BraveNewClimate.com

Getting to grips with the brave new world of future climate and energy – notes from a Promethean environmentalist

Q and A responses to climate skeptics’ arguments

Posted by Barry Brook on 2 October 2009

I’d like to highlight a really useful information document put together by Dr Brett Parris, Chief Economist & Manager, Climate & Natural Resources Team, World Vision Australia. It’s entitled “Responses to Questions & Objections on Climate Change” and has been through some heavy revisions (currently on v3). He has also developed a scenario modeller (see below).

The climate sceptics FAQ is pretty comprehensive, running to 68 pages (PDF document here) and is well referenced. There is also a web-based html version here for convenient online browsing and cut-and-paste. Previous versions of this FAQ have been fine-tuned on the basis of iterative advice from a range of climate scientists and specialists in related disciplines, and so the content is both rigorous and reflective of the evidence-based scientific literature. I commend it to those who are interested in concise answers to a range of commonly asked sceptical questions on anthropogenic global warming.

The review covers 21 commonly raised arguments (click on number to goto):

1. The IPCC is a political body and its reports are scientifically unreliable

2. Science is not about consensus – Galileo was ridiculed by the authorities and the scientific establishment

3. There’s no consensus – 31,000 scientists signed a petition denying the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change

4. We should wait until there is more evidence before reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

5. Climate change has been happening throughout geological and human history. What is happening now is not outside the bounds of natural climatic variability.

6. Because what is happening now is within the realms of natural variability, we can’t say that humans are contributing to climate change.

7. Because what is happening now is within the realms of natural variability, it is not something to worry about. Species have always adapted.

8. It was warmer during medieval times

9. Climate models are unreliable

10. There was a consensus among climate scientists in the 1970s that we would soon be heading into another ice age

11. Global warming ended around 1998 anyway – it’s been cooling since then.

12. Our best strategy is simply to adapt to climate change.

13. CO2 exists only in very low concentrations in the atmosphere, therefore it cannot have significant effects.

14. CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas. Doubling of CO2 from its pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm to 560 ppm would only bring warming of about 1ºC.

15. CO2 is not a pollutant – it is completely natural and essential for life.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Non-greenhouse theorists ('sceptics') | 20 Comments »

TCASE 2: Energy primer

Posted by Barry Brook on 29 September 2009

Before getting entangled in the thorny bramble of sustainable energy options, I thought it helpful to arm you with a set of terminological secateurs. So TCASE #2 (recalling that TCASE = the Thinking Critically About Sustainable Energy series) is a brief primer and glossary on energy terms. This is not meant to be anything comprehensive, but it’s enough to get your technical feet wet and to understand some of the units and concepts that are liberally thrown around by those who are used to talking in the energy jargon. (If readers feel I have missed something important [no doubt], please feel free to add this to the comments, and I will also update this post to reflect the important suggestions.)

Anyway, first up, we need to understand the difference between power and energy. Let’s say you have a jug of water. It has some volume, which is the amount of water the jug holds. Now, let’s say you gradually tip out the water — the flow of water (the amount of water being poured per unit time) is a rate. Well, in caricature, the volume of water is like energy, and the flow of water is like power. Not a perfect analogy, but they never are…

Now, when measuring anything, you could use any manner of units. I’m going to consistently stick to SI (Système Internationale) units. If you want to translate back and forth (imperial, metric, nonsensic, etc.), look up the tables here. The basic SI unit of energy is the Joule. The basic unit of power is the Watt (W), which has units of Joules per second (J/s). So, a 60 W incandescent light globe uses up energy at a rate of 60 J/s, or 216,000 J per hour (60 x 3,600 = 216 kilojoules, kJ). Or, to express it another way, in one hour (h) that light would use up 60 Wh worth of energy, and in a day, it’d use 60 x 24 = 1,440 Wh, or 1.44 kWh. So, kWh are a unit of energy.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Nuclear Energy, Renewable planet | 37 Comments »

Thinking critically about sustainable energy (TCASE) 1: Prologue

Posted by Barry Brook on 27 September 2009

This is the first post in what is planned to be an extended series, ‘Thinking critically about sustainable energy‘ (henceforth TCASE #). As explained in my previous blog entry, A necessary interlude, this series will look in detail at the issues confronting renewable and nuclear energy, with an aim to break down the often complex and multifaceted critiques and promotions being made about various energy generation technologies into simpler, single-issue chunks, which can be more readily pinned down and understood.

