Opportunities and Pitfalls of Solar Energy

In 2019, the year before the restrictions of the covid-19 pandemic, the world energy consumption was slightly higher at around 170 000 TWh.

In this post I will talk about some of the science behind this amazing fact and discuss the challenge of getting solar energy from where it is plentiful to where it is needed and storing it for future use.

The facts behind this statistic

The Sun generates energy by nuclear reactions which occur at its dense hot core.

It produces a massive 382.8 trillion trillion (3.828 x 10²⁶ ) watts of electromagnetic radiation (Williams 2018) – mostly in the form of visible light, infrared and ultraviolet.

As you get further from the Sun, the intensity, which is the power per unit area declines as the square of the distance

The solar constant is the average intensity of the Sun’s radiation at the Earth’s distance from the Sun.

It has a value of 1361 watts per square meter (W/m²).

(In fact, the output of the Sun is variable and fluctuates by 0.1% around this value).

Using this number, a simple calculation tells us, the total solar energy hitting the Earth, in one hour (in watt-hours) is

solar constant x (1/4 x pi x d^2), area of an Earth-sized disc = 1 361 W/m² x 1.2748 x 10¹⁴ m²= 1.73 x 10¹⁷ watt-hours, or 173,000 terawatt hours (TWh)

one terawatt is one trillion (1,000,000,000,000) watts

The total energy consumed by humanity in 2020 was about 163,000 TWh (Enerdata 2021).

This includes not just energy used to generate electricity, but also for:

Electricity for buildings (for example by burning firewood, coal, oil or gas)
Transport (mainly petrol, diesel and aviation fuel)
Commercial
Industrial

World electricity consumed in 2020 was about 27,000 TWh.

The potential for solar energy

There are two different methods of generating electricity from sunlight.

One way is to concentrate the Sun’s energy using mirrors onto a small area and use the heat generated to produce steam to turn a turbine which generates electricity.

The other way uses arrays of photovoltaic cells (more commonly known as solar panels) to generate electricity directly from sunlight.

The vast majority of solar electricity is produced this way, much of it by solar systems, like the one in California shown below.

As the cost of solar panels has significantly increased after 2020, and their efficiency % has reached a plateau, solar system installation likely will not increase as fast as before 2020

That means any rosy solar electricity projections, likely will not be achieved by 2050

A photo taken from space of the Topaz solar system in the US Southwest. The system covers an area of nineteen km² (not all of which is covered with solar panels) and generates about 1.25 TWh of electricity/year

This is an area with high levels of solar energy from the sun. The TWh will be much less elsewhere

The growth of solar energy (Our world in data 2021)

A key advantage, solar energy has over other forms of green energy is its almost unlimited potential.

In the idealized case, where solar energy could be transferred from where it is generated to where it is needed and stored without loss (wow, that is a very big idealized if), it is necessary to cover only 0.12% of the Earth’s surface with solar panels to meet all of humanity’s energy needs.

(The details of this calculation are in the appendix at the end of this article.)

The challenges of supply, demand and storage

However, things are not that simple in the real world.

The countries which could generate the most solar energy (particularly those in Africa) still have modest energy consumption

However, many densely populated countries, such as in Northern Europe, have high energy consumption, but receive low levels of solar energy.

For example, the UK has a small surface area, receives much less sunlight than the world average, and is densely populated with a high energy consumption.

Because of its high latitude there is great variation between the solar electricity which could be generated in the sunniest month, which on average is July, and the least sunny month, December.

NOTE: Although June has more hours of daylight, it has more cloud cover than July

In July, the UK would need to cover 2.3% of its land area with solar panels to generate enough solar electricity to meet its energy needs for that month.

In December, the UK would have a meager amount of sunlight available. About 23% of its land area would be covered with solar panels. This would clearly not be practical. The same is true for New England

In reality, it is exceedingly unlikely the UK could use solar systems most of the UK’s energy needs.

To meet the UK energy needs, averaged over a 12-month period, it would be necessary to cover 5% of its land area with solar panels – a massive amount.

