Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Renewables Fastest-Growing Energy Sources, Feds Say (computerworld.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the projected-growth dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Computerworld written by Lucas Mearian: By 2040, coal, natural gas and renewable energy sources will provide roughly equal shares (28%-29%) of world electricity generation -- a tremendous change from 2012, when coal provided 40% of all power generation, according to a new report. The report, International Energy Outlook 2016, was released today by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Renewables are now the world's fastest-growing energy source and are expected to increase by 2.6% per year through 2040. Hydropower and wind are the two largest contributors to the increase in world electricity generation from renewable energy sources, the report stated. Together, hydro and wind account for two-thirds of the total increase in renewable energy from 2012 to 2040. In contrast, coal is the world's slowest-growing energy source, rising by 0.6% per year through 2040. By 2030, natural gas surpasses coal to become the world's second-largest energy source after liquid fuels, the report stated. The world's energy consumption is expected to increase by 48% over the next three decades even as renewable energy sources increase. Fossil fuels will still supply more than three-quarters of the world's energy by 2030. Currently, China, the U.S. and India are the top three coal-consuming countries, making up 70% of the world's coal use. China's coal use is expected to decline as their economy slows and policies to combat air pollution and climate change become implemented. The Environmental Protection Agency's new Clean Power Plan regulations intend to dramatically lower the use of coal in the U.S. over the next three decades. "Of the world's three largest coal consumers, only India is projected to increase coal use throughout the projection period," the report stated.

46 of 70 comments (clear)

  1. Tautology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't renewables be the only growing resource? Non-renewables should be dwindling over time by definition.

    1. Re:Tautology by SirSlud · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, the word "always" is an approximation. Wow, that's like .. so interesting dude.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    2. Re:Tautology by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      The term "Renewable" itself is a lie. One day even the sun will stop shining. (And before, it will become really hot on earth, and the sun will swallow this planet).

      Yes, in 500, 000, 000 years renewables will indeed no longer be viable. By that stage we will probably be smart enough to use an asteroid orbiting the earth every couple of hundred years to very slowly move earth's orbit away from the ever expanding sun.

      For now we probably need thinking and planning in the 2-10 year timeframe.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    3. Re:Tautology by blindseer · · Score: 1

      I agree, if we were not subsidizing wind and solar like we are we'd instead be reading about how nuclear power output is expected to double in that same time frame. From TFA:

      Worldwide electricity generation from nuclear power will also almost double, from 2.3 trillion kilowatt hours (kWh) in 2012 to 4.5 trillion kWh in 2040. That increase is expected to happen "as concerns about energy security and greenhouse gas emissions support the development of new nuclear generating capacity," the report said.

      "Virtually all of the projected net expansion in the world's installed nuclear capacity occurs in the developing world, led by China's addition of 139 gigawatts of nuclear capacity from 2012 to 2040," the report stated.

      If my math is correct that means China plans to build a new 1GW nuclear power plant every ten weeks until 2040. The USA should be able to do the same. I recall from doing the math some time ago that if the USA wants to replace all the coal and aging nuclear power plants at the rate they should be retired we'd have to build nuclear power at twice that rate, one nuclear power plant per month, and do so indefinitely. By the time we've built enough nuclear to replace all the coal we'd have to start building new nuclear plants to replace the one's that have reached their operational life span during that time.

      I fully expect to see the USA build nuclear power at such a rate but to do so we'll need a Republican in the White House or a few more Democrats to realize that a national energy policy needs more than sunbeams and wishful thinking. Another way to make this happen is getting a few states to realize that they don't need federal permission to license a nuclear power plant within their borders. The federal government is a construct of the states, it has only the authority the states grant it. If the states decide that the federal government cannot have a monopoly on nuclear energy then whatever the numbskulls in DC say is meaningless.

