Energy Transition

[Neonmoon 38127]

7 hours ago, FartingMonk said:

I actually think oil and gas are digging their own grave.  A reckoning is coming and it's going to happen fast.  With covid and lost profits they basically punted turnarounds.  Now with record profits they are going to keep punting turnarounds.  That and with their love of sour crude.  Companies are going to start making the national news more and more.

This really isn’t based in reality. People need energy. Energy companies provide said energy. While there is a long goal of transition to renewables, people still need lots of energy today. I think the transition will happen, and but there will certainly be bumps in the road. One side will point out all the stumbles in the transition and scream unreliable. The other side will point out all the progress and scream fossil fuels are over. Both are correct and incorrect at the same time. There will be unreliability. We will always need some fossil fuels. The rest is just cheerleading from teams. 

[synoptic 138]

10 hours ago, Chewbacca said:

Yep. We are making a lot of money right now on renewable and transmission projects. But it's going to take years. Decades.

 

Agreed.  I think it is going to take the rest of the 21st century to achieve many of the goals.

 

3 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

This really isn’t based in reality. People need energy. Energy companies provide said energy. While there is a long goal of transition to renewables, people still need lots of energy today. I think the transition will happen, and but there will certainly be bumps in the road. One side will point out all the stumbles in the transition and scream unreliable. The other side will point out all the progress and scream fossil fuels are over. Both are correct and incorrect at the same time. There will be unreliability. We will always need some fossil fuels. The rest is just cheerleading from teams. 

Yep, many bumps in the road and many folks using every setback to claim how it is all wrong.  It is going to take massive investment, technical innovation, and political collaboration over the next several decades.  Also, relatively few companies are willing to take full turn key construction projects these days, so a massive expansion of large scale industrial project execution capabilities will be needed.    

[OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys 2056]

17 hours ago, Enchubben said:

Separately for those that are actually investing in hydrogen technology companies - what have you chosen and why? Looking at throwing some spare change at a few but wouldn’t know where to start.

BE, PLUG, and FCEL.  They're all double where I got them a year ago, so you can decide if it is still worth it.  But I got those because they are the established brands.  If hydrogen has a future, I figure someone that is already established will be the major player.

[wild_turkey 3150]

12 hours ago, FartingMonk said:

Ok.  Sorry I laughed at that article because it is completely full of shit.  Submarine reactors are PWRs.  Like 1950s stuff.  Does it work.  It has been proven to and has a pretty good track record.  Here is where they are going to run into trouble. 

Subs used highly enriched uranium.  Like 90 percent.  Like terrorists get hold of it and they can make bombs.  Civ reactors are like 4 percent.  2nd submarines run on unlimited budget.  That's where the problem is going to come in.  

Are you suggesting that SMRs won't work or that something specific about the Rolls-Royce plan seems unlikely to work? There seems to be a ton of research in SMRs as a potential nuclear option for the future.

As far as your objections to it, those seem to be financial and logistical problems, which are solvable. I'm not sure I understand your point about submarines being on an unlimited budget. Their budget is actually limited, and their budget seems miniscule compared to the amount of money that is spent on energy.

Edited November 9, 2021 by wild_turkey

[GringoSalado 1651]

30 minutes ago, wild_turkey said:

Are you suggesting that SMRs won't work or that something specific about the Rolls-Royce plan seems unlikely to work? There seems to be a ton of research in SMRs as a potential nuclear option for the future.

As far as your objections to it, those seem to be financial and logistical problems, which are solvable. I'm not sure I understand your point about submarines being on an unlimited budget. Their budget is actually limited, and their budget seems miniscule compared to the amount of money that is spent on energy.

They have an unlimited security budget.

[FartingMonk 3606]

1 hour ago, wild_turkey said:

Are you suggesting that SMRs won't work or that something specific about the Rolls-Royce plan seems unlikely to work? There seems to be a ton of research in SMRs as a potential nuclear option for the future.

As far as your objections to it, those seem to be financial and logistical problems, which are solvable. I'm not sure I understand your point about submarines being on an unlimited budget. Their budget is actually limited, and their budget seems miniscule compared to the amount of money that is spent on energy.

I don't think any of it will work.  People use the term SMR as a save all be all for nuclear power but I don't think they actually know what it means.  They say scaleable like they do in submarines but I think they miss a huge part on why subs can have smaller reactors.  They have the ocean as a heat sink.  The primary is the size of a garbage can because they are allowed pure uranium.  And submarine budget for nuclear parts is unlimited.  The navy likes to play fun with numbers to make you believe it only cost this much to build.  Take the Virginia class for instance.  Those ships get built right on time under budget.  Then they go into a modern maintenance period which takes another 2 years.  These are all just whiz bang numbers and won't ever work on the civilian side.

[FartingMonk 3606]

Oh yeah.  And don't forget NIMBY.  I don't think the green guys give a shit if it is a big reactor or a small one.  You're spending 20 years in court before you can even build.

[pantone159 712]

2 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

They say scaleable like they do in submarines but I think they miss a huge part on why subs can have smaller reactors.

They also (I think) use weapons-grade uranium. Actually even better than weapons grade, something like 90% U-235. Normal uranium fuel is only enriched to something like 3% so you can't make bombs out of it but submarine uranium would be excellent bomb fuel.

[elfenix 34168]

molly wood's last podcast for marketplace is "how we survive" about the transition

she's decided to leave marketplace and become an energy transition investor which makes me wonder if she's found her bitcoin password (think she had 300 of them lost in a mt gox hack)

Edited November 9, 2021 by elfenix

[synoptic 138]

On 11/8/2021 at 2:06 PM, Grimas said:

Watch this (posted on another thread) - it's a bit slow at first but sets the foundation for their conclusions...

 

This is a good video on this topic.  Here is an article that more succintly states some of the same principles.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/02/11/eroi-a-tool-to-predict-the-best-energy-mix/?sh=63757687a027

Bottom line is that renewables don't produce very much usable energy as a ratio of the energy it takes to develop the assets.  Nuclear, on the other hand, has the highest energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) of all known energy sources.  

Edited November 9, 2021 by synoptic

[GringoSalado 1651]

[OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys 2056]

1 hour ago, FartingMonk said:

Oh yeah.  And don't forget NIMBY.  I don't think the green guys give a shit if it is a big reactor or a small one.  You're spending 20 years in court before you can even build.

reminds me of one of my favorite Onion headlines: Senate approves Nevada nuclear test site 98-2.

[wild_turkey 3150]

I don't think any of it will work.  People use the term SMR as a save all be all for nuclear power but I don't think they actually know what it means.  They say scaleable like they do in submarines but I think they miss a huge part on why subs can have smaller reactors.  They have the ocean as a heat sink.  The primary is the size of a garbage can because they are allowed pure uranium. 

