Stanford cancels all summer classes - power outages -

[Eurocat]

Could this affect the Pac10 - Big10 "marriage".

I am not turning this political, no more rant board, just wondering if our power grid is barely chugging along now with 40 million residents (source - Wikipedia), how will they possibly keep up when we add 40 million electric cars to that number in a few years which is what are told will happen? I never hear that even mentioned.

Anyway, good luck with summer practice in the dark Cardinal!

Stanford cancels summer classes over power outages experts warn may become more common

Stanford University in California canceled classes after a power outage plunged much of the campus into darkness, with operators still unsure when service will be restored.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Hungry Jack]

Erections have consequences

 

[Pulmocat]

Could this affect the Pac10 - Big10 "marriage".

I am not turning this political, no more rant board, just wondering if our power grid is barely chugging along now with 40 million residents (source - Wikipedia), how will they possibly keep up when we add 40 million electric cars to that number in a few years which is what are told will happen? I never hear that even mentioned.

Anyway, good luck with summer practice in the dark Cardinal!

Stanford cancels summer classes over power outages experts warn may become more common

Stanford University in California canceled classes after a power outage plunged much of the campus into darkness, with operators still unsure when service will be restored.

www.foxnews.com

Right winger here...
The fear of electric cars overwhelming the grid is probably way overblown.

Presumably, a large number of people with them will also have ice cars as well. And a significant number of those will have a power wall and in California rooftop solar...it would be almost a no brainer if you have the upfront cash.

With a virtual power grid the sponsoring 'utility' will pay to suck power from the power wall and distribute it where needed.

With a fully charged ev, they could even suck power from the ev attache to the power wall.

The current virtual grids typically allow you to set how much of your power they can suck out to distribute.

EVs may actually stabilize the grid on the production side.

It is my understanding that the problem at Stanford was on the distribution side, which EVs have nothing to do with

 

[gocatsgo2003]

Right winger here...
The fear of electric cars overwhelming the grid is probably way overblown.

Presumably, a large number of people with them will also have ice cars as well. And a significant number of those will have a power wall and in California rooftop solar...it would be almost a no brainer if you have the upfront cash.

With a virtual power grid the sponsoring 'utility' will pay to suck power from the power wall and distribute it where needed.

With a fully charged ev, they could even suck power from the ev attache to the power wall.

The current virtual grids typically allow you to set how much of your power they can suck out to distribute.

EVs may actually stabilize the grid on the production side.

It is my understanding that the problem at Stanford was on the distribution side, which EVs have nothing to do with

There’s still a TON of work to do in modernizing our transmission grid, particularly in high voltage.

 

[phatcat]

They are having second thoughts about closing Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, but it is probably too late or would require an extended/extensive/expensive outage. Nuclear plants plan their maintenance years in advance, and the closure was announced years ago.

Diablo is slated to close circa 2024 and provides something like 10% of the state's power.

Oops

 

[pawildcat]

There’s still a TON of work to do in modernizing our transmission grid, particularly in high voltage.

The state of the infrastructure as a whole is very worrying and will be super expensive to fix. A water main that broke in an area of Philadelphia and flooded streets a few days ago was installed in the 1890s. In Pa. we have thousands of bridges to maintain, and a court ruled again a PennDOT plan to toll nine major bridges for repairs. For years it's been very convenient politically for politicians to kick this down the road, and now the bills are coming due in a big way.

 

[hdhntr1]

There’s still a TON of work to do in modernizing our transmission grid, particularly in high voltage.

And baseload power

 

[WestCoastWildcat]

Right winger here...
The fear of electric cars overwhelming the grid is probably way overblown.

Presumably, a large number of people with them will also have ice cars as well. And a significant number of those will have a power wall and in California rooftop solar...it would be almost a no brainer if you have the upfront cash.

With a virtual power grid the sponsoring 'utility' will pay to suck power from the power wall and distribute it where needed.

With a fully charged ev, they could even suck power from the ev attache to the power wall.

The current virtual grids typically allow you to set how much of your power they can suck out to distribute.

EVs may actually stabilize the grid on the production side.

It is my understanding that the problem at Stanford was on the distribution side, which EVs have nothing to do with

Not an expert on this but I think a future role for EV’s is that they will serve as potential battery storage banks for the grid.

“Vehicle-to-grid, or V2G, technology is smart charging tech that allows car batteries to give back to the power grid.”

