Asked if the world is taking carbon capture and storage seriously, Lord Stern responds "Not seriously enough. This is a moment we need to ramp up. … We are moving into territory where 3 degrees [Celsius of warming] is quite likely, and we haven't been there since three million years ago," or before modern humans—and certainly modern human civilization—existed.
"The most important thing that countries have to do is to take steps to progressively transform the energy base of their economy," said U.S. climate envoy Todd Stern during a press briefing on December 8. " You need to use less energy through efficiency and to develop renewable energy sources more." But even if such efforts are successful, the U.S.—and the world—will also need carbon capture and storage if it is to meet the goal of keeping global average temperatures from rising to dangerous levels.
See what we're tweeting about
51 Comments
Add CommentCCS will NEVER sequester a relevant amount of CO2. To pump just 10% of our carbon emissions underground would require the same volume of liquid CO2 going INTO the ground as what the worlds ENTIRE Oil Industry pumps in crude oil OUT of the ground...EVERY YEAR! And those numbers look worse and worse as coal consumption increases.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCCS INCREASES the amount of coal a power station requires to produce the same usable output by 33% or perhaps even 45%. So we have 33 - 45% more strip mines, water pollution and destroyed mountain tops, just so we can continue our coal habit.
The only reason coal is cheap is because the effects of the pollution it generates isn't captured in its price. In the U.S., this pollution destroys $2 via negative health effects and property damage for every $1 it creates in electricity sales:
http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.101.5.1649
Coal power SHOULD be over $0.17 per kWhr or more (and this DOESN'T include the cost of climate disruption caused by coal's CO2 emissions). This distortion of the Free Market on coal's behalf, brought about by government inaction, has caused the Market to make sub-optimal decisions. Any economist will tell you that the price signal HAS to incorporate as much of the true cost of using a product as possible for the Market to function properly. This distortion is orders of magnitude larger than the paltry sum we support clean energy with in hopes to even the playing field a little.
"This distortion of the Free Market ..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo distortion. The free market of unregulated capitalism is predatory to whatever extent is tolerated, in order to minimize cost of production and maximize profits. I agree with your argument that price should include the cost of collateral damage caused by burning coal. But don't expect today's conservative flat-Earthers to 1) agree that coal contributes to global warming 2) agree that global warming should be addressed 3) agree that "job creators" should act responsibly and clean up their own messes. Republican lawmakers, and many scared Democrats, will not advance a green agenda, partly because our tepid, consensus-seeking President is not going to push for it.
Well we agree on something. I would add it is simply a bad idea to sequester the Oxygen in that CO2, which did start out in the atmosphere. It is reasonable to consider freeing carbon from the ground and putting it in the atmosphere is something to reduce where possible. BUT by the same logic, it is just as bad to take oxygen from the atmosphere and put it in the ground. This is one of those "solutions" warmists come up with that are not only bad ideas but will lead to something really bad as they then attempt to somehow deal with the lost oxygen. At least if left alone nature will eventually free up the oxygen, which cant happen if it is buried.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI will list my practical solutions we could do now.
Only allow Steam type engines, hybrid and electric vehicles ban the use of any other car, no exceptions. Don't care if you are rich or a politician with elaborate classic car collections, you can't drive them.
Get rid of "the grid" and replace it with self generation in any region that can't be supplied by nukes, hydro, thermal, wind or solar power. The local generation can be natural gas, propane, bio fuel, solar or wind. Why does this matter? Easy, removing the grid is a 5 to 25% reduction in power production. This is because every time power is stepped up or down to get it onto the grid or into a house, there is power loss. Since there are 5 to 6 steps being done on all power produced, it is a huge savings. In addition, producing power at my house or business is on demand, easier to estimate and control meaning less wasted power production per individual as opposed the power companies trying to estimate what millions of people might use each hour. Total elimination of coal and oil use to create power would occur. Natural gas would go up but it is cleaner and less of it would be used since individual generators or ones on large buildings would be more efficient. No worries on lost money, the power companies would still be able to be paid to maintain it all. They could even just install the stuff and still meter it.
See sault. Two doable solutions that would actually cut a massive amount of CO2 production, one of which I already do so I know it works(power production) and I managed to come up with these ideas without elaborate carbon taxes, crazed CSS ideas, biblical belief in human caused global warming, no investment in Al Gore green corporations nor am I a government funded climatologist. I guess when religion is not blinding a guy it is not too difficult to see where something could be done.
shjmni, not sure where your economics studies occurred but a free market is the only reason we even have the ability to need to address these questions. It is a regulated and controlled market that creates the conditions causing predatory behavior. This happens as people attempt to protect their market share, money and other investments in the face of government interference and the crony capitalists who with their government friends use regulation to take control of the free market.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSault is mostly correct. The government gets more money from coal and oil use than the actual coal and oil companies do. So the government does in fact distort the market through crony capitalism. They further exacerbate this with so called subsidies to solar as an example to ensure the price of solar stays so high, it can never be used to replace coal. In addition, they government has completely controlled by the same regulatory mechanisms all research into alternative fuels and energy sources. Making it impossible for anyone to really invent something and get it to the market.
The free market would have solved this problem already if the government got out of the way. The reason is the consumer is totally ready to pay for alternative sources of energy that actually work and they can use. Companies also know that they could make tons of money off of an alternative to oil or coal. Since capitalists ultimately want profits, the profits of an alternative would be more. BUT because the government and its regulation of the free market distorts coal as Sault says, distorts, oil, energy production in general, solar and everything else and they have taken over all research in the alternatives there is no free market left in this part of the economy and therefore nothing left to actually produce solutions.
