One chart says "energy generation" and the other "energy consumption", is that the difference ?


Do renewables tend to be generated and then consumed, as there is little (other than hydro) way of saving the energy generated for later use whilst nuclear and hydrocarbons tend to be more steady generation to smooth out the supply / demand issues (arguable sometimes exacerbated by renewables) ?

Is there a chart of energy produced vs actual energy consumed by each type ?

When you say Adelaide had 100% of its power generated by renewables for a few days last summer what happened to the coal plants ? Presumably they didn't turn off, they just turned down and produced unused power. Then turned back up and filled in when the renewables couldn't supply power. So they still ran, burnt coal and produced CO2 but no energy they produced was consumed.


As for nuclear growth I am pretty sure if you project those graphs forward a few years you will see a surge in nuclear. There is currently a renewed effort on building nuclear power plants not seen since the 70s, but the majority of those are in construction or pre-construction and not yet on line. There was a blip in the progress of many due to ****usima and the GFC in some regions. But as somebody else said about 60 world wide plants under construction, so add that to the 400 odd currently operating and it is a pretty big jump in nuclear generation that will be seen in the next few years.

Arguably renewables have been flavour of the decade and seen very large government subsidies. Those subsidies tend to be receding around the world and so the growth in the growth of renewables isn't what it was a few years ago. The growth in roof top solar in Australia took a significant dent when the feed back tariffs were cut. The growth in small scale hydro in the UK has almost been stopped over night with a change in government subsidy.



Now, I am not advocating for nuclear and as per the original point of the thread a revolution in battery technology will remove the single biggest issue with renewables.

But is that revolution going to be actually seen on the ground tomorrow, next year, 5 years, 10 years ?

I suppose some would say it is happening now. But if you have that much faith then would you go off grid with 100% battery today ? Even if you decided to today it would still take several weeks to acquire the batteries, rig them up etc. so you couldn't flick the main switch to your house right now and then install some batteries tomorrow.

Multiply that by several billion people and the fact any new generating capacity takes several years to come on line I guess the world isn't sitting about waiting for tomorrows batteries, they are getting on with building todays generating capacity. And nuclear is a solution many are turning to.



But before you have a go at me, I am not saying they are right in turning back to nuclear, or right in looking to clean coal and I 100% agree that a revolution in battery tech will kill coal for power generation. But, I don't think it will be today. Maybe in 50 years time ? Maybe 100 years time ? Electric cars haven't killed the internal combustion engine yet. And electric cars and electric trains and electric trams have been around for a 100 odd years.

So, I have no doubt new technology will change the world (as it has done many times in the past) but I still think coal and nuclear are going to be around for a couple of generations yet.

Consumption I'd imagine is the only thing that matters in the end if you ask me. But that doesn't clear up Ian's incorrect point-making.

Refer IEA data. Renewables are by far the fastest growing sector. Nuclear has almost stalled compared to total capacity. Germany alone closed eight stations and Japan has no plans for new ones for example. The new plants are barely replacing those being decommissioned.

Nuclear is not an argument against renewables.

Claims that nuclear is growing fast or outpacing renewables is just plain wrong, by a large margin.

There is only one energy revolution - in renewables.

Also, people are forgetting that during the day, renewables provide far more power (it's windier and sunnier like the Adelaide 100% renewables example), so peak capacity of renewables is greater as a proportion of total consumption. This is why storage will change the market even more in future.

Select to expand quote

Adriano said..






Let's go through this point by point and I'd appreciate a response to each please. Just a simple answer next to a number. Cheers!

Point 1

We can all see the graph. A picture is worth a thousand words.

Adriano said..

Ian K said..
Wikipedia is what it is. I'm not arguing one way or the other, just putting up interesting graphs for you to absorb. By " closing the gap " I meant relatively. Nuclear sat at about 20% of renewables (hydro) in 1980 and is now about 40%. From an environmental point of view you'd hope we'd say "enough already" on rivers to dam before we run out of nuclear fuel.

How accurate is the information in Wkipedia? Well you can google it.

www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html

Not too bad apparently. I'd place more confidence in "open" source on any controversial matters than "closed" source. But this matter is not even controversial.

Let's go through this point by point and I'd appreciate a response to each please. Just a simple answer next to a number. Cheers!

Point 1

Look at your second graph. Nuclear capacity has barely increased since 2000 while renewables have increased about 50%. Do you see it Ian? Now in the past four years renewables dramatically increased. The IEA says in 2014 renewables accounted for 45% of generation increases, while coal and gas filled most of the remainder. Nuclear - barely registers.