During peak loads those EV’s that are plugged in can provide power back to the grid when needed. It seems the recent EV tech is heading that direction.

 

[NJCat]

Not an expert on this but I think a future role for EV’s is that they will serve as potential battery storage banks for the grid.

“Vehicle-to-grid, or V2G, technology is smart charging tech that allows car batteries to give back to the power grid.”

During peak loads those EV’s that are plugged in can provide power back to the grid when needed. It seems the recent EV tech is heading that direction.

Ford is the leader here. Their new F-150 EV has an inverter that will allow the truck to power a house for 3 to 11 days depending on the load required by the home. I cannot wait to get an EV. My wife's X3 is currently in the shop because of a leaking oil filter gasket which requires some part they don't stock. Engine, drive train and cooling system repairs will be a thing of the past with an EV. People will love these vehicles, once scale kicks in and prices drop. (Today the average cost of a new EV is 25% more ($55,000) than the average sales price for new ICE vehicles ($44,000), per the Wall Street Journal last week.)

And I spent my career developing and selling specialty chemicals for lubricating oils.......which will go the way of the buggy whip.

 

[WestCoastWildcat]

I’m trying to keep my 2006 RAV4 Sport alive until I can figure out what my best options are for my next vehicle. I’m in a condo community without any recharging stations currently available so I have to look at hybrids or rechargeable hybrids like RAV4 Prime. (With a rechargeable hybrid I could access the campus charging stations or stations in commercial areas within walking distance of my condo). I’m also interested in the new Ford Maverick which has hybrid engine option. The EV world is evolving quickly but it’s clear all-EV’s or some hybrids are the future as part of the transition away from internal combustion motors. We clearly have an issue with increasing the recharging infrastructure. I’ve discussed recharging stations in our condo community as a condo board member but so far have not had any “traction” to move forward.

 

[NU Houston]

The state of the infrastructure as a whole is very worrying and will be super expensive to fix. A water main that broke in an area of Philadelphia and flooded streets a few days ago was installed in the 1890s. In Pa. we have thousands of bridges to maintain, and a court ruled again a PennDOT plan to toll nine major bridges for repairs. For years it's been very convenient politically for politicians to kick this down the road, and now the bills are coming due in a big way.

Didn't the federal government recently pass a trillion plus dollar infrastructure bill? I know it's easy to blame the politicians for inaction, but they got that one mostly right. Now they need to raise the gas tax to raise additional funds for infrastructure spending....

 

[hdhntr1]

Could this affect the Pac10 - Big10 "marriage".

I am not turning this political, no more rant board, just wondering if our power grid is barely chugging along now with 40 million residents (source - Wikipedia), how will they possibly keep up when we add 40 million electric cars to that number in a few years which is what are told will happen? I never hear that even mentioned.

Anyway, good luck with summer practice in the dark Cardinal!

Stanford cancels summer classes over power outages experts warn may become more common

Stanford University in California canceled classes after a power outage plunged much of the campus into darkness, with operators still unsure when service will be restored.

www.foxnews.com

The reality is that electric cars cause a lot of CO2 production between their manufacture and charging. So much so that electric vehicles with 125 mile range don't even break even with an ICE vehicle till about 90K miles driven and vehicles with 400 mile range may never break even (considering a 180k miles lifespan). This changes some if renewables are used to charge them but at this point that is pretty difficult. Going to all electric would require at least 30% more electricity to be generated and likely even more in CA. And while the dream of using rooftop solar to charge cars can work on individual basis, overall, it is not really workable.

California is probably better suited for renewable generation than any where else in the country (more sun, lack of freezing weather and more uniform usage plus a lot of hydro that most areas of the country don't have access to). But even then you cannot go too far without causing problems and CA is at (or some would say beyond) that limit. California's grid problems have a lot to do with too much reliance on intermittent (solar, wind) renewables. And they will get worse with the combination pushes to electric cars and even more reliance on intermittent renewables.