How are you generating power at your house with natural gas? Do you have a Bloom Box or something?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour climate change solutions seem rather extreme. Incorporating even the non-climate related damages that coal inflicts on society would make it extremely noncompetitive with other sources. Increasing vehicle, building, appliance, etc. efficiency standards and financing retrofits (or cash for clunkers-style buyback programs for old, inefficient items) could cut energy use a great deal. Encouraging walkable and transit-friendly development so people can live without a car if they want could cut our energy use even more. Finally, cut the $20 Billion in oil subsidies per year and invest them in clean energy development and that will produce most of the CO2 reductions that climate science says we need by 2050. MAYBE by then, thorium reactors will be ready for commercial deployment, and the last 10% or so of emissions could be displaced by them.
Exactly, unregulated capitalism causes sub-optimal decision making by market actors (people, businesses, etc.), leading to huge inefficiencies. The government needs to incorporate the TRUE cost of using products in a fair manner so the market actors selling the products don't profit unfairly. That the government has failed to make the Market operate efficiently is due to the influence of a select few corporations on the levers of political power. So, when anyone says, "let the Market decide!" I whole-heartedly agree, as long as those markets operate fairly and transparently.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAhh, dude a simple natural gas powered generator even running full out at 24 KWH would produce far less CO2 than a coal plant. Again, you are not counting the loss of power due to transformers. Not to mention mixed with solar. This "mega coal plant to feed millions of homes" with power design we have no is totally inefficient. It is cheaper, easier and less fuel consuming to move the natural gas to a house or business and use it as needed to produce power than it is to burn coal in a mega plant, more than is needed, wasting up to 25% of the power to get the electricity to a location. This is not difficult to do at all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am guessing by your response only super expensive magic solutions that pay off Al Gore green companies and give government agencies a reason to fund climate science is the reason you reject my very simple and easy to do solution. As I said, I am doing the above NOW. Plus many around the area are doing the solar leasing stuff. So you can make your claims and speculation all you want, unlike you, I am actually using less than 200 kwh of power from Edison, the other 3000 kwh a day are coming from solar and my generator in the summer with 60% from solar and I use 30% less natural gas to generate my power than I would using Coal across the grid. As I sad, there are ways to cut CO2, you warmists dont like them because they are not magic and no money for you.
I agree with cutting subsidies of all types, including welfare in general. However, the 20 billion is not going to do anything. Do you really think the greedy oil companies are not looking for an alternative? They are, because they could make even more money off the alternative than they do oil. They could charge twice as much on this alternative. The subsidies should be cut because they are wrong to do in general and the money should simply reduce the deficit spending by the amount of the subsidy.
I admit the solution for cars I have is extreme but that is less extreme than forcing people into city transit or walking or all these other nonsense things because not enough people are going to walk. Everyone needs a car unless you want a society that is regionally trapped by distance because public transit and walking is not going to take you from city to city when the distance is over 30 or 40 miles and it does nothing for anyone living in small towns or spread out cities like LA,where there is no density. My solution addressed the need for personal transport and gets rid of evil 4 stroke engines or at least makes them smaller and more efficient.
You would be right sault except for the government part. The government needs to get the hell out of the way and stop manipulating everything. Then with a transparent capitalist economy in place, all this would be solved. Capitalism is self regulating when transparent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYawn. Another wildly improbable fix for a nonproblem which will cost us all money.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOther than graphine, nanotubes, composites, and diamond seeding why are we wasting carbon by pumping it into the ground. Just yesterday an article discussing diamond entanglement hit the press but we continue to worry about the wrong thing. Take a minute and draw some dots on a piece of paper then read http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/07/diamonds-entangled-in-physics-feat/?hpt=hp_bn2 and then start connecting the dots. Any pinhead can do this but it may be too challenging to a scientist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only effective and realistic CCS is the one the nature have been using - photosynthesis. So, let's grow forests and then burry them underground.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIronically, that means to restore nature's safe deposits we have plundered for centuries...
Have a nice day,
Damir Ibrisimovic
We're DOOMED!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarbon Capture & Sequestration is an idiotic idea, really it is just another greenwashing SCAM so the Fossil Fuel industry and the politicians they own can pretend they are doing something about Global Warming when in truth, they're doing Zip.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Alberta and Stephen "Big Oil" Harper governments are happily throwing several $billion down the sewer on nutty CCS SCAMS, at $200 per ton of CO2 sequestered. And this is the same Harper who virtually closed down Canada's Nuclear industry, and refuses to spend any money on it, when Nuclear in Canada cost $8.30 per ton of CO2 avoided. $8.30 vs $200, doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure which is more sensible.
Unfortunately, Big Oil doesn't want us to have Nuclear Energy, there only competition, with Coal getting shutout. And the World Bank is spending $billions subsidizing Big Coal Power plants in South Africa & India but utterly refuses to subsidize their beginning indigenous Nuclear Industry. World Bank thieves are of course mainly interested in protecting the ENERGY HEGEMONY of Big Oil/NG.
Coal Mining caused $3.5B earthquake in Newcastle, Australia, killing 13 people and it is certain that CCS will cause similar earthquakes, except on top of the earthquake devastion there will be MASSIVE CO2 releases, which will suffocate thousands. Makes the prospect of a hundred Fukushimas look tame in comparison. And liquid CO2 pipelines are a terrorist's dream come true.
