NUCLEAR A MORE RATIONAL WAY FORWARD THAN WIND AND SOLAR

World Fossil Fuel Percentage Unchanged for Over 43 years

 

 In the 1970s the big worry was fossil fuels would soon run out, and so we should “use them wisely”. But in the 1980s the risk changed to one of an overheating planet, and so we should “leave them in the ground.”

 

This article shows unchanged fossil energy use from 1970 to 2013, a period of 43 years. See URL

http://notrickszone.com/2018/01/12/green-energy-revolution-a-flop-fossil-fuels-share-of-total-energy-use-unchanged-in-40-years/ - sthash.ppb98WN4.dpbs

 

Fossil fuels have been about 78 percent of the world’s primary energy for at least 43 years, despite trillions of dollars spent on wind, solar and other RE during the past 20 years. See URL

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-world-making-almost...

 

The total primary energy of traditional biomass used primarily for cooking and heating in remote and rural areas of developing countries, accounted for about 9.1%. Google: “REN 21 Renewables 2017” report.

 

http://www.ren21.net/gsr-2017/chapters/chapter_01/chapter_01/

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cop-21-world-renewable-...

 

Table 1/Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

 2015

Percent

 %

 %

 %

 %

%

Fossil fuels

78.2

78.4

78.3

78.3

78.4

Nuclear

  2.8

  2.6

  2.6

  2.5

2.3

Total renewables

19.0

19.0

19.1

19.2

19.3

Modern renewables

9.7

10.0

10.1

10.3

10.2

- Biomass + geo + solar heat

4.1

4.2

4.1

  4.2

4.2

- Hydro electricity

3.7

3.8

3.9

3.9

3.6

- Wind + solar + bio + geo electricity

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.6

- Biofuels, such as ethanol from corn

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

Traditional biomass

9.3

9.0

9.0

  8.9

9.1

 

“Let’s go Bio” is Not a Rational Way Forward Because of Huge Area Requirements

 

Some uninformed people say: “Let’s go bio”.

They have no idea how much land area would be required.

Replacing US gasoline consumption of 2017 with ethanol, E100, would require 424 million acre in corn

Replacing US diesel consumption of 2017 with bio fuel, B100, would require 651 million acre in soybeans

At present, the US total crop area is about 350 million acre. See URL and Appendix

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/land-and-sea-area-for-v...

Estimated Future US Biofuel Production

The estimated US biofuel production for 2030 and 2040 would be as shown in table 2.

B100 from traditional sources is assumed not to grow from 2030 to 2040, due to a lack of cropland.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biofuels-from-pond-algae

 

US “gasoline” consumption was 142.980 billion gal in 2017, equivalent to 16,010.180 TBtu, LHV

US “diesel” consumption was 45.833 billion gal in 2017, equivalent to 5,934.866 TBtu, LHV

 

US biofuel replacing “gasoline” and “diesel” would not be possible by 2050, unless Exxon-Mobil pond algae would increase from about 1830 TBtu in 2040 to about 22,000 TBtu in 2050, which would be a Herculean task on top of all other "saving the world" tasks. See table 2 and Appendix

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/excessive-predictions-o...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biofuels-from-pond-algae

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/replacing-gasoline-and-...

 

NOTE: If 100% of light duty vehicles (cars, minivans, SUVs, ¼-ton pick-ups) were electric vehicles in 2040, with 50 to 125 kWh batteries, there would be much less need for B100, but there would be a much greater need for electricity generation.

NOTE: If 100% of buildings were heated/cooled with heat pumps, there would be much less need for B100, but there would be a much greater need for electricity generation. Those buildings would have to be highly insulated and highly sealed.

 

- A typical “Vermont mix” house, 2000 sq ft, requires for space heating about 64000 Btu/h at -20F outdoor and 65F indoor (85F temperature difference), and requires for space cooling about 20,000 Btu/h at 100F outdoor, and 70F indoor (30F temperature difference). Heat pumps would provide about 32% to 34% of the heat during the heating season, with the rest provided by the conventional system and would provide 100% of space cooling. Government heat pump programs, such as in Vermont and Maine, which install subsidized heat pumps in such houses would have unacceptable outcomes, if the goal is minimal CO2. See URLs.

 

- A highly sealed/highly insulated house in Vermont, 2000 sq ft, requires for space heating about 17000 Btu/h at -20F outdoor and 65 F indoor, and requires for space cooling about 5,000 Btu/h at 100F outdoor and 70F indoor (30F temperature difference). Heat pumps would provide 100% of space heating and cooling.

 

Such a house would be at least 10% more expensive than a “Vermont mix” house, because it would require an R-20 basement, R-40 walls, R-60 roof, triple-glazed windows (R-7 to R-10) and insulated doors (R-8 to R-10), and its leakage rate would have to be less than 0.6 air changes per hour, ACH, @ -50 pascal, as verified by a blower door test. In Vermont, about 1% of all housing is highly sealed/highly insulated.

 

- If propane, natural gas and fuel oil were banned, the back-up system would need to use B100, and that likely would be in short supply. See URLs

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-baseless-claims...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fact-checking-regarding...

 

Table 2/Biofuel production

 2030

Cropland/Pond area

2040

Cropland/Pond area

 

TBtu

million acre

TBtu

million acre

Exxon-Mobil, pond algae

 183.0

0.307

1830.0

3.070

B100, traditional sources

 323.2

33.900

323.2

33.900

Total

506.2

34.200

2153.2

36.970

 

Worldwide Nuclear a More Rational Way Forward Than Wind and Solar

 

Wind and solar, despite huge subsidies for more than 20 years, have not reduced world CO2 emissions

Nuclear electricity production bottomed out in 2012 and has been increasing each year since then.

About 450 nuclear reactors generated about 10% of the world's electricity (25,551 TWh in 2018)

About 60 more reactors are under construction, equivalent to about 16% of existing capacity. 

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future...

 

Table 3/Year

 Electricity from nuclear*, TWh

2012

 2345

2016

 2477

2017

 2487

* Fed to grid is about 5% less than gross generation, due to self use

Nuclear a Rational Approach to Reduce CO2

As a more rational alternative, the world should build 200,000 MW of nuclear plants each year.

