Renewable Energy is Killing Nuclear Power No Hope for Nuclear

[kristopher]

Renewable Energy is Killing Nuclear Power
No Hope for Nuclear
Written by Jeff Siegel July 22, 2015

I changed my mind...

Over the past few years, I’ve been reluctantly singing the praises of a new nuclear renaissance.

I say reluctantly because I’m not actually a fan of expanding nuclear power. It just seems like a costly and superfluous agenda, as the trifecta of energy efficiency, storage, and renewable energy technologies is simply economically superior to nuclear.

However, I never really had much more than a hunch that this thesis made sense. In other words, I lacked enough data to back my argument...

http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/renewable-energy-is-killing-nuclear-power/4960

[daleanime]

1. bookmarked

[FBaggins]

2. Lol... he "changed his mind"?

He's been writing this same thing for years. Certainly since 2011.

The only time he ever thought nuclear power would expand at all was back when he thought that peak oil and peak gas had already arrived and peak coal was just around the corner. That was less than seven years ago - when he expected expanded coal usage with CCS.

Even back then... he was one of the nuts claiming that peak uranium was also upon us (buying Storm Van Leeuwen's nonsense).

In short... he's been proven to be pretty clueless about energy. He runs a company that makes money getting people to invest in renewables. Is it any wonder that he'll buy (and then sell) any spin that pretends that those stocks must necessarily shoot up?

[kristopher]

3. Around the World, Nuclear Can't Compete With Growing Renewables

Around the World, Nuclear Can't Compete With Growing Renewables[/iv]
Posted July 17, 2015
“What is spectacular is the extent to which the nuclear industry is appearing to ignore reality.”

Global investment in new nuclear is an order of magnitude less than renewable energy investment. That is just one of the findings of a new independent report on the state of the worldwide nuclear industry that was issued on Thursday. No matter which aspect of the nuclear industry is assessed, the picture isn't pretty.



Despite talk of a nuclear renaissance in the 1990s, no single Generation III reactor has come into service in the past 20 years. Most are delayed three to nine years and are far over budget.

“The impressively resilient hopes that many people still have of a global nuclear renaissance are being trumped by a real‐time revolution in efficiency‐plus‐renewables‐plus-storage, delivering more and more solutions on the ground every year,” Jonathon Porritt, co-founder of the Forum for the Future and former Chairman of the U.K. Sustainable Development Commission, wrote in the forward to the World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2015. “[The report] remorselessly lays bare the gap between the promise of innovation in the nuclear industry and its delivered results.”

China, which leads the world in new nuclear builds, spent about $9 billion in 2014, but invested more than $83 billion on wind and solar in the same year. China’s non-hydro renewable fleet produces more energy than its nuclear capacity....

http://www.theenergycollective.com/katherinetweed/2250134/around-world-nuclear-cant-compete-growing-renewables


OK, you've tried attacking the messenger, what nonsense is next?

[FBaggins]

7. Really?

Last edited Fri Jul 24, 2015, 08:59 PM - Edit history (1)

That is just one of the findings of a new independent report...

Anti-nuclear activist Mycle Snyder is now an independent source?

Graph

Who knew that nuclear power was so cheap and renewables so expensive?

Scores of reactors under construction for less than $25 Billion per year? Amazing.

no single Generation III reactor has come into service in the past 20 years.

Really? I can think of four in Japan (two in 1996, one in 2005, and one in 2006), a few in China and Russia, and a couple in Russia that have either started or will in the next few months. It's also a pretty disingenuous claim... since they well know that there are quite a few Gen III and III+ due to come online in the next few years.

China, which leads the world in new nuclear builds, spent about $9 billion in 2014, but invested more than $83 billion on wind and solar in the same year.

China produced about 140 Billion kWh of wind generation in 2014. Who knew that wind was so expensive? Note that the sixth reactor at Hongyanhe poured first concrete yesterday (and fuel is about to be loaded into the 4th). When all six are completed, they'll produce about 1/3rd as much electricity per year and all of the Chinese wind generation in 2014 combined. One plant... and they have lots of them planned

?n=9727

According to the report, China spent $40 billion of that on solar... installing somewhere between 10.6 and 12 GW of solar capacity. ~$3.5billion per GW of solar capacity? What happened to solar being cheaper than nuclear power?