Point 2

Forget Wiki accuracy assessments. Just look at Wiki entries or look at the International Energy Agency.

Here's another graph from Wikipedia that's quite different to yours. So which WIKI entry is correct? One has renewables at more than double the difference compared with nuclear shown in your graph.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy




Point 3

"Nuclear capacity is increasing steadily". Where is that shown on your graph? Only renewables and coal is increasing on the graph mate.

Oh dear Ian, the IEA confirms you're wrong too. Renewables will be 26% by 2020. Four years from now. Nuclear is stop gap and can't compete.

https://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/pressreleases/2015/october/renewables-to-lead-world-power-market-growth-to-2020.html

www.economist.com/node/18621367?story_id=18621367

1. A picture is worth thousand words. We can all see the graph.
2. Don't expect the graphs to match exactly. Energy consumption and electricity consumption are not the same thing.
3. Phew You're making it hard Adriano. That was not my quote, it's from www.nuclear.org. Was that not clear?
I tried to include balance in the post by giving various perspectives. Not to be self-contradictory.

OK let's break this down further. Like drawing blood from stone.

1. Your point being what exactly? Nuclear is not increasing in the graph. It's almost indistinguishably the same capacity and being bumped up in the graph by the coal underneath it since 2000.



2. You're tinkering. What's your point? If anything, on the greenhouse and economic side of things your point is meaningless. I think this image sums up the case for new nuclear power. Substitute sleep with the case for new nuclear power in Australia or the developed world for that matter.


Here's the real growth sector in the developed world:

http://fs-unep-centre.org/sites/default/files/attachments/unep_fs_globaltrends2015_chartpack.pdf#overlay-context=publications/global-trends-renewable-energy-investment-2015

3. What is your point then? Nuclear is plugging a gap? Not evident in the facts. Nuclear is cheaper than wind or cheap solar on a roof? No. Faster to implement? No. A good all-round solution for Australia where no nuclear energy industry exists and we'd have to outsource the technology? No way. Safe? Are you crazy?

Here's Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_plants

"As already noted, the nuclear power industry in western nations has a history of construction delays, cost overruns, plant cancellations, and nuclear safety issues despite significant government subsidies and support. December 2013, Forbes magazine reported that, in developed countries, "reactors are not a viable source of new power". Even in developed nations where they make economic sense, they are not feasible because nuclear’s “enormous costs, political and popular opposition, and regulatory uncertainty”. This view echoes the statement of former Exelon CEO John Rowe, who said in 2012 that new nuclear plants “don’t make any sense right now” and won’t be economically viable in the foreseeable future."

Select to expand quote

Adriano said..
OK let's break this down further.......
...................................................

Are you crazy?

Well you'd have to say that, at the very least, at least one of us is crazy.

Well as you say, one of us may be crazy but at least I can read a simple graph and decide whether it's a good prop for making a point!

Show us again how nuclear capacity is increasing since 2000 on this graph you quoted.

Show me using any data. Go wild. Try as hard as you like. I mean you quoted it for some reason - but the purpose of your quote is currently eluding me.

Wasn't Ian K's point :

By " closing the gap " I meant relatively. Nuclear sat at about 20% of renewables (hydro) in 1980 and is now about 40%

I didn't read his point as "nuclear capacity has significantly increased since 2000"

So using the data on that graph :

On that graph in 1980 the red bit is about 20% the width of the green bit
On that graph in 2000 the red bit is about 40% the width of the green bit

Now, reading a crappy graph without the raw data is bit subjective and I would say it is more like 30% to 40% than 20% to 40% but since 1980, as a relative proportion, renewables have not eclipsed nuclear in terms of relative production (on that graph).

In 1980 about 3 times more renewables than nuclear, in 2000 about 3 times more renewables than nuclear, in 2011 about 3 times more renewables than nuclear, when considered as a relative of renewable to nuclear and a relative of thickness of the green bit vs thickness of the red bit on that graph.



But - the point I see in that graph is that all three are trending at a relatively straight lines. Slight increase in slope 2000 to 20007 but overall relatively straight lines, no curves there and relatively parallel. That means the rate of change of all three is about equal and none are significantly increasing at a rate more than the others. Perhaps nuclear from 1980 to 1995 was the most rapid increase of all three in the times shown ?

None of your points appear to indicate an accurate reading of the graph, rough as it is.