Read the following links and start connecting the dots
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=hydrogen-production-comes-natu&posted=1
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2006/sciam-belcher.html
Doesn't anybody realize there are millions of use for carbon which are much better than killing ourselves either. But it may do immense damage to big oil and the current utility systems which will self destruct on their own with enough time. There is real science complete with Nobel prizes for Carbon, Graphine, Buckeye Balls, Diamond production from seeded atmospheres and carbon composites. Nano tubes have been show to have conducting, semi-conducting and non-conducting behavior and top that off with custom tipping of viruses there has to be at least one application more interesting than making lead pencils. Anyway continue to inhale, exhale and wonder why we don't see our way out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI like having the government make sure that the water I drink is clean and the food I eat is relatively safe (some ecoli outbreaks slip through the cracks, but only because we let food processing companies cut corners). I feel better knowing that it's very difficult for companies to outright lie about their products and that drugs have to treat a certain illness (instead of just being snake oil).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's good that the government can help prevent a lot of the unsafe or fraudulent products that disingenuous hucksters have tried to sell in the past. It's good that air pollution has fallen a great deal due to getting lead out of gasoline, requiring catalytic converters on cars, and requiring industrial polluters to partially clean up their emissions. I enjoy not having to pay to scrape auto accident victims off the pavement because the government requires seat belts in cars and mandates their use. I like never having to know what it's like to see a river or lake catch fire because of all the pollution floating around in it as was common before the Clean Water Act passed.
If you have specific examples of regulations that need to go, I'd like to see them. I think local ordinances and neighborhood covenants (not government but pretty close) that effectively ban the instillation of renewable energy on people's houses are manipulating the market artificially.
But to say that Capitalism is self-regulating when transparent ignores the fact that government HAS to be there to MAKE the market transparent. The Credit Default Swap market that destroyed around $50 Trillion in "assets" in 2008 was allowed to get so bloated and almost take down the world economy precisely because the government thought Capitalism was self-regulating. The CDSs were "innovations" whose sole purpose was to make the market opaque.
When there's this much money going around and no referee on duty, there's no way the market can self-regulate. There are more examples than just the CDS fiasco from 2008, but this post is going on too long anyway.
Fact free as usual and adding nothing but ad hominems to the debate, right?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe question of adaptation vs mitigation isn't either / or. We need to do BOTH. However, each dollar spent on mitigation means that we don't have to spend what, $5 or even $10 on adaptation. I'll tell you right now that I don't know what the multiplier is, but just look at the damage of 1 hurricane or 1 drought or 1 massive fire. In a warming world, these events will become more likely and more intense. The fact that the damages from Hurricane Katrina could have financed a huge chunk of clean energy and infrastructure is obvious. So, what would you have us build, sea walls and irrigation systems because we're too lazy to clean up our act, or wind turbines and solar arrays that put people to work and increase our ability to harness renewable energy? One is cynical and locks us into a downward spiral of defensive spending while the other is part of a virtuous cycle that cleans up our air and provides a continuing service for people.
However, NOBODY knows how much warming will occur because of our emissions, exactly. How high do you build your seawall if you expect 2C warming and when the permafrost starts spewing billions of tons of methane into the atmosphere, it turns into 3C or more? What if a huge chunk of ice falls off Greenland or Antarctica when you weren't expecting it, and you have to make your seawall even higher?
Mitigation is a sure bet. The CO2 we've built up in the atmosphere is already causing 1.7 W/m2 to be retained over the ENTIRE surface of the earth. If we can keep that below 2 or 2.5, then that is a tremendous amount of extra energy that we don't have to worry about melting glaciers or beefing-up hurricanes.
The climate system is chaotic and unpredictable in the short term. The very uncertainty in climate science that you harp on all the time is the VERY REASON we should take out an insurance policy against the worst effects by cutting our carbon emissions. We'll still have to adapt, but if we stay away from the "Tipping Points" like the permafrost releasing methane, or forests turning into carbon sources because of drought, then our adaptation efforts will be MUCH less expensive.
Yes, let's debate the carbon debt issue. Regardless of what you think the Earth's climate sensitivity is, there comes a point when there is just too much CO2 in the atmosphere. Where is that figure for you? 500ppm, 1000ppm? Either way, Western Europe and the U.S. have historically taken up the most "space" in the atmosphere for excess CO2. China may be the highest single emitter right now, but it still has a way to go before it matches the U.S. in cumulative emissions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs it fair to ask a country where 100 - 200 million people still live in abject poverty to cut their emissions in the same manner as a country where there are only 1 - 2% as many people living in poverty? Especially when the richer country has emitted far more carbon in total? Especially when a large percentage of emissions from the poorer country are caused by the manufacture of exports headed for the richer countries?
I'm not saying that we should let China, India, Brazil, etc. off the hook. However, they will need more time and assistance to decrease their emissions than Western Europe / The U.S. Trying to demand any different is unfair and sets up climate negotiations for failure.
Just think if you've been throwing your garbage in your backyard for years and it's piled up into a stinky mass. Then you get a new neighbor, call him Han, and he sees your garbage pile and decides to do the same thing. The neighborhood starts getting really stinky and people start noticing some problems from the garbage. (Some people deny the garbage problem, take a whiff of the putrid air in the neighborhood, and say it smells like a wonderful spring day!) Before his pile even gets half as high (and stinky), you tell Han that you're not going to stop piling up the garbage until he does the SAME THING. Now how is this fair?
Look, we can start doing the easy emissions reductions now. Increase our efficiency in everything while reducing our waste. Several companies, DuPont for example, have made fat stacks of cash by slashing waste and cleaning up their act. While we're at it, we can help the BRIC countries build up a cleaner economy so they aren't locked into the dirty choices we made in the past, which are pretty much the same ones they appear to be making in the present.