You clearly have background experience in this area and I appreciate your input but I’m not sure I fully understand or agree with your position.

Rolls-Royce and the UK government are apparently pursuing this. China has some kind of commercial SMR in the works. The U.S. DOE has resources dedicated to SMR R&D. These aren’t fringe companies or organizations.

Maybe the future of SMRs as a viable source of energy is yet to be determined, but it seems like there is at least a debate to be had and some major global players feel like it’s worth investing in. I don’t understand labeling the entire idea as bullshit that will never work.

Your main objections appear to be financial and security. Both of those problems seem more solvable than problems of physics and science that currently limit other technologies.

Financial limitations for any new energy source have to be considered relative to the finances of disaster control from sticking with the status quo, as well as the investments and operating expenses of every other emerging energy technology. None of our current options are expected to be cheap.

[synoptic 138]

I am very pro nuclear.  If I were running things, I would build nuclear reactors all over the world to power everything and electrify heavy industry and transportation.  Convert nuclear power to hydrogen via electrolysis for heavy trucks, airplanes, ships (probably need to convert some hydrogen to ammonia for ships and other applications).  But the reality is that most of the public doesn't want nuclear, and every nuclear project triples its initial budget and schedule.  Without heavy direct involvement from government, there are too many financial/permitting obstacles for private industry to get nuclear reactors built these days.  And I am skeptical sufficient percentage of government officials get fully behind nuclear due to public perception.  

Edited November 10, 2021 by synoptic

[Enchubben 5509]

How much is this current infrastructure plan going to cost? Throwing that into a couple hundred nuclear power plants across the country (if that many are even needed) would have been cool. 

[elfenix 34168]

9 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

How much is this current infrastructure plan going to cost? Throwing that into a couple hundred nuclear power plants across the country (if that many are even needed) would have been cool. 

it's ~$500 billion more than the current level of spending over 10 years.  which wouldn't even be 20 nuke plants if the few that the US has tried to build in the last decade are any indication. 

[Biff Tannen 45477]

On 11/8/2021 at 9:18 PM, Captainant said:

The idea of small modular reactors is to sidestep that problem basically. Rather than running hundreds of miles of power cables, you just plonk down a cluster of SMR's where you need the power. The most promising designs are passively safe, and are completely self contained so you never need to open the containment and it just becomes its own storage cask when it's used up. 

  Hide contents

https://youtu.be/TYnqJ4VnRM8

Relevant video in the spoiler

Well that seems fairly badass. 

Edited November 10, 2021 by Biff Tannen
Rest of thread apparently doesn’t like it, but to a layman, seems badass

[wild_turkey 3150]

Without heavy direct involvement from government, there are too many financial/permitting obstacles for private industry to get nuclear reactors built these days.

I tend to agree, but there needs to be heavy direct involvement from the governments worldwide.

I personally don’t see a path forward without nuclear. We have a goal of eliminating coal and reducing/eliminating natural gas, and those energy sources can’t be replaced entirely with wind, solar, and hydroelectric.

Our energy requirements are significantly increasing worldwide and certain places (Texas!) can’t even reliably supply power in extreme cold or hot conditions.

[Captainant 27310]

One thing that's been touched on a little in this thread but I think could be just as big of an issue for energy generation is the transmission of that energy.

The East/West US and Texas grids haven't been upgraded or modernized for decades, and in some instances nearly a century. Our electricity demands are only going to increase, but we're still using the same old worn out equipment. Heck, the Camp Fire started from a ~75 year old hook failing and dropping a line onto its transmission tower which touched off the blaze. 

The increased emphasis on renewals will only exacerbate this problem, since only certain areas are capable of renewable energy generation. And those areas aren't usually close to population centers, so it's going to be even more power flowing over longer distances

[atomheartbevo 89362]

14 minutes ago, wild_turkey said:

I personally don’t see a path forward without nuclear. We have a goal of eliminating coal and reducing/eliminating natural gas, and those energy sources can’t be replaced entirely with wind, solar, and hydroelectric.

Even if nukes are just there to help get us over the bridge to those other sources, I'm good with that.

Those futuristic concept artists of the 30s, 40s, and 50s would be so disappointed in us if they knew we didn't have a flying car in every home, and that electricity was cheap and everywhere.

[atomheartbevo 89362]

Why are we not working towards this shit.

 

[atomheartbevo 89362]

How do we not have this stuff by now?

 

[atomheartbevo 89362]

There's a whole genre of futurism covering nuclear power

 

[synoptic 138]

39 minutes ago, wild_turkey said:

 

I tend to agree, but there needs to be heavy direct involvement from the governments worldwide.

I personally don’t see a path forward without nuclear. We have a goal of eliminating coal and reducing/eliminating natural gas, and those energy sources can’t be replaced entirely with wind, solar, and hydroelectric.

Our energy requirements are significantly increasing worldwide and certain places (Texas!) can’t even reliably supply power in extreme cold or hot conditions.

 

 

Agreed on everything here.

To give some scale of the current resistance to nuclear, not only is there a push to block new reactors, but there is strong push to shut down existing reactors ahead of schedule.  For example, Indian Point was shutdown 14 years ahead of schedule:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-entergy-indianpoint/new-york-citys-closest-nuclear-power-plant-to-shut-by-2021-idUSKBN14T1YA

Predictably, natural gas consumption increased considerably as a result:
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=47776

To me, it is a crime against humanity to shut down a reactor ahead of schedule that is safely producing many MWs of carbon free baseload power at a very high capacity factor, just to replace it with loads of CO2 emissions via NG power production.  But the public supported it and government presented it as the responsible choice.  

So basically, we need to swing public opinion all the way from “let’s shut down all nuclear ahead of schedule, even without proper backup plan in place” to “let’s build new nuclear reactors at an unprecedented rate.”  That is a big swing.  Doesn’t help that Chernobyl is top streaming show, either.  
 

 

Edited November 10, 2021 by synoptic

[Chewbacca 7727]

One thing that's been touched on a little in this thread but I think could be just as big of an issue for energy generation is the transmission of that energy.
The East/West US and Texas grids haven't been upgraded or modernized for decades, and in some instances nearly a century. Our electricity demands are only going to increase, but we're still using the same old worn out equipment. Heck, the Camp Fire started from a ~75 year old hook failing and dropping a line onto its transmission tower which touched off the blaze. 
The increased emphasis on renewals will only exacerbate this problem, since only certain areas are capable of renewable energy generation. And those areas aren't usually close to population centers, so it's going to be even more power flowing over longer distances

There are a lot of transmission lines in the works right now for that very reason.