      I do hope that we see states stand up to DC not just so we can have a logical energy policy but also just to knock the petty despots in DC down a peg. We've seen this happen with marijuana legalization so this is not without precedent.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    4. Re:Tautology by Daemonik · · Score: 1

      You anti-government types are such hypocrites at times, it's hilarious to me that you're advocating electing a president who will be a tyrant and go against the will of the people to force nuclear power plant production on the states, while simultaneously saying we need to" knock the petty despots in DC down a peg". People like yourself are exactly why government can't get anything done.

      It's the voters who don't want nuclear plants, not government. Even the ones who do admit we need nuclear don't want a plant anywhere near them and make no bones about tearing down any elected official who tries.

      Go back to checking flags for gold fringe.

    5. Re:Tautology by blindseer · · Score: 1

      You anti-government types are such hypocrites at times, it's hilarious to me that you're advocating electing a president who will be a tyrant and go against the will of the people to force nuclear power plant production on the states, while simultaneously saying we need to" knock the petty despots in DC down a peg". People like yourself are exactly why government can't get anything done.

      I'm actually asking that the current tyrant in the White House get replaced with someone that understands the role the federal government should play in our lives. Also, how am I preventing the government from getting anything done? I didn't vote those fuckers into office. Since I'm not protesting outside their office, or otherwise interfering with their work, I don't see how I keep them from doing the most basic government tasks like approving a budget. They seem to get all tied up in their own bureaucracy on their own without my help.

      Also, it's precisely because they can't seem to get things done that I believe that the states should take the federal government down a peg. If the states weren't held hostage by the federal government to do things like funding public schools then their failure to pass a budget would not lead to the firing of teachers. It would also prevent the federal government from telling public schools that they have to let boys use the girls locker room.

      It's the voters who don't want nuclear plants, not government. Even the ones who do admit we need nuclear don't want a plant anywhere near them and make no bones about tearing down any elected official who tries.

      I just did a search for recent polls on nuclear power and depending on the poll the people that want more nuclear power varies from 51% to 67%. People want nuclear power. Also, should not this be a local matter? Should not a state be able to decide if they want a nuclear power plant? Since Obama is not a fan of nuclear power then the people's desire for more is unmet.

      Go back to checking flags for gold fringe.

      I have no idea what that means. Why would I be checking flags for anything?

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    6. Re:Tautology by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The states don't have the money to spare so that is a non-issue.

    7. Re:Tautology by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      I'm actually asking that the current tyrant in the White House get replaced with someone that understands the role the federal government should play in our lives.

      Which, of course, is exactly why the Obama administration has expanded the scope of federal loan guarantees towards nuclear power construction projects... because he's anti-Nuclear.

      It's not the government that's preventing nuclear construction. Private developers (aka "The free market") don't want to spend the billions of dollars necessary to build them. They can barely be assed to spend the money to maintain the ones they have!

      There is a grand total of SIX power plants currently seeking regulatory approval. You might have a point about government being a bottleneck if there were dozens of them, but nobody seems too keen on building multi-billion-dollar nuclear plants with gas and oil (and now, renewables) flooding the market with much cheaper energy.
      =Smidge=

    8. Re: Tautology by its · · Score: 1

      Gen-II plants are not safe enough to scale to the numbers necessary. Gen-III plants have not been proven cheap enough or reliable enough. Gen-IV plants won't come online until 2030 at the earliest. So renewables are the only hope. Fortunately we can push to 50-70% renewables withoutna problem. At that point maybe Gen-IV will be available or maybe storage will be cheap enough.

    9. Re:Tautology by Daemonik · · Score: 1

      I'm actually asking that the current tyrant in the White House get replaced with someone that understands the role the federal government should play in our lives. Also, how am I preventing the government from getting anything done? I didn't vote those fuckers into office. Since I'm not protesting outside their office, or otherwise interfering with their work, I don't see how I keep them from doing the most basic government tasks like approving a budget. They seem to get all tied up in their own bureaucracy on their own without my help.

      Also, it's precisely because they can't seem to get things done that I believe that the states should take the federal government down a peg. If the states weren't held hostage by the federal government to do things like funding public schools then their failure to pass a budget would not lead to the firing of teachers. It would also prevent the federal government from telling public schools that they have to let boys use the girls locker room.

