More than 68% of New European Electricity Capacity Came From Wind and Solar in 2011

[kristopher]

More than 68% of New European Electricity Capacity Came From Wind and Solar in 2011
By Stephen Lacey on Feb 12, 2012 at 10:25 am

As the sovereign debt crisis unfolds in Europe, onlookers have questioned whether the region will stay committed to renewable energy. The answer so far is “yes.”

Even with a few countries pulling back on government support of the industry because of fiscal troubles, 2011 was still a huge year for deployment — with wind and solar alone representing almost 70% of new capacity.

That’s almost a 10-fold increase over deployment in 2000, when only 3.5 GW of renewable energy projects were installed. Last year, 32 GW of renewables — mostly wind and solar — were deployed across European countries.

The figures come from the European Wind Energy Association, which just released a report on industry growth.

Growth in Europe has ...

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/02/12/422649/new-european-electricity-capacity-wind-solar-in-2011/

[JDPriestly]

1. Greece would be perfect for solar energy. Lots of sun.

[Nihil]

2. An even better graph from the same article ...

Good to see how wind went from 2% to 10%, PV from 0% to 5% and coal
dropped from 28% to 26% ... except that the *actual* contribution of coal
went *up* from 159,482 to 230,253 and as for natural gas? That went up
from 16% to 23% (89,801 to 209,953) ...


Not to forget the attached paragraph:
> Notice the stunning increase in wind, solar and natural gas — by far the
> top three choices for developers in the region. However, coal and fuel oil
> still have a very large market share. Some experts are concerned that
> a roll back of nuclear in various countries will increase the share of fossil
> fuels, particularly coal.


Here's hoping that the "could" in the parting shot from the article becomes
a "will" ...
> But with wind, solar and gas prices all declining to record lows, the combination
> of those three resources could prevent a sizable increase in coal development.

... because if it doesn't, we're really in the shit ... not just natural gas taking off out
of sight but coal as well ...

[kristopher]

3. Nuclear and coal are two sides of the same coin

If you want the system to change you have to change the system. Nuclear is the same as coal and does nothing but perpetuate the present system.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11275859

[Nihil]

5. Actually, coal and gas *are* two sides of the same coin ...

.. so the total equation (according to you) should be

nuclear = coal = gas

This view is pretty well supported by the graph above:

> In 2000, nuclear+coal+gas = 66% of the mix.
> In 2011, nuclear+coal+gas = 63% of the mix.

i.e., the big three lost ground by a whopping 3% of the mix. Same coin.

> Oil went from 12 to 6% (-6%)
> Wind grew from 2 to 8% (+6%)

Good news

> Large hydro went from 18 to 14% (-4%)
> PV grew from 0 to 5% (+5%)

Hmmm.

Everything else is lost in the rounding errors.


Returning to .. so the total equation (according to you) should be

nuclear = coal = gas



I'd love to get rid of all three as the human race cannot be trusted with them.

[kristopher]

6. The determinant is the operational characteristic within a generation and delivery system.

Your line of reasoning has no relationship to energy systems and *how* the characteristics of the various energy sources enable or prevent a transition to a carbon free system.

In short, you are still far too intent on trying to defend nuclear. All of your arguments in that direction have shown themselves to be unsupportable so you resort to trying to muddy the waters on information that is relevant to understanding how a transition actually can effect itself.

[OKIsItJustMe]

7. You need to look at the entire system, including production

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/coal-seam-gas-clean-claims-under-attack-20111103-1mxy4.html

[font face=Times,Times New Roman,Serif][font size=5]Coal seam gas 'clean' claims under attack[/font]

Ben Cubby
November 4, 2011

[font size=3]A REPORT commissioned by the coal seam gas industry into its own greenhouse gas emissions, and held as commercial-in-confidence for months, shows that Australian gas exported to China is likely to be little better for the environment than coal.

…

Gas would release less CO2 when burned in a Chinese power plant, but most of the difference would be eaten up by the extra emissions from extracting and processing the gas in Australia.

…

The report calculated a range of scenarios, the majority of which showed gas would perform slightly better than coal. It excluded the possibility of major or ongoing serious methane leaks from coal seam gas wells, and relied on data from the American Petroleum Institute.

…

''It shows that they are actually relying on out-of-date data from the American Petroleum Institute to come up with their emissions scenarios,'' Mr Wright said.

…[/font][/font]

http://www.nature.com/news/air-sampling-reveals-high-emissions-from-gas-field-1.9982

[font face=Times,Times New Roman,Serif][font size=5]Air sampling reveals high emissions from gas field[/font]

[font size=4]Methane leaks during production may offset climate benefits of natural gas.[/font]

07 February 2012

[font size=3]When US government scientists began sampling the air from a tower north of Denver, Colorado, they expected urban smog — but not strong whiffs of what looked like natural gas. They eventually linked the mysterious pollution to a nearby natural-gas field, and their investigation has now produced the first hard evidence that the cleanest-burning fossil fuel might not be much better than coal when it comes to climate change.

Led by researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the University of Colorado, Boulder, the study estimates that natural-gas producers in an area known as the Denver-Julesburg Basin are losing about 4% of their gas to the atmosphere — not including additional losses in the pipeline and distribution system. This is more than double the official inventory, but roughly in line with estimates made in 2011 that have been challenged by industry. And because methane is some 25 times more efficient than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere, releases of that magnitude could effectively offset the environmental edge that natural gas is said to enjoy over other fossil fuels.

“If we want natural gas to be the cleanest fossil fuel source, methane emissions have to be reduced,” says Gabrielle Pétron, an atmospheric scientist at NOAA and at the University of Colorado in Boulder, and first author on the study, currently in press at the Journal of Geophysical Research. Emissions will vary depending on the site, but Pétron sees no reason to think that this particular basin is unique. “I think we seriously need to look at natural-gas operations on the national scale.”

The results come as a natural-gas boom hits the United States, driven by a technology known as hydraulic fracturing, or ‘fracking’, that can crack open hard shale formations and release the natural gas trapped inside. Environmentalists are worried about effects such as water pollution, but the US government is enthusiastic about fracking. In his State of the Union address last week, US President Barack Obama touted natural gas as the key to boosting domestic energy production.

…[/font][/font]

[kristopher]

8. What is the significance of that, OK?

Are you back to arguments by insinuation again? It is a good way to avoid rebuttals when you aren't confident of what your position is, I suppose.

[OKIsItJustMe]

9. Nihil said, “coal and gas *are* two sides of the same coin”

It appears that gas-fired electricity and coal-fired electricity may effectively be the same for the environment. (i.e. two sides of the same coin.)

[kristopher]

10. This shows why explicit statements are important.

That doesn't speak at all to the operational characteristics within the generation and delivery systems.

In its own right yours is also a premature conclusion based on the available research.