[Cacti 191]

9 hours ago, Captainant said:

The increased emphasis on renewals will only exacerbate this problem, since only certain areas are capable of renewable energy generation. And those areas aren't usually close to population centers, so it's going to be even more power flowing over longer distances

Quote

Converting the domestic electric grid to run primarily on renewables will require mind-boggling amounts of new transmission capacity to be built. In 2012, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimated that if the U.S. were to attempt to derive 90 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, it would have to roughly double its high-voltage transmission capacity…Put another way, to convert the electric grid to renewables would require adding enough high-voltage transmission to circle the Earth about 10 times.

Link

[atomheartbevo 89362]

Tagging onto this this thread.

https://www.kxan.com/top-stories/tesla-can-now-sell-electricity-to-texans/

Quote

The Public Utility Commission of Texas has approved an application from Tesla Energy Ventures, LLC, to be able to provide retail electricity “throughout the area served by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT),” according to the application.

Not sure how that will work, since right now they seem focused on solar roofs for homes.

[Captainant 27310]

14 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Tagging onto this this thread.

https://www.kxan.com/top-stories/tesla-can-now-sell-electricity-to-texans/

Not sure how that will work, since right now they seem focused on solar roofs for homes.

I'm betting it's a gigabattery play - there's been rumbling about that as a prototype energy storage option. It would be good too for increasing baseline load capacity since it would effectively be a sitting burst balance of electricity that doesn't have a spin up time or cost like NG turbines do

[Dahobbs 17420]

On 11/9/2021 at 3:34 PM, synoptic said:

This is a good video on this topic.  Here is an article that more succintly states some of the same principles.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/02/11/eroi-a-tool-to-predict-the-best-energy-mix/?sh=63757687a027

Bottom line is that renewables don't produce very much usable energy as a ratio of the energy it takes to develop the assets.  Nuclear, on the other hand, has the highest energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) of all known energy sources.  

I'm sorry, that article is ridiculous on its face. 

"Also referred to as Energy Returned on Energy Invested (EROEI), EROI is the ratio of energy returned to energy invested in that energy source, along its entire life-cycle.* When the number is large, energy from that source is easy to get and cheap. However, when the number is small, the energy from that source is difficult to get and expensive."

It then follows that with a chart that shows Nuclear with the highest EROI.  Do you need anything else to know that it is complete non-sense? Nuclear, the thing that no one has been able to build economically in decades, should be "easy to get and cheap?"  I'm not saying that this metric itself isn't useful or interesting, but its importance for decision making or predictive analysis seems extremely limited. And the numbers from that particular article and referenced study are highly questionable and certainly outdated. 

[synoptic 138]

50 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I'm sorry, that article is ridiculous on its face. 

"Also referred to as Energy Returned on Energy Invested (EROEI), EROI is the ratio of energy returned to energy invested in that energy source, along its entire life-cycle.* When the number is large, energy from that source is easy to get and cheap. However, when the number is small, the energy from that source is difficult to get and expensive."

It then follows that with a chart that shows Nuclear with the highest EROI.  Do you need anything else to know that it is complete non-sense? Nuclear, the thing that no one has been able to build economically in decades, should be "easy to get and cheap?"  I'm not saying that this metric itself isn't useful or interesting, but its importance for decision making or predictive analysis seems extremely limited. And the numbers from that particular article and referenced study are highly questionable and certainly outdated. 

EROEI is not a measure of what is economically feasible to build under any given circumstance (such as in the US from 1990-present).  It is an energy ratio (output/input) to develop and run an energy asset.  You can have an energy asset with a high EROEI that is a bad commercial investment or not economically viable due to a range of other reasons.  Doesn’t mean the calc on nuclear is wrong or that it is not a useful metric. 

Edited November 11, 2021 by synoptic

[Dahobbs 17420]

52 minutes ago, synoptic said:

EROEI is not a measure of what is economically feasible to build under any given circumstance (such as in the US from 1990-present).  It is an energy ratio (output/input) to develop and run an energy asset.  You can have an energy asset with a high EROEI that is a bad commercial investment or not economically viable due to a range of other reasons.  Doesn’t mean the calc on nuclear is wrong or that it is not a useful metric. 

Yes, I understand that and stated so directly in my post. But the author of the article asserted otherwise regarding the economic vitality of the energy asset. Regardless, I do think the calculations cited in that article are generally not reliable. It appears to be based on a study that took pains to exaggerate the life cycle of a nuclear powerplant and the associated energy outputs, while taking the lowest possible number for the life cycle of both solar and wind assets. And, as a 6 year old article based on a 7 year old study, its calculations for wind, solar, and fossil fuels are outdated regardless. 

I'm not convinced the metric is particular useful other than perhaps identifying energy assets that cannot return positive energy over their lifetime. Once an asset gets past 1, other considerations are going to be far more important. As a predictive measure of asset development, it is clearly useless based on the numbers from the article. As an economic measure, again, it also appears to be functionally useless given that the numbers in the article are essentially the opposite of economic reality. So, what purpose does this metric serve? When would you rely upon it and why? 

Edited November 11, 2021 by Dahobbs

[synoptic 138]

17 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Yes, I understand that and stated so directly in my post. But the author of the article asserted otherwise regarding the economic vitality of the energy asset. Regardless, I do think the calculations cited in that article are generally not reliable. It appears to be based on a study that took pains to exaggerate the life cycle of a nuclear powerplant and the associated energy outputs, while taking the lowest possible number for the life cycle of both solar and wind assets. And, as a 6 year old article based on a 7 year old study, its calculations for wind, solar, and fossil fuels are outdated regardless. 

I'm not convinced the metric is particular useful other than perhaps identifying energy assets that cannot return positive energy over their lifetime. Once an asset gets past 1, other considerations are going to be far more important. As a predictive measure of asset development, it is clearly useless based on the numbers from the article. As an economic measure, again, it also appears to be functionally useless given that the numbers in the article are essentially the opposite of economic reality. So, what purpose does this metric serve? When would you rely upon it and why? 

EROEI is a fundamentally important criteria when evaluating potential energy resources and production methods, but of course not the only important criteria.  For long term economically viability in modern society it is necessary to have an energy source with high EROEI.  But it is a necessary condition for long term viability, not a sufficient condition. EROEI becoming less important as long as it's over one is clearly not the case, as EROEI of one is break even (i.e. useless).  We need lots and lots of net energy production and this is very hard to achieve with low EROEI sources. For more information on EROEI and its significance, watch the original linked video.   