An obvious solution would be to add more nuclear but that is an extremely long and slow process (probably now takes 15 years or more) and there are not any new plants being built or even planned and a number of plants are facing retirement. There is also a lot of opposition to these plants, often by the same people that are against fossil generation. Someone here pointed out Diablo Canyon and it is slated for retirement. Could they extend the life? Maybe for a few years but it will be costly and its extended life would be measured in years, not decades. And as Germany has shown, the more renewables they add, the more CO2 they produce if Nuclear is removed from the equation

Reality is that for many a hybrid would be a better option

 

[hdhntr1]

I’m trying to keep my 2006 RAV4 Sport alive until I can figure out what my best options are for my next vehicle. I’m in a condo community without any recharging stations currently available so I have to look at hybrids or rechargeable hybrids like RAV4 Prime. (With a rechargeable hybrid I could access the campus charging stations or stations in commercial areas within walking distance of my condo). I’m also interested in the new Ford Maverick which has hybrid engine option. The EV world is evolving quickly but it’s clear all-EV’s or some hybrids are the future as part of the transition away from internal combustion motors. We clearly have an issue with increasing the recharging infrastructure. I’ve discussed recharging stations in our condo community as a condo board member but so far have not had any “traction” to move forward.

My guess is that for you a Hybrid would be a better option than all electric

 

[ColumbusCatFan1]

The reality is that electric cars cause a lot of CO2 production between their manufacture and charging. So much so that electric vehicles with 125 mile range don't even break even with an ICE vehicle till about 90K miles driven and vehicles with 400 mile range may never break even (considering a 180k miles lifespan). This changes some if renewables are used to charge them but at this point that is pretty difficult. Going to all electric would require at least 30% more electricity to be generated and likely even more in CA. And while the dream of using rooftop solar to charge cars can work on individual basis, overall, it is not really workable.

California is probably better suited for renewable generation than any where else in the country (more sun, lack of freezing weather and more uniform usage plus a lot of hydro that most areas of the country don't have access to). But even then you cannot go too far without causing problems and CA is at (or some would say beyond) that limit. California's grid problems have a lot to do with too much reliance on intermittent (solar, wind) renewables. And they will get worse with the combination pushes to electric cars and even more reliance on intermittent renewables.

An obvious solution would be to add more nuclear but that is an extremely long and slow process (probably now takes 15 years or more) and there are not any new plants being built or even planned and a number of plants are facing retirement. There is also a lot of opposition to these plants, often by the same people that are against fossil generation. Someone here pointed out Diablo Canyon and it is slated for retirement. Could they extend the life? Maybe for a few years but it will be costly and its extended life would be measured in years, not decades. And as Germany has shown, the more renewables they add, the more CO2 they produce if Nuclear is removed from the equation

Reality is that for many a hybrid would be a better option

I don’t believe this is quite right, regarding Germany. The issue is with the fossil plants not wind/solar/hydro.

It was my understanding that Germany dropped their emissions to nearly 30% of pre-1990 levels by mid portion of last decade. The problem they have started to run into is that as renewables take a larger role, fossil plants are unable to ramp down fast enough on sunny/windy days which led to excessive supply (thus producing more CO2 than necessary) and prices going negative.

Storage would seemingly be the larger issue here, but I am definitely a proponent of modern nuclear power to ease the transition. That technology is much safer now that in the mid 20th century.

 

[Alaskawildkat]

Will this help our recruiting now that Stanford is no longer a Power School?

https://www.foxnews.com/us/stanford...outages-experts-warn-could-become-more-common

 

[WestCoastWildcat]

My guess is that for you a Hybrid would be a better option than all electric

Yes I agree. All EV is not an option because I’m in a condo community w/o recharging infrastructure. Options are ICE, hybrid and rechargeable hybrid. In retirement I’m not driving much (10-12k/yr). I am ok just getting another ICE vehicle like a RAV4 or smaller. The Ford Maverick is interesting because it has a standard hybrid engine and supposedly “doesn’t drive like a truck”. I am driving alone most of the time so could downsize from a RAV4 but I also like the ride height and visibility of a small SUV like the RAV4. Dealers have nothing in stock to test drive so that’s been a barrier. Waiting for the 2023 models to appear and hoping the supply train issues start to clear up.

 

[WestCoastWildcat]

The reality is that electric cars cause a lot of CO2 production between their manufacture and charging. So much so that electric vehicles with 125 mile range don't even break even with an ICE vehicle till about 90K miles driven and vehicles with 400 mile range may never break even (considering a 180k miles lifespan). This changes some if renewables are used to charge them but at this point that is pretty difficult. Going to all electric would require at least 30% more electricity to be generated and likely even more in CA. And while the dream of using rooftop solar to charge cars can work on individual basis, overall, it is not really workable.