ETA: In several different and important ways nuclear power's operational characteristics prevent a transition to a carbon free energy system, while those of natural gas enable the transition.

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. Uh huh…

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/11273566#post37

[kristopher]

12. Uh huh... You're arguing by insinuation yet again.

[OKIsItJustMe]

13. The facts of the matter are

Natural Gas is not as clean as previously thought.

The only question that remains is exactly how dangerous it is vis-a-vis greenhouse gas emissions. (Is it more or less damaging than coal?)

[kristopher]

14. "The facts of the matter"?

What "matter"?

The issue we are confronted with is the elimination of a global dependence on carbon based energy systems.

Your arguments in this thread are as myopic on that topic as are the claims that renewables are not able to do the job because 2 of them, wind and solar, are variable generation resources.

The "matter" is how these individual types of generation perform within systems. Nuclear, coal and gas are complementary and work well together, and building more nuclear merely augments coal - and therefore it works to more deeply entrench the economics of the present system. It does nothing to get rid of or reduce coal or Natgas consumption in either the short or long run.

[OKIsItJustMe]

15. The issue we are confronted with is anthropogenic climate change

To combat that, we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

It appears that producing more “natural gas” may not be a good strategy.

[kristopher]

16. You clearly don't appreciate the meaning of the word "strategy"

[XemaSab]

25. Your argument makes no sense whatsoever

How are nuclear and coal the same?

They're both baseload, so for baseload generation you can have nuclear, coal, or both.

If a restaurant serves steak, lobster, and surf & turf, it doesn't mean that steak and lobster are the same thing, but that seems to be what you're arguing.

What is the same is the fact that right now, wind power needs either large hydro or natural gas alongside it.

If we're going to go with the restaurant analogy, if you're ordering pasta you're going to get noodles and you're going to get sauce. The noodles and the sauce are ingredients in the same dish. It might be spaghetti noodles with red sauce or it might be angel hair with a butter and garlic sauce, but either way you can't have the one without the other in a pasta dish.

[kristopher]

27. "If we're going to go with the restaurant analogy"

Let's not.
Why resort to an analogy at all? It is far better to discuss the topic directly since an understanding of the specific operational profile of each source of generation is a pre-requisite to understanding why coal and nuclear are operational twins.

See post 26 and if you have any questions just ask.

[XemaSab]

30. I read post 26

and it didn't answer a thing.

How are nuclear and coal the same?

Are nuclear and geothermal the same? Are coal and geothermal the same?

This seems to be what you're saying.

[kristopher]

31. What does the term "operational characteristics" mean to you?

In this case it refers to the way the limitations and advantages of a power source cause it to be operated. It is a combination of technical and economic factors that define when a grid operator decides to put energy from the resource onto the grid.

Those factors for coal and nuclear are very similar. Addressing your question specifically, economically coal and nuclear both have large, up front capital costs and both require fuel, therefore both have fuel costs.
In comparison geothermal has a much smaller up front capital cost and no fuel cost at all.

The technological characteristics of these sources are shaped by economics. Coal and nuclear are most profitably built by making individual generators very large. The size of a geothermal generator is limited by the less concentrated nature of underground heat. A geothermal facility is made larger by building multiple smaller units (it is similar to hydro in this respect). What happens as a consequence is that the shafts of the generating turbines for coal and nuclear plants are very large while the shafts for geothermal and hydro plant generators are much smaller.

These "characteristics", in turn, affect how each of the energy sources are best used from the grid operators point of view. Coal and nuclear are designed to run 24/7 at a constant speed. Their large individual size has the consequence of making them poorly suited to ramping up and down quickly, or shutting down and restarting quickly.

That is why natural gas has been exploited for electrical generation. Its smaller size makes it more nimble and able to respond to the variability in demand. Since the variability we see with wind and solar presents itself operationally as the same problem we see with variable demand, the natural gas that is already in place now is sufficient to handle a much higher level of renewable penetration.

The smaller size of natural gas turbines also means that the up front capital costs are far, far lower than that of nuclear and coal, but it has traditionally had far higher fuel costs than coal and nuclear, a fact that limited its economic viability. Fracking has changed that and made NG competitive with coal and nuclear; but even with fracking, there is still a significant fuel cost relative to renewables. If fracking is severely curtailed it will, at this point in time, probably benefit renewables more than it would nuclear or coal.

Due to past high per unit manufacturing costs determined by limited deployment, the zero fuel cost advantage of renewables is only now beginning to be felt. The amount of new generation capacity installed last year is most significant in that it is a leading indicator of future price declines brought about by a growing manufacturing base.

Each resource in the renewable portfolio has its own set of characteristics. As renewable penetration increases, the needs that grid operators are meeting when they select the power source required at the moment is going to be increasingly determined by the zero-fuel cost of renewables instead of the merely low fuel costs of nuclear and coal.

That also applies to natural gas. While there is currently a glut, no one expects that to continue. As the backbone renewable manufacturing continues to ramp up, their zero fuel costs will to some degree displace all sources that have fuel costs. The degree that each specific fuel will be a loser will vary by region.

I hope this helps make the situation more clear. It will take decades but we are in the process of building a distributed grid based on the operational characteristics of renewables. This is why I reject spending money to build or extend the life of nuclear plants. The larger the percentage of renewables on the grid, the more the decision-making of grid operators is guided by the needs of renewables and the more zero-fuel cost renewables are deployed to meet those needs.


A report documenting the way nuclear (or coal if it were supported like nuclear) crowds out renewables can be downloaded here:
http://www.vermontlaw.edu/Documents/IEE/20100909_cooperStudy.pdf

[XemaSab]

32. I understand that from a grid perspective they're similar

since they're both baseload, but similar =/= the same.

From a CO2 perspective, coal and natural gas are similar on the one hand while wind and nuclear are similar on the other hand.

I think the latter perspective is more important as far as the environment goes.

[kristopher]

33. You are not correct.

Presuming your questions to be in good faith I took the time to give a detailed explanation of the issue, so perhaps you could be more explicit in your reasoning since your conclusion simply cannot follow from the information provided.

[joshcryer]

36. If "fracking is severely curtailed" then I don't see much NG for electrical generation.

Since you've already established natural gas is "already in place now sufficient to handle a much higher level of renewable penetration" it only goes to show that fracking is tied intrinsically to renewable energy production.

[kristopher]

37. No, it doesn't.

You are making another attempt to malign renewables by trying to insinuate they wont get us off of fossil fuels but frankly, I'm still waiting for you to explain how we transition to a noncarbon economy. You are real long on sniping and whining and real short on constructive discussion about how we can do what it is we need to do.

To deal with your claim, there are several points to remember:
1) Fracking is relatively new and it isn't needed to meet the needs we might have during a transition. We've been expecting the role of natural gas for well over a decade, and fracking only got rolling with Cheney's support in 2005. The NG price volatility pre-fracking, in fact, was a strong driver for renewable deployment.