Edited November 11, 2021 by synoptic

[Dahobbs 17420]

48 minutes ago, synoptic said:

EROEI is a fundamentally important criteria when evaluating potential energy resources and production methods, but of course not the only important criteria. 

Why? It appears in academic articles, but there is appears to be some disagreement about its importance. Again, other than identifying assets that simply will not be net productive, in what context does that metric actual matter that isn't covered by other metrics such a levelized cost of energy? When would you use it and why?  

[synoptic 138]

46 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Why? It appears in academic articles, but there is appears to be some disagreement about its importance. Again, other than identifying assets that simply will not be net productive, in what context does that metric actual matter that isn't covered by other metrics such a levelized cost of energy? When would you use it and why?  

Disagreements are based on questioning particular calculations (it’s hard to quantity total energy input); same challenge with many other indicators (such as LCOE).  But every energy source has some EROEI, whether we know that number with supreme accuracy or not, and that ratio needs to be high for it to support modern society.  We have a finite amount of energy and whatever we invest that in needs to return energy at a high multiple.  There is no way around this.  The number given varies, but the low end EROI for economic break-even for developed countries is around 7.  Below that and no amount of taxes, subsidies, or PR will be able make the energy source sustain society long term.  Higher EROEI gives us energy flexibility and surplus to grow and push societal development.  

LCOE is also a useful metric.  Like any metric, it also doesn’t tell the whole story.  LCOE is even easier to trick, as is done often with renewables (e.g. includes subsidies, doesn’t include storage).  LCOE is perhaps the most abused metric in energy.  Again, doesn’t mean it isn’t real or is useless; just doesn’t tell everything. 

But more importantly than validity of given metrics, presumably you have some preferred energy portfolio you think society should pursue (I’m guessing nuclear doesn’t feature prominently).  What does the dahobbs energy infrastructure of tomorrow look like?    

Edited November 11, 2021 by synoptic

[Dahobbs 17420]

49 minutes ago, synoptic said:

Disagreements are based on questioning particular calculations (it’s hard to quantity total energy input); same challenge with many other indicators (such as LCOE).  But every energy source has some EROEI, whether we know that number with supreme accuracy or not, and that ratio needs to be high for it to support modern society.  We have a finite amount of energy and whatever we invest that in needs to return energy at a high multiple.  There is no way around this.  The number given varies, but the low end EROI for economic break-even for developed countries is around 7.  Below that and no amount of taxes, subsidies, or PR will be able make the energy source sustain society long term.  Higher EROEI gives us energy flexibility and surplus to grow and push societal development.  
LCOE is also a useful metric.  Like any metric, it also doesn’t tell the whole story.  LCOE is even easier to trick, as is done often with renewables (e.g. includes subsidies, doesn’t include storage).  LCOE is perhaps the most abused metric in energy.  Again, doesn’t mean it isn’t real or is useless; just doesn’t tell everything. 

But more importantly than validity of given metrics, presumably you have some preferred energy portfolio you think society should pursue (I’m guessing nuclear doesn’t feature prominently).  What does the dahobbs energy infrastructure of tomorrow look like?    

I have no problem with nuclear. It hasn't been economical, but if something happens to change that, great. And I have no doubt that EROEI is a real metric with a real number. But, if we don't have the ability to calculate that number, I question whether it is truly an relevant metric for any practical purpose. Again, when is it actually used in decision making, whether at a governmental level or a industry level? Your criticisms of LCOE notwithstanding, it at least has the advantage of being something we can actually calculate and use to practical effect.

I just don't see the practical, non-academic use of EROEI. And, having read a bit of the academic pieces, I'm really not sure I understand the basis for saying society needs a number north of 7 (or other numbers that vary based on the study). That, to me, seems highly dependent on how that energy is acquired and how it is used. If it takes 50% of the population working in the energy sector to keep society running, then yes, you're going to have problems having a modern, diverse society. But if, instead of time, the primary energy investment is existing amply electrical energy (e.g., from solar, wind, nuclear), then what does it matter so long as the ratio is energy positive? In fact, expansion of human society hasn't seemed to be particular tied to EROEI at all if some of the studies are to be believed. Many of the articles suggest that the hunter-gather lifestyle actually had a significantly higher EROEI compared to agriculture, and yet it is surely agriculture that led to the creation of modern society. 

The article below seemed to be a very thoughtful approach on the topic. 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590332219302209

 

Edited November 12, 2021 by Dahobbs

[synoptic 138]

15 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I have no problem with nuclear. It hasn't been economical, but if something happens to change that, great. And I have no doubt that EROEI is a real metric with a real number. But, if we don't have the ability to calculate that number, I question whether it is truly an relevant metric for any practical purpose. Again, when is it actually used in decision making, whether at a governmental level or a industry level? Your criticisms of LCOE notwithstanding, it at least has the advantage of being something we can actually calculate and use to practical effect.

I just don't see the practical, non-academic use of EROEI. And, having read a bit of the academic pieces, I'm really not sure I understand the basis for saying society needs a number north of 7 (or other numbers that vary based on the study). That, to me, seems highly dependent on how that energy is acquired and how it is used. If it takes 50% of the population working in the energy sector to keep society running, then yes, you're going to have problems having a modern, diverse society. But if, instead of time, the primary energy investment is existing amply electrical energy (e.g., from solar, wind, nuclear), then what does it matter so long as the ratio is energy positive? 

The article below seemed to be a very thoughtful approach on the topic. 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590332219302209

 

Both EROI and LCOE can be calculated.  We can also challenge the accuracy of either type of calculation.  LCOE doesn’t have any advantage over EROI in that regard; it’s probably even more subject to manipulation and error.  Generally, wind and solar groups push LCOE as it is easier to work to highlight advantages of renewables, and nuclear groups tend to push EROI as it can be used to highlight nuclear advantages.  Of course there are many other metrics to use, such as initial CapEx, CapEx per MW, maintenance and opex, TCO, TRL, scalability, geographic suitability/flexibility, required footprint per MW, capacity factor, and so on. 
 

I think we agree that the various metrics all have value and all quantifications of these metrics are are subject scrutiny.  But if you don’t think much of EROI, then don’t use it.   Let’s talk energy type/portfolio pros and cons and preferred directions & developments.  

[Dahobbs 17420]

15 hours ago, synoptic said:

Both EROI and LCOE can be calculated.  We can also challenge the accuracy of either type of calculation.  LCOE doesn’t have any advantage over EROI in that regard; it’s probably even more subject to manipulation and error.  Generally, wind and solar groups push LCOE as it is easier to work to highlight advantages of renewables, and nuclear groups tend to push EROI as it can be used to highlight nuclear advantages.  Of course there are many other metrics to use, such as initial CapEx, CapEx per MW, maintenance and opex, TCO, TRL, scalability, geographic suitability/flexibility, required footprint per MW, capacity factor, and so on. 
 