A large part of the world’s fossil fuel consumption and CO2 emissions would be reduced.

Nuclear typically requires only about one half acre of site area per MW, i.e., 200,000 MW would require about 100,000 acres.

Solar, wind onshore, and wind offshore would require 84, 612 and 980 times as much area. See table 3A

That would require far less grid work than hooking up all those wind and solar plants.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/land-and-sea-area-for-v...

 

No futuristic, expensive, energy-guzzling, short-lived batteries would be required.

No microgrids would be required

No islanding would be required

 

Within 20 years, nuclear generation would be 20 x 200,000 x 8766 x 0.90 = 31,558 TWh/y


Capital cost would be about $1.0 trillion/y, at $5000/kW. See Note.

 

World generation was about 25,551 TWh/y in 2018.

World generation likely would be about 40,965 kWh/y 20 years from now, at growth of 2.5%/y.

The world would have 31558/40965 = 77% of all electricity from nuclear, just as France has today. See Appendix

 

NOTE: France has CO2/kWh about ten times lower than Germany had in 2018. See Appendix

https://www.energycentral.com/c/ec/germanys-electricity-was-nearly-...

NOTE: 

Korea is building a nuclear plant with four APR1400 units, on about 2000 acres, for $24.4 billion, or $4360/kW, at Barakah in the United Arab Emirates, UAE.

The plant will provide 25% of UAE electrical generation.

The plant is designed to last 60 years.

The plant, operating 24/7/365, will have an 18-month fuel cycle, refuel for one month, and repeat the cycle

The plant production could be 60 y x 5600 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.90, capacity factor = 2651 TWh after 60 years

This can be repeated all over the world.

The world would need to place on line 200000/5600 = 38 of such plants each year for 20 years to achieve 77% of all electricity from nuclear. See URL

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

NOTE:

- The world has been spending about $250 to $300 billion/y on wind, solar and other renewables for at least 20 years. World CO2 emissions have increased during that time and since COP21 in Paris in 2015.

- The world would need to immediately start spending at least $1.5 TRILLION/y for at least the next 50 years to bend the CO2 emissions curve down per Paris COP21 targets. The likelihood of that happening is near zero.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cop21-ipcc-co2-emission...

Comparison of Area Requirements of Nuclear, Wind And Solar

 

A Barakah-type nuclear plant produces 84 times more electricity than solar, 612 times more than onshore wind, and 980 times more than offshore wind per acre. See table 3A

It would be lunacy to inflict the environmental damage, including damage to remaining fauna and flora, resulting from covering the world with wind turbines and solar panels, that would produce variable, intermittent electricity, that would be totally dependent on the vagaries of wind and sun, and that would require 1) gas turbine plants for peaking, filling-in and balancing and/or 2) TWh-scale battery systems.

Table 3A compares production and area impacts of various energy sources. On a given area, nuclear would produce 84, 612, and 980 times more electricity than solar, wind onshore and wind offshore.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/land-and-sea-area-for-v...

 

Table 3A

Nuclear

Solar

Wind, onshore

Wind, offshore

Barakah

Capacity, MW

5600

400.00

27.45

11.43

Period, y

60

60

60

60

h/y

8766

8766

8766

8766

Capacity factor

0.90

0.15

0.30

0.45

Site area, acre

2800

2800

2800

2800

Area/MW

0.50

7

102

245

Lifetime production, TWh/60y

2650.8

31.6

4.3

2.7

Production, TWh/1000 acre

946.728

11.271

1.547

0.966

Times

84

612

980

Comparison of Mortality by Energy Source

 

Table 2B shows the mortality, by energy source, from:

 

- Air pollution. Deaths related to air pollution are dominant, typically accounting for almost all of the total deaths.

- Accidents related to the A to Z cycle of energy production. See section Life Cycle Analysis of CO2 Emissions

 

The mortality data are based on World Health Organization data. See Appendix.

 

https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-sour...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathpri...

 

The TWh data mostly are from the BP World Energy Review of 2017.

https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/en/corporate/pdf/energy-economics...

 

Additional references:

 

https://www.hydropower.org/publications/2018-hydropower-status-report

https://www.iea.org/geco/electricity/

https://worldbioenergy.org/uploads/WBA%20GBS%202017_hq.pdf

https://www.iea.org

 

Table 2B/World/2017

Mortality

Production

Production

Deaths

Deaths

Deaths

Deaths/TWh

TWh

%

All causes

Pollution

Other

Brown coal

32.72

6417

25.1

210000

206000

4000

Hard coal

24.62

3306

12.9

81000

80000

1000

Oil

18.43

883

3.5

16000

12000

4000

Gas

2.82

5915

23.2

17000

2500

14500

Total fossil

16522

64.7

324000

300500

23500

.

Biomass

4.63

551

2.2

2500

2200

300

Hydro, w/China

0.34

4060

15.9

1400

0

1400

Solar

0.96

460

1.8

440

44

396

Wind

0.27

1123

4.4

300

15

285

Geothermal, misc.

200

0.8

Total renewables

6394

25.0

4640

2259

2381

.

Nuclear, w/Chern & Fukush

0.06

2636

10.3

150

6

144

Total

25551

100.0

328790

302765

26025

NOTE:

- "Other" means from mine, well, etc., to construction, operation, decommissioning and long-term storage

- The total coal was assumed to be 66% brown and 34% hard coal.

- Solar includes PV rooftop and field-mounted systems, and CSP

- Wind and solar percentages are minimal even after about 25 years of subsidies

NOTE:

Worldwide Tobacco: Causes nearly 6 million deaths per year, and current trends show tobacco use will cause more than 8 million deaths annually by 2030.

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/...

- Worldwide Alcohol: Beer, wine, etc., are a leading risk factor for death and disease, associated with 2.8 million deaths each year and the seventh-leading risk factor for premature death and disability in 2016.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/08/24/alcohol-d...

- Worldwide Traffic: Each year, 1.25 million people are killed on roadways.

https://www.cdc.gov/features/globalroadsafety/index.html

Life Cycle Analysis of CO2 Emissions From Various Sources

To calculate CO2 emissions/kWh generated, scientists use life cycle analysis (LCA). This measurement method takes account of all stages in the life cycle of the energy stream (from mine/well to user site), including:

 

1) Raw material extraction from mines and wells, and ethanol and biofuel cropland  

2) Processing oil, gas, coal, crops, etc., and enrichment of uranium ore

3) Fuel bundle fabrication for fueling nuclear plants

4) Distribution of fuels to user sites, including power plants, process plants, buildings, vehicles

5) Transmission and distribution of electricity

6) Site construction and decommissioning.