2) The generating infrastructure for natural gas is already in place and largely paid for. All investment can go towards renewable generation and energy efficiency improvements that will shut down coal.

3) We have a number of noncarbon alternatives to natural gas in a renewable grid. Various forms of storage, biomass, liquid biofuels, several forms of hydro, and biomethane are all suitable for meeting the operational role that natural gas would play in a distributed renewable grid.

4) Nuclear also requires natural gas spinning reserves - far more than renewables would. However, if we invest in nuclear we are, as already shown, investing in technology that perpetuates the system that feeds the economic slot filled by coal. I have yet to hear any realistic mechanism where more nuclear gives coal an economic incentive to shut down. Why don't you explain how that might work?

[XemaSab]

38. Since you seem to demand it of us

how about you tell us how you would create a noncarbon grid that works 100% of the time?

[joshcryer]

40. I want data, I want to see that it's actually being pursued, not fantasy plans that...

...require 10% of global GDP spent every year for a decade.

I provided data that shows that it's not being pursued, and that the eventuality is that we're going to burn it all up.

Enjoy this nightmare: http://www.skepticalscience.com/WEO2011.html

(See global current policies scenario, no end in sight. Cancun was a success!)

[kristopher]

41. Why don't you make a meaningful response to post 31?

[joshcryer]

52. I did. I showed that greenwashing natural gas is not going to transition us away from fossil fuels.

[kristopher]

71. No one said it was.

What has been said is that it will be the last fossil fuel we rely on in the transition.

[joshcryer]

39. Fracking is absolutely necessary to "meet the needs we might have during a transition."

1) Fracking is relatively new and it isn't needed to meet the needs we might have during a transition.

Fracking is heavily developed over decades of research. It is already responsible for more than half of US gas production:

2) The generating infrastructure for natural gas is already in place and largely paid for.

My contention has nothing to do with whether or not the generation infrastructure is there. We have 272 trillion cf of conventional natural gas left. At current rates it will be exhausted in 10 years if we only used conventional natural gas. Therefore, logic, reason, says that we must use non-conventional natural gas reserves (shale gas, tight gas, coal bed methane, all of which require "fracking" to fracture the rocks to get the gas).

As we have seen by the image posted upthread, the result isn't that "less coal is being used," and my contention is that even if we, as a country, "use less coal" we'd still export the stuff to other countries.

3) We have a number of noncarbon alternatives to natural gas in a renewable grid.

Yes, we do. The question is about whether or not we're going to be carbon neutral or, I should say, whether or not capitalism itself is going to result in carbon neutrality. I think we're going to make a major dent in the consumption of carbon fuels in the coming decades. The WEO projects as much. The US is slated to shut down a lot of coal plants:



pp 234 WEO 2010

So what? The coal is going to stay in the ground, then? I highly doubt that. If it can be sold on the market, and I have no reason to believe it can't be, it will be sold.

4) Nuclear also requires natural gas spinning reserves - far more than renewables would.

Yes. Natural gas, it's that magical gas that gets obscene environmental ads in a fine display of greenwashing I've ever seen. I've encountered nuclear shills who believe nuclear is the answer who trumpet clean natural gas in their plans. Good luck with that! If you can sell fossil fuels, it will be sold. The only way to stop it is to tax it, put tariffs on it, and the fossil fuel lobby would never have that. "Only" 50 or so more years until it's all used up anyway.

We cannot play this bullshit game that greenwashes natural gas and its effects, and downplays the share of non-conventional tight sands, shale, or coal bed natural gas that will take up the lions share of consumption in the coming years. Indeed, the significant amounts of natural gas is used in the development of Canada's vast oil sands deposits only underscores that fact. Oh, we'll be "energy independent" all right.

[kristopher]

42. Lots of sniping and ranting; absolutely devoid of substance related to the topic of transition

HOW DO WE TRANSITION?

It is evident you went to a lot of effort with your answer, but your output is imprecise and jumbled. It also totally fails to address in any way how we CAN move away from fossil fuels. Planning is about considering the paths to achieving a goal; all you are doing is sniping and ranting.

HOW DO WE TRANSITION?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11277642

[joshcryer]

49. I already told you, we don't. Convince me we do. We don't. The evidience is we don't. I gave it.

[kristopher]

53. Really?

[joshcryer]

55. Yep, a nice reduction.

But no significant impact on world production.

We are going to export that fuel. We're already doing it.

[kristopher]

58. And how does that change?

Those plants will become obsolete, and less expensive noncarbon alternatives will be selected to replace them. We can accelerate the process by first focusing on developing the manufacturing infrastructure and supply chains for renewables to position them with attractive pricing and then tighten the screws on fossil fuels by forcing a full internalization of those costs they now successfully externalize.

[joshcryer]

59. Yes, they will be replaced, when the coal is getting all used up.

By the 2020s coal will be well on a peak.

[kristopher]

61. Still unwilling to provide a proper citation?

Why not support your claims with (properly referenced) text from the report ?

[kristopher]

43. A Farewell to Fossil Fuels: Answering the Energy Challenge

A Farewell to Fossil Fuels: Answering the Energy Challenge
By Amory B. Lovins
March/April 2012
Article Summary and Author Biography


Nearly 90 percent of the world’s economy is fueled every year by digging up and burning about four cubic miles of the rotted remains of primeval swamp goo. With extraordinary skill, the world’s most powerful industries have turned that oil, gas, and coal into affordable and convenient fuels and electricity that have created wealth, helped build modern civilization, and enriched the lives of billions.

Yet today, the rising costs and risks of these fossil fuels are undercutting the security and prosperity they have enabled. Each day, the United States spends about $2 billion buying oil and loses another $4 billion indirectly to the macroeconomic costs of oil dependence, the microeconomic costs of oil price volatility, and the cost of keeping military forces ready for intervention in the Persian Gulf.

In all, the United States spends one-sixth of its GDP on oil, not counting any damage to foreign policy, global stability, public health, and the environment. The hidden costs are also massive for coal and are significant for natural gas, too. Even if oil and coal prices were not high, volatile, and rising, risks such as fuel insecurity and dependence, pollution-caused illnesses, energy-driven conflicts over water and food, climate change, and geopolitical tensions would make oil and coal unattractive.