California is probably better suited for renewable generation than any where else in the country (more sun, lack of freezing weather and more uniform usage plus a lot of hydro that most areas of the country don't have access to). But even then you cannot go too far without causing problems and CA is at (or some would say beyond) that limit. California's grid problems have a lot to do with too much reliance on intermittent (solar, wind) renewables. And they will get worse with the combination pushes to electric cars and even more reliance on intermittent renewables.

An obvious solution would be to add more nuclear but that is an extremely long and slow process (probably now takes 15 years or more) and there are not any new plants being built or even planned and a number of plants are facing retirement. There is also a lot of opposition to these plants, often by the same people that are against fossil generation. Someone here pointed out Diablo Canyon and it is slated for retirement. Could they extend the life? Maybe for a few years but it will be costly and its extended life would be measured in years, not decades. And as Germany has shown, the more renewables they add, the more CO2 they produce if Nuclear is removed from the equation

Reality is that for many a hybrid would be a better option

I think nuclear has to be considered as part our base power to deal with variations of power generated by wind and sun. Officials are looking at extending the life of Diablo Canyon reactor but that would be only of limited help. We have some companies here in San Diego working on nuclear fusion reactors. They are close to having a small demo plant designed. San Onofre power plant was shut down and officials are struggling with dismantling it and dealing with nuclear waste. The French seemed to have the most advanced nuclear systems.

 

[Hungry Jack]

Didn't the federal government recently pass a trillion plus dollar infrastructure bill? I know it's easy to blame the politicians for inaction, but they got that one mostly right. Now they need to raise the gas tax to raise additional funds for infrastructure spending....

Better yet, enact a carbon tax and end all that caterwauling about global warming policy

 

[NJCat]

Better yet, enact a carbon tax and end all that caterwauling about global warming policy

I think Putin has already enacted a carbon tax.....

[ducks]

 

[docrugby1]

Better yet, enact a carbon tax and end all that caterwauling about global warming policy

I am not sure the infrastructure bill really addressed the "hard structure" problems adequately

 

[Hungry Jack]

I think Putin has already enacted a carbon tax.....

[ducks]

Fake news.

 

[ColumbusCatFan1]

Will this help our recruiting now that Stanford is no longer a Power School?

Absolutely outstanding. Tying it all back together in a single sentence.

Well done, Alaska!

 

[loyolacat]

We could have resolved this starting in the 70's when the first gas shortage brought some consciousness that fossil fuels are finite, at the time we the USA were so far ahead of the world technologically that if we had committed ourselves to changing at that point away from fossil fuels I wonder where we would be, but it is my opinion that the ugly spots in our political system, the power of lobbyists , political campaign laws, our moral character which worships greed and the absolute power of large corporations have left us where we are. I remember reading a book (its a thing made out of paper,,,has information in it.) called Jenny GOvernmetn where everyones last name was the company they worked for. Seems we want what we want , despite the facts or the science that could fix the problem.

 

[TheC]

We could have resolved this starting in the 70's when the first gas shortage brought some consciousness that fossil fuels are finite, at the time we the USA were so far ahead of the world technologically that if we had committed ourselves to changing at that point away from fossil fuels I wonder where we would be, but it is my opinion that the ugly spots in our political system, the power of lobbyists , political campaign laws, our moral character which worships greed and the absolute power of large corporations have left us where we are. I remember reading a book (its a thing made out of paper,,,has information in it.) called Jenny GOvernmetn where everyones last name was the company they worked for. Seems we want what we want , despite the facts or the science that could fix the problem.

Not to make excuses, but I think it's likely biological. We have a very strong instinct, like all creatures, for immediate survival. Humans, however, have evolved ever so slightly to be able to think ahead and plan, but this often times puts our brains in conflict with the strong immediate survival instinct. Hopefully, our other strong instinct to protect our young will kick in soon allowing us to more seriously address this problem - or else our kids and grandkids are screwed. I don't even want to think about a world 50 years from now if we don't pick up the pace on this problem soon.

 

[hdhntr1]

I don’t believe this is quite right, regarding Germany. The issue is with the fossil plants not wind/solar/hydro.

It was my understanding that Germany dropped their emissions to nearly 30% of pre-1990 levels by mid portion of last decade. The problem they have started to run into is that as renewables take a larger role, fossil plants are unable to ramp down fast enough on sunny/windy days which led to excessive supply (thus producing more CO2 than necessary) and prices going negative.

Storage would seemingly be the larger issue here, but I am definitely a proponent of modern nuclear power to ease the transition. That technology is much safer now that in the mid 20th century.