However there a huge fluctuation in solar energy supply during a year, and from year to year, and total energy demand between the winter and summer months.

If the UK were to rely totally on solar energy, an enormous hurdle to overcome would be, the need for a long-term storage facility, so that the excess energy generated in the sunny months could be accumulated and used in the less sunny months.

The amount of energy needed to be stored would be immense, around 500 TWh. It would be impractical to store this amount of energy in batteries.

The battery system capital cost would be (500 TWh x 575/kWh, 2023 pricing) / (0.6, Tesla usage factor x 0.92, Tesla design factor) = $906 billion, they would last about 15 years

Excluded costs/kWh: 1) O&M; 2) system aging, 1.5%/y, 3) 19% HV grid-to-HV grid loss, 3) grid extension/reinforcement to connect battery systems, 5) downtime of parts of the system, 6) decommissioning in year 15, i.e., disassembly, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites. The excluded costs add at least 10 - 15 c/kWh

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital...

The Hydrogen Economy? In theory, the solar electricity in the more sunny months could be stored by splitting water to make hydrogen which would be stored and used to generate clean energy, or to power hydrogen-fuelled vehicles.

Hydrogen is the most energy dense chemical fuel known.

One kg of hydrogen when burnt releases 33 kWh of energy.

Storing 500 TWh of energy in the form of hydrogen would require (a relatively modest!) 15 million tonnes of hydrogen in storage.

In reality, more energy, from whatever source, would be needed to cover the hydrolysis of pure water to hydrogen, store it in high pressure vessels, distribute it, at high pressure, to users.

The A to Z energy efficiency of such a system would be less than 30%

NOTE: Pipelines and underground storage used for natural gas cannot be used for hydrogen, which needs to be highly pressurized, in leak-proof pressure vessels, at all times.

Solar Electricity from Africa to the UK: Another possibility, if the UK wanted to generate most of its energy from solar, would be to build high voltage, high-capacity transmission lines to import solar electricity into the UK.

Solar energy could be generated in North Africa, where the solar irradiance is greater and, being closer to the equator, there is a smaller variation throughout the year.

It could be transmitted to northern Europe over high voltage DC lines, which typically have a loss of around 3.5% per 1000 km.

However, it is unlikely, the UK would want to be dependent on North Africa for the bulk on its energy supplies.

Greater role for wind power

Solar energy plays a minor role, 4.4%, in the UK electricity generation, in 2020.

However, the UK generates most of its renewable energy by wind, 24.8% in 2020.

With its long, windy coastline, it is certain offshore wind will play a greater role in the coming decades, as the UK moves toward becoming an economy which contributes zero carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by the year 2050.

Important Role of CO2 for Flora Growth

Many plants require greater CO2 than 400 ppm to survive and thrive, so they became extinct, along with the fauna they supported. As a result, many areas of the world became arid and deserts. The current CO2 needs to at least double or triple to reinvigorate the world's flora and fauna.

CO2 has increased from about 280 ppm in 1900 to 423 ppm at end 2023. It increased:

1) Greening of the world by at least 10 to 15%, as measured by satellites since 1979.

2) Crop yields per acre.

3) Partially due to burning fossil fuels

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/new-study-2001-2020-gl...

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-a-life-gas-no-c...

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-not-pollution-i...

Taken from https://www.nationalgrideso.com/news/record-breaking-2020-becomes-g...

Small scale generation for consumers off grid

A key advantage of solar power is its ability to generate electricity on pretty much any scale.

A single solar panel has exactly the same efficiency as a large array of a million panels.

A panel one meter square will generate up to 250 watts of electricity, if connected to a rechargeable battery, to store 5000 watt.hours, it can provide a cheap and reliable source of electricity for off-grid customers.

One 20 W bulb on for 12 hours would need 240 watt.hours.

That is really useful for poor countries, while their valuable resources are being plundered by the West.