      You prevent government from getting anything done because you demand a tyrant in office when it's a candidate that you approve of but when it's not suddenly you want states to go their own way. You're a hypocrite and an obstructionist.

      Also, to address your off-topic comments, the federal government pays states for school from it's own budget, not the states. The state's inability to manage their own money has nothing to do with funding the schools and a lot more to do with cutting corporate taxes to the bone in the blind faith conservative religion that if they turn their states into 3rd world economies then all the jobs will come to them. If anything the federal school grants allows the states to mostly ignore their school budgets because Uncle Sam's picking up the tab.

      For another matter, the federal government's done a lot more forcing states to let GIRLS into the boys locker rooms, because surprise most states ignore girls sports and only build facilities for boys football or baseball. Title IX forces them to treat both genders equally.

      The only men I've seen forcing their way into women's restrooms lately have been all conservative grand standers and derp warriors.

      I just did a search for recent polls on nuclear power and depending on the poll the people that want more nuclear power varies from 51% to 67%. People want nuclear power. Also, should not this be a local matter? Should not a state be able to decide if they want a nuclear power plant? Since Obama is not a fan of nuclear power then the people's desire for more is unmet.

      As I said, the people who do want nuclear DON'T WANT IT NEAR THEM. You talk about the state's taking control over nuclear regulation? NY is fighting hard against the Indian Point nuclear plant right now. The people don't want nuclear waste being transported on the roads or railways, they don't want it stored in their state, they really just seem to want to wish really hard and make it go away.

      I have no idea what that means. Why would I be checking flags for anything?

      Well hey, you're not as insane as I first assumed. Good for you. You googled up a poll on nuclear energy, google up flag gold fringe controversy if you're curious. Careful though, don't fall down the rabbit hole.

  2. Obligatory XKCD... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Fastest Growing

  3. EVERYONE says by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 2

    "Renewables Fastest-Growing Energy Sources, Feds Say"

    No, everyone says this. And has for years. Ok, in the US things were upset by the NG expansion, but everyone knew that would only last so long. And outside the US this has been true since about 2010.

    With wind at $1.50 and PV not much more than that, and PPA's for PV at 3 cents/kWh and wind at 4 to 5, nothing else can compete. And those are subsidized prices.

    1. Re:EVERYONE says by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

      Wind and PV subsidies are set to taper out and end by ~2020-2024. Both subsidies drop every year until they end. Installed price only needs to fall a little more and they will still be cheaper than the cheapest oldest dirtiest coal power plant.

      Nothing else can even come close to the price they are selling 20 year purchase agreements at. In fact wind is probably cheaper at this point without subsidy as generator prices fell nearly 20% last year. Everyone who pay any intention to investing news has known this since before 2010, about 2009 is when the investment market blew up. Solar companies are turning down contracts and investment money because they can't train people fast enough to install panels and the same is happening on the wind side where the people that install the turbines are in such hot demand it's actually delaying construction of wind farms.

    2. Re:EVERYONE says by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      The social effects are impressive too. Energy production is being democratized. Individuals or small groups can buy PV and turbines with guaranteed returns on their investment and freedom from the energy market, which is many countries has badly broken.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  4. Re:Hillary must be in heaven by youngone · · Score: 1

    She says she will destroy the coal industry

    She will say whatever she needs to say to get elected, then she will do whatever she's paid to do. Just like every other politician you have.

  5. We've got to get off fossil fuels faster by presidenteloco · · Score: 2

    than this projection says we will.

    Around 60% fossil fuel electricity generation in 2040, as is forecast, is way too much, considering that we need to get the whole energy economy, including transportation, heating, industry, etc. which this report doesn't cover, off fossil fuels almost completely by mid-century or so, to keep a chance of managing global warming.