Also note that it's missing the three biggest years so far for renewables - 2013-15

The International Energy Agency confirms the reality of investment in renewables.

http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/pressreleases/2015/october/renewables-to-lead-world-power-market-growth-to-2020.html

IEA Quote:

"Renewable electricity additions over the next five years will top 700 gigawatts (GW) – more than twice Japan’s current installed power capacity. They will account for almost two-thirds of net additions to global power capacity – that is, the amount of new capacity that is added, minus scheduled retirements of existing power plants. Non-hydro sources such as wind and solar photovoltaic panels (solar PV) will represent nearly half of the total global power capacity increase."

"The report sees the share of renewable energy in global power generation rising to over 26% by 2020 from 22% in 2013 – a remarkable shift in a very limited period of time."

End quote.

Two thirds Carantoc. That's more than half all growth, fossil fuels included. How can nuclear with it's pissy share be "closing a gap" on anything now that you understand the truth? That's an 18% increase in worldwide net production in 7 years.

Nuclear however has gone nowhere since 2000 and is definitely stuffed since ****ushima. For nuclear to come even close to the renewables investment pipeline to 2020, it would need to add 28 5GW power plants every year. They're barely starting 5-7 new plants these days and there are old plants decommissioned every year. So that's why net nuclear capacity growth is stagnant.

If Ian's point wasn't about the virtues of nuclear, wasn't about its incredible growth, about its affordability, its safety, its speed of implementation - what was his point? That it's a stop gap in the move away from fossil fuels? Not evident in reality. Not supported by facts and certainly not the view of the world's peak energy agency.

Nuclear simply can't complete with renewables on any of the above measures and that is evident through the investment and implementation figures of the past ten years and investment pipeline.

Carantoc, please. Spare us.

Thanks mods for clearing that mess up...

So Ian and Carantoc - is the IEA wrong on the fastest growing power generation sector?

Where are the 28 x 5GW nuclear power plants built per annum needed to keep up with renewables investment - let alone "close the gap"?

http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/pressreleases/2015/october/renewables-to-lead-world-power-market-growth-to-2020.html

Fusion is coming
www.sciencealert.com/china-s-nuclear-fusion-machine-just-smashed-germany-s-hydrogen-plasma-record
nuclear fission will be dead in the water if they get this sorted. So will a lot of very inefficient renewables.

Select to expand quote

Adriano said..
Thanks mods for clearing that mess up...

So Ian and Carantoc - is the IEA wrong on the fastest growing power generation sector?

Where are the 28 x 5GW nuclear power plants built per annum needed to keep up with renewables investment - let alone "close the gap"?

http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/pressreleases/2015/october/renewables-to-lead-world-power-market-growth-to-2020.html

In that link you posted the IEA said the fastest growing sector (at October 2015) is fossil fuels. But I take it that isn't your point or question though ?


They predict that renewables will replace fossil fuels as the fastest growing sector within the next 5 years.

Its a prediction. So they are neither right nor wrong on what I assume is your point.

Just for the record I think their prediction will be broadly right.


But how a prediction of the future defines how a graph from 1980 to 2011 should be read today or why you should chose to only read a small part of the graph I don't know.

Everything said about the graph is correct.

Everything you said, everything Ian K said, everything the person who isn't Milsy said (before he was exterminated for knowing too much), everything I said. All correct. Nobody wrong.

It is just that everybody else chose to look at the whole graph from 1980 to 2011, you chose to ignore everything except the part from 2000 to 2011.

Select to expand quote

westozwind said..
Fusion is coming
www.sciencealert.com/china-s-nuclear-fusion-machine-just-smashed-germany-s-hydrogen-plasma-record
nuclear fission will be dead in the water if they get this sorted. So will a lot of very inefficient renewables.

Yes for sure. Trouble is, fusion is orders of magnitude more expensive than fission thermal and far harder to control. It's probably how we'll power the planet in 2150 - not 2050.

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..

It is just that everybody else chose to look at the whole graph from 1980 to 2011, you chose to ignore everything except the part from 2000 to 2011.

Carantoc, in actual fact, Ian chose to make the point about the present when he used the present tense in this statement:

"Nuclear is closing the gap on renewables."

Nuclear is not closing any gap. That's why I focussed on the recent period in the graph Ian posted to test whether his statement was broadly or even remotely correct. What happened since 1980-2000 is irrelevant since Ian was talking about now. Hence the "is" in his sentence.




Ian's statement is not...



...correct...



...nor has it been correct for about five years...



...and yes, growth in fossil fuels was not the point I was clarifying....