This is particularly useful in the world’s poorest countries which are mostly situated at sunnier latitudes and have a more modest demand for electricity compared to richer countries.

Once the initial cost of installation has been paid the running costs of a solar array are very low.

Small Wind Turbines: In contrast, small wind turbines are not as efficient as larger turbines and so need to be situated in an area of above average wind in order to generate reasonable amounts of power.

They also require a smooth airflow: the smaller turbines are very susceptible to turbulence – so if you live near trees, or in a built-up area, a wind turbine is unlikely to be efficient.

Small Hydro: Small scale hydroelectric plants which generate less than 5 kW are known as pico-hydro systems.

Although they are relatively cheap to build, they need a constant supply of water running downhill and have moving parts which need to be serviced and maintained.

Appendix

How much of the Earth’s surface would need to be covered to meet humanity’s energy needs?

The first thing we need to consider is the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface.

The solar constant is 1,361 W/m^2.

This is the intensity of the radiation which hits the top of the Earth’s atmosphere.

Even on a cloudless day not all this radiation reaches the ground.

Some is reflected back into space, and some is absorbed by the atmosphere.

On a clear day, if the Sun is directly overhead, around noon-time, the intensity of the radiation hitting the ground, directly from the Sun is around 1,050 W/m².

On top of this, a further 70 W/m² is radiated by the bright blue sky, giving a total of 1,120 W/m².

(If it is cloudy this figure will be lower.)

In fact, the Sun can only be directly overhead at tropical latitudes. When the Sun is lower in the sky, the intensity of the solar radiation is reduced because its rays are spread out over a larger area and pass through more atmosphere before they hit the ground.

The variation in the solar intensity at the equator, and at an equinox. The time axis is in solar time where the Sun rises at 0600, is at its highest at 1200 and sets at 1800. A cloudless day is assumed.

If we average out over an entire 24 hour cycle, the intensity of solar radiation hitting the Earth’s surface on a cloudless day, at the equator, on the date of an equinox, is approximately 340 W/m².

The technical term for this is the global horizonal irradiance (GHI), but in this article I will call it the solar irradiance.

The most efficient solar panels on the market , and most expensive solar panels, convert about 21.5% of solar radiation to electrical energy.
Over an entire 24-hour cycle, the maximum electric power which could be generated is 0.215 x 340 = 73 W/m², which is only 5% of the solar constant.

At Higher Latitudes, the Sun is lower in the sky and the amount of solar electricity which could be generated is less.
In addition, the solar irradiance is reduced by cloud cover.
For example, in the cloudy northwest of Scotland it is on average only 72 W/m², about one fifth of its value at the equator.

The Whole Earth: Averaged out over 12 months, and over all locations on the Earth’s surface, the solar irradiance is 170 W/m².

This means, we would need to cover 622,000 square km of the earth land surface with solar panels to generate all the world’s energy needs, an area about the size of France, only 0.12% of the earth land surface.

Details of the calculation are as follows.

In any large structure which generates solar electricity there must be gaps between the solar panels.

I have assumed, one sixth of the area of a solar system is not covered by panels.

Calculation for the UK
.

For the UK, since it is a long way from the equator, there is larger difference in the solar irradiance between the winter and the summer months. For a location near Manchester (in the middle of the UK) daily average solar irradiance is around 200 W/m² in July, but in December, it is ten times lower, about 20 W/m2.

Data from Science Direct (2014)

Therefore, there is a massive difference between the calculation for July compared to December.

In July, we would only need to cover 2.3% of the UKs land area with solar panels to generate all its energy needs.

In December, the solar irradiance is only 20 W/m2, and we would need to cover 23% of the UK land area with solar panels to generate all its energy needs

Data from Science Direct (2014) and Enerdata (2018)

In this table, for simplicity, I’ve assumed, the energy consumption for December and July is the same at 150 TWh.

This is the annual energy consumption of the UK in 2020 divided by twelve.

Clearly more energy is used for heating in December, particularly in people’s homes but these figures refer to total energy consumption.