I will also profile some of the less well-developed low-carbon technologies, such as tidal, wave, microalgae, and geothermal, as well as nuclear fusion, fusion-fission hybrids, travelling wave reactors etc. and speculate on their possible future roles. I hope in this way that I’ll be able to reinforce people’s understanding of why I no longer hold renewable energy to be a primary solution — and yet, by the same yardstick of maintaining intellectual honesty, acknowledging that I’ll also keep an open mind to unconsidered possibilities and caveats that are raised by commenters (be these against nuclear energy, and/or for renewables). Indeed, I’ll also discuss critically the social and technical impediments facing nuclear power adoption and the Generation III/IV synergy.

First up, a little history of the evolution of my thought on this topic, as documented my professional research and in the archives of this blog.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Nuclear Energy, Renewable planet | 90 Comments »

A necessary interlude

Posted by Barry Brook on 24 September 2009

Like most interesting things in life, blogs are dynamic beasts. They are a reflection of the personality of their writer(s), projected into cyberspace. They evolve, as the opinions of their writers are shaped by new or unappreciated knowledge, commentary, feedback, and changing circumstances. My blog, Brave New Climate, is no different. After a little over a year in production (here is the first post), it has been a successful venture, albeit exhausting at times, and often exasperating to boot. Still, I feel it has stayed true to its original intention — to provide a rational, evidence-based communication tool for me to engage the public on climate change, and to never compromise on what I believe to be honest and justifiable (irrespective of whether such conclusions are convenient or not). That’s never going to change.

Yet there is no doubt that BNC has taken some unexpected directions. My past swordplay with the climate change sceptics has served a purpose — but my interest in this endless game has waned, and besides, others continue to do it much better than me. I’ll probably still pitch in occasionally, but it’s too much like bobbing for apples in a communal cesspit to make it a regular activity. My exhortations to my readers to understand the seriousness of the climate and sustainability crises, and to better appreciate the urgent need for action, laid an important foundation for the blog — but ultimately, there is only so many times you can say ‘the world is doomed unless we change our wicked ways’ before it starts to become depressingly banal, and people turn off. I continue to see this blog as playing a useful role in communicating snippets of hot news in climate science (although these days, I mostly do this via Twitter) and in hosting guest posts from well-credentialed and thoughtful people with important things to say about climate science, meteorology, carbon trading, psychology, national policy, and the like. But — and I think you can see where I’m going with this — these tasks no longer represent the primary drive behind BNC. It’s now predominantly — and unashamedly – a blog about realistic solutions.

In comments on a recent thread, reader ‘Matt’ asked the following, quite reasonable question of me (see here, comment #53):

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Climate change Q&A, Nuclear Energy, Renewable planet | 121 Comments »

Radiation – facts, fallacies and phobias

Posted by Barry Brook on 19 September 2009

I note a recent article in Opinion Online by Dr Helen Caldicott was linked to in the Is Our Future Nuclear? comments thread, and this subsequently generated a fair amount of heated discussion. The focal claim from Caldicott in this piece is that it is dangerous to live near to nuclear power plants (NPP), because they supposedly increase rates of leukemia.

My basic response to such a claim is quite simple, and I think useful, because it cuts through the somewhat arcane and context-laden epidemiological arguments. It’s this: The additional radiation exposure of those living in the vicinity of NPP is ~0.0002 millisieverts (mSv), versus a background level of 2 to 4 mSv (depending on where you live) — the latter due to everything from cosmic rays, to ground-derived radon emissions, to eating bananas (this last one gives you more radiation than the NPP). So that’s 1/15,000 of your total yearly dosage coming from the ambient levels produced by nuclear power (in the US). Living near a coal-fired power station would give you 100 to 300 times more radiation exposure, and even that is trivial and not the reason coal burning is damaging to your health.