Weaning the United States from those fossil fuels would require two big shifts: in oil and electricity. These are distinct -- nearly half of electricity is made from coal, and almost none is made from oil -- but power plants and oil burning each account for over two-fifths of the carbon that is emitted by fossil-fuel use. In the United States, three-fourths of electricity powers buildings, three-fourths of oil fuels transportation, and the remaining oil and electricity run factories. So saving oil and electricity is chiefly about making buildings, vehicles, and factories far more efficient -- no small task.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137246/amory-b-lovins/a-farewell-to-fossil-fuels

[joshcryer]

50. Not reflected in the data and projections I showed. Just fantasy talk.

[kristopher]

44. How do we transition?

Soft Energy Paths for the 21st Century
AUTHOR: Lovins, Amory
DOCUMENT ID: E11-09
YEAR: 2011
DOCUMENT TYPE: Journal or Magazine Article
PUBLISHER: RMI

Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs asked Amory Lovins to outline his reaction to the Fukushima disaster and his suggestions for Japanese and U.S. energy policy for its house magazine Gaiko (Diplomacy). An abridged version was published 30 July 2011 in Japanese and is cited in this unabridged English version. It's a timely contribution to the rapidly growing movement in Japan to accelerate the strategic shift from nuclear power to efficiency and renewables, as Germany is already doing—an approach consistent with sound economics and with RMI's U.S. findings in Reinventing Fire. The abridged version of the article is available at http://www.gaiko-web.jp/ in Japanese.

http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-Center/Library/2011-09_GaikoSoftEnergyPaths

Download link:
http://www.rmi.org/cms/Download.aspx?id=4902&file=2011-09_GaikoSoftEnergyPaths.pdf&title=Soft+Energy+Paths+for+the+21st+Century

[joshcryer]

51. Not the route we're taking.

[kristopher]

54. The OP and your own charts from WEO show you're wrong

[joshcryer]

56. You haven't read WEO.

If you had you wouldn't misrepresent data the way you are.

[kristopher]

57. Don't just hurl accusations, give details.

The WEO chart is all I saw; if you think the text doesn't support the clear reduction in fossil fuel use the chart indicates I'd like to know 1) what the text says and 2) why you knowingly posted a chart that you believe is flawed.

[joshcryer]

60. The chart is not flawed, the chart is specific. The EU and US will reduce coal consumption.

This will have very little effect on the global energy base. We will still produce coal, we just won't consume it, we'll export it.

Look at Russia (WEO 2011):



Hey, they'll be exporting less fossil fuels to EU, that's good, right?

Look at the revenue numbers. A shocking 60% increase!

[kristopher]

62. Provide a citation in the TEXT.

Your interpretation of data are obviously not a proper or complete representation of the story. Provide a proper cite in the text so it can be discussed.

[joshcryer]

63. My interpretation of data is perfectly fine, as you've provided no evidence I am wrong.

A radical transformation of the power generation sector is necessary to move to a lowcarbon future. This requires a concerted push to low-carbon technologies that not only displace inefficient thermal plants, but meet the relentless growth in electricity demand, while maintaining an affordable and reliable service to consumers. Action is required on the supply side through a different technology mix and energy efficiency improvements. As well, growth in electricity demand must be reduced as part of this far-reaching change. This is achieved through the adoption of cap-and-trade systems, and CO2 prices rising to $120 per tonne in OECD+ countries in 2035 and $90 per tonne in Other Major Economies in 2035, as well as support to renewables and changes in regulation (see Annex B). In the 450 Scenario, electricity demand grows at an average annual rate of 1.9% between 2008 and 2035, compared with 2.5% in the Current Policies Scenario. This represents a drop of 5 300 terawatt-hours (TWh), or around 16%, by 2035, corresponding to the combined total current production of OECD North America.

...

Other Major Economies, older inefficient coal plants are rapidly retired, with most of the existing installed capacity being taken out of service — often before the end of its technical lifetime — within the projection period (Figure 14.3). By then, CCS-fitted plants increase significantly, with many existing plants being retrofitted in order to remain economic and extend their lifetime. Due to the rising price of CO2, some 300 GW (or around one-third) of new coal and gas CCGT plants built between now and 2035 will be retired well before the end of their technical lifetime and in several cases even before they have achieved a commercial return on the capital invested. Around 100 GW fall into this category, representing a net loss of around $70 billion or 28% of the investment cost.



By comparison, in the Current Policies Scenario, coal generation without CCS doubles to 16 300 TWh. Strikingly, by 2035 in the 450 Scenario, coal generation from plants fitted with CCS reaches more than 3 000 TWh, which exceeds that from coal plants not equipped with CCS and represents about three-quarters of the total generation from all CCS-fitted plants (Figure 14.4).

Carbon has to come at a cost, it can't be externalized as it is with attitudes like "climate change need not enter the discussion."

[kristopher]

64. Just as I thought.

Josh, that supports what I've been writing about.
Ex: "A radical transformation of the power generation sector is necessary to move to a lowcarbon future. "

I have several more points to make from that selection, but I'd like to keep this clear and deal with them one by one.

I have been describing the nature of the MOST EFFECTIVE "radical transformation of the power generation sector".

Can you explain your failure to understand that?

[joshcryer]

65. You're the one quoting Lovins saying Congress isn't needed.

The 450 Scenario requires major cap and trade, and regulations, as per my original contention that capitalism will not do it magically all on its own. It requires policies to force it to act in that way, otherwise the Current Policies Scenario means massive, overwhelming pollution with no end in sight until the fuel is used up.

[kristopher]

66. *Why* does Lovins say that Congress isn't needed?

And what does that have to do with your rejection of the clear description I've given of the way increasing availability of zero-fuel cost generation impacts the economics that govern power selection for the grid?

[joshcryer]

68. Because he has a fantasy solution that isn't reflected in any real world trajectory.

[kristopher]

70. WTF is a "real world trajectory"?

We are discussing energy policy and planning. If you don't want to acknowledge the existence of our ability to enact policies and plan then you really have no place in the discussion.

[joshcryer]

76. Yes, we are discussing how we have the wrong energy policy and planning.

We have the ability to do all sorts of things. I have read studies on magical robot factories on the moon or magical robot factories in the deserts powering the entire Americas and Africa and Europe. Magical plans that only require a comparatively small investment.

Should I expect you to take me seriously when I say that we can use those to avert catastrophic climate change? I frankly do not. Nor do I take you seriously when you throw out plans that will not get the political capital necessary to enact them, much less the economic investment that is far beyond anything we are doing (we're investing 1/10th of what we should, and every year we don't invest the full 10% of global GDP or 40% of global GCF the cost ticks upward).

Catastrophic climate change is upon us and we're doing shit all about it.

That's what "trajectory" is. The real world trajectory is to do effectively nothing about the problem. Renewables are replacing fossil fuels only as fossil fuels peak, not to keep those fuels in the ground, as they should be.

[kristopher]

78. You and your robot factories show that you are completely clueless

...about basic economic concepts.

"Real world trajectory" is a meaningless phrase in the context of future planning. All it means is you don't agree with something. However, since tou can't judge what you don't understand and since Lovins' planning is focused on leveraging economic motivators to accomplish a shift away from carbon it is understandable that you are unable to see its basis.

Why not take some economic classes on the internet?

[joshcryer]

80. Not at all, I think the magical robot factories are just as useful as any other "future planning"...

...proposal out there.