Less energy is used for transportation in the cooler months (people travel less in winter)

Energy for industrial processes is the same all year round

In the summer months, a significant amount of energy is spent on air conditioning particularly in shops and offices – a figure which is likely to increase over the coming years.

Even so, in reality more energy is needed in the winter months.

This means, we would need to cover even more than 23% of the UK land surface to meet its winter energy needs.

———————————————————————————————————

References

Enerdata (2021) Global energy statistical yearbook 2020, Available at: https://yearbook.enerdata.net/total-energy/world-consumption-statis... (Accessed: 13 October 2021).
Our world in data (2020) Global renewable energy consumption over the long-run, Available at: https://ourworldindata.org/renewable-energy (Accessed: 13 October 2021).
Science Direct (2014) The UK solar energy resource and the impact of climate change, Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148114002857(Accessed: 13 October 2021).
Williams, D. R. (2018) NASA Sun fact sheet, Available at: https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/sunfact.html (Accessed: 13 October 2021).

During 2021, worldwide offshore wind capacity placed in operation was 17,398 MW, of which China 13,790 MW, and the rest of the world 3,608 MW, of which UK 1,855 MW; Vietnam 643 MW; Denmark 604 MW; Netherlands 402 MW; Taiwan 109 MW

At end of 2021, 50,623 MW was in operation, of which just 123.4 MW was floating, about 1/4%

Despite the meager floating offshore MW in the world, pro-wind politicians, bureaucrats, etc., aided and abetted by the lapdog Main Media and "academia/think tanks", in the impoverished State of Maine, continue to fantasize about building 3,000 MW of 850-ft-tall floating offshore wind turbines by 2040!!

Maine government bureaucrats, etc., in a world of their own climate-fighting fantasies, want to have about 3,000 MW of floating wind turbines by 2040; a most expensive, totally unrealistic goal, that would further impoverish the already-poor State of Maine for many decades.

Those bureaucrats, etc., would help fatten the lucrative, 20-y, tax-shelters of mostly out-of-state, multi-millionaire, wind-subsidy chasers, who likely have minimal regard for:

1) Impacts on the environment and the fishing and tourist industries of Maine, and

2) Already-overstressed, over-taxed, over-regulated Maine ratepayers and taxpayers, who are trying to make ends meet in a near-zero, real-growth economy.

Those fishery-destroying, 850-ft-tall floaters, with 24/7/365 strobe lights, visible 30 miles from any shore, would cost at least $7,500/ installed kW, or at least $22.5 billion, if built in 2023 (more after 2023)

Almost the entire supply of the Maine projects would be designed and made in Europe, then transported across the Atlantic Ocean, in European specialized ships, then unloaded at a new, $500-million Maine storage/pre-assembly/staging/barge-loading area, then barged to European specialized erection ships for erection of the floating turbines. The financing will be mostly by European pension funds.

The other erection jobs would be by specialized European people, mostly on cranes and ships

About 100 Maine people would have long-term O&M jobs, using European spare parts, during the 20-y electricity production phase.

The Maine woke bureaucrats are falling over each other to prove their “greenness”, offering $millions of this and that for free, but all their primping and preening efforts has resulted in no floating offshore bids from European companies

The Maine people have much greater burdens to look forward to for the next 20 years, courtesy of the Governor Mills incompetent, woke bureaucracy that has infested the state government

The Maine people need to finally wake up, and put an end to the climate scare-mongering, which aims to subjugate and further impoverish them, by voting the entire Democrat woke cabal out and replace it with rational Republicans in 2024

The present course leads to financial disaster for the impoverished State of Maine and its people.

Electricity Cost: Assume a $750 million, 100 MW project consists of foundations, wind turbines, cabling to shore, and installation at $7,500/kW.

Amortize bank loan for $525 million, 70% of project, at 6.5%/y for 20 years, 13.396 c/kWh.

