Chasing Utopian Energy: How I Wasted 20 Years of My Life
realclearenergy.org
realclearenergy.org
One example: >Nuclear plants can operate for over 80 years and run for 100 years if they are well-maintained.
Also true of human beings. But
>Among plants built before 1973, fully HALF did not make it to 40 years, or much beyond that, before closing down. [https://saplnh.org/about-nuclear/nuclear-plant-lifespans/]
And: > By contrast, solar panels and wind turbines last only about 20 years.
Solar panels:
>Most solar panel companies will provide a standard 25-year warranty for the expected life expectancy of the solar panels.... [After 25 years Tier1 panels lose about 6% of original output.] [https://www.solarreviews.com/blog/how-long-do-solar-panels-l...]
Enough ... to show that the article is written to persuade, not inform.
The author looks at primary energy and despairs as the needle only moved by 3 percentage points to renewables. Also the author tells us that energy-saving gains are of no use.
Those two statements are absolutely contradictory. In general, the public does not seem to understand primary energy well enough to make informed decisions.
If you just transition to renewable (or nuclear) electricity production and ignore everything else, you cut primary energy use of electricity generation by 30-60% just by the way that primary energy use is calculated. A thermal power plant wastes at least 30% of its energy as waste heat, about 60% if you don't do residential heating.
A solar panel by definition converts all its primary energy input to electricity. Even with nuclear energy, you take the heat output of the nuclear process as primary energy, inflating the primary energy by about 200%
With combustion car engines it is the same. If you electrify those cars, the primary energy use drops as gasoline combustion engines waste 60% of the energy in the oil as heat. Losses in your batteries and power generation also add up, but at 60% losses as benchmark, you can even break even with current fossil electricity generation.
Look at houses: If you build a modern passive home, the heat output of the human body (approx 100W) becomes significant for calculations. Ambient solar irradiation (i.e. light that shines through your windows and gets trapped) delivers most of the heat. Both these energy sources will not appear in any primary energy statistics.
You can put this even more over the top and include sunlight trapped by photosynthesis as well as natural heating delivered by the sun in the energy used by agriculture. But then all of human energy consumption will become a rounding error. But psychologically it might sound nicer if you think that we only have to transition away from the 0.01% or something of human fossil energy use. This sounds ridiculous, but this is essentially the same argument the author makes.
All of these examples show that the imperative to curb our fossil energy use should be (regardless of whether you advocate for nuclear or not) should indeed be "energy efficiency". But energy efficiency does not mean cutting your TV energy consumption by ten percent or something. Energy efficiency means reducing our "balance sheet" by electrification, avoiding energy conversion losses, and reducing energy use for heat by using ambient energy.
I used to believe credit leverage was dengerous and loansharks were a big problem. In fact, credit is the safest and most reliable way to generate low-effort income, and it provides the best chance of reducing work related injuries.
I have realized since then that since it is not nuclear energy itself but the not following of proven safe guards which are the problem. For e.g., nuclear energy is proven and safely run in many countries. There are many problem cases such as corruption in South Korea [1], the Japanese not ensuring that there was sufficient safeguards that they were told to implement but did not [2], improper design and lax adherence to safety procedures at Chernobyl [3][4][5]
I had started to research about Nuclear Energy since I believed that as a supporter of the Environment and of Clean Energy I need to prepare myself to add my voice against Nuclear Energy ( this is the result of years of exposure to messaging that nuclear==bad). However, having participated in the electronic automation of factory plants (e.g. using SCADA, touch panels, PLCs and Drives from Siemens) and also having worked as an IT systems administrator, I have come to understand the need for proper design and safeguards and for following safety procedures.
I am opposed to out-dated and flawed nuclear designs - e.g. what the French are trying to sell to India - and I am against corruption ( a given in India for such large value projects).
However, I am also an hopeful that the world can use safer Nuclear designs such as Canada's CANDU, or even Thorcon's Thorium molten salt reactor technology (five plants to be implemented in Indonesia).
When researching about Thorcon's design from a safety point of view, I was impressed at their no-intervention-needed safety design. [6]
There are apparently still some additional more precautions that can be taken [7]
The case against nuclear is not helped by activists who have the right intent of avoiding nuclear disaster but argue against nuclear energy in its entirety. I am a believer in Solar and Wind energy (my handle is solarengineer for a reason!), but I have also come to understand that various geographies, latitudes, economic conditions, and population densities need solutions that work for their respective needs.
I am hopeful that with the right education, design, safeguards, and training, safe Nuclear can be a reality.
[1] https://www.technologyreview.com/201.9/04/22/136020/how-gree...
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27973790
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ijst4g5KFN0
[4] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-sec...
[5] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-sec...
I have a strong feeling that coal burning is about to increase around the world because of the attitudes of a lot of detached environmentalist who don't want to think in logistics and tradeoffs, only what feels good to them.
It seems like Europe is set up up a humanitarian crisis on the same front this winter.
The pseudo-environmentalists now all crying nucular for a cheap way out (which it even isn't even if we would happily accept all the downsides), while we could have averted this if we just started 20-30 years ago where it was clear what will happen already just full effort but was always prevented by this thinking, it annoys me so much.
Just today you can see the following patterns.
First, at night, energy prices in France and Germany are in lock-step and equal to the cent. Then during day time, when the sun is shining, two things happen:
* Energy prices fall sharply in Germany, while they stay on approximately the same plateau in France.
* The output of the nuclear reactors in France actually gets reduced, even though prices are still sky-high.
This shows the problem of the excess base-load due to nuclear power in France. The nuclear power plants are already hindering renewable energy production by putting strain on the grid, which is the opposite what all nuclear proponents claim.
The problems of nuclear power become pretty evident if you just look at the data once per day or so. The first effect of decoupled prices in Germany and France due to lack of transmission capacity has already been going on pretty much every day since about April.
The second effect that France actually reduced reactor output during the day, with the prices still high, is new, at least I have not seen it yet.