Please refrain from insulting me, btw, I don't want the jury to kick you out of here, as I am enjoying this little back and forth.

Particularly the bit where you think that "I can't judge what I don't understand" when I provided ample examples, which you did not even attempt to counter.

Lovins' plan is bullshit, I don't even have to read it to know that it's bullshit. All projections require cap and trade, that's not an economic incentive or "motivator." That's regulatory.

Because he rejects the need for Congress it is clear that his capitalist greenwashing will not go far.

Feel free to quote some text and citations in your claims, btw. I will wait patiently for you to transcribe for me, unless you have his book in digital form. I've yet to find it for free.

[kristopher]

82. You haven't got a clue about how economics work

So saying you are clueless about economics is a statement of the circumstances, not an insult.


We know that because your fundamental premise that fossil fuels are not replaceable is simply, demonstrably not correct. It is like saying horses are not able to be supplanted by automobiles.

[joshcryer]

83. Can you establish where I am wrong that we will export the coal?

I did not, anywhere, say that fossil fuels were not replaceable. Merely that the resource, if it exists, will be exhausted without regulatory measures in place to stop it (ie, anti-capitalist measures).

[kristopher]

85. If fossil fuels are replaced by better. cheaper renewables...

who is going to buy the coal?

[joshcryer]

89. Countries that have other industries that use coal?

Countries that already have massive amounts of coal plants already built?

[kristopher]

90. You've acknowledged we can do it in advanced countries with subsidies

Which is nothing more than an artificial way of making renewables cheaper than coal.

Why would the same process not repeat itself for less affluent countries when unsubsidized renewables are less expensive than coal?

[joshcryer]

93. Erm, right wing garbage. Making people pay externalized costs is not a subsidy.

In the end it is not an "artificial way" of making renewables cheaper than coal. Coal is so cheap because its externalized costs aren't accounted for. Same with natural gas. In the case of natural gas freaking methane is totally exempt. How much more costly would natural gas be if it didn't have those exemptions? If every wellhead required you to do groundwater studies that last months if not years (groundwater transversal is a tough subject)?

Cancun was a flop, the "same process will not repeat itself" because we're not actually subjecting ourselves to the standards necessary to prevent catastrophic climate change. And the developing world will be damned if it doesn't burn whatever energy resources it has and if it doesn't use carbon fuels to support their industries.

[joshcryer]

77. Because he's a greenwashing capitalist?

I have already showed you, the regulations are needed, otherwise capitalism has no intention of doing anything about the problem. The problem isn't "we need renewable energy for the long term" the problem is "we need to fucking stop putting CO2 into our atmosphere causing catastrophic climate change." Renewable energy for the long term is a foregone conclusion, there are no other energy sources that will last ... almost forever for a technological society. Power by the sun, by the stars, that's the eventuality for humanity, if we live long enough.

[kristopher]

79. You've shown nothing, Josh.

Except that you don't understand the subject matter; which is a shame really since it is a subject that isn't very difficult to acquire at least the fundamentals.

Take your inability to comprehend why advances in the first world will, in fact, keep fossil fuels in the ground in the rest of the world. It really isn't difficult: Germany is criticized for the burden that renewable subsidies place on the German taxpayer. The right loves to howl that it is a demonstration of the failure of energy planning. In fact it is a stellar success since the point of the policy wasn't to provide inexpensive power to this generation of renewable deployment, but was instead to jump start a socially desirable industry for the good of both future Germany and the rest of the world.

When renewables are less expensive than fossil fuels, fossil fuels WILL be left in the ground. The more we focus on developing and deploying renewable energy technologies - particularly solar and wind - the sooner we move the priceline for renewables below that of fossil. And right now there are a large number of opportunities to create economic winners with the process of encouraging renewables.

It really isn't complex and Lovins has it right. As someone that both cares a great deal about global warming and also understands the nature of the technical and economic challenge better than most I find your arguments unconscionable.

[joshcryer]

81. Please stop insulting me, I showed graphs with regards to natural gas.

I showed you how we're exporting fossil fuels at increasing rates.

I showed you lots of stuff, none of which you refuted to any extent whatsoever. You quoted a Lovins' article that doesn't get into actual substance, which pipe dreams and ignores political and economic reality.

When renewables are less expensive than fossil fuels, absolutely, fossil fuels will be left in the ground. Renewables are less expensive than fossil fuels, here, due in large part to regulations. By forcing the externalized cost of fossil fuels, coal, for example, becomes more expensive. States have led the charge in this regard, however, with each one controlling air standards. Now, go look at a developing country that just wants to power its society, and doesn't care so much about these kinds of air standards. What happens then? I assure you that coal will still be cheaper than renewables, even with renewable costs going down. They must go down much lower than "what we can afford." The cost of renewables must go down to a level that the developing world can afford.

Now, you're a coal company selling coal, and all of the coal plants are being shut down in the United States. You own the mineral rights, you have thousands of workers, what is in your interests? Well, two things can happen. The US could come to you, buy your company, and retrain your workers to work on renewables (a really cool idea, but politically not happening). Or, you can say, "Hey, let's sell our coal to the developing world, they'll use it." The latter scenario is far more likely, because it's also in the US's interests to have a trade partner who relies on US resources (for geopolitical reasons, you want them to build the coal plants, that's just how reality works).

[kristopher]

84. That is a perfect example of why my remark isn't an insult.

We've been down this road before - if you don't want to be criticized for your lack of understanding on the topic of economics, then you need to get some knowledge on the topic.

Is the developing world still using tubes in their electronics or do they use transistors? Do you know how much transistors cost before they became a mass produced commodity?

Subsidies serve to create a market that will bring the manufacturing base and supply chain for renewables up to the point where their costs falls below that of fossil fuels. Have you noticed the regular decreases in the subsidies paid for new generation in Germany? That's because the program is working exactly as it is supposed to - they have to keep cutting the subsidy in order to maintain the same profit margin for new investors at the same level as previous investors. The declining costs of the technology means that if they do not cut them, the new investor makes far more than a previous investor.

The DECLINING COSTS OF THE TECHNOLOGY...

[joshcryer]

86. Uh, you do realize those electronics are so cheap because they're built in unregulated sectors...

...right?

You mock me, repeatedly, for my "lack of understanding" and then pull out a bullshit strawman like that?

How fucking much do you think a Foxconn made motherboard would cost if 1) their employees had to undergo OSHA training 2) they had to have an 8 hour work day at most with mandatory overtime pay 3) they had to get 15 minute breaks every hour or two 4) they had recourse if they were fired 5) they were forced to hire adults only?

The list goes on and on and on.

They don't make their electronics, just like we don't make our electronics for the most part. When a person in the developing world buys a cheap, $20 cell phone, it is being manufactured in an area of the world that does not require the kinds of pollution standards that we have come to take for granted (many people don't know of or remember just how polluted the US was only 60 years ago).