Comments on table 3C

- Biomass is low, because the combustion CO2eq (which is greater per kWh than of lignite) is not counted.

-  It takes at least 40 years for the combustion CO2 to be reabsorbed by new biomass growth. 

- The upstream CO2 (about 10%, if burning wood chips, about 15%, if burning wood pellets) and decommissioning CO2 will never be reabsorbed. See table 3D

- The value for solar PV includes inefficient coal electricity, etc., used to make panels in China.

- CO2eq of nuclear plants are among the lowest of any electricity generation method, and on a lifecycle basis are comparable to wind, hydro and biomass.

- Lifecycle emissions of natural gas generation are 16 times greater than nuclear.

- Lifecycle emissions of coal generation are 50 to 60 times greater than nuclear.

 

https://www.edf.fr/en/edf/co-sub-2-sub-emissions

http://www.world-nuclear.org/uploadedFiles/org/WNA/Publications/Wor...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_o...

 

Table 3C/Technology

Mean Value

Metric ton CO2eq/GWh

Brown coal (lignite)

1054

Hard coal

888

Oil

733

Natural Gas

499

Solar PV, Chinese panels

78

Solar PV, US/EU panels

48

Biomass, excludes combustion CO2

46

Nuclear

16

Wind, onshore/offshore

12

Hydro, reservoir

4

Emissions of CO2/MWh of Power Plants

Wood chip power plants have efficiencies of about 24% to 27%

The Vermont McNeal and Ryegate wood-chip power plants have CO2 emissions/MWh about 4 times greater than a gas-fired combined-cycle gas turbine, CCGT, plant. See table 3D

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/is-burning-wood-co-2-ne...

https://www.pfpi.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/PFPI-biomass-carbon...

Example: 3412000 Btu/MWh/0.55, efficiency x 117 lb CO2/1000000 Btu, see URL = 727 lb CO2/MWh, or 727 x 454/1000 = 330 g/kWh.

 

It takes about 40 years of biomass growth to absorb the combustion CO2.

The CO2 of the first year burn from the first area would take 40 years to be absorbed.  

The CO2 of the second year burn from the second area would take 40 years to be absorbed.

Stacking the annual quantities on a spreadsheet would show a maximum CO2 in year 40.

If the plant were shut down in year 50, it would take another 40 years to absorb the stack of CO2.

The harvested area would be about 50 times that of the first year.

The first area would be harvested again in about year 40, etc.

In case of Georgia Pines the harvest cycle is about 25 years in managed, planted and fertilized forests

 

The upstream (logging, chipping, transport, etc.), about 10% of combustion CO2 for wood chips, about 15% for  wood pellets, and the decommissioning CO2 will never be absorbed.

 

NOTE: The other pollutants of wood/MWh, including particulates, are about 4/2.4 = 1.67 greater than of hard coal.

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=73&t=11

 

NOTE: The combustion CO2 of biomass is not counted, per international agreement. If it were counted, it would be significantly greater/kWh than hard coal. See table 3D.

Table 3D/Fuel

 lb CO2/million Btu

 Efficiency, %

 lb CO2/MWh

g CO2/kWh

CO2 Ratio

Wood chip; McNeal/Ryegate

213

25

2907

1320

4.0

Wood chip; Denmark

213

30

2423

1100

3.3

Hard coal

206

41

1712

777

2.4

No. 2 fuel oil

161

35

1572

714

2.2

Natural gas, CCGT

117

55

726

330

1.0

Radioactive Waste Storage

Nuclear fuel in power plants is about 97% U238 and about 3% U235, which is fissioned to produce heat and then power.

After 500 days, the 3% of U235 is reduced to about 1.5%.

The entire fuel bundle becomes waste in the US, because the US does not have a reprocessing plant.

In France, only the 1.5% that became fission products becomes waste, because France has a reprocessing plant.

The other 1.5% is unused U235, is separated from the U238, and is reused for new fuel bundles

The greatly reduced quantity of waste is placed in long-term storage in one building at the heavily guarded reprocessing plant.

 

NOTE: France also reprocesses the waste of several EU countries, but these countries store the remainder on their own land, i.e., not stored in France.

 

NOTE: Russia has its own reprocessing plant and reprocesses waste of Russia, plus a number of countries that bought nuclear plants from Russia.

APPENDIX 1

US Ethanol (E100) from Corn

 

During 2017, the US planted 89.1 million acre in corn, of which 32.214 million acre were dedicated to ethanol.

Ethanol production, for all uses, was 15.936 billion gallon. See table 4.

Click table 10.3, xls of eia URL.

 

https://www.agweb.com/article/usda-2017-corn-production-down-despit...

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=90&t=4

https://www.afdc.energy.gov/data/10339

 

Table 4/E100 from Corn

2017

Planted, million acre

89.100

Crop, all uses, billion bushel

14.604

Crop, E100 from corn, billion bushel

5.280

Yield, bushel/acre

176.6

.

 

Planted for ethanol, all uses, million acre

32.214

Planted for E100, blending, million acre

29.913

Ethanol production, all uses, billion gallon

15.936

Yield, gal/acre; 1000 x 15.936/32.214

495

E100 for blending, billion gallon

14.798

 

Replace US Petro-Gasoline with E100 From Corn

 

US “gasoline” consumption was 142.298 billion gal in 2017, per EIA

E100 blended with petro-gasoline was 14.798 billion gal from 29.913 million acres of corn

Petro-gasoline was 128.182 billion gal

E100 was about 7.06% of the total Btu of “gasoline” consumption, based on LHV

Additional E100 would be 128.182 x 116090/76330 = 194.952 billion gal, based on LHV

Total E100 would be 14.798, existing + 194.952, new = 209.750 billion gal

Total cropland for blending ethanol would be about 29.913 x 209.750/14.798 = 423.992 million acres to replace all US petro-gasoline with E100. See table 5

 

https://www.uaex.edu/publications/PDF/FSA-1050.pdf

https://www.statista.com/statistics/189410/us-gasoline-and-diesel-c...

https://unitedsoybean.org/media-center/issue-briefs/biodiesel/

 

Table 5/2017

“Gasoline”

Consumption, 1000 barrel/d

9326.81

gal/barrel

42

TBtu, LHV

“Gasoline”, billion gal

142.980

16010.180

Petro-gasoline, billion gal

128.182

14880.648

E100 for blending, billion gal

14.798

1129.531

Planted for E100 blending, million acres

29.913

Additional E100, billion gal

194.952

Total E100, billion gal

209.750

Total area in corn, million acre

423.992

E100, % of "Gasoline" Btus, LHV

7.06

 

US Biodiesel (B100) From Soybean and Other Sources

 

The US planted about 89.6 million acres in soybeans in 2017.