Most of that drop was because of the closing a large number of very inefficient coal plants in East Germany after reunification. But between 2009-2016, their CO2 emissions actually increased even as they were adding more solar and wind generation. This was made worse as they shut down their nuclear program.

Lion Hirth also did research showing that the economic value of additional solar and wind declined dramatically as more was added. For example, by the time solar represented 15% of power generation each additional unit had less than 50% of the value of original units. The value of additional wind units declined by 40% by the time it reaches its threshold and every additional unit is worth less. This is why an energy mix is needed,

https://neon.energy/Hirth-2013-Market-Value-Renewables-Solar-Wind-Power-Variability-Price.pdf

https://www.mcc-berlin.net/fileadmin/data/pdf/Publikationen/Lion-Hirth-2015-Optimal-Share-Variable-Renewables-Wind-Solar-Power-Welfare.pdf

Yes these are older papers but the economics should be similar until storage becomes a much bigger part of the picture

5 years ago, Germany was producing 46% of their electricity from green sources pushing wind and solar while France was producing 93% of their electricity from non CO2 sources of hydro and nuclear. Hydro needs sites that can support it. Nuclear is really the most logical way out

 

[hdhntr1]

We could have resolved this starting in the 70's when the first gas shortage brought some consciousness that fossil fuels are finite, at the time we the USA were so far ahead of the world technologically that if we had committed ourselves to changing at that point away from fossil fuels I wonder where we would be, but it is my opinion that the ugly spots in our political system, the power of lobbyists , political campaign laws, our moral character which worships greed and the absolute power of large corporations have left us where we are. I remember reading a book (its a thing made out of paper,,,has information in it.) called Jenny GOvernmetn where everyones last name was the company they worked for. Seems we want what we want , despite the facts or the science that could fix the problem.

At that time we looked at coal as our salvation, not the enemy. We had a 500 year plus supply. What was deemed as finite was oil and gas. Conversion of coal to liquid and gas were seen as a solution for transportation. I worked in coal technology development and studied liquifaction and worked on projects in gasification and fluidized bed combustion. There was a big push for nuclear and I worked in an operating plant and one under construction. ComEd was constructing 6 units at that time and even had more in the planning stage. Then came Three Mile Island and the cost and time to construct a nuclear plant went through the roof basically tripling the cost and doubling the time. Those 6 units were completed but no other plants were started. While many the plants under construction were completed, TMI pretty much curtailed further Nuclear development in the US. There was also a push for cogeneration and combined heat and power and I also worked in such a plant in about 1990.

 

[ricko654321]

Right winger here...
The fear of electric cars overwhelming the grid is probably way overblown.

Presumably, a large number of people with them will also have ice cars as well. And a significant number of those will have a power wall and in California rooftop solar...it would be almost a no brainer if you have the upfront cash.

With a virtual power grid the sponsoring 'utility' will pay to suck power from the power wall and distribute it where needed.

With a fully charged ev, they could even suck power from the ev attache to the power wall.

The current virtual grids typically allow you to set how much of your power they can suck out to distribute.

EVs may actually stabilize the grid on the production side.

It is my understanding that the problem at Stanford was on the distribution side, which EVs have nothing to do with

The bigger concern for EVs and to an extent solar is the limited amount of rare earth metals available, which are needed for production of those to get to the scale where it can take a meaningful portion of the car market and of the US power market. There are some rare earths in the US, but currently most of the world's production comes from China and south / east Africa - from conditions which are decidedly not ESG friendly, or tolerable for workers by most Western standards. So EVs can reduce emissions on the back end, but the mining process necessary to create the batteries is pretty terrible for the environment, and also the quantity necessary to scale it up to meet the needs of a large-scale energy transition for the economy over multiple is not there as of yet. I think that's much more of a pressing issue than the stability of the US power grid as more EVs come online, that should be fairly manageable (or at least the growth of the EV market is far from the only destabilizing issue with the US power grid, challenges exist aside from that).

 

[ColumbusCatFan1]

Most of that drop was because of the closing a large number of very inefficient coal plants in East Germany after reunification. But between 2009-2016, their CO2 emissions actually increased even as they were adding more solar and wind generation. This was made worse as they shut down their nuclear program.