So, here is an apparently straightforward intellectual challenge. Can proponents of such an argument as Caldicott’s explain how something which adds 0.007% to an existing effect (background radiation) is somehow critically important, when adding 100 to 300% (or more) to an effect by simply moving from a house built on sedimentary rocks to one built atop granite, or moving from the state of New York to Colorado, is irrelevant? More here. Remember, radiation is radiation (principally alpha particles [helium nuclei], beta particles [high-speed electrons], x-rays, gamma rays [high-energy electromagnetic radiation] and neutrons), whether it comes from exploding stars, naturally decaying heavy metal atoms, CAT scanners, fission reactors, bananas, granite boulders, whatever. There is no unique ’signature’ to the radiation from NPP.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Nuclear Energy | 190 Comments »

Science Council for Global Initiatives

Posted by Barry Brook on 15 September 2009

scgibannerConcerns continue to mount over climate change — driven by spiralling carbon emissions, dwindling global oil supplies — fomenting ongoing regional conflicts,  air pollution — including sulphates and soot leading to chronic health problems, degraded waterways and forests — caused by acidification and heavy metal pollution. The list goes on, and these are just the fossil-fuel-related environmental problems we must tackle. In this context, the lack of a coherent sustainable energy policy — from virtually any nation — almost leads one to despair. Steve Kirsch has written about this failure recently with reference to the US, but the lack of vision is near universal. Is this simply the product of human nature — an inevitable failure of societies to recongnise the seriousness of unsustainable practices until it is all too late?

I don’t believe it must be this way. There are positive visions out there — aspirations for a future world in which all people’s basic needs are met, and opportunities are created to allow for ongoing improvement in quality of living, without ‘powering down’ some baser, lower-energy state. Aims to achieve a global society that is recognisably modern and ‘high tech’, yet is one which also strives to protect biodiversity from destruction, maintain vital ecosystem services, and ensure a vibrant, habitable and sustainable planet in perpetutity. It can be done, and it must be done.

These are bold ideas. But how to realise them? No one can say with certainty, but that must not stop us trying our damndest to achieve such goals. In that spirit, and with these initiatives as our inspiration, I am proud to announce that a group of concerned global citizens has founded an organisation called the Science Council for Global Initiatives (SCGI).

Our Vision

Humanity already has the technology to implement a global energy revolution. We can now usher in a post-scarcity era while solving the most intractable problems that threaten life on Earth.

Our Mission

The Science Council for Global Initiatives is a growing international group of scientists, politicians, activists and other concerned men and women working together to articulate cohesive, efficient policies for solving the most serious problems ever faced by mankind. Resource wars, globe-girdling pollution, the threat of serious climate disruption; these challenges demand immediate international cooperation and inspiration on an unprecedented level. The world-class members of SCGI are creating the foundations for political and social structures that will enable us to meet the formidable challenges of the 21st century.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Emissions reduction, Nuclear Energy | 58 Comments »

Solar realities and transmission costs – addendum

Posted by Barry Brook on 10 September 2009

Peter Lang’s ’solar realities’ paper and its associated discussion thread has generated an enormous amount of interest on BraveNewClimate (435 comments to date). Peter and I have greatly appreciated the feedback (although not always agreed with the critiques!), and this has led Peter to prepare: (a) an updated version of ‘Solar Realites’ (download the updated v2 PDF here) and (b) a response paper (download PDF here). Below I reproduce the response, and also include Peter’s sketched analysis of the scale/cost of the electricity transmission infrastructure (PDF here).

———————————————–

Comparison of capital cost of nuclear and solar power

By Peter Lang (Peter is a retired geologist and engineer with 40 years experience on a wide range of energy projects throughout the world, including managing energy R&D and providing policy advice for government and opposition. His experience includes: coal, oil, gas, hydro, geothermal, nuclear power plants, nuclear waste disposal, and a wide range of energy end use management projects)

Introduction

This paper compares the capital cost of three electricity generation technologies based on a simple analysis. The comparison is on the basis that the technologies can supply the National Electricity Market (NEM) demand without fossil fuel back up. The NEM demand in winter 2007 was:

20 GW base load power;

33 GW peak power (at 6:30 pm); and

25 GW average power.

600 GWh energy per day (450 GWh between 3 pm and 9 am)

The three technologies compared are:

1. Nuclear power;

2. Solar photo-voltaic with energy storage; and

3. Solar thermal with energy storage

(Solar thermal technologies that can meet this demand do not exist yet. Solar thermal is still in the early stages of development and demonstration. On the technology life cycle Solar Thermal is before “Bleeding edge” – refer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_lifecycle).