Blow me down, some well-founded reality from sault on CCS.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt exposes the article as yet another handful of sand in the eyes from SciAm, intended to blind people to the fact that nuclear is the only option which has any chance of working.
I've seen it alleged that SciAm's bias on this reflects its German ownership. Some people here know in their hearts that they've got it badly wrong with nukes, and are afraid of it being coming out.
We tried nuclear power in the 20th Century and the financial losses were staggering. Billions in ratepayers' and taxpayers' money, flushed down the drain when reactor construction projects failed. Dozens of reactors sitting half-finished, either demolished or sitting in mothballs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNuclear power has a NEGATIVE learning curve:
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/04/06/207833/does-nuclear-power-have-a-negative-learning-curve/
As you can see later in the article, the learning curve for solar is negative while the curve for wind power is similar.
I'd support taking the corporate welfare for building new LWRs and using it instead to build a research LFTR. This technology holds promise, but we need to determine if it will function on a commercial scale. However, especially in light of the Fukushima disaster, LWRs are a dead-end technology that is much more dangerous and much more expensive than any of the alternatives.
CCS? That would be a tree, then!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAbsolutely, we should invest in infrastructure. Roads, bridges, railways, schools, etc. There's plenty of people out of work and plenty to do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, infrastructure is designed with certain climactic assumptions as far as temperature, wind speed, rainfall, soil condition, etc. are concerned. If it's impossible to rely on historic climate data and assumptions, then it will be MUCH more expensive to build that infrastructure. For example, if a locality is planning on a Cat 5 hurricane coming by every 50 years and they start coming by every 10 because of higher ocean temps, then the infrastructure retrofits will be wildly more expensive.
However, charging $20 per ton of CO2 to use the air as an open sewer is a known amount and can get us most of the emissions reductions we need before 2050. Every ton of CO2 not emitted will reduce the level of warming, and thus the climate changes that will invalidate the assumptions made by the infrastructure designers. Add up those tons by the billions and you're talking about some serious radiative forcing NOT imposed on the Earth's climate system by human emissions. If emissions are left unchecked, the level of warming will also be left unchecked, and there's no way to plan massive infrastructure projects if the climate is changing unpredictably.
"...Nuclear power has a NEGATIVE learning curve..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMore irrational nonsense from Sault. Like how do you achieve a negative learning curve. What you get stupider each time you do the same job? Obviously Joe "natural gas salesman" Romm, is using the fact that Big Oil & King Coal used their enormous political power to allow every whack-job greenie and his pet to throw roadblocks in front of Nuclear Power. Shoreham being the quintessential example. And Romm, devoid of any honesty or integrity, blames it on "... a negative learning curve..."
The real story is the NRC (run by zero qualification political appointees, some were avowed anti-nuclear fanatics), which replaced the far more effective AEC, in 1974. Before the NRC, NPP's in the USA were coming in at as low as $680 per kw, in $2007 - Quad Cities 1800 MWe - and 4 yr construction times. By the time all the paid-by-fossil-fuel ENGO's, Legal firms, Lobbyists, Media and Politicians(with their NRC - the Nuclear Rejection Commission) got their slimy hands on Nuclear regulation, prices had skyrocketed to upwards of $6,000 per kw. For the sordid tale, see here:
http://depletedcranium.com/why-i-hate-the-nrc/
http://depletedcranium.com/hey-hey-ho-ho-the-nrc-has-got-to-go/
The Shoreham fiasco. Paid-by-Oil/Gas & Coal greenies prove how callous & cruel they can be. Millions have died already due to their efforts. Not one apology from them for what they have done.
Most people have no idea of the influence of lobby/legal firms, paid media & ENGO's. There are now about 30,000 ENGO's in the World. In the USA - 12,400 ENGO's had expenditures of $10.3B in 2005. In 2008 15,290 spending $13.9B. Yep that's $billions. You don't get money like that from the little people. Most of it comes from wealthy foundations, funded by the super-rich (think Oil&Gas wealth mostly). The New York based Environmental Grantmakers association itself boasts $200B in assets for it's 200 members.
Yep, when people don't really have an argument, they sidestep any proof their opponent brings and lay on the ad hominems....REAL THICK!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Oh noes! It's all Big Oil & Coal's fault. OMG, Joe ROMM is in bed with the fossil fuel industry!"
This is just about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard! Nuclear power has a negative learning curve because we've MANDATED the use of proper safety systems over the years. The consequences of a nuclear accident are so grave and expensive (just ask the Japanese!) that we need to ensure 40, 60, 80-year safety horizons on the types of events that will happen to a reactor.
Seriously, what's more believable? A cabal of evil fossil fuel companies paid off the feds to squash nuclear power, even though many utilities own nuclear AND coal plants, or that prudent safety systems on these very dangerous pieces of technology price them out of the market? Why don't the nuclear power companies sue the fossil fuel companies' @$$e$ off? If your proof is SO STRONG, why haven't we seen ANY litigation or ANY investigations?
If you can't answer these questions, then you might as well trade conspiracy theories with the moon-landing-was-faked people or something...
Well well well. Who da thunk it? Post No. 2
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmongst all the dross, at last we find a little gold.
Now you just need to get rid of a few other obsessions. Your anti business & in particularly Big Oil stance. They are only delivering the things we all demand via the most efficient mechanism ever devised. The (relatively) free market. Their massive profits are necessary to fund continued search & development with excess profits distributed directly to shareholders or indirectly by many financial mechanisms, not to mention taxes & royalties paid to the countries in which they operate.