The soybean crop, all uses, was 4.390 billion bushel, for a yield of about 4.39 x 1000/89.6 = 49 bushel/acre

 

B100 production required 6.230 billion pounds of soybean oil from 0.532 billion bushels in 2017, or 11.654 lb oil/bushel. See URL.

 

https://unitedsoybean.org/media-center/issue-briefs/biodiesel/

https://www.eia.gov/biofuels/biodiesel/production/

 

The cropland for B100 was about 0.532, B100/4.39, all uses x 89.6 = 10.857 million acres in soybeans 

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2018/01_12_2018.php

 

B100 produced from soybean oil was 0.826 billion gallon in 2017

B100 from other sources was 0.770 billion gallon. See table 6

 

Click on the 10.4, xls, in the URL to see the values in table

https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/index.php#renewable

 

NOTE: Renewable diesel is made from used, petro-based grease and used, petro-based lubricating oils. It is not B100. Its CO2eq has to be counted.

 

Table 6

million gallon

Tbtu, LHV

B100 from soybeans

826

98.748

B100 from other sources

770

92.054

B100 total production

1596

190.802

Imports

301

35.985

Inventory

88

10.520

B100, total consumption

1985

237.307

 

Total US “diesel” consumption was 45.833 billion gallon in 2017, which included 1.985 billion gallon of B100. See tables 6 and 7

https://www.statista.com/statistics/189410/us-gasoline-and-diesel-c...

 

Table 7

 

B100 from soybeans

2017

Crop, bushel/acre/y

49

Weight, lb/bushel

60

Crop weight, lb/acre

2940

Oil, lb/bushel; see URL

11.654

Oil, lb/acre/y

571

Process yield

0.973

B100, lb/acre/y

556

Weight, lb/gal

7.3

B100, gal/acre/y

76

B100, gal/bu

1.55

.

Soybeans, billion bu; see URL

0.532

Area, million acres

10.857

 

Replace US Petro-Diesel with B100 from Soybeans

 

US “diesel” consumption was 45.833 billion gal in 2017, per EIA

B100 blended with petro-diesel was 1.985 billion gal from various sources. See table 6.

Petro-diesel was 43.848 billion gal

B100 was about 4.00% of the total Btu of “diesel” consumption, based on LHV

Additional B100 would be 43.848 x 129488/119550 = 47,493 billion gal, based on LHV.

Total B100 would be 1.985, existing + 47.493, new = 49.478 billion gal

Total cropland for B100 would be about 49.478 billion gal/76 gal/acre = 651 million acres, if no imports. See table 9

https://www.statista.com/statistics/189410/us-gasoline-and-diesel-c...

 

Table 8/2017

"Diesel"

B100 in blend

Petro-diesel

US consumption, 1000 barrel/d

2989.78

US consumption, 1000 barrel/y

1091270

gal/barrel

42

US consumption, billion gallon/y

45.833

1.985

43.848

Tbtu, LHV

5934.866

237.307

5697.559

B100, % of "Diesel" Btus, LHV

4.00

Additional B100 to replace petro-diesel, b gallon

47.658

Total B100, billion gallon

49.643

Yield, gal/acre

76

Total area in soybeans, million acre

651

.

HHV, Btu/gal

138490

127960

LHV, Btu/gal

129488

119550

 

Additional Sources of Information:

 

https://ethanolrfa.org/resources/industry/statistics/#1537811482060...

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_psup_a_EPM0F_VPP_mbbl_a.htm

https://www.agmrc.org/renewable-energy/renewable-energy-climate-cha...

https://ethanolrfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2017-U.S.-Ethanol...

 

APPENDIX 2

Germany CO2 Emissions Compared to France

 

German Electricity Generation: The 2016, 2017 and 2018 electricity generation is sown in table 9. See URL, click on “strommix” for spreadsheet.

https://ag-energiebilanzen.de/4-1-Home.html

 

Table 9/Germany

2016

2017

2018

TWh

TWh

TWh

Gross generation

650.7

653.7

648.9

Conventional

460.8

437.4

422.2

Renewables

189.9

216.3

226.7

Renewables, % of gross generation

29.2

33.1

34.9

Wind, onshore

67.9

87.9

93.9

Wind, offshore

12.3

17.7

19.4

Wind, total

80.2

105.6

113.3

Solar

38.1

39.4

46.3

Hydro

20.5

20.2

16.9

Bio

45.0

45.0

45.7

Household/Muni waste

5.9

6.0

6.3

 

German Electricity Consumption: The 2016 gross electricity generation and consumption by users are shown in table 10.

 

German CO2 Emissions: The CO2 emissions are shown in table 9A. The CO2 emissions are decreasing due to more wind and solar. See URL

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-greenhouse-gas-...

 

Table 9A/Germany

1990

2000

2016

2017

Gross generation, TWh

549.9

576.6

650.7

653.7

CO2, million metric ton

427

358

333

313

CO2, gross generation basis, g/kWh

777

621

512

479

 

French Electricity Generation: The 2016 gross electricity generation is shown in table 9B. 

 

Table 9B/2016

France

TWh

Gross generation

556.0

Conventional

448.0

Renewables

108.0

Renewables, % of gross generation

19.4

Wind + Solar

31.0

Hydro

65.0

Bio + muni + misc.

