Huge Milestone: Renewables Now Provide More Electricity Than Nuclear Power

Fiddling while the world burns.

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9140us2a.htm

Notice in the charts posted on my link above that natural gas use is increasing in the U.S.A.. It's also increasing worldwide. This is not a good thing.

Natural gas is the preferred fuel when the wind is not blowing, the sun is not shining, and the rain is not falling.

Thanks to technology like fracking, LNG, and deep sea extraction there's plenty enough inexpensive gas available to destroy this civilization and what's left of earth's natural environment. The largest industrial projects in the world today are gas extraction schemes.

The story you posted is not good news. Nuclear power is not going to end us, even with a few more Fukushima scale accidents. Gas will be the end of us.

NNadir writes here (most recently in the science forum) that solar and wind are a fig leaf for the gas industry, and I agree with that. California's Pacific Gas and Electric explicitly states that wind and solar are the reason they've built new, nimble gas power plants.



"The Wärtsilä reciprocating engine technology is ideal for providing a reliable backup to intermittent renewable resources, such as wind power resources, which are currently being developed in the region. The HBGS normally runs on natural gas, with ultra-low sulfur diesel as its backup fuel."

Until we deal with our fossil fuel problem, anti-nuclear activism and renewable energy boosterism are not going to save the world.

So now there are two of you? Sheesh, give me a break. Just because I post an article saying something good about renewables does not mean I am against the other thing. If Canada won big in the Olympics and I thought that was great that doesn't mean I am against the USA.

Fracked natural gas sucks as bad as coal. Gas consumption world wide is increasing. That's a raw fact. It stings. Why would anyone celebrate that?

Solar and wind are supplemental power sources and there is no evidence yet they can be anything else.

In any case, I'm some kind of misanthropist, amateur environmental/evolutionary biologist with some formal post-graduate training, and a neo-Luddite.

This high energy industrial society affluent people now enjoy will die because it is not sustainable. A nuclear power techno-optimist's utopia like NNadir's, or a wind and solar power optimist's utopia would LOOK NOTHING LIKE today's fossil fueled affluent society.

I'll occasionally post things related to my own vision for the future, a soft crash landing, but they rarely gain any traction.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1127111015

Hell, I can't even convince my wife that a refrigerator is not a necessity... even though I've lived without one as a kid and young adult.

And don't even get me started about our automobile culture. I was sort of hoping it would be dead by now, but that peak oil thing didn't pan out, partly because our refinery industry learned to convert crappy heavy dirty petroleum resources to lightweight fuels, at the cost of increased carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.

Do the math. It ain't pretty.

Because you said this "anti-nuclear activism and renewable energy boosterism are not going to save the world. " Nothing in my post was anti nuclear.
Thanks.

Natural gas is the preferred backup power source when the sun is not shining (which is most of the time), the wind is not blowing (which is most of the time) and the rain is not falling.

Ask Venezuela about the rain not falling... Most of their electrical generating capacity is hydro and when the rain didn't fall it further contributed to the destabilization of their entire economy, largely because they didn't have the political wherewithal and connections to quickly install fossil fuel plants, which are pretty much turn-key these days. (Write the check, hard currency please, and international corporations will quickly deliver a fossil fuel plant any size you like.) In Venezuela's case nobody was going to invest in fossil fuel plants when it wasn't clear they'd get paid.

Anyways, these days, solar and wind only further INCREASE dependence on nimble natural gas power stations and this is something WORSE than nuclear power. It's not something to be cheered.

And yes, there are things worse than nuclear power. Fossil fuels are one of those things. Fossil fuel use is increasing worldwide. Greenhouse gasses are increasing. The death toll and relocation costs of accidents like Chernobyl (about as bad as it gets) are small compared to the horrors of climate change. Refugee problems and environmental problems that are bad now are about to get a whole lot worse. That's fossil fuels doing that.

you fail to address this "anti-nuclear activism and renewable energy boosterism are not going to save the world. " Nothing in my post was anti nuclear. "
Please do so.

I think it's a worrisome milestone.

Nimble gas plants combined with solar and wind power are not going to save us.

I'm not one of those people who thinks gas will be a swell "bridge" fuel to the future, or who celebrates whenever wind generated electricity has a below cost or even a negative pay-to-take-it value.

Can you? You have ascribed a position I have not taken and just cant take it back. Why?

In the body we find, “… Electrical output by renewables during the first third of 2017 compared to the same period in 2016 has increased by 12.1 percent whereas nuclear output has dropped by 2.9 percent. In fact, nuclear capacity has declined over the last four years, a trend which is projected to continue, regardless of planned new reactor startups.”

This also appears to imply that declining nuclear capacity is a good thing™.

Imply. In an article that is about renewable producing more electricity than nuclear I fail to see how they could report otherwise. As I have said, an article saying that Canada got more gold medals than the USA in the Olympics it doesn't mean they are against the USA, just reporting the facts.