Your obsession with CO2 & your anti nuke energy stance are the next that you need to address.
"...hen people don't really have an argument, they sidestep any proof their opponent brings..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou didn't supply any proof of anything, except showing how nuclear costs escalated, which I have also shown in my links. You FALSELY claim it was due to safety upgrades where my links PROVE it was through political & environmental groups opposition.
"...The consequences of a nuclear accident are so grave and expensive..."
Once again, nobody died as a result of the Fukushima incident, unlike your Coal, Gas & Oil which kill millions every year. You don't count that. How about one of your NG disasters that curiously there has been a total news blackout on your mainstream media, even though this disaster makes the Fukushima Nuclear incident look like a bad rainy day. A Mud Volcano caused by NG drilling, that releases 6 million cubic feet of mud per day, causing the evacuation of 13,000 families already & a dozen deaths and is expected to continue for another 80 yrs.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/The-Worlds-Muddiest-Disaster.html
And the Chinese and Koreans are making Western designed & copied Nuclear Power plants, with all the safety technology, just as required in the West, for $1500 to $2200 per kwel, that's latest IEA/OECD < 1/10th the cost of your Solar & Wind. And latest CANDU's constructed in China, which BTW will not meltdown in a total and indefinite power loss, were completed ahead of schedule and under budget at under $2k per kwel. With all required Canadian Safety requirements met.
http://www.cnnc.com.cn/tabid/168/Default.aspx
So there is your proof that Joe Romm is full of it.
It seems you have zero knowledge of how modern political systems operate. It is entirely legal and routinely done that Vested Interests buy press, buy politicians, buy ENGO's. You must believe lobbyists are just friendly guys who want to help out poor starving politicians. Just a few examples of Big Corporate money using ENGO's to benefit their agenda:
http://www.citycaucus.com/2010/10/north-vancouver-mom-exposes-us-millions-for-oil-sands-activism
http://fairquestions.typepad.com/rethink_campaigns/2011/09/gary-mason-the-globe-29-sept-2011.html
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/12/15/demarketing-alberta/
http://ecofascism.com/article23.html
"...Nuclear power has a negative learning curve because we've MANDATED the use of proper safety systems over the years..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo Sault and Joe Romm don't know the meaning of learning curve. If indeed it was true (which of course it isn't) that Nuclear Costs escalated in the USA due to "MANDATED the use of proper safety systems" then that IS NOT LEARNING Curve - that is design upgrades.
By the way, Wind Energy costs have been increasing, not decreasing as Sault claims. Solar PV has decreased mainly due to the sudden drop in demand, following the 2008 recession, left a huge glut on the market, these $billion Solar PV factories have to run all out after they are built in order to pay off the huge capital cost.
Poor David! He is just reporting what (selected) others say. Or, is it Scientific American? Hmmm...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere's the proof that wind costs have inclined? I have right here, proof that they have DECLINED:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://bnef.com/PressReleases/view/172
I guess if you're smarter than Bloomgerg, I might believe you, but the proof is in the puddin so to speak.
And nowhere in your analysis of Solar PV power was there any mention of polysilicon feedstock or Chinese subsidies/investment/product dumping. Who was it around here talking about the "diode effect" where only data that supports your pre-determined conclusions gets through? Yeah, thought so...
Bloomberg New Energy = renewable energy investment sales team. How about instead we use the NREL, very pro-Renewables but somewhat reputable:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/pdfs/2009_annual_wind_market_report.pdf
"...Among a large sample of wind power projects installed in 2009, reported installed costs had a capacity-weighted average of $2,120/kW. This average increased by $170/kW (9%) from the weighted-average cost of $1,950/kW for projects installed in 2008, and increased by $820/kW (63%) from the average cost of projects installed from 2001 through 2004..."
"...Wind Turbine Prices Have Begun to Show Signs of Easing, but Remain High By Historical Standards. Since hitting a low point of roughly $700/kW in the 2000-2002 timeframe, average wind turbine prices have increased by approximately $800/kW (>100%) through 2009. Though turbine price increases have been the rule for a number of years, evidence is beginning to emerge that those days have ended, at least temporarily..."
The EIA does not share Bloomberg's optimism. It puts Wind for delivery in 2016 at a levelized cost of 9.5 cents/kwh onshore and 24 cents offshore, vs new, First-Of-A-Kind Advanced Nuclear (before learning curve cost reductions & unlike Wind or Solar, before factory or assembly line production) at 12 cents p kwh, with 60-80yr life not 15-25yrs. That's for real power, locatable anywhere, 24/7, summer/winter, day/night, south/north:
http://www.energytransition.msu.edu/documents/ipu_eia_electricity_generation_estimates_2011.pdf
I called you a diode. Credit where credits due:)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://tinyurl.com/cuesuyt
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNuclear power an option if renewable power fails to provide cost-effective energy: blueprint.
This from a minister in the left wing Australian Labor government. Perhaps sanity will reign yet.
Okay, if we can trust the EIA now, then get a load of this:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.eia.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/hr2454/pdf/sroiaf(2009)05.pdf
Or how about this one?
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/ogp/pdf/sroiaf(2004)04.pdf
If the EIA's analysis is cool with you now, then you have to admit that the Cap and Trade bill of 2009 was a great idea and drilling in ANWR is a stupid one.