Owner return on $225 million, 30% of project, at 10%/y for 20 years, 7.431 c/kWh

Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) 17.913 c/kWh

NOTE: The above prices compare with the average New England wholesale price of about 5 c/kWh, during the 2009 - 2022 period, 13 years, courtesy of:

Cabling to Shore Plus $Billions for Grid Expansion on Shore: A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 200 to 500 feet.
The cables would need some type of flexible support system

There would be about 5 cables, each connected to sixty, 10 MW wind turbines, making landfall on the Maine shore, for connection to 5 substations (each having a 600 MW capacity, requiring several acres of equipment), then to connect to the New England HV grid, which will need $billions for expansion/reinforcement to transmit electricity to load centers, mostly in southern New England.

Floating Offshore a Major Financial Burden on Maine People: Rich Norwegian people can afford to dabble in such expensive demonstration follies (See Appendix 2), but the over-taxed, over-regulated, impoverished Maine people would buckle under such a heavy burden, while trying to make ends meet in the near-zero, real-growth Maine economy. Maine folks need lower energy bills, not higher energy bills.

Equinor, a Norwegian company, put in operation, 11 Hywind, floating offshore wind turbines, each 8 MW, for a total of 88 MW, in the North Sea. The wind turbines are supplied by Siemens, a German company

Production will be about 88 x 8766 x 0.5, claimed lifetime capacity factor = 385,704 MWh/y, which is about 35% of the electricity used by 2 nearby Norwegian oil rigs, which cost at least $1.0 billion each.

On an annual basis, the existing diesel and gas-turbine generators on the rigs, designed to provide 100% of the rigs electricity requirements, 24/7/365, will provide only 65%, i.e., the wind turbines have 100% back up.

The generators will counteract the up/down output of the wind turbines, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365

The generators will provide almost all the electricity during low-wind periods, and 100% during high-wind periods, when rotors are feathered and locked.

The capital cost of the entire project was about 8 billion Norwegian Kroner, or about $730 million, as of August 2023, when all 11 units were placed in operation, or $730 million/88 MW = $8,300/kW. See URL

That cost was much higher than the estimated 5 billion NOK in 2019, i.e., 60% higher

The project is located about 70 miles from Norway, which means minimal transport costs of the entire supply to the erection sites

The project would produce electricity at about 42 c/kWh, no subsidies, at about 21 c/kWh, with 50% subsidies

Three shifts of workers are on the rigs for 6 weeks, work 60 h/week, and get 6 weeks off with pay, and are paid well over $150,000/y, plus benefits.

If Norwegian units were used in Maine, the production costs would be even higher in Maine, because of the additional cost of transport of almost the entire supply, including specialized ships and cranes, across the Atlantic Ocean, plus

A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 200 to 500 feet.

The cables would need some type of flexible support system
The cables would be combined into several cables to run horizontally to shore, for at least 25 to 30 miles, to several onshore substations, to the New England high voltage grid.

Most folks, seeing only part of the picture, write about wind energy issues that only partially cover the offshore wind situation, which caused major declines of the stock prices of Siemens, Oersted, etc., starting at the end of 2020; the smart money got out
All this well before the Ukraine events, which started in February 2022. See costs/kWh in below article

1) 30,000 MW of offshore by 2030, by the cabal of climate extremists in the US government
2) 36,000 MW of offshore by 2030, and 40,000 MW by 2040, by the disfunctional UK government

Those US/UK goals were physically unachievable, even if there were abundant, low-cost financing, and low inflation, and low-cost energy, materials, labor, and a robust, smooth-running supply chain, to place in service about 9500 MW of offshore during each of the next 7 years, from start 2024 to end 2030, which has never been done before in such a short time. See URL

US/UK 66,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-off...

Electricity production about 30,000 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, lifetime capacity factor = 105,192,000 MWh, or 105.2 TWh. The production would be about 100 x 105.2/4000 = 2.63% of the annual electricity loaded onto US grids.

Electricity Cost, c/kWh: Assume a $550 million, 100 MW project consists of foundations, wind turbines, cabling to shore, and installation, at $5,500/kW.