This paper is an extension of the paper “Solar Power Realities” . That paper provides information that is essential for understanding this paper. The estimates are ‘ball-park’ and intended to provide a ranking of the technologies rather than exact costs. The estimates should be considered as +/- 50%.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Nuclear Energy, Renewable planet | 278 Comments »

Is Our Future Nuclear?

Posted by Barry Brook on 7 September 2009

Transcript: Is Our Future Nuclear?

Broadcast: 28/08/2009 [YouTube video here], Reporter: Mike Sexton

IAN HENSCHKE, PRESENTER: At this week’s AGM, the State Liberals voted to debate nuclear power’s potential the cut carbon emissions. But with Labor demanding debate be shut down and the Liberal leader saying the vote wasn’t binding, discussion seems doomed. But while the politicians won’t debate, others will, with some senior academics saying the future depends on nuclear power. Mike Sexton reports.

MIKE SEXTON, REPORTER: Australians are using more and more electricity, most of it created by coal generators that emit carbon. In simple terms, most scientists believe the more air conditioners in use, the hotter the planet gets.

BARRY BROOK, UNI. OF ADELAIDE: That obviously leads you to consider well, what are the possible solutions? We can look at adaption to climate change, but ultimately we’ve got to stop the process from running out of control.

MIKE SEXTON: Professor Barry Brook is director of the Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability at the University of Adelaide. He’s running his slide rule over the options Australia has for generating electricity while reducing emissions, and believes despite the abundance of wind, sunshine and hot rocks, renewable energy will not power us through the 21st Century.

BARRY BROOK: Looking hard at renewable energy, there are a lot of limitations, especially in terms of energy storage and energy back up that make it extraordinarily implausible, according to my view and that of many others, that it could supply most of our power needs in the future, which, for someone who’s really concerned about climate change impacts is a pretty disappointing conclusion.

MIKE SEXTON: Which is why Professor Brook believes the answer lies in that other abundant South Australian resource: uranium.

BARRY BROOK: We need to find a technology that has the characteristics of coal but is cheaper than coal. Nuclear power, especially fourth generation nuclear power, offers that prospect. Now if we can’t find, develop, commercialise and deploy on a large scale that sort of technology, I think we have a very slim chance of avoiding major climate change impacts.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Nuclear Energy | 121 Comments »

Australia’s weird winter

Posted by Barry Brook on 3 September 2009

maxdec200908Guest post by Blair Trewin. Blair is a senior climatologist at the Bureau of Meteorology’s National Climate Centre. He recently took the lead in writing the Special Climate Statement, Exceptional winter heat over large parts of Australia, issued 26th August 2009, updated 1st September 2009.

————————————-

Australia has just experienced an exceptionally warm August. Almost the entire country experienced above-average temperatures during the month, but the warmth was most extraordinary in the subtropics. Over most of the southern Northern Territory and the southern half of Queensland (away from the coast), maximum temperatures for August were more than 5°C above the long-term average. Maximum temperatures were the highest on record for August over 49% of Australia.

Averaged over Australia as a whole, maximum temperatures were 3.20°C above the long-term August average, and daily mean temperatures (day and night combined) were 2.47°C above average. Both values are the highest on record for August by close to a degree. In terms of how far the month was above normal, the maximum temperatures in August 2009 are also the highest on record for any month, breaking the record of +3.11°C set in April 2005; the daily mean temperatures rank second behind April 2005.