Or, how about the 2010 report, which says, "Wind turbine prices have dropped substantially since their peak in late 2008, despite continued technological advancements that have yielded increases in hub heights and especially rotor diameters. After hitting a low of roughly $700/kW from 2000 to 2002, average wind turbine prices increased by approximately $800/kW (>100%) through 2008, rising to an average of roughly
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this$1,500/kW. Wind turbine prices have since declined substantially, with price quotes for recent transactions in the range of $900-$1,400/kW, suggesting price declines of as much as 33% or more since late 2008, with an average decline closer to 20% for orders announced in
2010."
http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/pdfs/2010_annual_wind_market_report.pdf
Cherry-pick much?
Finally, you are highly mistaken that you can put a nuclear power plant anywhere. You forget NIMBY-ism as well as the fact that reactors need tons of cooling intake water to run. Some reactors in the U.S. Southeast and in France have had to throttle their output because man-made climate change has had a hand in lowering natural water flows while increasing water temperatures outside of the desirable range for the reactor.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, and the fact that while the Chinese make cheap and dangerous Fukushima knock-offs whose costs are hidden by massive government subsidies, cutting corners, and cheap labor, the Western World has been unable to get new nuclear power for under $6,000 / kW because we have actual accountability here and we allow market forces to work more forcefully than they do in China.
How can this report be from the "Left Wing" Labor Party if it says this, "It says the energy market must be improved by privatising state-owned energy assets and fully deregulating retail power prices."?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf that's LEFT WING, then what's your version of moderate, Genghis Khan? The Australian Labor Party is a little to the left of the Democratic Party in the U.S., but they have The Greens to their left in Australian politics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Greens
Please refrain from inserting political ideology into a scientific debate, it really has no value.
Yep, prices have risen consistently and considerably ">100%", 2002 thru end of 2008, as I said and contrary to your claim. That is CLEARLY not a learning curve cost reduction in Wind. So "coincidentally" prices start falling at the beginning of the recession, when Wind & Solar installations dropped catastrophically.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou might want to learn a bit about basic economics, Wind & Solar are booming do to UNBELIEVABLE subsidies and tax incentives, that means $billion FACTORIES MUST BE BUILT, workforces hired and trained, supply chains built up, and suddenly you pull the rug out. Factories HAVE to keep producing to pay their huge debt charges or face bankruptcy. Supply exceeds Demand - prices fall, basic economics. So eventually factories will go bankrupt and big conglomerates will remain, largely in china, where they will survive on Subsidies, and after the blood is wiped up off the floor, prices will once again rise, and even collusion amongst the fewer suppliers will force prices even higher.
Nimbyism is an issue, most places people welcome NPP's because they supply good, clean, steady high paying jobs. If Nimby's don't want that, then they can burn coal instead. There is no other option.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCoolant is a minor issue. And its the same issue with any thermal power plant be it Solar Thermal, Coal, NG, Oil, Geothermal or Biomass. Solar Thermal uses more water than Nuclear per unit generated energy, but is located in Desert areas. So maybe a French reactor undersized their cooling circuit, easy to fix that.
Much bigger problem is climate change turns formerly Windy areas into non-Windy and sunny areas into cloudy areas. And we already know now that max possible Wind is 1 TW, thus relegated to be a Bit Player, even if you miraculously solved the intermittency issue with Wind.
"...Chinese make cheap and dangerous Fukushima knock-offs whose costs are hidden by massive government subsidies, cutting corners, and cheap labor..."
Pure garbage. China isn't making even one Fukushima knock-off, they ain't even making or have any BWR's. The only massive subsidies or in their Solar, Wind & Hydro production. Labor costs are lower for Solar, Wind, Hydro & Nuclear but that is not that significant for Nuclear, so just like Wind they are about 25-33% lower cost than the West. And they don't cut corners, those are mostly Western Designed and engineered builds. And they have explicited stated and after Fukushima, even expanded their commitment to safety.
If there is any concern in China it has to be Hydro - by far and away - and that is proven, not conjecture. >100,000 dead in Hydro dam failures but Sault could care less about that, because it doesn't fit his religious agenda.
Where are you getting that wind power will max out at 1 TW? What's the theory and/or modeling behind that number?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd, I don't know how you think anything with the "Made in China" label will be reliable.
Yep, prices have FALLEN considerably since 2008, just like the report said. You know, quoting an older report when the newer report is 2 clicks away is a sure sign of cherry picking. Your numbers and assumptions may be valid, but when you pull disingenuous cherry-picking like this, I'm led to believe you have the Carlyle(tm) Diode filtering out ALL information that doesn't conform to the narrative you'd LIKE to believe in.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd then rail against subsidies and then you fail to mention the 10x greater (maybe even more) subsidies that dirty energy receives. All I'm asking is to get rid of ALL these Market distortions, but start with dirty energy first and THEN throttle down clean energy subsidies once the cumulative level of support equalizes out. At the same time, the cost of dirty energy NEEDS to incorporate the negative externalities that its pollution causes in order for the Market to function properly. If we do these two things and clean energy STILL can't compete, then yeah, they can't work. But downplaying them when they've never participated in a fair market with a level playing field is reckless and wasteful of potentially useful technology. I just want to see a Free Market in energy, that's all.
"...since 2008, just like the report said. You know, quoting an older report when the newer report is 2 clicks away is a sure sign of cherry picking..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo it ain't. I deliberately did not count use that report since the 2009 gave a better accounting of historical prices since 2002, which is EXACTLY what you want to observe a Learning Curve trend, which is what the argument was about. The price collapse since the recession started is CLEARLY due to the effects of the ENORMOUS demand drop, which is also mentioned how dramatic it was, in the 2010 report. Learning curve cost reduction don't suddenly come on just after a recession and sudden drop in demand. I would imagine if you go back into the 1980's to 2002 you may find learning curve cost savings, but that is mostly worked through the highly specialized factories by now. Solar is also reaching that point, and you can expect prices of Solar to rise as well, just like Automobiles have.