Amortize bank loan for $385 million, 70% of project, at 6.5%/y for 20 y, 9.824 c/kWh.

Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) 15.137 c/kWh

Owner sells to utility at 15.137 c/kWh; developers in NY state, etc., want much more. See Above.

Cost of a fleet of plants for counteracting/balancing, 24/7/365, about 2.0 c/kWh

Cost of decommissioning, i.e., disassembly at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites

Most people have no idea wind and solar systems need grid expansion/reinforcement and expensive support systems to even exist on the grid.

With increased annual W/S electricity percent on the grid, increased grid investments are needed, plus greater counteracting plant capacity, MW, especially when it is windy and sunny around noon-time.

Increased counteracting of the variable W/S output, places an increased burden on the grid’s other generators, causing them to operate in an inefficient manner (more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh), which adds more cost/kWh to the offshore wind electricity cost of about 16 c/kWh, after 50% subsidies

The various cost/kWh adders start with annual W/S electricity at about 8% on the grid.

The adders become exponentially greater, with increased annual W/S electricity percent on the grid

The US-EIA, Lazard, Bloomberg, etc., and their phony LCOE "analyses", are deliberately understating the cost of wind, solar and battery systems

Their deceptions reinforced the popular delusion, W/S are competitive with fossil fuels, which is far from reality.

The excluded LCOE items are shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and added to government debts.

W/S output could not be physically fed into the grid, without items 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. See list.

1) Subsidies equivalent to about 50% of project lifetime owning and operations cost,

3) A fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the variable W/S output, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365

4) A fleet of power plants to provide electricity during low-W/S periods, and 100% during high-W/S periods, when rotors are feathered and locked,

5) Output curtailments to prevent overloading the grid, i.e., paying owners for not producing what they could have produced

6) Hazardous waste disposal of wind turbines, solar panels and batteries. See image.

Assume a system rated 45.3 MW/181.9 MWh, and an all-in turnkey cost of $104.5 million, per Example 2

Amortize bank loan for 50% of $104.5 million at 6.5%/y for 15 years, $5.484 million/y

Pay Owner return of 50% of $104.5 million at 10%/y for 15 years, $6.765 million/y (10% due to high inflation)

Battery lifetime output = 15 y x 365 d/y x 181.9 MWh x 0.1, usage x 1000 kWh/MWh = 99,590,250 kWh to HV grid; 122,950,926 kWh from HV grid; 233,606,676 kWh loss

Less 50% subsidies (ITC, depreciation in 5 years, deduction of interest on borrowed funds) is 92.3c/kWh

Excluded costs/kWh: 1) O&M; 2) system aging, 1.5%/y, 3) 20% HV grid-to-HV grid loss, 4) grid extension/reinforcement to connect battery systems, 5) downtime of parts of the system, 6) decommissioning in year 15, i.e., disassembly, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites. Excluded costs would add at least 10 - 15 c/kWh

NOTE: The 40% throughput is close to Tesla’s recommendation of 60% maximum throughput, i.e., not charging above 80% full and not discharging below 20% full, to achieve a 15-y life, with normal aging

NOTE: Tesla’s recommendation was not heeded by the Owners of the Hornsdale Power Reserve in Australia. They excessively charged/discharged the system. After a few years, they added Megapacks to offset rapid aging of the original system, and added more Megapacks to increase the rating of the expanded system.

Regarding any project, the bank and the owner have to be paid.
Therefore, I amortized the bank loan and the owner’s investment

If you divide the total of the payments over 15 years by the throughput during 15 years, you get the cost per kWh, as shown.

According to EIA annual reports, almost all battery systems have throughputs less than 10%. I chose 10% for calculations.

A few battery systems have higher throughputs, if they are used to absorb midday solar and discharge it the during peak hour periods of late-afternoon/early-evening. They may reach up to 40% throughput. I chose 40% for calculations.