Lion Hirth also did research showing that the economic value of additional solar and wind declined dramatically as more was added. For example, by the time solar represented 15% of power generation each additional unit had less than 50% of the value of original units. The value of additional wind units declined by 40% by the time it reaches its threshold and every additional unit is worth less. This is why an energy mix is needed,

https://neon.energy/Hirth-2013-Market-Value-Renewables-Solar-Wind-Power-Variability-Price.pdf

https://www.mcc-berlin.net/fileadmin/data/pdf/Publikationen/Lion-Hirth-2015-Optimal-Share-Variable-Renewables-Wind-Solar-Power-Welfare.pdf

Yes these are older papers but the economics should be similar until storage becomes a much bigger part of the picture

5 years ago, Germany was producing 46% of their electricity from green sources pushing wind and solar while France was producing 93% of their electricity from non CO2 sources of hydro and nuclear. Hydro needs sites that can support it. Nuclear is really the most logical way out

Definitely some good stuff here, Hdhntr.
Was particularly interested in the East Germany Soviet power plant stuff you mentioned. Thanks for sharing.

As you pointed out the market viability paper regarding non fossils/nuclear is dated relative to the current environment. If prices at the pump stay high enough (they are starting to drop), more and more people with means should theoretically switch to EVs which in turn should help spur a larger market investment in charging infrastructure as well as shine a light on the need for more effiecient storage of energy/electricity. As Ricko pointed out in later post this will help on the back end, but there are still several issues.

Ricko also made a great point regarding the finite nature/extraction of rare earth materials. Without rehashing, it is an issue we are already starting to bump into, regardless of the somewhat temporary issues related to EV supply chains that are more often covered in the media.

All that to say, I’m (and it seems like many around here) in favor of a renewed push toward nuclear power. A transition to more sustainable energy demands an intermediary step and advances in nuclear technology make it the only viable candidate in the short to medium run. We need to buy more time to properly scale up the alternatives.

One last item. While CO2 emissions are certainly problematic (and an issue that many generations will grapple with), they don’t present the largest threat to 2022. Methane creates more drastic short term problems as the gas drives sharper rises in temperature. That, however, is whole other can of worms.

 

[NJCat]

All that to say, I’m (and it seems like many around here) in favor of a renewed push toward nuclear power. A transition to more sustainable energy demands an intermediary step and advances in nuclear technology make it the only viable candidate in the short to medium run. We need to buy more time to properly scale up the alternatives.

One last item. While CO2 emissions are certainly problematic, they don’t present the largest threat in the near term. Methane creates more drastic short term problems as the gas creates sharper rises in temperatures. That, however, is whole other can of worms.

There is a good article about nuclear power in the current issue of The Economist. Nuclear still beset by design issues, construction delays and cost overruns. China and Russia seem to be the only places where nuclear plants have been erected in the last decade.

Methane is an extremely potent greenhouse gas, as you point out. Fortunately, its lifetime in the atmosphere is also much, much shorter than CO2, about 12 years compared to "forever" for CO2.

 

[ColumbusCatFan1]

Exactly, which means the world will need to be able focus on the immediacy of methane while still being working toward CO2 reduction at the same time.

I’d like to think we can focus on both tasks, but I’m not sure the world can even come to together against methane like they did with CFCs in the 80s, let alone CO2. I certainly can’t see a way without nuclear being a large part of the solution, even after taking into account some of the construction barriers that you have pointed out.

 

[FeralFelidae]

Not to make excuses, but I think it's likely biological. We have a very strong instinct, like all creatures, for immediate survival. Humans, however, have evolved ever so slightly to be able to think ahead and plan, but this often times puts our brains in conflict with the strong immediate survival instinct. Hopefully, our other strong instinct to protect our young will kick in soon allowing us to more seriously address this problem - or else our kids and grandkids are screwed. I don't even want to think about a world 50 years from now if we don't pick up the pace on this problem soon.

You guys talk like billions upon billions haven't already been invested in green technologies. They've been holding solar car races since the '80s (these were a big topic of discussion in my elementary school science classes) and yet the highest achieved speed is just over 55 mph for a non-passenger vehicle.

Strides have been made with EVs but we still have to generate the power to charge them. Nuclear power needs to be part of the conversation.

 

[hdhntr1]

The bigger concern for EVs and to an extent solar is the limited amount of rare earth metals available, which are needed for production of those to get to the scale where it can take a meaningful portion of the car market and of the US power market. There are some rare earths in the US, but currently most of the world's production comes from China and south / east Africa - from conditions which are decidedly not ESG friendly, or tolerable for workers by most Western standards. So EVs can reduce emissions on the back end, but the mining process necessary to create the batteries is pretty terrible for the environment, and also the quantity necessary to scale it up to meet the needs of a large-scale energy transition for the economy over multiple is not there as of yet. I think that's much more of a pressing issue than the stability of the US power grid as more EVs come online, that should be fairly manageable (or at least the growth of the EV market is far from the only destabilizing issue with the US power grid, challenges exist aside from that).