I think we agree that the various metrics all have value and all quantifications of these metrics are are subject scrutiny.  But if you don’t think much of EROI, then don’t use it.   Let’s talk energy type/portfolio pros and cons and preferred directions & developments.  

I think you missed the big part of my objection. LCOE can be and is used to practical effect in developing/building new power generation. The metric being calculated wrong is a fixable problem, and one that doesn't impact the overall usefulness of LCOE as a tool in making determinations about new power generation. EROI on the other hand is an entirely academic endeavor with little in the way of practical use. It is interesting to analyze the EROI of society at various points in times and under different conditions, but the broad statement that modern society needs a certain EROI appears to me to be entirely unsupported. Rather, the EROI needed will depend greatly on the type of energy generation utilized by the society, how it is built/gathered, and where the constraint in supply exists. That constraint may be in material, in time, in workers/work hours, or in economics. All of those have different implications for the EROI required to keep a society running. Ultimately, specific factors are far more important to identifying viable energy generation than the single EROI number. Hell, even a source with a negative EROI may in fact be very useful and wanted by society. A simple example of that is the ability to convert energy from a fixed, low density source to a portable, high density format (e.g., creating hydrogen to replace fuel sources vehicles and aircraft). 

As to energy portfolio, given current technological trends, replacing the vast majority of fossil fuel sources with renewable energy (wind, solar, geothermal, hydro) would be ideal both economically and for the climate. I think the need for energy storage with a renewable grid is usually exaggerated. While storage can definitely be useful, over building capacity and creating large interconnected grids reduces the need for a large amount of storage. And it isn't like we're unfamiliar with the concept of over building capacity. We do it right now with fossil fuel (and nuclear) plants under the assumption that a significant portion of them will be down for maintenance or other issues at any given time. Gas peaker plants probably have a continued future in our energy mix as well, at least for the next 30 years. The carbon emissions by them can be offset by carbon capture efforts elsewhere.

I'd love nuclear to be a part of that, but it needs to be economically feasible. So far it simply isn't competitive. Regardless, I think continued development of nuclear energy (including fusion) is important because it is the only power source we currently have that can allow us to truly be an interstellar species.

Edited November 12, 2021 by Dahobbs

[Dahobbs 17420]

On 11/10/2021 at 10:59 AM, Captainant said:

The East/West US and Texas grids haven't been upgraded or modernized for decades, and in some instances nearly a century. Our electricity demands are only going to increase, but we're still using the same old worn out equipment. Heck, the Camp Fire started from a ~75 year old hook failing and dropping a line onto its transmission tower which touched off the blaze. 

What is the evidence for that? We've been essentially flat since 2005 as improved efficiency resulted in lower per capita demand, canceling out increases in population. And, if the US population starts to flatline or even decline like many other developed nations, then electrical demands may in fact drop. It seems to me that the primary increase in electrical demands is going to come from electric vehicles. It'll be interesting to see if improved efficiency continues to cancel out that increased demand.   

[synoptic 138]

44 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I think you missed the big part of my objection. LCOE can be and is used to practical effect in developing/building new power generation. The metric being calculated wrong is a fixable problem, and one that doesn't impact the overall usefulness of LCOE as a tool in making determinations about new power generation. EROI on the other hand is an entirely academic endeavor with little in the way of practical use. It is interesting to analyze the EROI of society at various points in times and under different conditions, but the broad statement that modern society needs a certain EROI appears to me to be entirely unsupported. Rather, the EROI needed will depend greatly on the type of energy generation utilized by the society, how it is built/gathered, and where the constraint in supply exists. That constraint may be in material, in time, in workers/work hours, or in economics. All of those have different implications for the EROI required to keep a society running. Ultimately, specific factors are far more important to identifying viable energy generation than the single EROI number. Hell, even a source with a negative EROI may in fact be very useful and wanted by society. A simple example of that is the ability to convert energy from a fixed, low density source to a portable, high density format (e.g., creating hydrogen to replace fuel sources vehicles and aircraft). 

As to energy portfolio, given current technological trends, replacing the vast majority of fossil fuel sources with renewable energy (wind, solar, geothermal, hydro) would be ideal both economically and for the climate. I think the need for energy storage with a renewable grid is usually exaggerated. While storage can definitely be useful, over building capacity and creating large interconnected grids reduces the need for a large amount of storage. And it isn't like we're unfamiliar with the concept of over building capacity. We do it right now with fossil fuel (and nuclear) plants under the assumption that a significant portion of them will be down for maintenance or other issues at any given time. Gas peaker plants probably have a continued future in our energy mix as well, at least for the next 30 years. The carbon emissions by them can be offset by carbon capture efforts elsewhere.

I'd love nuclear to be a part of that, but it needs to be economically feasible. So far it simply isn't competitive. Regardless, I think continued development of nuclear energy (including fusion) is important because it is the only power source we currently have that can allow us to truly be an interstellar species.

On the metrics, they are used to measure different things and both have their uses.  When evaluating what type of energy portfolio a society should pursue and develop, EROEI is definitely an important criteria to consider.  
 

On storage, it is not exaggerated at all.  We cannot replace base load type power plants that have high capacity factors with renewables without substantial amounts of long duration storage.  No amount of name plate power alone can practically solve for a lack of storage.  Grids will hit a certain percentage on MWH supplied by renewables (usually around 15-20%) and then start to plateau even with the addition of more nameplate renewable power.  Lots of wind was added in Germany several years back and fossil fuel production capacity was scaled back, but not enough storage was added.  The result was the percentage of total energy from wind hit the normal plateau, and then coal consumption increased to compensate.  Bottom line is we aren’t getting away from coal, NG, and nuclear and moving to renewables without massive amounts of long duration energy storage capabilities. 
 

Also, the developed nations that have the lowest carbon emissions per MWH consumed (i.e. carbon intensity) all have higher percentage of nuclear energy production.  France, for example. 

 

[Dahobbs 17420]

34 minutes ago, synoptic said:

On the metrics, they are used to measure different things and both have their uses.  When evaluating what type of energy portfolio a society should pursue and develop, EROEI is definitely an important criteria to consider.  
 

 

You keep saying that. Who uses it? And to do what? Give me a concrete example because as far as I can tell it isn't actually used by anybody that actually decides what to build or develop. It seems that whatever importance it has is better captured in other metrics. 

