jointly build the infrastucture and the necessary international connections. Security concerns are also part of the agenda, given Russia's increasing surveyance of these installations. The Dutch navy recently had to gently show the door to a Russian spy ship, and this is by no means unique.

 

[Willem]

Yesterday Dutch high voltage grid company Tennet announced it is planning the regulation of grid battery storage. They estimate a need for 10 Gigawatt capacity for the country, but already projects for a total of 45 Gigawatt have been proposed by various private companies. Many of these will not come to actual fruition, but regulation is urgently needed to ensure that the right capacity will be installed at the right locations. If that does not happen, the situation for the grid will get worse rather than better.
One project that is very likely to succeed is a commercial 1 Gigawatt/h battery farm on the location of an aluminium factory that recently went belly up due to high energy prices. The location already has a high voltage grid connection and is located close to where a cable from an off shore wind turbine park reaches the shore and close to a grid connection to Germany. The location is also close to the international gas pipeline network (potentially to be used for hydrogen), so it may also be connected to hydrogen generation or distribution development.

 

[Dismayed]

There are now 8 billion souls residing on this small planet.