China has more than ~25 reactors under construction and plans to continue starts at the rate of ~6/year... They expect to start eight new units this year and bring 14GW of new nuclear generation into service this year and next. Yet they can handle that for only $9 billion per year? Who knew that nuclear was so cheap?

Or maybe Mycle is just playing dishonest games with the numbers... again.

[kristopher]

9. Yeah, well...

[kristopher]

10. Snyder work is some of the most highly regarded in the world on this topic

You are arguing a straw man - fit your recitation to the curves on the global investment decision graph (that's why it is highlighted by inclusion) and you'll see that the curves are moving dramatically in opposite directions. The renewable trend line is steady but the massive decade long policy effort to revive the nuclear industry has fallen flat on it's face.

Fukushima didn't do it, economics did. The dead cat bounce after Fukushima was just that.

"Global Investment Decisions"

"Forward looking data"

[GliderGuider]

4. Cool! When is it going to "kill" fossil fuels?

Before they kill the planet, I hope?

[kristopher]

5. When are you going to help instead of obstruct?

If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

[GliderGuider]

6. What, exactly, is "the problem" from where you sit?

Last edited Fri Jul 24, 2015, 07:56 PM - Edit history (1)

And what am I doing to obstruct you from solving it?

My position is that the activity of 7.3 billion humans, leveraged and supported by over 14 terawatts of fossil fuel power, emitting over 41 gigatonnes of CO2 annually (counting land-use changes) is the problem. Over the last 5 years, for every gigawatt of low-carbon power consumption we've added, we've added about 1.5 gigawatts of carbon-dioxide-spewing fossil fuel.

I don't see you solving the CO2 problem. I see you cheerleading a pathetic sideshow match between windmills and nuclear power stations, while the planet de-stabilizes around us. In all fairness though, I guess since you can't say that renewables are winning the fight against carbon dioxide you really do need a straw man to hype your game.

Meanwhile, here's what's actually happening under the main top:

[kristopher]

11. You know very well what it is.

Last edited Sat Jul 25, 2015, 07:55 AM - Edit history (1)

Policy decisions are political decision and political decisions are affects by public perception.

It is entirely legitimate to highlight the remarkable success of the effort to roll out renewable energy or energy efficiency. It isn't hype,it isn't blowing smoke up anyone's ass - it is straight reporting of data trends that show strong movement in a dynamic and fast changing global effort to Fight a Fucking War for the survival of the planet.

It is unpleasant but necessary to have honest discussion of the pitfalls and shortfalls that exist in such an effort, but what you do isn't even a pretense of such honest discussion. Your schtick wasn't balancing anything - you are specifically motivated to piss on renewable energy and energy efficiency - the two essential ingredients of a solution that the public must understand are viable.

Your reaction might be appropriate if the post had made claims or even implications that we've solved the carbon crisis, but that isn't what is happening. You don't have to completely win the war in order to acknowledge and even celebrate winning a crucial battle in that war.

Nuclear is a strong leg in the economic stool enabling continued centralized fossil fuel use.The fact that the dollars are flowing away from both it AND coal at the rate that we are seeing is an important milestone.

Every watt of raw growth in the renewable sector - including negawatts - is a win for the good guys because it means increases in MANUFACTURING capacity and that part of the cycle driving rate of deployment.

If I react to your behavior with disdain it is not because your act is a form of whatever-you-want-to-call-your-antirenewable-theme-in-this-Fucking-War-We-are-Fighting, but you are almost invariably presenting a distorted picture that smacks of the type of manipulative argumentation we recognize in pundits like Ron Christie. Specifically in this case you know very well that you made that graph to deliberately mask the changing trends in the nature of the "low carbon energy sources" being deployed.



This says a tremendous amount about what is going to happen tomorrow.

The Snyder investment graph in the post above says a tremendous amount about what is going to happen tomorrow.

Whereas your graph... Well, it tells us absolutely nothing that we didn't know. The fact that we haven't fixed the problem is a point that is front and center in the mind of everyone here.

[GliderGuider]

13. Actually, I'm particularly motivated to piss on growth

Specifically any growth in human numbers and activity levels. That is what I see as "The Problem".