12.0

 

French Electricity Consumption: The 2016 gross electricity generation and consumption by users are shown in table 10

 

French CO2 Emissions: In 2016, the CO2 emissions of the French electricity sector were 58 g/kWh on a gross generation basis. See table 10

 

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/c...

https://www.rte-france.com/sites/default/files/bilan_electrique_201...

German CO2 Emissions 10.33 Times French CO2: In 2016, German electricity generation had (525.4 x 634)/(442.6 x 73) = 10.33 times more CO2 emissions than France, which gets about 77% of its generation from nuclear. See table 10

 

Germany has been replacing near-zero CO2 nuclear with mostly natural gas, wind, solar and bio.

The CO2 of bio is not counted per international agreement

https://www.energycentral.com/c/ec/germanys-electricity-was-nearly-...

NOTE: Upstream is the fuel energy used to extract, process, transport and distribute fuels (primary energy) to users, such as power plants, process plants, buildings and vehicles.

NOTE: Governments usually do not count the CO2 emissions associated with “upstream”, which could be 25 to 43% of the combustion CO2. See Summary Table 1 in URL

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/replacing-gasoline-cons...

Table 10

Germany

Germany

France

France

TWh

CO2, g/kWh

TWh

CO2, g/kWh

Source energy

1789.4

1699.8

Upstream

162.7

111.2

Primary energy

1626.8

1588.6

Efficiency, %

40

35

Gross generation

650.7

512

556.0

58

Less Self-use, % of gross

4.00

4.65

Less Self-use

26.0

24.7

Fed to grid

624.7

531.3

Less Exports

53.7

39.1

Less T&D, % fed to grid

4.20

5.00

Less T&D

26.2

26.6

Less Pumped storage and misc.

19.4

23.0

Fed to meters

525.4

442.6

CO2, at user meter

634

73

CO2, million metric ton

333.0

32.2

Times

10.33

APPENDIX 3

The physical units describing radiation emitted by a radioactive material are measured in curies and becquerels.

 

The different amounts of radiation energy absorbed by a mass of material are measured in rad or gray

 

The relative biological damage in the human body is measured using rem and sieverts, which depends on the type of radiation.

 

Rem, rad and gray are used as the plural as well as the singular form.

 

The average natural background radiation in the United States is 2.6 millisievert, or 2.6 mSv.

 

The legal limit for annual exposure by nuclear workers is 50 mSv. Every worker wears a badge that totals the exposure. Those exceeding the limit are temporarily assigned to other jobs.

 

Japan has a limit for emergency workers of 250 mSv.

 

Basic conversions:

1 gray (Gy) = 100 rad
1 rad = 10 milligray (mGy)
1 sievert (Sv) = 1,000 millisievert (mSv) = 1,000,000 microsievert (μSv)
1 sievert = 100 rem
1 becquerel (Bq) = 1 disintegration count per second (cps) 
1 curie = 37,000,000,000 becquerel = 37 gigabecquerel (GBq)

For x-rays and gamma rays (they are weak rays), 1 rad = 1 rem = 10 mSv 
For neutrons, 1 rad = 5 to 20 rem (depending on energy level) = 50 - 200 mSv 
For alpha radiation (helium-4 nuclei, it emits strong rays), 1 rad = 20 rem = 200 mSv

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/deaths-from-nuclear-ene...;

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/facts-and-information-a...

APPENDIX 4 was deleted

APPENDIX 5

The A to Z Uses of Fossil Fuels for Wind Turbines

"Fossil fuels are essential for making wind turbines, as Robert Wilson explains in Can You Make a Wind Turbine Without Fossil Fuels?"

"Oil is used from start to finish; from mining to crushing ore and smelting it; to delivery to the supply chain fabrication plants for the 8,000 parts in a turbine; to the final delivery to the site and erection.

Diesel-powered cement trucks drive to the installation site over roads built by diesel-powered road equipment.

The roads are paved with asphalt made from tar, a byproduct of refineries.

Fossil-fuel-made cement and steel rebar is used for the wind turbine foundations, masts and nacelles.

Diesel-powered trucks haul turbine components to the installation site, and diesel-powered cranes lift the turbine sections and about 8,000 other parts upward.

 

There are no electric blast furnaces, only fossil-fueled ones to make cement and most steel.

There are no electric mining trucks, electric long haul trucks to deliver the 8,000 parts made all over the world

There are no electric cement trucks, electric cranes, etc., at those sites.

The A-to-Z wind turbine process would need to be “electrified." with zero-CO2 electricity.

 

"Not only would windmills have to generate enough power to reproduce themselves, but they have to make enough power, above and beyond, to fuel the rest of civilization.

Think of the energy to make the cement and steel of a 300-foot tower with three 150-foot rotor blades sweeping an acre of air at 150 miles per hour. 

The turbine housing alone weighs over 56 tons, the blade assembly 36 tons, and the whole tower assembly over 163 tons. 

Florida Power & Light says a typical turbine site is a 42 by 42 foot area with a 30-foot hole filled with tons of steel rebar-reinforced concrete; about 1,250 tons of foundation to hold the 300-foot tower in place (per Rosenbloom)."

 

APPENDIX 6

Wind and Solar Conditions in New England: New England has highly variable weather and low-medium quality wind and solar conditions. See NREL wind map and NREL solar map.

 

https://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/100m_wind/awstwspd100onoff3-1.jpg

https://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/solar/national_photovoltaic_2009-01...

 

Wind:

- Wind electricity is zero about 30% of the hours of the year (it takes a wind speed of about 7 mph to start the rotors)

- Wind is minimal most early mornings and most late afternoons/early evenings (peak demand hours), especially during summer

- Wind often is minimal 5 - 7 days in a row in summer and winter, as proven by ISO-NE real-time generation data.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/daily-shifting-of-wind-...

- About 60% is generated at night, when demand is much less than during the late afternoons/early evenings

- About 60% is generated in winter.

- During winter, the best wind month is up to 2.5 times the worst summer month

- New England has the lowest capacity factor (about 0.262) of any US region, except the US South. See URL.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=20112

 

Solar:

- Solar electricity is strictly a midday affair.

- It is zero about 65% of the hours of the year, mostly at night.

- It often is minimal 5 - 7 days in a row in summer and in winter, as proven by ISO-NE real-time generation data.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/daily-shifting-of-wind-...

