Fossil fuel money could be behind the move against nuclear power. Even sierra club gets huge fund from fossil from industry. Who knew? I thought sierra club was Snow White, giving money to them year after year for over 40 years now.
1 Like
Where I live the fossil fuel industry has been funding environmental groups to oppose importing hydroelectric power from Quebec.
From the fossil fuel company’s perspective this makes a lot of sense. They could not compete with hydroelectric power in terms of cost nor CO2 emissions, and could only equal it in terms of reliability with near 100% availability. Hydro also has an advantage over the older forms of nuclear power in that it is easier to ramp hydro production up and down to match changes in demand (I still remember an explanation that I got on how they do this while I was visiting a large hydro facility as a young kid).
1 Like
The experts who just finished building the system in Switzerland apparantly disagree regarding viability.
4 Likes
I spent a week in Stockholm once in late November. Late November is a rather bleak time to visit Stockholm. The sun barely rose late morning, was always at best low in the sky and quite weak, and set quite soon afterward. I cannot imagine that December or January would have been any better.
I also spent a week in Stockholm in July. It was a very different experience. Stockholm was quite a nice place to visit in July. I did notice at midnight that the brightest spot in the sky (presumably above where the sun was barely hiding below the horizon) was approximately due north. Solar panels that point south might pick up a bit less than you would hope simply because the sun is not always in the right orientation with the panels.
I will admit that I read this mid-afternoon (when the sun was up), and intentionally waited to answer until late at night.
I thought that the hope was to get 100% away from using fossil fuels to generate electricity. Even this is only a first step towards getting away from using fossil fuels for anything. We need electricity now as I am typing this (in the middle of the night).
So if renewables can’t get us 100% away from fossil fuels, then we shouldn’t use them to get 10% more away from fossil fuels? That is like arguing doctors shouldn’t treat heart attacks at all if they can’t save 100% of the patients.
What is wrong with using natural gas as backup generation for any renewables shortfall? Natural gas generation can be ramped up and down fairly efficiently, and natural gas can be stored for when it is needed. An added benefit of even reducing natural gas consumption 10% or 20% is that it will have a huge impact on the cost of natural gas, and reduce demand in the developed world on natural gas producers, many of whom are dictatorships and sponsors of terrorism.
3 Likes
If we can get 20% or 30% of our electricity from renewables, and the rest from natural gas, this is indeed a huge win over using other forms of fossil fuels (such as diesel or even worse coal). The newest natural gas generation facilities are very efficient, plus of course you get a 50% reduction in CO2 emissions by using natural gas compared to most other forms of fossil fuels. Also natural gas tends to be quite pure, which reduces other forms of pollution at least compared to diesel and coal.
I think that some of the push back over using renewables (with or without storage) comes from people who do not want to do anything. Some of the push back comes from people who do not think that reducing emissions by 30% by using renewables plus another 35% from natural gas (50% of the 70% that is left) is enough.
I think that the 65% reduction that we could gain from natural gas plus renewables with no storage at all is a big win.
Right now where I live we are already getting 64% of our electricity from natural gas, 20% from nuclear, and something like 6% from hydro plus solar plus wind. I would rather see that last number get bigger. However, I just checked and we are also getting 7% from “imports”. I do not know what “imports” means, but if it is hydro from Quebec then we might be 7% better off than I was thinking. [Apparently my local utility’s web site changes in real time. Natural gas just edged up to 65% and imports just dropped to 6% while I was typing this.]
My understanding from what I have seen by Michael Shellenberger (mostly two TEDx talks on Youtube) is that he wants to go further than the 65% reduction in CO2 emissions that we are already getting through the combination that we are currently using at least where I am.
2 Likes
We have two of Musk’s powerwalls. We are in the NYC area and our house is not designed ideally for solar installation - I think we have 20 panels on the roof. (There is no south facing roof, the east facing roof is totally shaded by oak trees that belong to the city and I wouldn’t want to remove them anyway.) The batteries finally got installed after a six plus month weight last January. We haven’t paid anything but the connection charge since. We are running three Mitsubishi mini split units, one big fridge and a dorm fridge and the usual assortment of household appliances. My husband is the keeper of the app, so I am a little vague about the details, but I think if we are careful we can survive a multi-day power outtage. We might need to reduce the AC usage which in certain settings (dehumidify) can be power hungry.
By the way we also have a battery system at our cabin in Vermont where we are not tied into the electric grid at all. For the first 20 years we had an array of car batteries and we now have one battery that looks like an oversized car battery. It usually stores enough to use lights in the evening and to charge phones and computers overnight, but with only 4 solar panels (still using the original ones which were installed over 20 years ago), we occasionally have had issues if you get a spate of really gray days, or you forget to brush the snow off them.
5 Likes
How did you select a solar power company?
I hadn’t really considered it for us before, but two of my sons have been encouraging us, so right now, H and I are in the, “Why not?” category, but we’re not sure who to go with. Our electric bill is often around $100 monthly, so savings won’t be much, but I do believe solar is the way to go and any bit helping the planet is worth it.