...and yes, we are on the cusp of the renewables revolution......



...but let's entertain the fantasy about nuclear power in developed countries for a little longer...

Select to expand quote

westozwind said..
Fusion is coming
www.sciencealert.com/china-s-nuclear-fusion-machine-just-smashed-germany-s-hydrogen-plasma-record
nuclear fission will be dead in the water if they get this sorted. So will a lot of very inefficient renewables.

My guess is fusion will happen and sooner rather than later if ITER etc. got proper funding and political support.

And when fusion is a reality, wind turbines and hectares of solar panels are going to look very inefficient and old-tech.
Truly blots on the landscape.

Bloody hell, I haven't checked in on this thread for a day or two.

This Adriano dude needs to get a life... It seems he lives to comment on seabreeze.

Clearly a yellow top (recycled poster) this one I think

I personally wish to thank Adriano for his persistence on this thread.
Yes clearly he is passionate and not put off by the likes of Carantoc, who it seems plays the roll of a wishy washy discrediitor.

Select to expand quote

Knottedup said..
I personally wish to thank Adriano for his persistence on this thread.
Yes clearly he is passionate and not put off by the likes of Carantoc, who it seems plays the roll of a wishy washy discrediitor.

Well, we are all good at something....

Select to expand quote

azymuth said..

westozwind said..
Fusion is coming
www.sciencealert.com/china-s-nuclear-fusion-machine-just-smashed-germany-s-hydrogen-plasma-record
nuclear fission will be dead in the water if they get this sorted. So will a lot of very inefficient renewables.

My guess is fusion will happen and sooner rather than later if ITER etc. got proper funding and political support.

And when fusion is a reality, wind turbines and hectares of solar panels are going to look very inefficient and old-tech.
Truly blots on the landscape.

Possibly your guess is as good as mine however bear in mind this. Fusion is just another centralised and monopolised generation method that would be very expensive for many years no doubt. It would rely on significant taxpayer investment.

Renewables place the power in consumers hands and gets cheaper and cheaper. By the time fusion gets off the ground, solar PV, wind and battery tech will be so advanced, you probably couldn't even get a fusion plant off the boardroom table. Solar PV will be so well integrated with buildings you won't even know it's there.

That's why we're having a renewables revolution now and not a nuclear revolution.

^^^
I can’t imagine that fusion power could be an alternative and we’ll choose not to use it.
Millions of times more efficient than even the most advanced solar or wind power generation possible.
More costly at first maybe, but what is all the land that panels and turbines need worth?

Historically I can’t think of any vastly superior technical solutions that have been shelved.
There will always be need for centralized power for manufacturing, transport, infrastructure etc.

Pot kettle black Darth? Absurd isn't it that the person who has the most multiple log ins probably in the history of SB is using that against knottedup?

I have one login.

Knottedup in fact contacted me this morning with a PM and offered some friendly advice. I admitted a weakness for relentlessness. Works wonders in the area of ridiculous planning laws and robotic public servants.

Now as to multiple logins, milsy/Notmilsy/bernie13/peachy/peary/dreary/smeary/nasty thinks I have a split personality and I've set up a separate login just to self congratulate. I say mate, you really do seem to have problems. Serious problems. Keep your nastiness in HW or better still, drown it with some intoxicants and just stay away completely.

I actually do feel very sorry for you. Really - I do. I wish I could help but it feels like you're not open to help in this state.

Oh dear, I hear the paddy wagon sirens again. Just stay where you are - they'll be there soon to return you to safety!

Select to expand quote

azymuth said..
^^^
I can’t imagine that fusion power could be an alternative and we’ll choose not to use it.
Millions of times more efficient than even the most advanced solar or wind power generation possible.
More costly at first maybe, but what is all the land that panels and turbines need worth?

Historically I can’t think of any vastly superior technical solutions that have been shelved.
There will always be need for centralized power for manufacturing, transport, infrastructure etc.

Yes yes and yes. All probable but choice depends on may factors, including a sense of enfranchisement and control. Up front cost is not always the overriding factor.

Very interesting isn't it?

My guess, based on experts' sound empirical observation of human nature, is that once the majority of individuals in developed countries have cheap renewable energy within their own properties paying dividends, they won't want to go back to a centralised power provider unless it is far cheaper and safe. Eventually, industry and commerce only will rely on a centralised generation system that may include significant renewable components - Canada for example. Households, warehousing, retail, low rise commercial and light industrial sectors will be almost self sufficient.