tmaxanom200908The month was marked by some individual days which were exceptionally hot for August, especially in northern NSW and Queensland. State records were set for August in both states (37.8°C at Mungindi and 38.5°C at Bedourie respectively). Perhaps more exceptional were the margins by which some records were broken, and the number of days on which previous records were exceeded. Collarenebri broke its pre-2009 August record by 5.4°C, and numerous other locations, including Murwillumbah, Moree, Gatton, Miles and Taroom, broke August records by 4°C or more. Such margins are not unheard of at exposed coastal sites – where everything has to go right to achieve an extreme high temperature (not only having a very hot air mass, but having the wind in the right direction to prevent conditions being moderated by sea breezes) – but are virtually unknown at inland locations.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Climate change Q&A, Hot news in climate science | 22 Comments »

Solar thermal questions

Posted by Barry Brook on 31 August 2009

To round out the controversial critique of solar power started here, I reproduce below the most detailed critical analysis I’ve read on solar thermal electricity. It’s written by a University of NSW academic, Ted Trainer. I’d strongly encourage you to read his full 44-page set of arguments on the inability of renewable energy to sustain an energy intensive society (an earlier version of which was reviewed last year on BNC — this provides an updated summary of his 2007 peer-reviewed book on this topic, published by Springer).

For context Ted and I agree on many things, but not all. We both acknowledge the seriousness of the climate crisis and the magnitude of the sustainability problems caused by humanity’s overexploitation of natural environments. We differ in that Trainer sees only one viable solution — a rapid, planet-wide ‘power down’ of civilisation to some ’simpler way’ (read here for his well-mapped-out thesis).

In the past year Tom Blees and I have exchanged a number of emails with Ted, in which we’ve talked about Generation IV nuclear power (IFR in particular), proposing it as a potential ‘uranium-thorium bullet’ to solve the energy crisis — and, as a result, providing the clean energy to solve a whole host of global problems such as climate change, water supply, agricultural sustainability and repairing the damage we’ve inflicted on natural systems. To his credit, Ted has looked at my arguments seriously, and has come up with a range of questions on Gen IV nuclear on which he requires ‘clear and convincing information’. As such, in a future post on BNC, I intend to address his nuclear critiques. But that’ s for another day.

The examination of solar thermal electricity given below is quite detailed, yet necessarily incomplete. Reliable data are simply lacking on many critical points. At the foot of this post, I list some key knowledge gaps on which Ted seeks further data. Perhaps you can help. For now, read on!

———————————————-

SOLAR THERMAL ELECTRICITY (for the reference list, see here)

Ted Trainer

The major drawback for renewable energy is the inability to store electricity from intermittent sources.  Solar thermal technologies are especially valuable because they can store heat and use it to generate electricity when it is needed.  Some believe this capacity will be the key to enable renewable energy sources to meet all electricity needs (e.g., Trieb, undated, Czisch, 2004), for example plugging gaps left by PV and wind.

Solar thermal systems are best suited to the hottest regions and it is not clear how far into the mid latitudes they can be effective, apart from via very long transmission lines.  They seem to be especially doubtful in winter, even in the best locations.  (For a more detailed discussion of solar thermal’s limits and potential see Trainer, 2008.). Trough systems will be considered first, then dishes.

Troughs

The winter electrical output for the US SEGS VI trough system is reported at about 20% of summer output. (NREL, personal communication.) Modelling for Central Australia, possibly the best solar thermal location in the world, by Odeh, Behnia and Morrison (2003) produces a figure closer to 12%.

The SEGS VI plant with its north-south troughs was not designed to maximise winter performance.  Arranging the troughs on an east-west axis, as distinct from the usual north-south axis, would raise the winter/summer ratio for energy entering a trough. (“Polar axis” alignment of troughs enables maximum energy yield, but is not feasible for large scale power generation.)  However even in good solar thermal regions the performance of east-west troughs in winter (and summer) is relatively low, compared with the summer and annual average performance of north-south troughs.  This is evident in Figure 1 from Odeh, Behmia and Morrison.  Summer thermal energy (not electrical output) entering a NS trough at Alice Springs would be 780 MJ/m/month, (in this document  “m” represents square metre) whereas in winter from and EW trough it would be 430 MJ/m/month, or 4 kWh/m/day.