Nuclear, on the other hand, hasn't even started factory construction never mind assembly line production methods, and on top of that learning curve improvements.
"...if the electric wind power of the world were to approach 1TW, we could generate a new class of “tragedy of the commons” with the necessity of the international regulation of rights to winds..."
"...If the present growth rate continues, we would reach the 1 TW we estimated in less than 15 years. Therefore, probably in this decade, we will see less growth than we saw in the previous decade..."
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8322
You dismiss my sources showing the negative learning curve of nuclear power and you think de Castro's version of the Drake Equation is sound science? His calculations are too simplistic. For example, taking out the portion of energy in the atmosphere due to geographical constraints totally ignores the fact that wind energy doesn't stay in one spot. It can build up over the inaccessible areas like the deep sea, and then move (or blow) over the areas where we can capture it. He's treating the atmosphere as an evenly-distributed, 2-dimensional plane of energy, and even I know that's wrong. I don't have to be an atmospheric scientists to figure that out. Besides, winds are driven by temperature differential. if we somehow siphon off enough energy (which I don't think is even possible), the unfathomable amount of energy in the atmosphere's temperature differentials would drown out and overcome the tiny 10 - 100TW or so we COULD harvest with the wind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome of his numbers are spot on, but I take issue with Po, f1 and f2 as being way too low. Since the other factors hardly affect the total potential energy as much as these 3, these are the only ones that matter. These are also the figures with the most shaky assumptions. Tell you what, let's keep building wind power since it's way cheaper than nuclear and MUCH easier to build. There's no wind "Meltdowns" when the wind farm's backup generators fail or there's operator error. There's no "Windspills" when an offshore wind turbine fails. If we start approaching that 1 TW and things start to get dicey, we can always halt construction and tear down the turbines if we need to. However, tearing down nuclear plants because we realize the waste is too much of a pain to deal with, or the plants are too expensive to even decommission, then we have a problem. We can't just make all that nuclear waste go away as much as we would like to.
Biomass Pyrolysis is a proven method of CO2 capture and storage. Pyolysis converts plants into hydrogen and charcoal. The hydrogen can be burned to produce electricity. the charcoal, (renamed 'biochar') is incorporated into soil where we have proof it remains for thousands of years. Biochar improves most soils and harvests. For details see www.eprida.com or look up 'International Biochar Initiative'. To be economical, the ton of CO2 needs to be set at $25.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBiomass Pyrolysis is a proven method of CO2 capture and storage. Pyolysis converts plants into hydrogen and charcoal. The hydrogen can be burned to produce electricity. the charcoal, (renamed 'biochar') is incorporated into soil where we have proof it remains for thousands of years. Biochar improves most soils and harvests. For details see www.eprida.com or look up 'International Biochar Initiative'. To be economical, the ton of CO2 needs to be set at $25.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWind Energy DOES NOT reduce fossil fuel consumption:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHolland:
http://www.clepair.net/windSchiphol.html
"...In the USA a BENTEK study used real emission data of power plants in Texas and Colorado. They became available due to the Freedom of Information Act. Its conclusion was: wind has no visible influence on fuel consumption for electricity production and the emission of CO2 in the atmosphere is not reduced..."
"...The smoking gun of the windmill fraud'. He showed that a substantial wind contribution in the Irish Republic caused such a small saving of fuel (and of CO2 emissions), that it shattered a major tenet of the wind policy. He also was able to show that more wind penetration caused an increase of CO2 emission8.The real situation, however, is even worse. The way EirGrid derives its data on CO2 emission does not correlate with what is actually happening in fossil fuel power plants. Moreover the Irish data does not include some other serious factors that further undermine the desired fuel savings. There is evidence that the overall CO2 emission in Ireland can be ~20% higher than the emission calculated in the EirGrid tables, as Udo showed. (His source: ref. 14. A difference of 3% might be due to the importing of electricity. Transport losses have been accounted for.)
We believe even Udo's figures to be conservative. On the basis of existing data plus new information on the behavior of conventional generators when they are cycling (i.e. ramping up and down in order to compensate for the variations in wind power) we shall show how much worse the influence of adding wind electricity to the grid really is..."
"...The wind projects do not fulfill 'sustainable' objectives. They cost more fuel than they save and they cause no CO2 saving, in the contrary they increase our environmental 'foot print'.A decision to invest thousands of millions Euros in the construction of wind developments 'to save fossil fuel and to reduce CO2 emission' is irresponsible. There are no savings, THERE IS A LOSS!..."
Ireland:
http://www.clepair.net/IerlandUdo.html
Colorado & Texas:
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/BENTEK-How-Less-Became-More.pdf
Wind Waste is far greater than Nuclear Waste and FAR, FAR more environmentally destructive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html
And Wind uses 10-100X the raw materials mostly Steel, Concrete, Copper & Petrochemicals that Nuclear uses, per kwh generated. You think these huge mines, Oil refineries, Gulf Oil Spill wells don't leave big waste piles behind? And Wind could at most theoretically produce 1/3rd of an Electricity supply - the rest would have to be fast cycling, fuel guzzling NG power plants to shadow the fluctuating Wind. That is more waste. And the truth is the NG power plants waste as much fuel as the Wind should but doesn't save, due to the cycling inefficiencies, so every bit of Wind Waste/true kwh output = INFINITE waste per net kwh generated. A ridiculous source of energy, except for odd niche applications. Even at 15% wind penetration, often wind will exceed power demand and hydro will have to be spilled, Nuclear dumped = zero savings, total waste of SUPER-EXPENSIVE Wind energy. Wind CANNOT and NEVER will be a significant source of our energy needs.