The article contains a link to another EcoWatch item:
Nuclear Giants Limp Towards Extinction http://ow.ly/gskd30aS1EH @StopNukePower @Nuclear_Matters

that had a link about the neanderthals becoming extinct that means I am against neanderthals? Or switch that with with white rhinos? Does the data show nuclear is in a downfall? Then it is the truth and not an opinion or a viewpoint. And I'm not a lady. Okedokey?

I generally assume that a posting includes the entire article.

As for you not being a lady, my subject line is a quote from Shakespeare.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_lady_doth_protest_too_much,_methinks

...how do we stop the worldwide expansion of the fossil fuel industry, including "natural" (great marketing term) gas?

A few nuclear enthusiasts have one answer (although their nuclear utopia would look nothing like the fossil fueled affluence many now enjoy) and a few people like me have another answer (enjoy your dry and fermented foods, don't commute in fossil fueled vehicles, and only change your socks and underwear daily...)

What's your utopia?

you to address something first. Do that and I will answer your question.

In comparison to fossil fuels, yes I am. "Natural" gas, fracked gas especially is as bad as coal.

The most important environmental issue in the world today is sex education and birth control. Both are good. Empowerment of women, tops. Religions against that, dangerous.

Anti nuclear activism? Not even on my radar anymore, even though I used to be hard core, tales much too ticklish to tell, people I've seen naked and stuff.

I used to be a very busy person between San Onofre and Humboldt Bay. Burned up much more than my fair share of fossil fuel in my little cars, took temp jobs in deceit, and went digging in too many dumpsters in my quest to prove it evil.

What I learned? There's far worse than nuclear power in this world.

you fail to address this "anti-nuclear activism and renewable energy boosterism are not going to save the world. " Nothing in my post was anti nuclear. "
Please do so.
Why you cant do so is beyond me,,,,

Me myself, much formal training in environmental biology, I'm fascinated by nuclear accidents. Instant human exclusion zones.

Maybe we humans ought to be prideful, a species worse than nuclear fallout, accidents, and waste.

Wont address what I asked then decides to define me.

Tell us how you really feel about nuclear power...

...or "natural" gas. (Scare quotes 'cause that gas ain't natural.)

I've made my own position clear.

"Green" fog will not impress me. I'm hard core green, some kind of Luddite, have done the math, have the bad ass academic credentials... unlike Jill Stein and most innumerate Greens here in the U.S.A. or in Europe.

Nope, you are not on my gas shill or Fuck for Forest ignore list yet.

Your move.

My move,,,,,,,
Well, there is only a set amount of natural gas, so we will run out one day. It also can be very polluting, and that is not a good thing at all. For Nuclear power, I think its pretty cool, except for the problems with radioactive waste that lasts a long long time and being cost prohibitive for the most part lately building new plants. Fusion power seems really great, but that might come with its own pitfalls also and we are just not there yet. As for renewables, I think they are a good idea. We should be careful we dont create another toxic problem like Nadir has been talking about and we should address those problems head on. We also have a long way to go before they make enough of a dent to keep fossil fuels in the ground where they belong, but there are some positive signs for them. I don't "feel" anything about any of the sources of electricity we have. I "think", I use "reason" and "evidence",,,,,,, these are problems to solve in a scientific manner and these are very large problems we must face and soon. Another thing I try really, really, really, really hard not to do (though I fail sometimes but not often) is to not strawman someone like you have done to me since the very beginning of this conversation. I, unlike some people, do not put people on my ignore list, I just dont roll like that. If you want to put me on your "Fuck for Forest" or "gas shill" ignore list then by all means buddy. Now that that is done, would you please address the "Until we deal with our fossil fuel problem, anti-nuclear activism and renewable energy boosterism are not going to save the world." Please. That is the strawman you have been pushing on me since the beginning and it was and is wrong.
peace out,
Eko.
ps. Your move.

A civilization and planetary ecosystem brought down by fossil fuels, a mass extinction event that's happening NOW, that's a very peculiar layer in the geologic record we're building. I'd love to be reincarnated as a paleontologist working on earth a million years from now. Seems I chose this place instead, shit falling out of the sky, an important chaotic inflection point in human history.

"Fusion power seems really great..."

Successful fusion power is one of my nightmares. With the power of cheap fusion we humans would probably eat the entire planet, possibly the entire solar system, turning it into a single throbbing mass of human flesh.

One thing that scares me about nuclear power is that it works. With great power comes great responsibility. Talented engineers in India and China, the two heavyweight nations on this planet, are making nuclear power work. Fission power has it's complications and limitations, and these limitations are good. Friction is one of those things that keeps everything from happening at once.

Clean cheap fusion power would be a catastrophe. I don't want Borg earth.

Tell me how your renewable energy utopia works. Show me the math.

The math I've done tells me that a renewable energy utopia, or a nuclear powered utopia, looks nothing like the fossil fueled world many of the world's most affluent people (myself included) now enjoy.