    We need technology and economy tipping points, in between now and 2050, so that the rate of change accelerates very rapidly. Government policy should be aimed at expediting those tipping points and rapid transitions to a fundamentally new energy technology mix.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re:We've got to get off fossil fuels faster by david_bonn · · Score: 1

      My own suspicion is that this survey greatly overestimates the growth rate of electrical power generation and greatly underestimates the deployment rate of renewables.

      The economics of renewables are extremely compelling. A wind farm or utility-scale PV array can go from a proposal to actually generating electricity and revenue in six months. Coal plants take more like five years, and even NG plants take about two years. Couple that with the fact that you can partially finish a wind farm and still generate revenue, partially finish a coal plant and you have a big empty building. If you are a bank the risk is much, much lower and that translates to a lower interest rate to finance your project. Given how close the cost of electricity between NG and wind power is right now, even a 1 percent difference in interest rates makes the difference between wind power being profitable and an NG plant not being profitable. And the spread between them is likely a lot more than 1 percent.

      Yes, you can explain to the bank that your power plant is dispatchable and will generate electricity even at night or when the wind doesn't blow. They will agree with you and still stick you with a higher interest rate.

      That doesn't even begin to take into account that we are still bending the cost curve on wind and solar, while coal plants and NG turbines are a more mature technology that isn't likely to have dramatic cost reductions or efficiency improvements.

    2. Re:We've got to get off fossil fuels faster by blindseer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree, we should move away from fossil fuels. I just believe the path is nuclear power.

      Anyone that says we shouldn't build nuclear power plants because of Chernobyl and Fukushima should realize that they are saying we shouldn't build the next Tesla because the Ford Pinto was a death trap. We haven't built nuclear power plants like those for 40 years, this is doubly so for Chernobyl because that was built from stolen plans, with a known flaw, by people that didn't give a shit. We have new designs that simply cannot melt down.

      Solar power is worthless, it costs too much and provides power only when the sun shines. Wind is cheap but unreliable, I think it has a place in our mix of power sources but a small part of the mix. A large part, as much as 80%, should be nuclear.

      One reason why we keep using these old nuclear power plants is because we need the power and the current regulatory environment effectively bars new construction. If we want to retire these old nuclear power plants then we need new ones to replace them. Replacing them with wind and solar is somewhere between exceedingly expensive and physically impossible.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    3. Re:We've got to get off fossil fuels faster by blindseer · · Score: 2

      The power plants I've toured typically have multiple boilers and turbines under one roof. A partially completed plant is likely capable of producing power so long as there is at least one boiler and one turbine.

      I recall one power plant had two boilers, only one operating as the other was quite old and kept only as a last resort backup. I recall it had four turbines and room for one more. Three turbines produced electricity while the fourth produced chilled water for the site. A portion of the steam was diverted to provide heat. The technicians there explained they had the ability to divert steam pretty much as they wished so that they can start and stop any turbine as they wished, add and remove turbines while operating, and throttle the boilers as necessary. It was not stated explicitly but it was implied that they'd be able to add and remove boilers as well. I suspect that this would be much more involved as the boilers are much larger and have many more points of contact with the building than the turbines.

      I saw a talk from someone proposing a nuclear power plant with three modular reactors and five turbines on site. I don't recall the sizes of each but it was something like 200MW turbines and 300MW reactors. 200MW x 5 turbines means 1GW of turbine capacity, 300MW x 3 reactors means 900MW capacity. Even if they failed to complete the site as planned then so long as they had a single reactor and a single turbine they'd be able to produce 200MW of electricity. Add another turbine and output goes to 300MW. Add another reactor, now 400MW. Add another turbine, now 600MW. And so on and so on. Assuming a large enough site then they could keep going but soon economics and safety factors sets in and few people are willing to build any power plant with more than 1GW of capacity on a single site.

      Also, you claim that we've hit a hard limit on the price of coal and natural gas but I'm not so sure. While i agree that we've gone about as far as we can go with efficiency gains I have to wonder if we cannot make natural gas cheaper.