- It is minimal early mornings and late afternoons/early evenings

- It is minimal much of the winter months

- It is minimal for several days with snow and ice on most of the panels.

- It varies with variable cloudiness, which would excessively disturb distribution grids with many solar systems, as happens in southern California and southern Germany on a daily basis. Utilities use batteries to stabilize their grids.

- During summer, the best solar month is up to 4 times the worst winter month; that ratio is 6 in Germany.

- New England has the lowest capacity factor (about 0.145, under ideal conditions) of any region in the US, except some parts of the US Northwest.

 

NOTE: Even if the NE grid had large capacity connections with Canada and New York, any major NE wind lull and any major NE snowfall likely would affect the entire US northeast, i.e., relying on neighboring grids to "help-out" likely would not be prudent strategy.

 

Wind Plus Solar:

ISO-NE publishes the minute-by-minute outputs off various energy sources contributing their electricity to the grid.

All one has to do is add the wind and solar and one comes rapidly to the conclusion both are minimal many hours of the year, at any time during the year.

 

- Wind plus solar production could be minimal for 5 - 7 days in summer and in winter, especially with snow and ice on most of the panels, as frequently happens during December, January and February, as proven by ISO-NE real-time generation data.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/daily-shifting-of-wind-...

 

If we were to rely on wind and solar for most of our electricity, massive energy storage systems (a few hundred GWh-scale for Vermont, multiple TWh-scale for NE) would be required to cover multi-day wind lulls, multi-day overcast/snowy periods, and seasonal variations. See URLs.

 

Wind and solar cannot ever be expected to charge New England’s EVs, so people can get to work the next day, unless backed up by several TWh of storage, because wind/solar lulls can occur for 5 - 7 days in a row, in summer and in winter. BTW, the turnkey capital cost of one TWH of storage (delivered as AC to the grid) is about $400 billion.

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-energy-l...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-example-of-elec...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/seasonal-pumped-hydro-s...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electricity-storage-to-...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/pumped-storage-hydro-in...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-hype-ver...

 

APPENDIX 7

High Levels of Wind and Solar

 

High levels of wind and solar, say 60% of NE grid annual load (the rest supplied by other sources), could not ever stand on their own, without the NE grid having:

 

- Much more robust connections to nearby grids (Canada, New York State), plus

- Gas turbine plants and reservoir/run-of-river hydro plants that could quickly vary their outputs to compensate for the quickly varying outputs of wind and solar, including very lowoutputs of wind and solar, which occur at random, at least 30% of the hours of the year, according to minute-by-minute generation data posted by ISO-NE.

 

Rotor blades are feathered when winds exceed allowable speeds.
The turbine output would be MAINTAINED at about 95% of rated.
Such conditions are very rare in New England, may be up to 100 hours per year.
The AVERAGE output of ALL wind turbines in New England is about 25 to 28%; it varies with the windiness of the year.

 

If high levels of wind and solar were built out after a few decades, and the gas turbine, nuclear, coal and oil plants were closed down (according to RE proponent wishes), and with existing connections to nearby grids, and with existing reservoir/run-of-river hydro plants, and with existing other sources, the NE grid would require 6 - 8 TWh of storage to cover:

- 5 to 7 day wind/solar lulls, which occur at random

- Seasonal variations (storing wind when it is more plentiful during fall, winter and spring, and when solar is more plentiful in summer, so more of their electricity would be available in summer when wind usually is at very low levels). See URLs.

 

That storage would need to have a minimal level at all times (about 10 days of demand coverage), to cover multi-day, scheduled and unscheduled equipment and system outages and unusual multi-day weather events, such as a big snow fall covering the solar panels, plus minimal wind.

 

– One TWh of storage costs about $400 billion, at $400/kWh, or $100 billion at a Holy Grail $100/kWh.
– Any electricity passing through storage has about a 20% loss, on a high voltage AC-to-high voltage AC basis, to be made up by additional wind, solar and other generation.
– Batteries lose about 10 to 15% of their capacity, kWh, during their lifetime, which means additional capacity has to be installed to offset that loss.
– Any electricity fed to EVs and plug-in hybrids has about a 20% charging and resting loss, from wall meter to “in battery”, as indicated by the vehicle meter, to be made up by additional wind, solar, and other generation. See URLs.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/tesla-model-3-long-term...

 http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/daily-shifting-of-wind-...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/new-england-will-need-t...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-example-of-elec...;

 

APPENDIX 8

High Electricity Prices for RE in New England: The highly subsidized wholesale prices of wind and solar paid by utilities to producers are much higher than in the rest of the US, because of New England’s mediocre wind and solar conditions.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/subsidized-solar-system...

 

Wind and Solar Far From Competitive with Fossil in New England: The Conservation Law Foundation claims renewables are competitive with fossil. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here is a list of NE wholesale prices and Power Purchase Agreement, PPA, prices.

 

NE field-mounted solar is 12 c/kWh; competitively bid

NE rooftop solar is 18 c/kWh, net-metered; GMP adds costs of 3.813 c/kWh, for a total of 21.813 c/kWh

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/green-mountain-power-co...

NE wind offshore, until recently, was about 18 c/kWh. See Note.

NE wind ridgeline is at least 9 c/kWh

DOMESTIC pipeline gas is 5 c/kWh

Russian and Middle East imported LNG is at least 9 c/kWh

NE nuclear is 4.5 c/kWh

NE hydro is 4 c/kWh; about 10 c/kWh, if Standard Offer in Vermont.

Hydro-Quebec imported hydro is 6 - 7 c/kWh; GMP paid 5.549 c/kWh in 2016, under a recent 20-y contract.

NE annual average wholesale price about 5 c/kWh, unchanged since 2009, courtesy of low-cost gas and nuclear.

 

NOTE:Vineyard Wind, 800 MW, located about 14 miles south of Martha’s Vineyard; 84 wind turbines, 9.5 MW each, about 750 ft tall, supplied by MHI Vestas, a Danish company, on 650 sq km (252 sq mi).