Once again. I never said anything about a "renewable energy utopia". If you would like to continue this conversation please retract both of those strawmen.
Thanks,
Eko.

If you would like to continue this conversation please retract both of those strawmen.
Thanks,
Eko.

Don't get stuck on strawmen.

use them.

address your obvious strawman before you asked your question, as you did not (and still have yet to do) I did not feel obligated to answer your question. You don't want a conversation, you want a fight.

Didnt think so.

Each watt generated by natgas vs coal is at least a 60% reduction in carbon emissions.

Since that technology is mature and inexpensive...

Since that technology is compatible with a baseload system...

Since that technology *also* functionally meets the sliding need for dispatchable power as variable renewable penetration increases its penetration...

And since that technology can remain economically viable as it's level of used decreases proportionate to increased renewable penetration....

It is idiotic to argue that, displacing coal with natural gas is a bad step at this point and time.

******************************************
China Is About to Bury Elon Musk in Batteries
Factories are adding enough capacity to power the equivalent of nearly 1.5 million Model S vehicles



https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-28/china-is-about-to-bury-elon-musk-in-batteries

*******************************************

South Korea scraps plants, signals shift from nuclear energy

South Korea, one of the world's largest nuclear electricity producers, will scrap plans to add nuclear power plants, its president said Monday, signaling a shift in decades of reliance on nuclear energy.

President Moon Jae-in said South Korea will move away from nuclear energy and will not seek to extend the life of existing plants.

He also vowed to cut South Korea's reliance on coal. South Korea will shut 10 old coal power plants and stop building more coal power plants.

"So far South Korea's energy policy pursued cheap prices and efficiency. Cheap production prices were considered the priority while the public's life and safety took a backseat," Moon said at a ceremony marking the shutdown of the country's oldest power plant, Kori 1, in Busan, home to South Korea's largest cluster of nuclear power plants.

"But it's time for a change."

...

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/south-korea-scrap-building-nuclear-power-plants-48124775

**********************************

Hinkley Point C: watchdog confirms fears of political vanity project

NAO report condemns ‘risky and expensive’ nuclear project that went ahead despite the economic case crumbling

he National Audit Office does not use excitable phrases like “utter shambles.” But the spending watchdog’s verdict on Hinkley Point C, the nuclear power plant in Somerset that is supposedly inevitable, amounts to the same thing. The government “has locked consumers into a risky and expensive project with uncertain strategic and economic benefits”.

The 80-page report confirms one’s worst fears about how ministers fell in love with Hinkley. First, they wedded themselves to an inflexible financial model. Then they agreed commercial terms with developer EDF in 2013, when energy prices were sky-high, and ploughed on regardless when the economic case for Hinkley started to crumble.

The first error is the easier to understand. Ministers followed a standard model in which the developer bears the construction risks in return for a state guarantee on the price of the electricity eventually produced. But Hinkley, scheduled to provide 7% of the nation’s electricity, was never a normal project. It is bigger than anything ever seen before and the price guarantee – to be funded via consumers’ bills – extends over 35 years....

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/nils-pratley-on-finance/2017/jun/23/hinkley-point-c-nuclear-energy-risky-expensive-national-audit-office

Unfortunately, it's not all good news. Although renewable generation is up, so is coal!

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_1_01
In April, Nuclear generation was 56,743 GWh.
Conventional Hydro generation was 29,236 GWh.
Solar generation was 4,816 GWh.
Renewables excluding Hydro and Solar generated 31,821

So, what did things look like last April?
Nuclear: 62,365
Conventional Hydro: 25,475
Solar: 2,949
Other Renewables: 26,812


FWIW: Wind is gaining on conventional hydro:
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_1_01_a
April 2016:
Wind: 20,745
C. Hydro: 25,475

April 2017:
Wind: 25,403
C. Hydro: 29,236


OK, so that’s good news (right?) but what about coal and natural gas?

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_1_01
April 2016:
Coal: 72,022
Natural gas: 99,561

April 2017:
Coal: 81,789 (Ow! Maybe Trump’s coal promises are having an effect!)
Natural gas: 86,234

However, in the short term, I see that while nuclear generation has gone down (one of the focuses of the article) goal generation has gone up.

(It's the same time frame.)

The OP isn't attributing a causal relationship. You are.

I wrote: “(Ow! Maybe Trump’s coal promises are having an effect!)”

Based on the exchange in posts 10-14 you clearly accept arguments based on implied relationships.

I concluded, based upon rather clear evidence.

To be explicit, as if I haven’t been abundantly clear in the past, I am glad to see the growth in renewables. I would like to see that growth faster.

Observing that “Renewables” now contribute more than nuclear is significant. However, the article is not neutral. If there is any doubt, a quick search reveals the slant of EcoWatch regarding nuclear power.

https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/nuclear
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=nuclear+power+site%3Aecowatch.com&ia=web

Now wipe the egg off your face.