Because this is my primary focus I point out both the causes of growth (e.g. universal psychological predispositions, energy and other resource availability, and the path dependence of historical influences) and its effects: climate change, ocean acidification, habitat destruction and extinctions, resource appropriation and depletion, social power inequities etc.

I regard increasing energy use as the sine qua non of growth, regardless of its source. Without energy no activity is possible. Some energy sources (fossil fuels and to a lesser extent nuclear power) have worse consequences than others, so I tend to focus on them. Historically, source substitution has not produced any reduction in the absolute amount of energy humanity has used. Instead, substitutions have tended to increase our aggregate energy use because new sources have generally been more effective than older ones, and this has enabled faster overall growth in human activity.

My motivation is to reverse the growth of human activity levels. This would reduce the pressure we have put on the planet's biosphere, allow biodiversity to recover, and would give all species including our own the best chance for long-term survival. As part of that effort, it's essential to reduce all our energy use in absolute terms, no matter what its source.

In the course of this effort, I would prefer to see those sources with the most damaging consequences prioritized for immediate reductions. Fossil fuel is by far at the top of the priority list because of climate change. However, in the course of reducing fossil fuel use I don't want to see our activity levels supported through simple substitution, whether by hydro, renewables or nuclear power.

I suppose this is my core objection to source-specific boosterism. Even if renewables displace some fossil fuel in percentage terms, as nuclear power did in the 70s and 80s, overall energy use will not necessarily be reduced. For example, during the introduction of nuclear power during those two decades, the energy share of fossil fuels dropped from 94% to 88%, but total energy use rose by 60%. Even with a changing energy mix, human impacts on the biosphere (with the possible exception of climate change) will increase so long as our overall energy use increases.

Source-specific boosterism contains no acknowledgement that the core problem is energy-driven growth in human activity and its resulting impact on the biosphere. So long as the boosters are not promoting clear and realistic mechanisms by which our overall energy use can be reduced, I will continue to be strongly critical of their efforts. So far I haven't even seen an acknowledgement that growth is a problem.

You should expect me to continue criticizing renewable power right alongside fossil fuels and all other human growth-related activities for the foreseeable future.

[kristopher]

14. Bullshit.

Nothing but a bullshit cover story.

[GliderGuider]

15. Now I'm all hurt.

Wait, no I'm not.

[kristopher]

16. Why should you be?

You know it's true.

[GliderGuider]

17. You're an odd duck, kris.

I get the impression that you think everyone lies to you. We don't, you know.

[kristopher]

21. Of course you don't.

Going as far back as your peak oil days you just don't care about making significant mistakes in fact and reasoning because, according to you, you aren't here to convince anyone of anything and nothing matters anyway.

How could anyone be so obtuse as to take that kind of approach as lacking in certain ethical dimensions.

[FBaggins]

8. Such a strange usage of "killing"

According to Snyder's own report, there were only 26 reactors under construction a decade ago... but 60+ under construction now (the highest since 1990)... with lots more scheduled to begin construction in the next few years.

... and Fukushima happened in the middle of that period.

And odd form of death, eh?

[kristopher]

12. Not even a bit strange -

"Global Investment Decisions"

"Forward looking data"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=88783
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=88758

That thing on the investment trendline you are talking about Fukushima has a name - it's called, appropriately enough, a dead cat bounce

[GliderGuider]

18. Here's an interesting aggregated view of 50 years of energy use

Data courtesy of BP as usual.

[NNadir]

19. Which translates into no hope for the planet.

After 30 years and trillions of dollars, the idiotic fantasy that so called "renewable energy" is a) renewable, b) sustainable and c) affordable is killing the planet at an ever increasing pace.

Last year the entire wind industry, constructed at vast expense and human cost in countries about which the bourgeois brats responsible for this tragedy couldn't care less, increased it's output by 0.2 exajoules, while human energy demand rose 7 exajoules in the same year, to a total of more than 560 exajoules.

Unhappily for the next trillion dollars to be squandered on this absurd and failed fantasy, the scientific community, as opposed to the delusional community responsible for this human disaster is waking up to the facts of the matter:

Nature Geoscience 6, 894–896 (2013)

To call this garbage "renewable" when it lasts at best, for two decades before needing replacement; when it relies on digging vast amounts of rare metals soon to be depleted at tremendous environmental cost, when it is totally dependent on the dangerous fossil fuels for back up, fossil fuels the waste of which is destroying millions of human lives each year, is an obvious and open crime against the future.