      I also believe that we are close to hitting the limits on wind and solar as well, if we have not already. I have been following the development of PV solar for some time now and while we see many claims of more efficient PV cells they rarely or never make it to market because of cost. The efficiency gain is worthless if they cost so much that they'd never pay for themselves. These high efficiency panels may find uses in space applications since launching mass to orbit and beyond is exceedingly expensive but the math favors heavier and cheaper PV panels as space launches get cheaper.

      What I've seen as a trend in PV development is a focus on making them cheaper rather than more efficient. They'll give up as much as 1/2 of the power output per area if it means making them 1/4 the price. They'll just make up the difference in volume.

      I believe the distinction between "terrestrial grade" and "space grade" PV cells will blur in time as space flight costs go down and consistency of production improves.

      Oh, and windmills are windmills. I don't see a whole lot of gains there either. The best we'll see is an improvement in price due to volume. People have been experimenting with windmills for centuries now, I don't expect to see big gains here.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    4. Re:We've got to get off fossil fuels faster by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Cars will move very fast once affordable (to your average consumer) electric vehicles get here. Hell an upper middle class priced Model 3 has as many orders as the top selling sedan in the US (talk about scaring the daylights out of Toyota, there was news the other day that Toyota is going to cancel the Mirari and go electric because of the Model 3). In fact it's going to be hard for the power companies to keep up honestly. They are building the power generation side, the consumption side is going to get there too, all this cheap electrical power is going to drive a lot of industries off hydrocarbons.

      The biggest hurdle to dropping fossil fuel consumption is going to be sea based shipping and airplanes. Collectively they make up about 20% of energy use. Those are the ones I'm worried about.

    5. Re:We've got to get off fossil fuels faster by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

      More objectively speaking, with scientific backing, it would be more accurate to say that those who still oppose green initiatives, at this late date, are going to be judged criminally insane by history.

      --

      Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    6. Re:We've got to get off fossil fuels faster by blindseer · · Score: 1

      The biggest hurdle to dropping fossil fuel consumption is going to be sea based shipping and airplanes. Collectively they make up about 20% of energy use. Those are the ones I'm worried about.

      What about long haul trucking? Electric vehicles are fine for short commutes but they cannot deliver goods cross country.

      I hear people claim that we can electrify trains but I have my doubts. A diesel electric train is very efficient and can run in all kinds of weather that might threaten an electrified track. Also, what are the capital costs and maintenance costs of electrifying a rail road track? A city wide train system can get away with electric tracks because usage is high, track lengths fairly short, which I imagine makes it cost effective compared to diesel. The miles of track that would need to be electrified to make a dent in diesel powered rail is mind boggling.

      Then there are farm implements, construction equipment, small engines (chain saws, lawn mowers, weed eaters), recreational vehicles/crafts (ATV, PWC, ETC), and likely more I can't think of right now. Point is that we have a lot of things in this world that run on fossil fuels and it's going to take a lot to replace them all. Electric cars are largely a curiosity, novelty, or luxury and I expect that to be the case for quite some time. There are a lot of things that can take out utility power for a long time for a lot of people. Those that have an electric vehicle tend to also have another that runs on hydrocarbons.

      I believe the solution is synthesizing hydrocarbons from nuclear power. We've seen a lot of progress in making this process more efficient and scalable. Electric cars might be a great idea for many but if there is are hurricanes, floods, ice storms, earthquakes, or whatever that can knock out electricity and I expect a lot of people to realize real quick a very real shortcoming of electric vehicles. I can just imagine people using diesel generators to charge up their car in cases like this. I envision people lined up to push their dead electric car up to a generator dropped in by the National Guard because of some natural disaster. We've seen things like this before, the National Guard handing out fuel so people can gas up vehicles and generators. The difference is that a 2 gallon gas can contains a lot of energy and is easily carried by a single person, it's easy to carry fuel to a car but not so easy to carry a car to a charging station.

      Synthesized hydrocarbons are a very reasonable means to get a "carbon free" energy storage medium and it does not require any new technologies or infrastructure to work. (I put "carbon free" in quotes because I realize that carbon atoms are used in the process but since the carbon loop is closed there are no additional carbon atoms dug out of the ground.)