I am not saying, of course, that the developing world won't buy renewable energy. Coal has more uses than just energy, as per my links.

[kristopher]

87. Sorry but you are still not getting it.

The amount of price decrease we can attribute to offshoring the manufacturing of electronics is, in comparison to that attributable to mass production, nothing but a fart in a whirlwind.

You need to try and focus because you're really not worth having this discussion with otherwise.

[joshcryer]

88. You aren't substantiating anything. Did or did not coal exports go up?

http://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/

Now, scroll down and check out imports.

[kristopher]

91. Are you seriously saying that a snapshot of today supports your assertions about the future?

Now you've totally crossed into the land of the absurd. I'm done.

[joshcryer]

92. Yes, because the data I provided is a "snapshot of today," it's not years of trending.

[backwoodsbob]

34. just curious

what is the environmental impact of mining rare earth materials?

[OKIsItJustMe]

35. Like many things, it depends on how it is done

Done wrong, it’s a real mess.
http://www.epa.gov/region8/mining/ReportOnRareEarthElements.pdf

[font face=Times,Times New Roman,Serif][font size=5]Investigating Rare Earth Element Mine Development in EPA Region 8 and Potential Environmental Impacts

…

August 15, 2011[/font]

[font size=3]…

EPA Document-908R11003

…

[font size=5]6.0 Potential Risks to Human Health and the Environment[/font]
Mining, and the industries it supports, are among the building blocks of modern society. The benefits of mining to the United States have been many, but they come at great cost to the environment. Over the past century, there has been an increasing recognition that environmental protection is fundamental to a prosperous economy and healthy society. As mines have increased in size and complexity, environmental controls have become increasingly sophisticated. Modern mines are required to comprehensively evaluate environmental concerns at the earliest stages of mine planning and design. Environmental controls are now considered as an integral part of overall mine management (EPA, 1997). However, mining and refining of rare earth elements, if not carefully monitored, can pose threats to human health and the environment. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the nation dominating rare earth element production today.

[font size=5]6.1 China[/font]
According to the Chinese Society of Rare Earths, every ton of rare earth elements produced generates approximately 8.5 kilograms of fluorine and 13 kilograms of flue dust. Additionally, sulfuric acid refining techniques used to produce one ton of rare earth elements generates 9,600 to 12,000 cubic meters of gas laden with flue dust concentrate, hydrofluoric acid, sulfur dioxide, and sulfuric acid. Not only are large quantities of harmful gas produced, alarming amounts of liquid and solid waste also resulted from Chinese refining processes. They estimate at the completion of refining one ton of rare earth elements, approximately 75 cubic meters of acidic waste water and about one ton of radioactive waste residue are produced. The IAGS reports China produced over 130,000 metric tons of rare earth elements in 2008 alone (IAGS, 2010). Extrapolation of the waste generation estimates over total production yields extreme amounts of waste. With little environmental regulation, stories of environmental pollution and human sickness remain frequent in areas near Chinese rare earth element production facilities (Figure 21). United States government agencies, including EPA, can learn a lot from China’s environmental issues related to rare earth element production.

As discussed, mining and refining processes can introduce radionuclides, rare earth elements, metals, and other potential contaminants into the environment at unnaturally high rates. Once introduced into the environment, the potential contaminants can be redistributed through the three “environmental mediums.” These three mediums include air, soil, and water. Living organisms depend on environmental mediums with stable chemical properties for their survival. The release of the possible contaminants from rare earth element production could alter the properties of the three environmental mediums. The upcoming sections will discuss how the possible contaminants could be found in the environment and toxicology of the possible contaminants to organisms.

…[/font][/font]

[Nihil]

17. Ah, so we've got to the "waffle and smear" stage from you (again)?

1) Trying to obfuscate the facts being discussed by diverting from the subject.

2) Yet again with the already disproven accusations with regards to nuclear.

[kristopher]

18. Explain how nuclear power enables a transition to a noncoarbon energy infrastructure.

In some detail, please.

[Nihil]

24. Why? As stated many times before, humans are not to be trusted with nuclear power.

The only benefit of nuclear power at the present moment is that the currently
active nuclear power stations are providing X amount of energy. If they were to be
shut down today, that shortfall of X will be made up using fossil fuels
(c.f., Japan, Germany).

At the present moment, renewable forms of electricity production cannot replace
all fossil fuel forms of electricity production. That is a fact. It is not a prediction for
2, 10, 20 years in the future but a fact here & now.

Adding a further significant shortfall to that issue by closing an additional source
of non-fossil-fuel electricity production cannot speed up or in any other way assist
the transition as, by doing so, that action has vastly increased the demand from
(other) non-carbon sources. That is another fact - here & now.

Hence, the only way that "nuclear power enables a transition to a noncoarbon (sic)
energy infrastructure" is by standing still and not making the problem an order
of magnitude worse by being taken out of the equation for purely political purposes
as the shortfall - here & now - is only made up by fossil fuel.

When the ramp-up of renewables has succeeded in replacing most of the fossil-fuel
generation sources - which, if maintaining the current rates, should happen within
the lifetimes of most of the active nuclear plants - then the nuclear plants should
also be shut down and taken out of the equation, oldest first (obviously).
Thus, over time, the transition to a non-carbon AND non-nuclear energy infrastructure
will have been completed without requiring the deliberate addition of further fossil-fuel
plants under the pretence of "enabling the transition".


This is not "support for nuclear power", not "shilling for the nuclear industry",
not "anti-renewable propaganda" or any other smear that you care to throw.
This is purely and simply refusing to swallow the propaganda from the fossil fuel
industry - specifically the natural gas segment - and justifying that refusal by
recourse to logic and mathematics.


>> Yet again with the already disproven accusations with regards to nuclear.

Maybe you should try reading before writing once in a while?

For the sake of sheer repetition in the hope that it will penetrate your awareness
this time: I do NOT believe that humans can be trusted with nuclear power as
they are too greedy, short-sighted and corrupt.

The same applies to coal, oil and natural gas - the people in charge and supporting
the fossil fuel industry are greedy, short-sighted and corrupt.

Unfortunately, some of the latter group pretend that they are superior (or even
different) to the former group. They are not.

[kristopher]

26. In other words you can't answer the question without showing you are being misleading.

In the first place, the line of argument about shutting down nuclear plants is a red herring, it isn't related to the discussion at all unless you are replying to this reference in post #3:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11275859

And if you were, then you seem seriously confused about what that article is about since the reductions in nuclear are gradual and result from increased deployment of renewable generation - thus negating the entire premise of your screed.

As for your position that humans aren't to be trusted with nuclear power, I can only say that you are extremely consistent over many years in writing posts that contradict the position you claim here to hold.

You can't minimize the significance of the OP - 68% of new capacity in the EU last year was renewable energy.