Fon't forget Afghanistan. That country had a That we basically just turned over to the Chinese. There is also the issue of wast production A lot of waste is produced in making solar panels. They have a 20-25 year life and there are no plans for recycling when they are scrapped It is an environmental nightmare

Definitely some good stuff here, Hdhntr.
Was particularly interested in the East Germany Soviet power plant stuff you mentioned. Thanks for sharing.

As you pointed out the market viability paper regarding non fossils/nuclear is dated relative to the current environment. If prices at the pump stay high enough (they are starting to drop), more and more people with means should theoretically switch to EVs which in turn should help spur a larger market investment in charging infrastructure as well as shine a light on the need for more effiecient storage of energy/electricity. As Ricko pointed out in later post this will help on the back end, but there are still several issues.

Ricko also made point regarding the supply/extraction of rare earth materials. Without rehashing, it is an issue we are already starting to bump into, regardless of the somewhat temporary issues related to EV supply chains that are more often covered in the media.

All that to say, I’m (and it seems like many around here) in favor of a renewed push toward nuclear power. A transition to more sustainable energy demands an intermediary step and advances in nuclear technology make it the only viable candidate in the short to medium run. We need to buy more time to properly scale up the alternatives.

One last item. While CO2 emissions are certainly problematic (and an issue that many generations will grapple with), they don’t present the largest threat to 2022. Methane creates more drastic short term problems as the gas drives sharper rises in temperature. That, however, is whole other can of worms.

The reason the paper while old is relevant was it was dealing with the value of the additional generation Not costs. Without storage, the benefit of additional generation still declines the more that is added at a similar rate. And additional storage would benefit nuclear as well. Just saying that the renewable energy sector is not the be all end all answer people push it as. Germany is finding that out. In Germany's defense, they really don't have much of anything as far as indigenous sources of energy so I can understand why they are taking some of the approach that they are. But their abandoning nuclear would appear to be a huge, and very costly mistake. Their cost of electricity is something like 3-5 times the cost it is here (and double that of France which actually produces a lot more of their electricity from non CO2 sources but have a robust nuclear program)

While renewables such as solar or wind can be a valuable part of the mix, their value is as part of the mix. And we really haven't even considered the environmental aspects of waste. The economics suggest that anything over say 20% solar AND wind is probably asking for problems

 

[hdhntr1]

There is a good article about nuclear power in the current issue of The Economist. Nuclear still beset by design issues, construction delays and cost overruns. China and Russia seem to be the only places where nuclear plants have been erected in the last decade.

Methane is an extremely potent greenhouse gas, as you point out. Fortunately, its lifetime in the atmosphere is also much, much shorter than CO2, about 12 years compared to "forever" for CO2.

Most of these issues are bureaucracies involved. In the US, the last two units to go online were Watts Bar 1 & 2. #1 went online in 1996 and #2 in 2016. Vogle 3 and 4 are under construction.

 

[Gladeskat]

One interesting source of rare earth metals is the waste generated by the coal and coal-fired power industry. Acid mine drainage and fly ash are a good source of rare earth elements.

Those who are against nuclear power are, in effect against maintaining our industrial capability in reducing carbon emissions. There's no other way to provide cheap, plentiful, C-free electricity for industrial needs than nukes and hydropower until we make major breakthroughs in energy storage.

NG may be cleaner than coal, but it all turns to CO2 when combusted. In an ideal transition that minimizes ACC-related damage, NG is way past being useful as a bridge to C-free power. Thirty years ago, maybe, but that's the time the FF industry ramped up their FF disinformation campaigns that have successfully shut down this conversion. To be fair, if misinformation was a crime, Al Gore & other alarmists should be in prison.

We'll still have to go to NG anyway.

I've always pushed reducing population size, including maintaining abortion rights as part of the solution but that's viewed as Nazi-esque by many. People whine about the crime caused by illegals without ever considering the fate of unwanted children in foster care. Look on the bright side - maybe the psychopaths produced by foster care neglect can reduce population growth with their 2nd amendment rights.