History will not forgive this obscene fantasy, should history even exist.

As has happened so many times in human history, fear and ignorance have won the day, at the expense of the future not only of humanity, but at the expense of every ecosystem, and every living thing on the planet

[kristopher]

20. Nope.

Lowest carbon footprint.
Faster to deploy than any other form of generation.
Already economically displacing coal, natural gas and nuclear.
Solar expected to hit global grid parity by 2018.



Note the dead cat bounce after Fukushima when the safety hype of nuclear hope slammed into economic reality.

Go ahead and let it out.

Grieving is a process...

...even if it is for something as perverse as nuclear.

[NNadir]

38. There's actually a word for spending 2 trillion dollars for no result...

It's called "fraud."

The wind industry after 40 years of soaking up resources on a strained planet can't produce 2 exajoules per year of the 560 exajoules that humanity consumes.

The solar scam is even worse. It can't produce even one exajoule per year, this after distributing toxic metals all across the earth.

It is unsurprising, however, to find defenders of this scheme to rob the poor for the benefit of the rich - this being the entrenched fossil fuel companies for whom this 2 trillion dollar boondoggle serves as a fig leaf - bragging about how much money they've stolen from future generations.

In general, the defenders of this grotesque waste of money have the moral depth of a cowpie steaming "renewable methane," not that I wish to insult cowpies. It's not like the most microorganism loaded cow pie has caused as much damage as the average apologist for the so called "renewable energy" scam.

Two trillion dollars...two trillion dollars. For nothing, nothing at all.

This week, we're up almost 3 ppm over last year: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html

But it's not like the anti-nukes give a rat's ass about the environment.

I am describing this obscenity, this crime against the future, elsewhere in detail, but is probably the case that one would need to understand some science to read it, and frankly, understanding science is not even remotely possible for anti-nukes.

Sustaining the Wind: Is Renewable Energy the Same as Sustainable Energy?

Have a nice evening.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

28. The problem is not energy, the problem is too many humans.

A plague upon the planet, stripping the world faster than it can regenerate. We'll outstrip our food and clean water supplies long before energy becomes a problem.

[joshcryer]

22. We'll pass the point of no return before renewables do anything.

Even with lofty renewable energy goals for the US.

[GliderGuider]

23. That's what it comes down to. Fossil fuels have the world in their grip

and aren't going to let go until all the ice is gone.

[jonno99]

29. "Fossil fuels have the world in their grip" Really?

That makes as much sense as lamenting: "the sun has the world in it's grip".

No, we are using fossil fuels - because they are for now the only viable source filling the world-wide demand for energy.

[GliderGuider]

30. So we can stop any time we like right? Like a heroin junkie?

Make no mistake, global civilization is far more addicted to fossil fuel than any street junkie was ever addicted to his fix. There is a dopamine reward component related to fossil fuel use that makes it precisely the same.


Try reading this and see if it clarifies what I mean: http://dopamineproject.org/2013/01/why-power-money-and-esteem-addicts-are-more-dangerous-than-junkies/

[jonno99]

31. So things like refrigeration, and reducing the back-breaking toil of human labor -

by our use of electricity - is comparable to the brain-destroying "high" that the junkie craves?

Nope - try again...

[GliderGuider]

32. Pretty well everyone in the world thinks like you.

All 7.3 billion of them, using the equivalent of 250 million barrels of oil every single day, and thinking that's the way it should be.

As the world's wildlife vanishes, the ice caps melt, the oceans die, the weather changes...

A planet destroyed so you can have a refrigerator and a washing machine? Seems like a fair trade to you, eh?

Fucking junkies, wrecking the neighbourhood.

[jonno99]

33. "thinking that's the way it should be." No - that's simply the way it IS.

And it will remain that way until abundant sources of energy are developed. It's the old "necessity is the mother of invention thing".

Of course, I have to assume that you personally don't use refrigeration, and that your on-line time is powered wholly by sunshine & wind (we won't even get into your carbon-based PC components).

I mean, you don't seem like the type that would contribute to "wrecking the neighbourhood" - like one of those people...