You want to portray the OP as representing some sort of failure because natural gas is also surging. While I can appreciate the purity of the call to eliminate all fossil fuels as soon as possible, the fact is that the process is going to require decades to accomplish. It is also a fact that the different generating sources have different operational characteristics that must be considered when we prioritize our choices now and going forward.

In that sense the additional deployment of natural gas is a step in the right direction. Even if it emits CO2 at a level similar to coal there are significant differences in the way it integrates with renewables that work to create a grid that encourages deployment of ever increasing levels of renewables and expanding efforts at energy efficiency and conservation.

Nuclear and coal are NOT compatible with renewables, energy efficiency efforts or conservation in the same way. In fact they are virtual twins of each other and form the basis of a system that works to shut out renewables and expand not only the level of consumption overall but also the consumption of natural gas.

[Nihil]

28. In other words you can't reply without lying.

The reference to nuclear was - as you are VERY well aware - in response to your
post (.3) where you - as usual - try to defend fossil fuel (natural gas) whilst avoiding
the points raised in the post (.2) with a typical deflection tactic.

The facts of the matter - quoted from the article YOU provided - are shown in .2
and .4 but yet again, in your "reply" .6 you ignored the facts and reverted to your
oh-so-tired policy of lying about me ("you are still far too intent on trying to defend nuclear&quot .


> You can't minimize the significance of the OP - 68% of new capacity in the EU
> last year was renewable energy.

I do not attempt to minimize it - it is a remarkable achievement that should be
praised - but I *do* put it in perspective in .2 ... something that you are apparently
desperate to avoid people seeing.


> As for your position that humans aren't to be trusted with nuclear power, I can only
> say that you are extremely consistent over many years in writing posts that contradict
> the position you claim here to hold.

In that case it is clear that you have NOT read my replies of the last few years but are
so fossilised in your views that you still react out of prejudice and not according to
the subject matter under discussion.




(Edited to add missing word)

[kristopher]

29. ???

As I said, if your reference to shutting down nuclear en masse was in response to the link in post 3 then your reply was a red herring since that is an example of how the transition to a carbon free infrastructure will shake out with ever increasing renewable penetration.

That is why I asked you to relate how the interplay of these technologies will unfold as we move away from carbon. Why don't you lay out how the hoped for transition will occur? Since you say that I'm trying to "defend" natural gas" explain how preserving large scale centralized thermal (nuclear and coal) is preferable to restructuring our energy machine (the grid) to make it hospitable to renewables while also getting immediate reductions in emissions.

I'd really love to hear your vision of how that works.

[Nihil]

45. So you have no problem with the ramping up of coal & gas?

> Your line of reasoning has no relationship to energy systems and *how* the
> characteristics of the various energy sources enable or prevent a transition
> to a carbon free system.

I am totally supportive of the increase in wind generation (and PV for that matter)
but refuse to write off this "little detail":

>> the *actual* contribution of coal went *up* from 159,482 to 230,253 and
>> as for natural gas? That went up from 16% to 23% (89,801 to 209,953) ...

That is an increased contribution to the EU electricity capacity by coal of ~44%
and an increased contribution by gas of ~134%.

Yet you prefer to derail the sub-thread by concentrating on your delusion that
I am "far too intent on trying to defend nuclear" rather than face up to this
very inconvenient truth?

[kristopher]

46. Why do you have so much trouble just making an honest argument?

The Rio Earth Summit was held in 1992 and marks the real beginning of our global effort to turn the tide of fossil fuel use. It took until 1994 to craft an international agreement to deal with the problem, and another 3 years to shape and pass a treaty binding nations to the agreement. It wasn't until 2005 that the treaty went into force.

Your numbers reflect the inertia of where we are coming from. The graph in the OP reflects where we are going - which is precisely why it is significant. The numbers for new coal capacity have been steadily declining both in the EU and the US. In fact, in the US coal's share of the electrical services market has declined 25% between 2005 and 2010. Sure, most of that is due to natural gas, but as has been repeatedly shown, that is in conjunction with a dramatic increase in the manufacturing and supply chain infrastructure for renewables and a steadily increasing rate of deployment for those technologies.



I'm still waiting for your reply to post 29

As I said, if your reference to shutting down nuclear en masse was in response to the link in post 3 then your reply was a red herring since that is an example of how the transition to a carbon free infrastructure will shake out with ever increasing renewable penetration.

That is why I asked you to relate how the interplay of these technologies will unfold as we move away from carbon. Why don't you lay out how the hoped for transition will occur? Since you say that I'm trying to "defend natural gas" explain how preserving large scale centralized thermal (nuclear and coal) is preferable to restructuring our energy machine (the grid) to make it hospitable to renewables while also getting immediate reductions in emissions.

I'd really love to hear your vision of how that works.

Now

[Nihil]

47. I'm not the one who is dodging the facts by constantly raising the "nuclear" red herring.

I have repeatedly made honest arguments only to have them ignored & deflected
by rubbish about "nuclear support".

Let's try again ...

>> That is why I asked you to relate how the interplay of these technologies will
>> unfold as we move away from carbon. Why don't you lay out how the hoped
>> for transition will occur? Since you say that I'm trying to "defend natural gas"
>> explain how preserving large scale centralized thermal (nuclear and coal) is
>> preferable to restructuring our energy machine (the grid) to make it hospitable
>> to renewables while also getting immediate reductions in emissions.

1) Nuclear power stations will be retired and not replaced (as has been happening).

2) Primary renewables (wind, PV) will increase (as has been happening).

3) Large-scale hydro is largely tapped out and, additionally, suffering from the effects
of the various droughts across the EU but will remain a significant contribution that
needs to neither decrease nor increase.

4) Secondary renewables (biomass, waste, geothermal, small hydro, tidal) will gradually
increase but are unlikely to contribute significantly to the short-term fight to replace
fossil fuels.

5) In the strategy to move *away* from carbon, the increasing contribution of renewables
*should* result in the closing of oil- coal- and gas-fired plants (as has happened already
to oil-fired but is yet to happen to coal or gas fired plants) thus decreasing the output
of CO2 from the electricity generation segment of human life.

6) If #5 has been achieved before #1 has resulted in zero nuclear plants, the process
of points 2, 3 & 4 should continue in order to speed up #1.


Now tell me how *increasing* the contribution of coal and *increasing* the contribution
of gas is going to achieve #5.


>> I'd really love to hear your vision of how that works.

I bet you don't as it doesn't fit your preconceived opinion of what my vision is.

[kristopher]

48. I already replied to your quesiton

You:

Now tell me how *increasing* the contribution of coal and *increasing* the contribution
of gas is going to achieve #5.

I already wrote:

The Rio Earth Summit was held in 1992 and marks the real beginning of our global effort to turn the tide of fossil fuel use. It took until 1994 to craft an international agreement to deal with the problem, and another 3 years to shape and pass a treaty binding nations to the agreement. It wasn't until 2005 that the treaty went into force.