 

The electricity cost for Phase 1 of the Vineyard Wind project would start at 7.4 c/kWh in year one, and escalate at 2.5% for 20 years to become 12.13 c/kWh in year 20; average (7.4 +12.13)/2 = 9.77 c/kWh

 

The electricity cost for Phase 2 of Vineyard Wind project would start at 6.5 c/kWh in year one, and escalate at 2.5% for 20 years to become 10.65 c/kWh in year 20; (6.5 + 10.65)/2 = 8.58 c/kWh. See Appendix 5.

 

NOTE:NE wholesale electricity prices have averaged about 5 c/kWh since 2009, courtesy of 1) the great increase of electricity generated with low-cost, clean burning, low-CO2, domestic natural gas, and 2) electricity generated by near-zero-CO2, NE nuclear plants, which together generated about 67% of electricity fed to the NE grid in 2017. See Appendix.

 

"The price for energy and RECs in the Phase 1 of the long-term contracts begins at $74 per MWh (nominal $), and the price for energy and RECs in the Phase 2 long-term contracts begins at $65 per MWh (nominal $). Each long-term contract has a 20-year term, starting at the COD of the relevant project, and the prices described above escalate by 2.5 percent each year of that term which starts in 2022 and runs until 2043. The 20-year average cost of the two long-term contracts’ is $84.23 per MWh in levelized nominal dollar terms. This is equivalent to a levelized net present value price in 2017 dollars of $64.97 per MWh." See first URL about siting. See second URL about pricing.

 

http://www.crmc.ri.gov/windenergy/vineyardwind/VW_ProposedLayout_20...

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/wind/massachus...

https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/with-vineyard-wind-the-...

https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2018/08/13/vineyard-wind-offer...

https://www.boem.gov/What-Does-an-Offshore-Wind-Energy-Facility-Loo...

 

NOTE: The NE grid is divided in regions, each with Locational Marginal Prices, LMPs, which vary from 2.5 - 3.5 c/kWh from 10 pm to about 6 pm; slowly increase to about 6 - 7 c/kWh around noon time, when solar is maximal; are about 7 - 8 c/kWh in late afternoon/early evening (peak demand hours), when solar is minimal. Unusual circumstances, such as power plant or transmission line outages, can cause LMPs to increase to 20 - 40 c/kWh, and even higher when such events occur during peak demand hours.

 

NOTE: The above prices would be about 50% higher without the subsidies and even higher without cost shifting. See Appendix.

 

NOTE: Here is an ISO-NE graph, which shows for very few hours during a 13-y period were wholesale prices higher than 6 c/kWh. Those prices are low because of low-cost gas, low-cost nuclear and low-cost hydro. The last four peaks were due to:

 

- Pipeline constraints, aggravated by the misguided recalcitrance of pro-RE Governors of NY and MA

- Pre-mature closings of coal and nuclear plants

- Lack of more robust connections to nearby grids, such as New York and Canada. See URLs.


https://www.iso-ne.com/about/key-stats/markets/

http://truenorthreports.com/rolling-blackouts-are-probably-coming-t...

 

APPENDIX 9

Hydro-Quebec Electricity Generation and Purchases: Google this URL for the 2017 facts. The H-Q electricity supply is an order of magnitude cleaner than the Vermont supply.
http://www.hydroquebec.com/sustainable-development/energy-environme...

 

Table 5/H-Q

2017

GWh

Hydropower generated 

177091

Purchased

44006

- Hydro

31610

- Wind

9634

- Biomass and waste reclamation 

2021

- Other

741

Total RE generated and purchased

221097

 

NOTE: Gentilly-2 nuclear generating station, plus three thermal generating stations (Tracy, La Citière and Cadillac) were shut down.

 

Hydro-Quebec Export Electricity: H-Q net exports were 34.4 TWh/y in 2017; provided 27% of H-Q net income, or $780 million, i.e., very profitable.

 

H-Q export revenue was $1,651 million in 2017, or 1641/34.4 = 4.8 c/kWh.

See page 24 of Annual Report URL.

This is for a mix of old and new contracts.

Revenue = 1641

Net profit = 780

Cost = 1641 - 780 = 861

Average cost of H-Q generation = 861/34.4 = 2.5 c/kWh

 

GMP buys H-Q electricity, at the Vermont border, for 5.549 c/kWh, under a recent contract. GMP buys at 5.549 c/kWh, per GMP spreadsheet titled “GMP Test Year Power Supply Costs filed as VPSB Docket No: Attachment D, Schedule 2, April 14, 2017”.

H-Q is eager to sell more of its surplus electricity to New England and New York.

 

That is at least 50% less than ridgeline wind and large-scale field-mounted solar, which are heavily subsidized to make their electricity appear to be less costly than reality. 

 

GMP sells to me at 19 c/kWh, per rate schedule. Consumers pricing for electricity is highly political. That is implemented by rate setting, taxes, fees, surcharges, etc., mostly on household electric bills, as in Denmark and Germany, etc. The rate setting is influenced by protecting “RE policy objectives”, which include highly subsidized, expensive microgrids, islanding, batteries and net metered solar and heat pumps.

 

http://www.hydroquebec.com/sustainable-development/energy-environme...

http://news.hydroquebec.com/en/press-releases/1338/annual-report-2917/

http://www.hydroquebec.com/data/documents-donnees/pdf/annual-report...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/green-mountain-power-co...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/increased-canadian-hydr...

APPENDIX 10

Chinese PV Solar Panels

 

- China has more than 50% of the world solar panel market.

- Seven of the world’s top 10 solar manufacturers are based in China. 
- Making solar panels is a dirty, energy-intensive process

- Chinese multi-silicone panels have embodied emissions of about 68 g CO2eq/kWh, and shipping to US user site, plus turnkey system installation has emissions of about 10 CO2eq/kWh, for a total of about 78 g CO2eq/kWh

- US/EU multi-silicone panels have embodied emissions of about 32 g CO2eq/kWh, and shipping to US user site, plus turnkey system installation has emissions of about 10 CO2/kWh, for a total of about 48 g/kWh

http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/solar-panel-origin

- The Chinese panels are made with rare earth metals and other materials from mines with near zero environmental regulations.

- The rare earth ores are processed/refined with fossil fuels and electricity from inefficient, coal-fired power plants that have minimal air pollution control systems.

- The coal is from mines with near zero environmental regulations.

- All that enables China to sell lowest-cost panels that severely stress/eliminate the competition in other countries.