Your willingness to continue pushing the Wind Energy SCAM, makes your entire position on the dangers of Climate change just a sick joke, YOU ARE MR. CLIMATE CHANGE. Big Oil has ZERO to worry about your environmental position. You are a Guarantor of their Energy Hegemony and preserving the Status Quo.
Sure, comparing 40+ year-old plants to new wind power where 90% of capacity additions have happened in the last ten years on a per kWh basis is TOTALLY fair! Wow, don't let the details get in the way of a good story, bro!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd posting blatantly 1-sided studies financed by dirty energy is totally going to make people think you're impartial!
One of the primary references on your wind power "study" can be traced back to here:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institute_for_Energy_Research
Are these guys impartial? I think not:
"In 2009 IER ran a campaign on "green jobs" attacking the expansion of renewables energies. IER commissioned three studies on renewable energies and green jobs in Denmark, Germany and Spain.[4] These studies by different think tanks were than promoted by IER and other free market think tanks in the US but also used in Europe.[5] The study on Germany e.g. was translated into German and taken up by German media - without mentioning that the study was financed by IER with its close business links. The German institute that wrote the study (called Rheinisch-westfaelisches Institut fuer Wirtschaftsforschung, RWI) didn't acknowledge the funding from IER until they were challendged by investigative journalists.[6]
A report by the Europan NGO Corporate Europe Observatory tried to get more information on the funding of the libertarian Instituto Juan de Mariana responsible for the Spanish stuy and the Danish think tank CEPOS doing the study on wind energy in Denmark. The report states: "In their reply to CEO, Instituto Juan de Mariana affirmed that it finances all its activities through the individual donation of his over 250 individual members and that they did not receive corporate funding with the exception of a small Spanish insurance company. When contacted again to check whether the Institute for Energy Research (IER) support for the above study was financial, the Institute stopped responding."[7]"
Closely aligned with the "American Energy Alliance" eh?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Energy_Alliance
All part of the smear campaign against clean energy!
To top it all off, the fact that the Citizens' United ruling made any sort of funding transparency requirement for these front groups dissappear (in a controversial 5-4 decision, just like ALL judicial activism, right?) makes it that much harder to see how the established energy players are artificially crafting public opinion through false advertising and these "studies".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother absurd claim, Big Oil is the #1 promoter of Renewables, since they INCREASE fossil fuel consumption.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChevron promotes all the Renewables (except conventional Hydro), Energy Efficiency, Biofuels, Solar, Geothermal, Fool Cells, all the scams, no mention of Nuclear. These guys, who finance & promote anti-Nuclear Guru Amory Lovins, once heavily promoted the Hydrogen Economy SCAM (along with Amory) and even called itself "the Hydrogen Company" and implied that they would be replacing Oil with Hydrogen. Worked great, they succeeded in delaying the Battery Electric Vehicle by 10 yrs, promoting the H2 Fool Cell instead.
1.bp.blogspot.com/_lfibbBnlKt8/TU_BmapqMVI/AAAAAAAAA9w/THzBOkD8KSg/s1600/Chevron+ad.png
Chevron just invested $1B in a Solar Thermal power plant in California.
changechevron.org/blog/greenwash-of-the-week-chevrons-project-bull/
www.chevron.com/deliveringenergy/
British Petroleum promoting Renewable Energy scams, again no mention of Nuclear, touting and OWNING Wind Farms, claims it is now "Beyond Petroleum", as if:
www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=9024973&contentId=7062289
British Petroleum dumps an unprecedented $500 million to the University of California for the Biofuel Research Scam:
richardbrenneman.wordpress.com/2011/09/27/bp-in-the-news-uc-gulf-tarballs-plus-a-pipeline/
Again, BP touting all the SCAMS, H2, Biofuels, CCS, Solar & Wind:
www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=9025016&contentId=7047542
www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/STAGING/global_assets/downloads/A/ALL_UK_heathrow_ADS.pdf
Shell Oil advertisements & regular Polls on this website, promote all the Renewables - except conventional Hydro (the one economical renewable) and NEVER mention Nuclear, until my bitching led them in the latest poll for the FIRST TIME EVER to include Nuclear:
atomicinsights.com/2009/12/is-un-scientific-american-becoming-shell-american.html
As you see, Renewables are an excellent propaganda tool for Big Oil & Big Oil politicians, with ZERO Chance of being a significant competition for their dirty product. Also they are very effective at boosting the price of Energy, win-win for Big Oil. And most renewables fluctuate so wildly that they require shadowing NG Electricity Generation, and waste as much fuel due to cycling inefficiencies in that NG as they would theoretically save. Again win-win for Big Oil. And most Biofuels use as much Oil & Gas inputs at they produce in outputs. Another winner for Big Oil.
GW seems to be constrained already, considering there has been no significant temperature increase for more than 16 years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fact that there has been no statistically-significant global warming for 16 years is described as a “myth”. Yet the least-squares linear-regression trend on the Hadley Centre/CRU dataset favoured by the IPCC indeed shows no statistically-significant warming for 16 years. The minuscule warming over the period is within the margin of uncertainty in the measurements and is, therefore, statistically indistinguishable from zero.
Constrained indeed! GK