Your numbers reflect the inertia of where we are coming from. The graph in the OP reflects where we are going - which is precisely why it is significant. The numbers for new coal capacity have been steadily declining both in the EU and the US. In fact, in the US coal's share of the electrical services market has declined 25% between 2005 and 2010. Sure, most of that is due to natural gas, but as has been repeatedly shown, that is in conjunction with a dramatic increase in the manufacturing and supply chain infrastructure for renewables and a steadily increasing rate of deployment for those technologies.

You:

I have repeatedly made honest arguments only to have them ignored & deflected by rubbish about "nuclear support".

Me:

The numbers for new coal capacity have been steadily declining both in the EU and the US. In fact, in the US coal's share of the electrical services market has declined 25% between 2005 and 2010. Sure, most of that is due to natural gas, but as has been repeatedly shown, that is in conjunction with a dramatic increase in the manufacturing and supply chain infrastructure for renewables and a steadily increasing rate of deployment for those technologies.

In other words your arguments are not as honest as you claim...

ETA: Now, why don't you share with us how nuclear could work to oust fossil fuels. You say you no longer support nuclear, fine. But you have supported it for many years and I presume that support included a vision of how we used building more nuclear to get to a carbon free world. Using that deep body of experience and knowledge, explain what the basis of your view was.

With renewables it is the zero-fuel cost coupled with a small per-unit capital cost.
What economic carrots and sticks gets nuclear plants built in places that shut down coal plants?

[Nihil]

69. No, you've just concentrated on dodging it (and did it again there)

This time, you repeated the same non-answer, making references to the Kyoto protocol
where you think it will reinforce your argument whilst ignoring it when referencing points
that it contradicts.


> The numbers for new coal capacity have been steadily declining both in the EU and the US.

Correct & agreed that it is a good thing.


> In fact, in the US coal's share of the electrical services market has declined 25% between
> 2005 and 2010.

Detail given without evidence but taken on trust yet ignored for now as it is irrelevent to the
ongoing thread (concerning the EU). Doubly irrelevent as the US remains the only signatory
not to have ratified the protocol and so hardly able to use "Kyoto" as a supporting argument.


> Sure, most of that is due to natural gas, ...

So yes, you've answered my question (i.e., you don't have any problem with the ramping
up of coal & gas) but let's continue ...

> ... but as has been repeatedly shown, that is in
> conjunction with a dramatic increase in the manufacturing and supply chain infrastructure
> for renewables and a steadily increasing rate of deployment for those technologies.

... with a hand-wave towards the fig-leaf trying to cover the enlarging phallus of fossil-fuel
usage by waffling about "a dramatic increase in the manufacturing and supply chain infrastructure
for renewables" (i.e., "dramatic" as it started from very near zero and has ended up many times
further away from zero) and "a steadily increasing rate of deployment for those technologies"
(again true in itself but as most of the manufacturing for said "increasing rate" requires
importing into the deployment region it doesn't justify either the enormous increase in natural gas
usage - ~134% in case you'd forgotten - or the merely 'large' increase in coal usage - ~44%).

I suppose I *should* be happy that you have come out and said that you don't have a problem
with the ramping up of gas (and coal though that was merely implied rather than stated) but the
way in which you present your defence for fossil fuel increases makes your accusations of
"arguments are not as honest as you claim" ring a trifle hollow.


Now - with a large sigh - to address (again) your recurrent red-herring about nuclear power.

> What economic carrots and sticks gets nuclear plants built in places that shut down coal plants?

I don't (repeat "don't&quot (double repeat with bolding "don't&quot want any (repeat "any", "any&quot
new nuclear plants built for any (repeat "any", etc.) reason. Clear yet?

More than that, I want the existing ones to be shut down. Also clear?

The only possible way you can interpret this as pro-nuclear is that I don't want the remaining
nuclear plants to be shitcanned nearly overnight in the way that both Japan (understandably)
and Germany (less so) have done in the last 12 months.

The primary reason why I maintain this single caveat was given way back in the OP article:

>> In 2000, nuclear+coal+gas = 66% of the mix.
>> In 2011, nuclear+coal+gas = 63% of the mix.

If you take the existing nuclear plants (note: NOT building new ones) out of the mix
before having sufficient surplus power from renewables (like Japan & Germany did)
you WILL have to increase the contribution of both coal and gas (like Japan & Germany did).

THAT (increase of the contribution of both coal and gas) is what I don't want.

It also appears to be where we part company and agree to disagree, preferably without
any more re-hashing of the "You're a nuclear shill!" bollocks.

[XemaSab]

67. You seem to be laboring under the impression that you're the only one being coherent here

I hate to disabuse you of this impression, but you might wish to reconsider.

[joshcryer]

19. "clean natural gas"

[kristopher]

20. Similar challenge to you

Give a reasonably detailed outline of how a transition to a carbon free energy system will manifest itself.

[joshcryer]

21. Heh, I'm too cynical to express that right now.

Maybe, after we've used up all of the carbon fuels, and after we've turned the skies yellow using geo-engineering, we'll have a moon factory and utilize space based solar power (the factory would put the solar panels in geostationary orbit).

I'm just not pleased with non-conventional gas and oil shales, which apparently we're slated to really ramp up the production of.

[kristopher]

22. That's an evasion...

It is a simple, direct question, how will a transition actually happen? In the real world of energy generation and delivery what is going to happen to get to our ultimate goal of ridding the world of carbon fuels?

[joshcryer]

23. I don't think it will. There will be no tangible transition. We will use up almost all fossil fuels.

There will be no convergence where alternatives (renewables in particular) will be cheaper than fossil fuels and suddenly make fossil fuels stay in the ground. Even if the price comes down for alternatives, there will still be companies producing fossil fuels, and I do not see a viable transition where those fuels are not used up to say, something like 5% stays in the ground.

What is going to happen to get to our ultimate goal of ridding the world of carbon fuels?

We're going to burn almost all of it up. That's what I think.

[ellisonz]

94. "We're going to burn almost all of it up. That's what I think."

No but really, I think it's going to be far more interesting than that scenario. I also think we will drag the process out and that in doing so we will come up with a different means than fossil fuel. I think you need to give human adaptability some credit.

[jpak]

4. NNNOOOOOooooo !!!!11111

[jcs0007]

72. Why solar......

Why solar? Here is why we go solar/wind....

http://climatechangegraphs.blogspot.com/2012/02/ratio-of-record-high-daily-temps-to.html

[kristopher]

73. Why "Why solar..."?

I don't get your point. The OP is about the penetration of wind and solar in the EU and the response "Why solar" seems to focus on a question that wasn't asked.

Could you be more expansive on the point?

[Dead_Parrot]

74. Way to roll out the welcome mat, dude. nt

[Dead_Parrot]

75. Welcome to DU and E/E

Is that your blog?