The radiation data given by RREDC (undated), Meteonorm and ASRDHB, 2005,  point to the same general conclusion.  These sources indicate that Alice Springs is a better location than Egypt, receiving possibly 50% more solar energy per metre in winter.  It also seems to be a little better than the SW US.  Thus if solar thermal technologies are problematic in winter at Alice Springs they are not likely to be viable in the US or for Europe.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Renewable planet | 101 Comments »

Climate crisis update and cash for coal clunkers

Posted by Barry Brook on 27 August 2009

2covershootHere are two useful items I want to highlight.

The first is a policy and review paper on climate change written by Katherine Wells, entitled “Recent Climate Change Science, Global Targets and the Global Climate Emergency“.

Katherine, a lawyer, is a former Chair of the South Australian Premier’s main environmental advisory board, the Premier’s Round Table on Sustainability, and a former National Vice-President of the Australian Conservation Foundation. She is currently a Climate Change Consultant in Adelaide. Her 19- page overview struck me as one of the more succinct, thoughtful and readable updates of the recent science of climate change — written in a manner suitable for an intelligent lay audience — that I have read. I thoroughly recommend that you download and read it. Here is the summary:

————————————————-

Climate change impacts are occurring faster and with more severity than predicted only several years ago. At the same time, the world’s emissions are increasing at rates greater than predicted, and the alarming rates of emissions reductions required to avoid dangerous levels of climate change are becoming more apparent. The time-frames within which we can take effective action are shrinking rapidly, and now appear to be so tight as to require that we take world-wide emergency action, or prepare to face catastrophic levels of climate change.

This paper considers:

• some key findings of recent climate science

• some key climate indicators, and how they have been tracking recently

• whether a rise in the average global temperature of 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels is an appropriate threshold for ‘dangerous’ climate change

• what targets for atmospheric CO2e concentrations (ie, atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases) are necessary to limit the temperature rise to 2 degrees, and (alternatively) to stabilise the temperature at less than 1 degree above pre-industrial levels

• what targets for global emissions reductions, and other actions, are necessary to achieve these atmospheric CO2e concentrations targets, and

• the way in which time-lines in the climate change arena are shrinking:

- the impacts of climate change are getting worse more rapidly than predicted

- key climate indicators are providing great cause for concern

- the magnitude of the emissions reduction task is becoming more apparent

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Climate change Q&A, Emissions reduction | 16 Comments »

Recent nuclear power cost estimates – separating fact from myth

Posted by Barry Brook on 23 August 2009

I’m about to head to Madrid for two weeks, to do some research with a colleague at the National Museum of Natural Sciences — but do not fear, I’ll still be on the ‘net in the evenings to run the blog!

I see, happily, that I leave behind an ongoing debate on the need for nuclear power in South Australia. In the news today it was reported that the SA Liberal Party has supported a motion to debate the use of nuclear power technology to reduce carbon emissions. Good on ‘em — I trust (more like vainly hope) that the Labor party, Federal and State, will soon also be willing to open the floor. They’re certainly now getting serious prompting from their traditional supporter base.

However, something in that news story on the SA Libs particularly irked me (no, it was not the potshot from Kevin Foley; that was unsurprising political wedging). It was this:

Greens MP Mark Parnell says he does not think Ms Redmond’s stance will damage her credibility and the debate is futile.

“We are not about to have nuclear power here any time soon,” he said.

“South Australians don’t want it; it’s too expensive; it’s too dangerous; it’s not the solution to climate change; and we don’t know how to dispose of nuclear waste yet.”

Now Mark knows about Integral Fast Reactors — he’s been in the audience when I’ve talked about them. So why would he continue to claim that we don’t know how to dispose of nuclear waste? I find it hard to fathom. But anyway, this blog post is not about that statement. It’s about this one: it’s too expensive.

To address this critique, I use the example of the recent claims of Joe Romm on Climate Progress and Tyler Hamilton on Clean Break. They claim that the cost of new (Gen III+) nuclear power in Ontario, Canada, based on the competitive bids of companies AREVA (for the European Pressurised Reactor) and AECL (for the ACR-1000), would be “anywhere from $7,400 to $10,800 per kilowatt, depending on your appetite for risk“. Wow. That’s pretty gobsmacking. So what’s the deal? I decided to ask a few of my email contacts on nuclear matters, some of whom also write blogs.