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    7. Re:We've got to get off fossil fuels faster by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I don't recall the sizes of each but it was something like 200MW turbines and 300MW reactors

      Far too small - nukes are about a lot of heat and big turbines. That's how they can be viable with a high capital cost and long construction time. Thermal power solutions such as nukes perform better at very large scales. A large turbine will have the steam go through in three or more passes to extract most of the energy out of the steam and that's only possible if you have a LOT of steam hitting the turbine. Small turbines waste a lot of that energy.

      cells they rarely or never make it to market because of cost

      Silicon wafers are dirt cheap so if surface area is not limited they win. The new high performance stuff is in use but in niches such as satellites.

    8. Re:We've got to get off fossil fuels faster by dbIII · · Score: 1

      this is doubly so for Chernobyl because that was built from stolen plans, with a known flaw, by people that didn't give a shit

      Very interesting world you live in. The formerly Russian turbine engineer I worked with a few years ago that had worked on that type of plant would disagree.

    9. Re:We've got to get off fossil fuels faster by blindseer · · Score: 2

      Far too small - nukes are about a lot of heat and big turbines.

      I was referring to a talk on small modular reactors, the whole point was to make them small. The idea is that by making them small enough to be mass produced on an assembly line and trucking them to the power plant site the price should be much lower than conventional nuclear and competitive with any other energy source.

      Turbines on the 200MW scale are also small enough to move by truck. These were also chosen based on price, they give the most output per dollar. They may not be as efficient as larger turbines but the goal is to reduce capital and operating expense. Since the fuel is thorium and uranium the cost of fuel is a very very small part of the cost of operation, therefore efficiency losses are much less of a concern compared to other fuels.

      Also, I am not sure if I got my numbers right but they are in the ballpark. It may have been a 600MW or maybe 150MW reactor. What I am quite sure of is that the proposal had three small modular reactors to drive five COTS steam turbines. This plant has not yet been built but they did a lot of the engineering already. By using common parts where possible they thought they could get a price point so low that it would be an offer that few could refuse.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    10. Re:We've got to get off fossil fuels faster by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I was referring to a talk on small modular reactor

      Where small reactors such as pebble bed are used the idea is to have several of them in series or parallel heating up steam for each turbine.

      Turbines on the 200MW scale are also small enough to move by truck

      So are the 650MW ones. I did some work at a plant with 240MW turbines. It was built in the 1960s. It has since been demolished for being inefficient.

      COTS steam turbines

      No such thing - you order one and wait a few years. If you have your construction schedule right it arrives before you have finished your boilers/reactor/whatever. You break a rotor, you'd better have a spare or it could be three years. Nearly every utility worldwide has spares.

    11. Re: We've got to get off fossil fuels faster by its · · Score: 1

      Yes if this true we are cooked. Fortunately EIA has a history of underestimating renewable penetration. http://thehill.com/blogs/pundi...

    12. Re: We've got to get off fossil fuels faster by its · · Score: 1

      We have all the technology we need. We just have to spend 2% of our GDP for the next 30 years to transition to renewables at the rate of 3% a year. Some of that money will come from replacing investment in fossil fuel expiration and development. http://www.themindfulword.org/...

    13. Re:We've got to get off fossil fuels faster by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Curious: how does a Tesla compare to a Pinto ? If you'd pointed to an early electric car flop, I'd see an analogy, but the Pinto was an ICE vehicle.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    14. Re:We've got to get off fossil fuels faster by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      Could you post a link to the plans being stolen? I tried to Google and found nothing that indicated stolen plans There is plenty of information on poor design choices in those plants but nothing that I can find about the plans being lifted from somewhere else and/or intentionally sabotaged.

    15. Re:We've got to get off fossil fuels faster by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      Looking at the Pinto you would have suggested going back to horses!

    16. Re:We've got to get off fossil fuels faster by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      What about long haul trucking? Electric vehicles are fine for short commutes but they cannot deliver goods cross country.