Remember, you have to draw about 50 MWh from the HV grid to deliver about 40 MWh to the HV grid, because of A-to-Z system losses. That gets worse with aging.

A lot of people do not like these c/kWh numbers, because they have been repeatedly told by self-serving folks, low-cost battery Nirvana is just around the corner, which is a load of crap.

World's Largest Offshore Wind System Developer Abandons Two Major US Projects as Wind/Solar Bust Continues

Regulatory Rebuff Blow to Offshore Wind Projects; Had Asked for Additional $25.35 billion

Electric vehicles catch fire after being exposed to saltwater from Hurricane Idalia

The Electric Car Debacle Shows the Top-Down Economics of Net Zero Don’t Add Up

UK Offshore Wind Projects Threaten to Pull Out of Uneconomical Contracts, unless Subsidies are Increased

AIR SOURCE HEAT PUMPS DO NOT ECONOMICALLY DISPLACE FOSSIL FUEL BTUs IN COLD CLIMATES

According to the IAEA, during the first half of 2023, a total of 407 nuclear reactors are in operation at power plants across the world, with a total capacity at about 370,000 MW

Rosatom, a Russian Company, is building more nuclear reactors than any other country in the world, according to data from the Power Reactor Information System of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA.

The data show, a total of 58 large-scale nuclear power reactors are currently under construction worldwide, of which 23 are being built by Russia.

In Egypt, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $30 billion, or about $6,250/kW,

As per a bilateral agreement, signed in 2015, approximately 85% of it is financed by Russia, and to be paid for by Egypt under a 22-year loan with an interest rate of 3%.
That cost is at least 40% less than US/UK/EU

In Turkey, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $20 billion, or about $4,200/kW, entirely financed by Russia. The plant will be owned and operated by Rosatom

In India, 6 VVER-1000 reactors, each 1,000 MW = 6,000 MW at the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant.

Capital cost about $15 billion. Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 are in operation, units 5 and 6 are being constructed

In Bangladesh: 2 VVER-1200 reactors = 2400 MW at the Rooppur Power Station

Capital cost $12.65 billion is 90% funded by a loan from the Russian government. The two units generating 2400 MW are planned to be operational in 2024 and 2025. Rosatom will operate the units for the first year before handing over to Bangladeshi operators. Russia will supply the nuclear fuel and take back and reprocess spent nuclear fuel.

Rosatom, created in 2007 by combining several Russian companies, usually provides full service during the entire project life, such as training, new fuel bundles, refueling, waste processing and waste storage in Russia, etc., because the various countries likely do not have the required systems and infrastructures

Nuclear: Remember, these nuclear plants reliably produce steady electricity, at reasonable cost/kWh, and have near-zero CO2 emissions

Nuclear do not require counteracting plants. They can be designed to be load-following, as some are in France

Wind: Offshore wind systems produce variable, unreliable power, at very high cost/kWh, and are far from CO2-free, on a mine-to-hazardous landfill basis.
They have lifetime capacity factors, on average, of about 0.40; about 0.45 in very windy places

They last about 20 to 25 years in a salt water environment
They require: 1) a fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the up/down wind outputs, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, 2) major expansion/reinforcement of electric grids to connect the wind systems to load centers, 3) a lot of land and sea area, 4) curtailment payments, i.e., pay owners for what they could have produced

Major Competitors: Rosatom’s direct competitors, according to PRIS data, are three Chinese companies: CNNC, CSPI and CGN.
They are building 22 reactors, but it should be noted, they are being built primarily inside China, and the Chinese partners are building five of them together with Rosatom.

American and European companies are lagging behind Rosatom, by a wide margin,” Alexander Uvarov, a director at the Atom-info Center and editor-in-chief at the atominfo.ru website, told TASS.

Tripling Nuclear A Total Fantasy: During COP28, Kerry called for the world to triple nuclear, from 370,200 MW to 1,110,600 MW, by 2050.