 

[TheC]

One interesting source of rare earth metals is the waste generated by the coal and coal-fired power industry. Acid mine drainage and fly ash are a good source of rare earth elements.

Those who are against nuclear power are, in effect against maintaining our industrial capability in reducing carbon emissions. There's no other way to provide cheap, plentiful, C-free electricity for industrial needs than nukes and hydropower until we make major breakthroughs in energy storage.

NG may be cleaner than coal, but it all turns to CO2 when combusted. In an ideal transition that minimizes ACC-related damage, NG is way past being useful as a bridge to C-free power. Thirty years ago, maybe, but that's the time the FF industry ramped up their FF disinformation campaigns that have successfully shut down this conversion. To be fair, if misinformation was a crime, Al Gore & other alarmists should be in prison.

We'll still have to go to NG anyway.

I've always pushed reducing population size, including maintaining abortion rights as part of the solution but that's viewed as Nazi-esque by many. People whine about the crime caused by illegals without ever considering the fate of unwanted children in foster care. Look on the bright side - maybe the psychopaths produced by foster care neglect can reduce population growth with their 2nd amendment rights.

Throw in a transgender athlete using the bathroom and this post hit every hot button topic out there!

 

[hdhntr1]

Throw in a transgender athlete using the bathroom and this post hit every hot button topic out there!

You just added it. We are complete

 

[TheC]

You just added it. We are complete

I am glad to see a thoughtful thread discussing the issues around our energy futures. At least, it seems like we're all in the same place where we acknowledge there is a problem. I would much rather there be discussion and debate about the best strategies to go forward. As a father and maybe someday a grandfather, this is one issue that freaks me out like no other as I hate thinking about the planet these next generations are inheriting.

 

[Gladeskat]

Throw in a transgender athlete using the bathroom and this post hit every hot button topic out there!

Touchdown! Go for two?

 

[StreamCat]

We could have resolved this starting in the 70's when the first gas shortage brought some consciousness that fossil fuels are finite, at the time we the USA were so far ahead of the world technologically that if we had committed ourselves to changing at that point away from fossil fuels I wonder where we would be, but it is my opinion that the ugly spots in our political system, the power of lobbyists , political campaign laws, our moral character which worships greed and the absolute power of large corporations have left us where we are. I remember reading a book (its a thing made out of paper,,,has information in it.) called Jenny GOvernmetn where everyones last name was the company they worked for. Seems we want what we want , despite the facts or the science that could fix the problem.

Blah, blah, blah. Only Americans are greedy. Blah, blah, blah. Only in American do the powerful hold sway over others. Blah, blah, blah. Only Americans are self-centered. Blah, blah, blah.

Here is some big news for you. It’s called the human condition. Wherever humanity leads, vice follows.

 

[ColumbusCatFan1]

Fon't forget Afghanistan. That country had a That we basically just turned over to the Chinese. There is also the issue of wast production A lot of waste is produced in making solar panels. They have a 20-25 year life and there are no plans for recycling when they are scrapped It is an environmental nightmare

The reason the paper while old is relevant was it was dealing with the value of the additional generation Not costs. Without storage, the benefit of additional generation still declines the more that is added at a similar rate. And additional storage would benefit nuclear as well. Just saying that the renewable energy sector is not the be all end all answer people push it as. Germany is finding that out. In Germany's defense, they really don't have much of anything as far as indigenous sources of energy so I can understand why they are taking some of the approach that they are. But their abandoning nuclear would appear to be a huge, and very costly mistake. Their cost of electricity is something like 3-5 times the cost it is here (and double that of France which actually produces a lot more of their electricity from non CO2 sources but have a robust nuclear program)

While renewables such as solar or wind can be a valuable part of the mix, their value is as part of the mix. And we really haven't even considered the environmental aspects of waste. The economics suggest that anything over say 20% solar AND wind is probably asking for problems

Yeah, I think we’re basically on the same page.

The crux of the issue being that fossil fuel plants can’t ramp down fast enough during times of plentiful renewable power with the excess capacity being wasted/adding unnecessary CO2.

Like you mentioned, future has to be a blend of renewables and nuclear until higher efficiency/lower waste is achieved. Fusion would be the holy grail and could potentially create the “too cheap to meter” scenario (with minimal radioactive waste to boot) that was proposed in the 1950s, but humans have been working at that for over 75 years and nobody knows how far off it is. For all we know, it may never be feasible in terms of input/output.