      I think you can replace the big fuel tanks you see on the side of long haul trucks with big battery packs that can be easily exchanged at a truck stop. As long as the trucks can get ~500 miles of of a battery pack that should be workable.

    17. Re:We've got to get off fossil fuels faster by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

      > Solar power is worthless, it costs too much and provides power only when the sun shines.

      A solar plant in Chile would disagree. It's half PV and half solar-thermal, and provides round-the-clock power. The thermal part heats a working fluid via curved trough mirrors. The hot fluid is stored in a tank until night, when it's used to boil water and turn a turbine. As far as cost, the world is installing 65 GW of solar this year because it's cost effective, not because it costs too much.

    18. Re:We've got to get off fossil fuels faster by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The point is James Bond was not involved and the fuckup that happened is well the understood result of people being idiots and going too far.

    19. Re:We've got to get off fossil fuels faster by blindseer · · Score: 1

      The comparison holds because old nuclear reactors use solid fuels while new ones use liquid fuels. They are both nuclear reactors but like the Tesla and the Pinto the way they are built and run is quite different and yet both are called cars.

      Old reactors like Chernobyl run on a uranium-plutonium cycle. LFTR runs on a thorium-uranium cycle. Chernobyl used steam turbines while LFTR uses gas turbines. Chernobyl used water as a coolant, LFTR uses molten salts. I could go on. There are so many things that separate LFTR from the early RBMK design used in Chernobyl that there is very little in common between them. It is because of these differences the failure modes are very different, just like how a Tesla will not burst into flames like a Pinto would.

      LFTR cannot melt down and explode like a RBMK because there is no water to boil away, or react with metallic zirconium and explode, and so on. A LFTR core cannot melt down because the core is already molten. If it gets too hot and, in a very unlikely case, melts it's containment then it will not keep reacting and melting through the floor. If containment is lost then the reaction stops, there is no "China Syndrome". Since LFTR removes many fission products during normal operation then there is much less risk of built up fission products in the fuel getting spread around in a failure, they cannot build up in the core like in Fukushima. The really bad stuff, iodine and cesium, will be either removed from the core continuously or rendered chemically inert in the fuel salt.

      So, yes, LFTR is to RBMK just like how Tesla is to Pinto.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    20. Re:We've got to get off fossil fuels faster by blindseer · · Score: 1

      I knew this would happen, bad mouthing nuclear power based on old designs rather than looking at what people are actually proposing. Some examples:

      Heat pollution of waterways in many designs cannot be ignored.

      New reactors are air cooled, they just don't heat up waterways.

      Pretty much all fuel comes from decommissioned warheads - This won't last forever.

      New reactors use thorium as fuel, a fuel that is abundant and worthless for weapons.

      The rest of your rant gets into politics that I don't want to bother with right now. New reactors like LFTR do not operate like the old reactors do, so therefore your claims about cost, waste, decommissioning, and "externalities" are meaningless.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    21. Re:We've got to get off fossil fuels faster by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1

      > I also believe that we are close to hitting the limits on wind and solar as well, if we have not already.

      Not really. The limiting factors are almost exclusively financial, and costs are continuing to drop as production ramps up.

      > I have been following the development of PV solar for some time now and while we see many claims of more efficient PV cells they rarely or never make it to market because of cost.

      The PV market is not limited much at all by efficiency thing; most panels are 15-20% efficient but a 5% efficient PV might well be worth it if it was cheap enough to deploy.

      > What I've seen as a trend in PV development is a focus on making them cheaper rather than more efficient. They'll give up as much as 1/2 of the power output per area if it means making them 1/4 the price. They'll just make up the difference in volume.

      Exactly.

      > Oh, and windmills are windmills. I don't see a whole lot of gains there either. The best we'll see is an improvement in price due to volume. People have been experimenting with windmills for centuries now, I don't expect to see big gains here.