[GliderGuider]

35. I'm just as guilty as everyone else. The difference is

that I at least recognize and acknowledge my guilt as the first step to correcting my behaviour. You're right that this is the way it is, which puts drastic limits on how much I can practice my degrowth philosophy and keep eating. I have done what I can within those limits, but I'm still wrecking the planet. One simply can't live like a !Kung in a modern urban environment.

What you (like most people today) don't/can't see is that "abundant sources of energy" are the problem, and that creating more of them will not solve it. This is a very hard thing for people raised in the last 200 years to understand. Solar and wind power won't solve the larger problem of human overgrowth in both numbers and activity levels.

[jonno99]

36. Guilty? No. Unless you consider that it is your fault that you were born into the place

that you were. Keep plugging away - encourage conservation, smart growth, etc.; but I see little good coming from the "I'm guilty" mindset...

[GliderGuider]

37. I'm going to keep plugging away for sure.

Encouraging degrowth, radical reductions in consumption, childlessness and the virtue of poverty (all of which I practice).

I will also keep plugging away at pulling back the curtains on growth-promoting mythologies and the unquestioned thermogenetic assumptions and anthropocentric values that underpin them.

There is no form of human growth that can be called "smart" - at least not without lying through your teeth. "Smart growth" is as much an oxymoron as "sustainable development".

[kristopher]

34. I agree with your thinking

We are no more controlled by the nature of fossil fuel technologies than we were controlled by stone age technologies. You should know that until recently G.Guider predicted (with multitudes of colorful charts absolutely proving his thesis) the total collapse of everything that would occur when we plummeted down the precipitous cliff on the other side of peak oil.

His world view and consequent analysis held that the only possible way to mitigate - to any degree whatsoever - the imminent global collapse of civilization was to build nuclear plants. According to him, renewable energy would be of no help at all and any effort to build out renewable infrastructure was pointless and hopeless.

It's good to bear that in mind as he pontificates and charts his way through his present set of antirenewable energy rationalizations.

BTW - not to quibble, but I'd argue with your use of the word "viable". We have viable low carbon substitutes for the present fossil fuel centric system. We just need to deconstruct and rebuild the massive global infrastructure that is in place. Viable isn't wrong, per se, since without that infrastructure in place we have to continue using FFs. But to my mind the word conjures images of no existing technologies that could provide the solution; which is a standard false meme that the entrenched energy interests like to promote regarding renewables.

[kristopher]

24. You could be correct but if that happens it will be a matter of public will, not technology.

The central good of the news in this OP isn't so much the decline of nuclear, it is the cause of the decline of nuclear being the rapidly improving economics of renewables. So far this year about 70% of installed global capacity has been renewable with virtually zero coal in the mix.

That relates directly to will. The decarbonization effort has heretofore been made much more difficult because of opponents ability to use high cost as their cornerstone argument. That PR advantage is not only disappearing but actually reversing itself as the best economic choice is more and more clearly some form of renewables.

That creates ever more "economic winners" to act against the winners in the fossil fuel based system.

[GliderGuider]

25. It's also a question of the speed of climate change.

Can we use the substitution of renewable energy to get FF use (including oil and gas) down to zero before 2050?

What are the politics related to such a drastic energy curve? Are they different in kind than the politics it would take just to convince nations to invest "more" in renewables? In my view the politics associated with the former has a lot to do with emotions, human psychology and social power games. This puts it in a different category of "politics" than the latter, which simply depends on rational self-interest.

[kristopher]

26. Are you defending buggy whip makers again?

[GliderGuider]

27. No, I'm asking you how you see the politics in relation to the time scale.

Last edited Mon Jul 27, 2015, 04:25 PM - Edit history (2)

If I'm defending anyone, it's the makers of stone axes... because after a short stop in the horse-and-buggy era, that may be where we're headed.

[joshcryer]

39. Idiotic.

[joshcryer]

40. Nuclear is rightly irrelevant.

The only will is the will not to export coal and the will to prioritize business with clean states.

That will does not exist nor will it. This is an economic fact of our shitty capitalist globalized world.

Even with the TPP, which has its own environmental standards, countries signing on will not have access to US IP at reduced rates. If anything they'll be bound by US IP law and standards.

The fight against climate change is not US-centric. It's global. Remember when I told you we had 17.5 years? That was 6 years ago.

We're fucked kristopher. We're fucking fucked.

Call me an alarmist. I don't give a fuck.