There was an approved list from our county so that we could get rebates. We talked to neighbors who had already gone through the process, but in the end, there was actually only one company that was willing to give us a quote on putting them on our ridiculously complicated roof.
1 Like
Using water to store the power was first proposed by a Stanford professor, Mark Jacobson. The reason it is not done in the US or even in California is because one would need 10 times more hydro dams that we have in existence. That is to cover 100%. One could cover partially? I guess that’s what Switzerland is doing.
Form what I gather his main objection to solar and wind energy is because it takes up a lot of land and they are unreliable needing a backup. In his estimate, to convert all the energy use in the US to solar with battery backup, 25% of the US land mass will have to be devoted to it. No idea how to verify it. If we can get by with rooftop installation and power walls, I have no objection. However, they are clearing land for solar farm, often in highly sensitive habitats. There must be more to the story. If we have to build large scale solar/wind farms, I’d rather go with nuclear. The author points out there was no death in Three mile island but 11 people died when Halliburton offshore oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico. It’s an irony why we are not more afraid of oil and gas.
1 Like
Who are “they”?
2 Likes
Sensitive habitats like parking lots (where the panels provide shade over the cars parked there) and the roofs of buildings?
2 Likes
Solar industry, of course. Who else? You can get the name of the specific company if you google, I am sure.
@ucbalumnus You wish! The example cited was Sonoran desert. A desert is ideal with a lot of sun. It is also fragile. Building a giant scale industry farm there is going to be a huge disruption. For example, they removed desert turtles, endangered species, in a crater. They didn’t find home for them in time and many died in the crater. Wind turbines kill big birds, golden eagle, falcons, etc. that are slow to reproduce.
I am interested in the whole picture. We need an alternative that doesn’t create other problems while solving a problem. We don’t often hear about the problems an alternative creates only solutions it brings. If they need 450 times land mass of a nuclear power plant to produce the same about of energy, it is not much of a solution.
3 Likes
Here is a comparison of land use of various energy sources:
Nuclear uses relatively little at the plant, but mining greatly increases land use (coal also has large land use from mining). Geothermal and natural gas have relatively low land use, although the underground effects of fracking may affect land away from the drilling sites.
Solar farms can be installed on land too undesirable for other uses. For example:
1 Like
Is that enough? Can they limit solar installation mostly to undesirable place? Do undesirable places have enough sun? Guess not since they are going after the desert. Or the industry would prefer going into untouched nature since it is easier to clear forest and bulled than build around undesirable places.
Another issue is solar and wind need backup since they are not always available. It sounds like nuclear is not a good back up. Gas and oil are. As a result, solar and wind are driving up fossil fuel usage ironically. Oil/gas industry is pushing for solar and wind. That could be avoided if we find a solution to power storage. With current technology, batteries will take up a lot of space and cost a lot. The book quotes $23T. Not sure why water dam is not explored more. Conservation minded California has a huge battery facility but not one water dam to store the energy.
Why go through all that when nuclear is readily available? It can reduce pollution right away.
1 Like
I mentioned upthread that there are pumped water facilities in the US, in fact a simple google search says that there are 43.
2 Likes
“Solar industry” - a handful of companies that survived - is too busy to produce panels for residential and commercial installations. Long waitlists.
Out of curiosity, did he compare how much environmental damage will come from new drilling, pipelines, and the inevitable spills here and there? Because fracking does a bit of damage to the land/water affecting the people (and critters/plants) of all who live around it.
Human development always affects whatever is there. I don’t believe solar is worse than drilling. That said, I definitely prefer putting solar on rooftops, parking lots, and other less destructive areas - but the desert is also a good one IMO.
Neither gas nor oil would be a good backup in a true apocalypse. It takes a lot to get them, then refine them into something usable, and get that product to where it is needed.
This also affects the entire area around it - esp fish. Many smaller dams have been removed for this reason.
Every type has its pros/cons. The huge cons to fossil fuels are climate change and polluting the air/water. They’re very, very big cons affecting the whole planet negatively.
Oil is generally not used in electricity generation, except in Hawaii.
To the extent that solar and wind replace coal, they reduce fossil fuel usage. (Natural gas has also largely been replacing coal.)
@mathmom At your home, how much does solar energy replace the conventional power? Can you get by with solar alone? That’ll be amazing. We can all go solar and off grid, no need for huge areas of solar panels, acres and acres. When I drive along country road, I come across fields of solar panels. I didn’t like it much.
@BunsenBurner It must be one of those commercial installations. I am sure the installation is to supply power companies. I’ll go back and get the name. I love audio books but you can’t easily leaf it through.
@deb922 You are right. I jumped. I assumed since California doesn’t have one, there’s none in the country. I wonder why CA doesn’t have it. Do they need water more than power? There is still a scaling up issue. How much power do 43 dams store?