      Actually, this isn't true, there's been big improvements over the last decade or so, and there are quite big gains still being made even now. There are large gains being made in the last few years by making taller and taller windmills; the power is more reliable at higher altitudes that these taller structures can reach, and the cost per watt goes down-wind power is now the cheapest of all power where the biggest wind turbines are deployed. Also other big economies of scale are happening thoughout the production and installation processes. And replacing existing windmills with bigger windmills is a thing that is done where appropriate.

      In short, there's no limits that have been reached on the cost/watt of renewables, which is mostly what we care about; energy efficiency is not an issue for renewables, unlike coal where you're actually having to dig coal out of the ground and where burning it creates pollution.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    22. Re:We've got to get off fossil fuels faster by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1

      > A large part, as much as 80%, should be nuclear.

      On most grids, it's a surprisingly bad idea to have that much nuclear in the mix.

      The reason is demand-side variation; if you have to reduce the output of your reactor, the cost of the energy has gone up- for example a nuclear reactor running at half power is making electricity at twice the cost/kWh; and it wasn't cheap electricity to start with; nuclear power is never cheap.

      With 80% you'd pretty much always have to daily be turning down your nukes due to demand side reductions. France has problems with that, they have some hydroelectricity to help buffer their nuclear, but not enough of the right sort.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
  6. So, if subsidization of renewable energy, by mxyztplk · · Score: 2

    when combined with constraints on non-renewable energy, were to be as projected in the study (i.e., per present policies), by 2040 fossil fuel and nuclear might constitute only about ...
    (wait for it)...
    83% of the world energy usage.

    That is, by 2040, renewables might then manage to constitute a whopping 16-17% of world energy usage, skyrocking up from some 13% in 2016, under their assumptions.

    The authors of the study do not even attempt to estimate the likelihood of those assumptions, which is prudent considering how costly the renewable energy subsidies and fossil fuel limitation policies are.

    The following is a link to the study that the ComputerWorld article is attempting to summarize:
    http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/i...

  7. In other words -- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Corrected title: "Renewable energy sources still insignificant, least regulated."

  8. Another fossil fuel PR release by Flicker · · Score: 1

    These are the same guys that predicted, in 2015, that there would be an installed base of 1000 electric vehicles with over 200 mile range in 2040. In 2015 there were already over 100,000.

    Basically, you can just ignore anything that comes out of the EIA. They aren't even trying to make their lies make sense any more.

    --
    this is not a sig
  9. Re:Hillary must be in heaven by Daemonik · · Score: 1

    The coal industry needs to be destroyed. I'm sorry that will put a lot of coal miners out of work, but are we supposed to feed our kids coal dust because a few hillbillies can't move to where the jobs are?

    I'm sure the asbestos miners, DDT manufacturers and the guys who bury cans of toxic waste under schoolyards all really wanted to keep their jobs too, but you know the rest of us felt moving on was for the best.

  10. Re:Fortunately, Obama has orderd four new hydrodam by BradMajors · · Score: 1

    Obama will destroy any form of energy that does not require government subsides for crony corporations to exist.

  11. Aging plants age, news at 11. by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

    A base load power plant has a design life of around 50 years, so on a constant GW basis 60% of coal capacity to be retired, which would put coal around 24%. Given the investment in coal over the past decade (re-powering plants), 28-29% basically just means they don't expect any new. Coal plants to be built.

    A much more interesting question would be what percentage of generation would be de-centralized renewables.

  12. Any opinions on thorium? by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    Seems to me that thorium has more potential than wind or solar.

    Any opinions?

  13. Re:Fortunately, Obama has orderd four new hydrodam by riverat1 · · Score: 1

    I doubt Obama had anything to do with the decision to remove those 4 dams on the Klamath River. The owner of the dams, Pacific Power and Light (or whatever it's called nowadays) reached the point of needing to relicense the dams and the cost of adding the necessary fish passage equipment far exceeded any value the dams had to the company so they wanted to tear them down in order to no longer be responsible for them. They are all rather small and don't produce that much power so not much was lost in terms of renewable energy and it's a huge gain for salmon habitat.