Quote

On storage, it is not exaggerated at all.  We cannot replace base load type power plants that have high capacity factors with renewables without substantial amounts of long duration storage.  No amount of name plate power alone can practically solve for a lack of storage.  Grids will hit a certain percentage on MWH supplied by renewables (usually around 15-20%) and then start to plateau even with the addition of more nameplate renewable power.  Lots of wind was added in Germany several years back and fossil fuel production capacity was scaled back, but not enough storage was added.  The result was the percentage of total energy from wind hit the normal plateau, and then coal consumption increased to compensate.  Bottom line is we aren’t getting away from coal, NG, and nuclear and moving to renewables without massive amounts of long duration energy storage capabilities. 

How do you arrive at your conclusion? Most studies I've seen suggest that renewables can make up to 60%-80% of electrical power generation fairly easily. After that, it becomes significantly more expensive for each point of increase. Hell, in the US renewables account for ~20% of generation already (and California itself is above 50%). Germany is above 50%. Iceland and Norway are essentially 100% renewable.  Brazil is at 80%. The UK is above 40%. 

If power generation is entirely local or even regional, then yes, additional capacity may not help if all of it is subject to the same variations. But, diversifying the locations of power generation should alleviate that problem so long as the power can be exported to areas in need.  I've seen Germany's experience cited by other posters as a reason that renewable grid isn't feasible. However, that analysis is always shallow and fails to account for other factors that contributed to Germany's temporary problem and the makeup of its current grid, which is both reliable and made up of a significantly higher percentage of renewable generation. Germany's issue wasn't/isn't lack of storage, it was lack of generation as nuclear plants went offline, forcing a greater percentage on fossil fuels temporarily while renewables were built, and issues with transmission preventing power from the renewable heavy north to reach the south. 

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/set-and-challenges-germanys-power-grid

"Germany’s power grid ranks among the most reliable in the world despite the rapid expansion of renewables. Its System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI), which measures the average yearly downtime per customer, amounted to 12 minutes in 2019, a slight decrease from almost 14 minutes in 2018, according to the Federal Network Agency (BNetzA). Compared to 128 minutes in the US (2016), 53 minutes in Great Britain, 92 minutes in Greece, 54 minutes in Spain, 41 in Italy, 50 in France and 192 in Poland (2014 data). When looking at the interruptions including exceptional events, the difference gets even bigger with Germany's consumers spending an average 12 minutes withouth power, compared to  92.5 minutes in Great Britain, 122 minutes in Greece, 52 minutes in Spain, 93 in Italy, 51 in France, 205 in Poland (2014 data) and 314 minutes in the US (2016)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Germany

"Germany's electrical grid is part of the Synchronous grid of Continental Europe. In 2020, Germany produced 484 TWh of electricity of which 50% was from renewable energy sources, 24% from coal, and 12% from natural gas.[2] This is the first year renewables represented more than 50% of the total electricity production and a major change from 2018, when a full 38% was from coal, only 40% was from renewable energy sources, and 8% was from natural gas.[5]

Germany's installed capacity for electric generation increased from 121 gigawatts (GW) in 2000 to 218 GW in 2019, an 80% increase, while electricity generation increased only 5% in the same period.[6]"

Quote

Also, the developed nations that have the lowest carbon emissions per MWH consumed (i.e. carbon intensity) all have higher percentage of nuclear energy production.  France, for example. 

That's simply not true. France is the frankly the exception as far as I know. None of the countries I listed above get a larger percentage of their electrical generation from nuclear than the US. But maybe you can provide different examples. 

 

[synoptic 138]

9 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You keep saying that. Who uses it? And to do what? Give me a concrete example because as far as I can tell it isn't actually used by anybody that actually decides what to build or develop. It seems that whatever importance it has is better captured in other metrics. 

How do you arrive at your conclusion? Most studies I've seen suggest that renewables can make up to 60%-80% of electrical power generation fairly easily. After that, it becomes significantly more expensive for each point of increase. Hell, in the US renewables account for ~20% of generation already (and California itself is above 50%). Germany is above 50%. Iceland and Norway are essentially 100% renewable.  Brazil is at 80%. The UK is above 40%. 

If power generation is entirely local or even regional, then yes, additional capacity may not help if all of it is subject to the same variations. But, diversifying the locations of power generation should alleviate that problem so long as the power can be exported to areas in need.  I've seen Germany's experience cited by other posters as a reason that renewable grid isn't feasible. However, that analysis is always shallow and fails to account for other factors that contributed to Germany's temporary problem and the makeup of its current grid, which is both reliable and made up of a significantly higher percentage of renewable generation. Germany's issue wasn't/isn't lack of storage, it was lack of generation as nuclear plants went offline, forcing a greater percentage on fossil fuels temporarily while renewables were built, and issues with transmission preventing power from the renewable heavy north to reach the south. 

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/set-and-challenges-germanys-power-grid

"Germany’s power grid ranks among the most reliable in the world despite the rapid expansion of renewables. Its System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI), which measures the average yearly downtime per customer, amounted to 12 minutes in 2019, a slight decrease from almost 14 minutes in 2018, according to the Federal Network Agency (BNetzA). Compared to 128 minutes in the US (2016), 53 minutes in Great Britain, 92 minutes in Greece, 54 minutes in Spain, 41 in Italy, 50 in France and 192 in Poland (2014 data). When looking at the interruptions including exceptional events, the difference gets even bigger with Germany's consumers spending an average 12 minutes withouth power, compared to  92.5 minutes in Great Britain, 122 minutes in Greece, 52 minutes in Spain, 93 in Italy, 51 in France, 205 in Poland (2014 data) and 314 minutes in the US (2016)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Germany

"Germany's electrical grid is part of the Synchronous grid of Continental Europe. In 2020, Germany produced 484 TWh of electricity of which 50% was from renewable energy sources, 24% from coal, and 12% from natural gas.[2] This is the first year renewables represented more than 50% of the total electricity production and a major change from 2018, when a full 38% was from coal, only 40% was from renewable energy sources, and 8% was from natural gas.[5]

Germany's installed capacity for electric generation increased from 121 gigawatts (GW) in 2000 to 218 GW in 2019, an 80% increase, while electricity generation increased only 5% in the same period.[6]"

That's simply not true. France is the frankly the exception as far as I know. None of the countries I listed above get a larger percentage of their electrical generation from nuclear than the US. But maybe you can provide different examples. 

 

EROEI is used in the way I mentioned (evaluating long term potential return on energy sources).  You don’t use to decide wether to develop or invest in a given project. I think you are just learning about the concept and not quite familiar with it, based on some of your comments. For example, you applied it to hydrogen above in your example of “negative EROI” (presumably you just meant less than one?).  But hydrogen is not an energy source; it is an energy carrier and storage medium.  So no, there aren’t any useful energy sources with EROI less than one.  That is crazy.  Negative is even crazier.  Also, I think you are factoring in the fuel itself energy into in the denominator.  But I’m not certain exactly what what you doing because frankly the claims don’t make any sense.  
 

