Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday September 11 2019, @07:31AM   Printer-friendly
from the things-prior-to-2038 dept.

Gas Plants Will Get Crushed by Wind, Solar by 2035, Study Says

By 2035, it will be more expensive to run 90% of gas plants being proposed in the U.S. than it will be to build new wind and solar farms equipped with storage systems, according to the report Monday from the Rocky Mountain Institute. It will happen so quickly that gas plants now on the drawing boards will become uneconomical before their owners finish paying for them, the study said.

The authors of the study say they analyzed the costs of construction, fuel and anticipated operations for 68 gigawatts of gas plants proposed across the U.S. They compared those costs to building a combination of solar farms, wind plants and battery systems that, together with conservation efforts, could supply the same amount of electricity and keep the grid stable.

As gas plants lose their edge in power markets, the economics of pipelines will suffer, too, RMI said in a separate study Monday. Even lines now in the planning stages could soon be out of the money, the report found.

Hopefully our electrical distribution grid will still work.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by The Shire on Wednesday September 11 2019, @06:48PM (8 children)

    by The Shire (5824) on Wednesday September 11 2019, @06:48PM (#892856)

    And another important thing to point out that makes your statistics meaningless.

    Totall world power production today is around 26.6 million GW/h. Your 2 billion panels would produce around 5.5 million GW/h, or only about 20% of the current energy needs, assuming the sun was shining at full intensity everywhere on earth 24 hours a day (hint - it never does). Do the math.

    Solar and wind will NEVER fill the gap of fossil fuels. We currently have only ONE source of clean energy that can do that - nuclear. If you ignore it or run away from it then you may as well embrace fossil fuels because nothing else can fill that void currently. And it only gets worse as you move inevitably to electric cars.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday September 11 2019, @11:35PM (1 child)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 11 2019, @11:35PM (#892964) Journal

    Your 2 billion panels would produce around 5.5 million GW/h...

    (...cringe... even as a typo, GW/h is horrendous)
    PV is the best solution for small producers - like put them on your roof, couple that to a battery bank and, in certain geographies (large enough to count), chances are you can live without the grid for most of the time (over 95%). Incidentally, that's the very factor that makes PV attractive to me - I can produce my own energy and limit my dependence on the power utilities; I reckon there are heaps of other people on the same mind-set.

    For large setups, the concentrated solar solution offers better energy efficiency.

    Solar and wind will NEVER fill the gap of fossil fuels.

    Look mate, I'm not saying nuke-plants don't have value, I'm saying:
    1. the renewables don't lose their advantages because of nuke-plants and...
    2. ... there are reasons for which one can prefer PV over all/any other way of obtain energy and this choice doesn't make the environment worse.

    ---

    in your rush to rubbish renewables, you tend to move your goal post the way it suits you. I never said "PV is the sole solution to humanity's energy needs", all that I objected to was your position "it's impossible to add generating capacity within those x-number limits" - turns out that it is possible and others have done it.

    May I remind you posting on S/N is actually a waste of time and, you if you only look/consider at alternative PoVs for the sole purpose to rubbish them, the single point you may gain in the process comes from "entertainment purposes" angle?
    'Cause I guarantee you, no business in the energy sector is gonna look over your rants on S/N and change course because of them.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Pav on Wednesday September 11 2019, @11:54PM

      by Pav (114) on Wednesday September 11 2019, @11:54PM (#892979)

      The government was going to build a gas or coal fired powerplant for my home region (North Queensland, Australia), but given fuel transport costs etc... solar + hydroelectric [youtube.com] is the more economically safe option, even in the driest and flattest continent on earth.

  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday September 12 2019, @12:55AM (4 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 12 2019, @12:55AM (#893001) Journal

    We currently have only ONE source of clean energy that can do that - nuclear.

    Clean, you say.

    Let's check your assertion.

    You say the PV are highly toxic because of Cadmium - not all PV use Cadmium but let's say they are. Most of the cadmium is used in batteries (over 86% [wikipedia.org]) and many other purposes (Wikipedia don't even mention PVes as a major use for cadmium [wikipedia.org], but surprisingly does mention it for nuclear-fission plants). So let's say 20% goes into PV-es and those PV-es are never recycled.

    Under these assumption, let's compare the "cleanness of PV" vs the "cleanness of nuclear energy" as it is at now (no ifs and buts about an uncertain future)

    • total world cadmium production - 23000 metric tonnes [amazonaws.com] and trending downwards.
      Under the most alarmist assumptions above, 20%*23000 mt = 4,600 metric tons of cadmium compounds, already encased in PV-es (need to break and leech them to be exposed to the toxic stuff)
    • High-level nuclear waste (that quite *hot* stuff that will kill you for sure if you stay close to it, even if you don't swallow it)**
      the amount of HLW worldwide [wikipedia.org] is currently increasing by about 12,000 metric tons every year.

    Ummm... you were saying...?