Based on past experience in the US and EU, it takes at least 10 years to commission nuclear plants

Plants with about 39 reactors must be started each year, for 16 years (2024 to 2040), to fill the pipeline, to commission the final ones by 2050, in addition to those already in the pipeline.

New nuclear: Kerry’s nuclear tripling by 2050, would add 11% of world electricity generation in 2050. See table

Nuclear was 9.2% of 2022 generation. That would become about 5% of 2050 generation, if some older plants are shut down, and plants already in the pipeline are placed in operation,

Total nuclear would be 11+ 5 = 16%; minimal impact on CO2 emissions and ppm in 2050.

Infrastructures and Manpower: The building of the new nuclear plants would require a major increase in infrastructures and educating and training of personnel, in addition to the cost of the power plants.

Retail electricity prices are usually highest for residential and commercial consumers because it costs more to distribute electricity to them. Industrial consumers use more electricity and can receive it at higher voltages, so supplying electricity to these customers is more efficient and less expensive. The retail price of electricity to industrial customers is generally close to the wholesale price of electricity.

In 2022, the U.S. annual average retail price of electricity was about 12.49¢ per kilowatthour (kWh).1

The annual average retail electricity prices by major types of utility customers in 2022 were:

Residential, 15.12 ¢/kWh; Commercial, 12.55 ¢/kWh; Industrial, 8.45 ¢/kWh; Transportation, 11.66 ¢/kWh

Electricity prices vary by locality based on the availability of power plants and fuels, local fuel costs, and pricing regulations. In 2022, the annual average retail electricity price for all types of electric utility customers ranged from 39.85¢ per kWh in Hawaii to 8.24¢ per kWh in Wyoming.2.

Prices in Hawaii are high relative to other states mainly because most of its electricity is generated with petroleum fuels that must be imported into the state.

1 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, Table 5.3, February 2023, preliminary data.
2 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, Table 5.6.B, February 2023, preliminary data.

Last updated: June 29, 2023, with data from the Electric Power Monthly, February 2023; data for 2022 are preliminary.

In the US, the cost of electricity to ratepayers ranges from about 8 c/kWh (Wyoming) to 40 c/kWh (Hawaii), for an average of about 12.5 c/kWh.

US ratepayers buy about 4000 billion kWh/y from utilities, costing about $500 BILLION/Y

With a lot of wind/solar/batteries/EVs by 2050, and ratepayers buying 8000 billion kWh/y, because of electrification, the average rate to ratepayers would be about 25 c/kWh,

US ratepayers would pay: two times the kWh x two times the price/kWh = $2,000 BILLION/Y
Electric bills would increase by a factor of 4, if all that scare-mongering renewable nonsense were implemented

NOTE: All numbers are without inflation, i.e., constant 2023 dollars

Life without oil means many products that are made with oil, such as the hundreds listed below, would need to be provided by wind and solar and hydro, which can be done theoretically, but only at enormous cost.

Folks, including Biden's handlers, wanting to get rid of fossil fuels, such as crude oil, better start doing some rethinking.

The above also applies to natural gas, which is much preferred by many industries, such as glass making, and the chemical and drug industries.

If you do not have abundant, low-cost energy, you cannot have modern industrial economies.

Every experienced engineer knows, almost all the parts of wind, solar and battery systems, for electricity generation and storage, from mining materials to manufacturing parts, to installation and commissioning, in addition to the infrastructures that produce materials, parts, specialized ships, etc., are made from the oil derivatives manufactured from raw crude oil.

Existing Nuclear, MW, 2022	370200
Proposed tripling	3
Tripled Nuxlear, MW, 2050	1110600
New Nuclear, MW	740400
MW/reactor	1200
Reactors	617
New Reactors, rounded	620
Reactors/site	2
Sites	310
New nuclear production, MWh, 2050	5841311760
Conversion factor	1000000	%
New nuclear production, TWh, 2050	5841	11
World total production, TWh, 2050	53000

Opportunities and Pitfalls of Solar Energy

Small scale generation for consumers off grid

Appendix

References

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

Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law