Germany was able to hit around 50% consumed energy in part because they added lots of storage capacity (also mild winter and covid impact on energy helped).  California has also added storage capacity.  It’s well known in the energy industry that renewables has to be accompanied with storage to achieve large percent of energy consumed.  This is not a controversial claim.  Also, It’s important to distinguish between power generation capacity in MW and actual energy consumed in MWH.  It’s easier to get high percentage of total power gen by name plate power. 

[Dahobbs 17420]

16 hours ago, synoptic said:

EROEI is used in the way I mentioned (evaluating long term potential return on energy sources).  You don’t use to decide wether to develop or invest in a given project. I think you are just learning about the concept and not quite familiar with it, based on some of your comments.

I'm asking for a specific example of person at a company (e.g., a job title) or some governmental agency that actually uses that metric. I think it is an interesting metric. I don't think it is seriously used by governments or industry to evaluate resource development beyond perhaps confirming that a particular energy source has a EROI exceeding 1. 

Quote

For example, you applied it to hydrogen above in your example of “negative EROI” (presumably you just meant less than one?).  But hydrogen is not an energy source; it is an energy carrier and storage medium.  So no, there aren’t any useful energy sources with EROI less than one.  That is crazy.  Negative is even crazier.  Also, I think you are factoring in the fuel itself energy into in the denominator.  But I’m not certain exactly what what you doing because frankly the claims don’t make any sense.  

I meant a negative return of energy or a EROI less than 1. Sorry for the confusion. I readily admit to being an amateur on this topic. But I don't find the distinction between hydrogen as a energy source vs carrier to be anything but arbitrary. Hydrogen is readily available, just not on earth. If we had a hydrogen mine, it surely would be an energy source. And we could expend resources to extract from extraterrestrial sources and it would then be considered an energy source (just one with a very low EROI). Further, if the process of extracting Hydrogen from water required less energy, I'm sure it would be considered an energy source as opposed to a mere carrier. The distinction between hydrogen in this context and corn ethanol or various bio fuels (which are often analyzed in terms of EROI in the literature) seems to be non-existent. Hydrogen is available from water to the same extent ethanol is available from corn. The primary difference is that it takes more energy to separate hydrogen from water than the hydrogen produces. Of course, arguably, the same is actually true for corn ethanol once it is actually ready to be used as a fuel.

Finally, EROI does appear to be used in the literature to analyze both primary sources and carriers. e.g, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-019-0327-0?proof=t

Quote

Germany was able to hit around 50% consumed energy in part because they added lots of storage capacity (also mild winter and covid impact on energy helped).  California has also added storage capacity.

Citation? Germany, like many places is just starting to add storage. The increase in storage was not required for their renewable transition to this point. I'm not aware of any evidence that absent the modest amounts of storage that exist, Germany's current grid would be unworkable. Further, your focus on Germany is odd given that I provided numerous examples of grids that have well in excess of 30% of their electric needs generated by renewables. 

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/8/9/20767886/renewable-energy-storage-cost-electricity

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322911171_How_much_electrical_energy_storage_do_we_need_A_synthesis_for_the_US_Europe_and_Germany

Quote

It’s well known in the energy industry that renewables has to be accompanied with storage to achieve large percent of energy consumed.  This is not a controversial claim.

I never said it was. We just appear to disagree what a "large percent means." You've apparently taken the position that anything over 20% is a large percent and requires dramatic increases in storage. This just isn't true and I don't see any support for this claim in the literature. At very high percentages of electric generation, in excess of 80%, storage does become more important and is probably the most economic way for us to reach 100% renewables. But, there is no real reason why the grid needs to be 100%  variable renewables. There have been quite a few papers on what requirements would be necessary to reach close to 100% renewables for electric generation.  Again, prominent in the discussion is that overbuilding capacity reduces storage requirements. The mix just depends on the economics of additional storage vs the economics of additional capacity. It'll also greatly depends on the type of renewable used in the grid, with solar requiring more storage than wind. 

Quote

 Also, It’s important to distinguish between power generation capacity in MW and actual energy consumed in MWH.  It’s easier to get high percentage of total power gen by name plate power. 

Yes it is. The figures I provided were actual generation, not nameplate power. 

Edited November 13, 2021 by Dahobbs

[synoptic 138]

On 11/13/2021 at 7:06 AM, Dahobbs said:

I'm asking for a specific example of person at a company (e.g., a job title) or some governmental agency that actually uses that metric. I think it is an interesting metric. I don't think it is seriously used by governments or industry to evaluate resource development beyond perhaps confirming that a particular energy source has a EROI exceeding 1. 

I meant a negative return of energy or a EROI less than 1. Sorry for the confusion. I readily admit to being an amateur on this topic. But I don't find the distinction between hydrogen as a energy source vs carrier to be anything but arbitrary. Hydrogen is readily available, just not on earth. If we had a hydrogen mine, it surely would be an energy source. And we could expend resources to extract from extraterrestrial sources and it would then be considered an energy source (just one with a very low EROI). Further, if the process of extracting Hydrogen from water required less energy, I'm sure it would be considered an energy source as opposed to a mere carrier. The distinction between hydrogen in this context and corn ethanol or various bio fuels (which are often analyzed in terms of EROI in the literature) seems to be non-existent. Hydrogen is available from water to the same extent ethanol is available from corn. The primary difference is that it takes more energy to separate hydrogen from water than the hydrogen produces. Of course, arguably, the same is actually true for corn ethanol once it is actually ready to be used as a fuel.

Finally, EROI does appear to be used in the literature to analyze both primary sources and carriers. e.g, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-019-0327-0?proof=t

Citation? Germany, like many places is just starting to add storage. The increase in storage was not required for their renewable transition to this point. I'm not aware of any evidence that absent the modest amounts of storage that exist, Germany's current grid would be unworkable. Further, your focus on Germany is odd given that I provided numerous examples of grids that have well in excess of 30% of their electric needs generated by renewables. 