 

Table 11/Location

System

Daily sun

Days

Eff.

Production

CO2

Life

Life CO2

US/EU Panels

kW

h

kWh/y/kW

g/kWh

y

Mt/panel

Santa Fe, NM

1

6.0

365

0.82

1796

48

25

2.15

Syracuse NY

1

3.8

365

0.82

1137

48

25

1.36

Burlington, VT

1

4.3

365

0.82

1287

48

25

1.54

Chinese Panels

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Fe, NM

1

6.0

365

0.82

1796

78

25

3.50

Syracuse NY

1

3.8

365

0.82

1137

78

25

2.22

Burlington, VT

1

4.3

365

0.82

1287

78

25

2.51

APPENDIX 11

GRID-SCALE STORAGE ON THE NEW ENGLAND GRID WITH 80% WIND AND SOLAR

 

Here is an example of grid-scale storage for the NE power grid by about 2050. The power sources would be:

 

1) About 80% wind and solar

2) A few percent from NE hydro plants

3) A few percent from NE wood burning power plants

4) A few percent from municipal refuse power plants

5) A few percent of Canadian hydro via tie-ins to nearby grids.

6) All coal, oil, gas and nuclear plants are closed.

 

The mode of operation with grid-scale storage would be:

 

- All variable, intermittent wind and solar generation, plus other generation would be stored.

Steady electricity would be drawn from storage, based on demand.

- The daily demand of about 125 TWh/365 = 0.342 TWh would be kept near constant by means of real-time supply and demand management.

 

The below graph is based on minute-by-minute generation and demand data published by ISO-NE, the NE grid operator.

 

- High outputs of wind and hydro are in excess of demand in the early months of the year; storage is built up.

- Low outputs of wind and hydro are less than demand in the summer; storage is reduced; summer solar is nor sufficient to offset that trend.

- High outputs of wind and hydro are in excess of demand in the later months of the year; storage is built up again.

- The graph excludes charging and discharging losses. See URL

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-example-of-elec...

 

Electricity entering storage would be about 9.7 TWh, as AC from high voltage grid; electricity in storage would be about 8.6 TWh as DC; electricity delivered from storage would be about 8 TWh, as AC to high voltage grid.

 

Capital cost of grid-scale storage systems would be about 10 TWh x $400/TWh = $4 TRILLION, at the 2019 price of about $400/kWh, or $1 TRILLION, if the Holy Grail price of $100/kWh would be achieved in the future.

 

Demand is likely to increase to about 175 TWh by 2050, an increase of 40%, due to heat pumps and electric vehicles, which means grid-scale storage would need to be about 14 TWh.  

 

NOTE: The storage system would need on-demand standby generation (hydrogen or natural gas powered combined-cycle, gas-turbine, CCGT, plants) to ensure about 10 days of demand coverage during September and October, to cover:

 

1) Multi-day, scheduled and unscheduled equipment and system outages

2) Unusual multi-day weather events, such as simultaneous minimal wind and solar. See graph.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Views: 425

Comment

You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!

Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

Comment by Eric A. Tuttle on January 17, 2019 at 11:47am

Willem -- 

https://www.facebook.com/notes/admin-group-for-wind-archives/538725...

Listed this CTFWP-Maine post of yours -- currently the bottom-most recent listing. Trying to share your many hours of compilations. 

Comment by Willem Post on January 17, 2019 at 10:44am
Comment by Eric A. Tuttle on January 16, 2019 at 9:38am

Solar and Wind combined at their current efficiency of production can NEVER meet or replace Fossil fuels, let alone Nuclear. 

Even maximized to 100% output of both, given that only 59% of the sun's energy even reaches the earth to create solar or wind thermals, the overall maximum output could only achieve 11% of our current needs. 

Fossil fuels are stored sun energy over Billions of years, resulting from the ups and downs of carbon release and sequestration.

If it were not for the rise of Carbon waste from an acid-based lifeform, we would not exist as we are, and the atmosphere would be nearly 90%+ Hydrogen.

Being raised in the Nuclear Threat Age after WWII and having worked in close proximity to NW's it still remains a scary prospect, though safety has come a long way in securing this potentially silent killer.

 

Comment by Willem Post on January 16, 2019 at 9:27am

Penny,

I think various bureaucrats, high and low, and 100% RE folks are beginning to FINALLY realize wind and solar could play only a very limited role in the world's electricity generation.

Independent energy systems analysts, mostly retired people like I, who do have the fear of being fired, if they say something that is not politically correct, have known this situation for at least 15 years.

Some of them have written articles on the subject and were derided by the 100% RE folks for being infidels, deniers, etc.

Some folks advocate "Let's go bio" 

Those folks have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

Totally lost in left field.

Any mass production of biofuels could not be from land area,

It would have to be from POND ALGAE, which is a research stage.

A major player is Exxon-Mobil

Comment by Willem Post on January 16, 2019 at 9:14am

Eric,

I added some pro-nuclear arguments.

A huge issue is the area required for solar and wind to produce a quantity of electricity.

Nuclear is vastly more compact and lasts 60 years.

Comment by Penny Gray on January 16, 2019 at 6:51am

If only we'd sunk all those trillions into nuclear R&D, we'd be so far ahead of the game.  Instead we seem intent on destroying the last open spaces on the planet, under the "green" guise of saving it.  Any discussion about "weaning us off foreign oil" that doesn't include nuclear is wasted breath.

Comment by Eric A. Tuttle on January 16, 2019 at 1:01am

BioMass from trees, releases more CO² Pound for pound than Coal.

Though lower grade, in need of more processing electricity, Nuclear materials extracted from the oceans is nearly limitless and with technology could be made renewable, including that which we now hold as waste.

Do I prefer Nuclear? Not really, however, if safety is maximized over cost considerations, it logically seems to be the best option, given that we are exploring Fusion. A combination, combined with conservation on waste use is needed.  

Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law

Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future

"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."

https://pinetreewatch.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/

 

Maine as Third World Country:

CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power

 

Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.

Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT

******** IF LINKS BELOW DON'T WORK, GOOGLE THEM*********

(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/

Not yet a member?

Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?

We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

 -- Mahatma Gandhi

"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi 

Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!

© 2019   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service