    ---
    ** we'll ignore the low and medium level waste, even if the latter is bad enough to require special storage; ya know? things like encasing in glass - pretty much the way cadmium is encased in PV-es - and then storing the stuff in deep dry mines.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 2) by The Shire on Thursday September 12 2019, @01:19AM (3 children)

      by The Shire (5824) on Thursday September 12 2019, @01:19AM (#893007)

      Spent fuel rods are kept on site in cooling ponds until the really "hot" actinides decay, after which they are safe to transfer to more permanent storage facilities. Currently a new storage facility in New Mexico is coming online that will have a capacity to store some 120,000 metric tons of waste - that's more than 10 years worth by your calculations. The problem is we're still running these 40 year old reactor designs, the modern Gen III designs are much more efficient and generate much less waste.

      As I also mentioned, there are new liquid salt reactor designs that are being brought online in China and India that are literally capable of burning nuclear waste as fuel. All that waste currently stored can be powering your car for the next 50 years. These new designs (generative IV) operate at normal atmospheric pressure (no chance of steam explosions) and cannot "melt down" because they operate in a liquid state. In the event of a catastrophic loss of power the fuel simply drains into a holding tank and the reaction stops.

      Fear is the only thing holding these technologies back. And holding these technologies back in the US is probably the one thing anyone concerned about climate change should NOT be doing.

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday September 12 2019, @02:22AM (2 children)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 12 2019, @02:22AM (#893025) Journal

        Spent fuel rods are kept on site in cooling ponds until the really "hot" actinides decay, after which they are safe to transfer to more permanent storage facilities.

        From what I'm reading about [wikipedia.org], looks like the half-life for the things that are hot enough is at least 30 years (that "Some elements, such as cesium-137 and strontium-90 have half-lives of approximately 30 years. Meanwhile, plutonium has a half-life of that can stretch to as long as 24,000 years").

        Other things I can make some inferences on: "The amount of HLW worldwide is currently increasing by about 12,000 metric tons every year... In 2010, it was estimated that about 250,000 tons of nuclear HLW were stored."
        I'm not say that's 100% accurate, but the things above are consistent with "the cooling of spent fuel rods doesn't take less than 20 years" (if it would be shorter, the level of HLW in storage would be lower).

        The problem is we're still running these 40 year old reactor designs, the modern Gen III designs are much more efficient and generate much less waste.

        As I also mentioned, there are new liquid salt reactor designs that are being brought online in China and India that are literally capable of burning nuclear waste as fuel.

        The solutions for recycling PV-es are already known too - e.g. plenty of business cases and regulations in place for recycling nasty batteries and electronics.
        And PV recycling will come to be just as GenII reactors and the liquid salt ones will come to be.

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 2) by The Shire on Thursday September 12 2019, @04:09AM (1 child)

          by The Shire (5824) on Thursday September 12 2019, @04:09AM (#893052)

          The really nasty stuff only lasts about 2 or 3 years. The rest is stuff you wouldn't want to eat, but it's perfectly safe to store. A little known fact is that virtually all of the nuclear medicine supply comes from nuclear reactors. Shut them down and you will literally be killing people.

          The primary difference between solar and nuclear is that you will never be able to generate all the power needed by the US with solar, there's just no way. The latest statistics put our yearly power consumption at 3,911 TW/h. Currently only 67 TW/h of that is solar. By comparison, about ten times as much power is being generated by nuclear - roughly 20% of the nations power. So you would have to have some 60 times as much solar capacity as we have right now in order to meet the demand. For nuclear it's just a five fold increase. And while places like the Mojave are conducive to large scale production, most of the US is not. There's no way to get the power generated on the west coast over to the east coast or even into the Midwest, all areas that are sub optimal for solar generation.

          We have around 100 nuclear plants in operation in the US, if we could bring an additional 400 online they would fully meet the current demand and you could say goodbye to fossil fuels and pat yourself on the back for doing your part to stop climate change. Alternatively you can try to deploy a over hundred billion solar panels and still not meet demand. And while a nuclear plant can generate as much power in California as it could in North Dakota, the same can't be said for solar. The statistics say something along the lines of best case maximums being around 74% in places like LA down to providing only 14% capacity in places like Nebraska.

          Solar has an important role to play in places where it's practical as does wind. But the real powerhouse we could depend on would be nuclear. And who knows, as breakthroughs arrive in solar and battery efficiency in the next 50 years or so maybe we can start to swing things in the other direction. In the meantime though, nuclear gets us the emissions free energy we have to have while we wait.

          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday September 12 2019, @04:34AM

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 12 2019, @04:34AM (#893055) Journal

            The really nasty stuff only lasts about 2 or 3 years. The rest is stuff you wouldn't want to eat, but it's perfectly safe to store.

            A nasty habit of tabling things without providing a citation, many of them proven false by a proper research.

            As this research become a bit tiresome and time consuming to me, I hope you won't mind if I retreat from this conversation

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday September 12 2019, @11:52AM

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday September 12 2019, @11:52AM (#893126)

    The problem with nuclear power is that not enough people get filthy rich from it - not as compared to the alternatives. The more people you make filthy rich, the more people will support that idea through government lobbying - period, end of story.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]