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/8/9/20767886/renewable-energy-storage-cost-electricity

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322911171_How_much_electrical_energy_storage_do_we_need_A_synthesis_for_the_US_Europe_and_Germany

I never said it was. We just appear to disagree what a "large percent means." You've apparently taken the position that anything over 20% is a large percent and requires dramatic increases in storage. This just isn't true and I don't see any support for this claim in the literature. At very high percentages of electric generation, in excess of 80%, storage does become more important and is probably the most economic way for us to reach 100% renewables. But, there is no real reason why the grid needs to be 100%  variable renewables. There have been quite a few papers on what requirements would be necessary to reach close to 100% renewables for electric generation.  Again, prominent in the discussion is that overbuilding capacity reduces storage requirements. The mix just depends on the economics of additional storage vs the economics of additional capacity. It'll also greatly depends on the type of renewable used in the grid, with solar requiring more storage than wind. 

Yes it is. The figures I provided were actual generation, not nameplate power. 

On EROEI, it's used in analysis for longer term energy planning by governments, investors, technology developers, etc.  Again, it's one of many tools and metrics; but it is a very important one.  If a group has done their work and determined that the EROEI is sufficiently low, they may decide to pursue or invest in that energy source.  The video in the original linked post on the topic was an overview on why that group is no investing in renewables (they believe the EROEI is too low to be a long term viable technology).  Again, that is subject to dispute and debate, but groups do put a lot of effort into trying to calculate these numbers and they do make decisions based on it.

Germany added lots of storage capacity over last several years and this was critically important to enabling them to increase their percentage of energy consumed from renewables.  By end of 2020, they were close to 3,000 MWh in storage capacity - more than 10 fold increase from 2015.  The energy storage market in Germany grew from less than $100M in to 2015 to now over $1 billion annually.     

 

https://www.energy-storage.news/germany-growth-in-home-and-industrial-sectors-but-large-scale-battery-storage-slowed-down-in-2019/

In the first quarter of 2020, strong winds and a high share of sunshine hours had resulted in a record renewables share. This year’s preliminary data "show us how important it is to develop high-performance storage technologies in order to be able to compensate for phases with unfavourable weather conditions," said BDEW managing director Kerstin Andreae.

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/renewables-cover-40-german-power-consumption-first-quarter-2021

As was stated, storage is crirtical to achieve high percentage of energy consumption from renewables.  

 

 

Edited November 15, 2021 by synoptic

[atomheartbevo 89362]

Bill Gates-backed/founded company going to put their demonstration reactor out in Wyoming near a couple of power plants that will be closing in coming years.

Quote

BELLEVUE, Washington – November 16, 2021 – TerraPower today announced Kemmerer, Wyoming as the preferred site for the Natrium™ reactor demonstration project, which is a TerraPower and GE-Hitachi technology, and is one of two competitively-selected advanced reactor demonstration projects (ARDP) supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The company selected the Kemmerer location, near the Naughton Power Plant, following an extensive evaluation process and meetings with community members and leaders.

“People across Wyoming welcomed us into their communities over the past several months, and we are excited to work with PacifiCorp to build the first Natrium plant in Kemmerer,” said Chris Levesque, president and CEO of TerraPower. “Our innovative technology will help ensure the continued production of reliable electricity while also transitioning our energy system and creating new, good-paying jobs in Wyoming.”

“This project is an exciting opportunity to explore what could be the next generation of clean, reliable, affordable energy production while providing a path to transition for Wyoming’s energy economy, communities and employees,” said Gary Hoogeveen, president and CEO of Rocky Mountain Power, a division of PacifiCorp.

“Just yesterday, President Biden signed the Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal and today DOE is already putting it to work with more than $1.5 billion heading to Wyoming,” said Secretary of Energy Jennifer M. Granholm. “The energy communities that have powered us for generations have real opportunities to power our clean energy future through projects just like this one, that provide good-paying jobs and usher in the next wave of nuclear technologies.”

The demonstration project team evaluated a variety of factors when selecting the site of the Naughton Power Plant, where the remaining two coal units are scheduled to retire in 2025. Factors included community support, the physical characteristics of the site, the ability of the site to obtain a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), access to existing infrastructure, and the needs of the grid.

https://www.terrapower.com/natrium-demo-kemmerer-wyoming/

 

[Longhornlove 4779]

On 11/8/2021 at 11:06 AM, Harrison Bergeron said:

Not a lawyer, energy person, or cloak room expert ... in my lay opinion, we should rely focus on nuclear until another suitable alternative emerges. 

I feel like nuclear and renewables are the opposite side of the same coin - renewables are inefficient and not particularly good for the environment, but the average person feels good about it. Nuclear is efficient, but the average person is scared of it.

I am in the energy industry, currently on a project in California building a Battery Energy Storage System. Although handy to limit blackouts, there is no way this is thee answer to our energy issues. Case in Point, the company I am consulting for just signed two contracts to build fossil fuel driven power plants just across the border in Mexico. Any guesses where that power is intended for? All in the name of keeping California "green". It is a complete farce. We need to build conventional gas powered power plants and Nuclear until something better comes along. Wind and solar isn't gonna work, it just isn't reliable, efficient or economical without tax payer funding.

[Biff Tannen 45477]

21 minutes ago, Longhornlove said:

I am in the energy industry, currently on a project in California building a Battery Energy Storage System. Although handy to limit blackouts, there is no way this is thee answer to our energy issues. Case in Point, the company I am consulting for just signed two contracts to build fossil fuel driven power plants just across the border in Mexico. Any guesses where that power is intended for? All in the name of keeping California "green". It is a complete farce. We need to build conventional gas powered power plants and Nuclear until something better comes along. Wind and solar isn't gonna work, it just isn't reliable, efficient or economical without tax payer funding.

Uh, seems like you should probably blow the whistle on this.

[fattyflattie 4636]

37 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Uh, seems like you should probably blow the whistle on this.

What whistle?  It’s not illegal. It’s going to reliably provide energy to Californians and they can still walk around sniffing their farts about their green energy consumption. 

[Longhornlove 4779]

10 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

What whistle?  It’s not illegal. It’s going to reliably provide energy to Californians and they can still walk around sniffing their farts about their green energy consumption. 

It isn't just here, western governments have lost their damn minds when it comes to "green energy". I work with guys from different countries in Europe and they all say the same thing. I will post an article, the first two paragraphs really had me scratching my head. Fear mongering has as much to do with it as anything I suspect.

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/history-behind-germanys-nuclear-phase-out

[Goofyboy 3156]

The NuScale / Fluor SMR plants are getting ramped up. Neat and new technology.

https://www.nuscalepower.com

[washparkhorn 9931]

On 11/17/2021 at 7:57 PM, Longhornlove said:

I am consulting for just signed two contracts to build fossil fuel driven power plants just across the border in Mexico. . . .  All in the name of keeping California "green". It is a complete farce. 

Environmental arbitrage and greenwashing (if true, and I have no reason to doubt what you are saying).

California's energy is diverse (providing relative stability) - but environmental arbitrage is bullshit.