Dan Yurman from Idaho Samizdat: Nuke Notes directed me to his superb post on this topic. You need to read this. Some excepts from Dan’s analysis:

Observers of the political turmoil now underway in Ontario over the media reports that AECL bid $26 billion to build two new ACR1000 reactors (2,220 MW) are in good company trying to make sense of these figures.

The news media, notably the Toronto Star, had a field day with the numbers sticking provincial politicians like they were morsels on a shish-ka-bob skewer. The problem with all the fire, smoke, and spit from the grill is that the numbers are undoubtedly wrong and wrongly reported in the news media.

First, $26 billion is an aggregate number that includes two reactors, turbines, transmission and distribution infrastructure (power lines or T&D), plant infrastructure, and nuclear fuel for 60 years as well as decommissioning costs. The most important number in the whole controversy has gone largely without notice and that is the delivered cost of electricity from the plants is in the range of five cents per kilowatt hour.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Nuclear Energy | 94 Comments »

Classifying ‘belief systems’ in sustainable energy and climate change

Posted by Barry Brook on 20 August 2009

Below I reproduce a fascinating analysis, which attempts to classify people’s ‘belief systems’ in sustainable energy and climate change into four broad categories,  types A, B, C, and D. (Note that this is only an excerpt from the introduction of a larger report that Gene is currently writing)

It is written by Dr Eugene Preston, who is a highly-experienced energy transmission systems consultant and member of IEEE. He also teaches classes at the University of Texas. Gene and I correspond regularly as participants of a sustainable energy email group (this particular group is rather special, in that it has a focus on a certain type of technology — no prizes for guessing which one). I reproduce the analysis below with Gene’s permission, and I hope he’ll be able to join in with the opinionated discussion that is likely to follow.

Each person has a belief system that strongly drives them to some vision of what our future should be. Gene says he’s type C (so am I). Which one are you? Is he missing any types of beliefs? How much overlap is there between the categories?

———————————————–

Belief Classifications

Eugene Preston (http://egpreston.com)

There are many ideas floating around today about how we should develop our future energy supply. People’s opinions are strongly shaped by what they believe to be true. Here is one example of the beliefs that shape the opinions of how our energy future should be developed.

———————————————–

A. Belief: Nuclear proliferation is a greater concern than climate change.

1. The world’s greatest risk is from nuclear weapons, most likely from terrorists or a rogue nation. Nuclear power should not be expanded until non-proliferation of nuclear materials can be assured on a worldwide basis.

2. Climate change is a problem we must begin to deal with, although its severe effects will not be felt until later, possibly at the end of this century.

3. Coal is a plentiful energy supply the US does not have the luxury to ignore. Capture and storage of CO2 is a technical problem that must surely have a solution.

4. Oil imports must be significantly reduced because the US cannot sustain the outflow of dollars from the US to other countries. Worldwide oil production has not yet peaked.

5. New technology will emerge in battery storage and solar cell manufacture, which will make electric cars and roof top solar power economical and solve the above #4 problem.

Do you recognize these opinions are those of President Obama? The current US energy policies are strongly shaped by these beliefs. Some of these beliefs may be true and are likely to happen, some are too expensive to implement, and some will not be technologically realized. Note that at this point I didn’t say which ones will succeed and which ones will fail. You will be able to see which ones by the end of this report. A well-engineered system can handle the uncertainties and risks. However, I can say for certain, that the above beliefs do not adequately address all the things that we need to be addressing, to insure a safe, reliable, clean, and economical power and energy supply for both electricity and transportation, as well as address the environmental cleanup challenge and also provide new energies for things such as space exploration and additional clean water supplies for the future.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Climate change Q&A, Nuclear Energy, Renewable planet | 63 Comments »

Solar power realities – supply-demand, storage and costs

Posted by Barry Brook on 16 August 2009

The two recent posts focusing on Peter Lang’s wind study have generated considerable debate, and some very stimulating discussion, among BNC readers. This post is a follow-up, which this time highlights Lang’s analysis of solar power and related problems associated with energy storage.

This is about solar photovoltaics (PV), which generate electricity directly via the photoelectric effect. The other rising player in the solar field is concentrating thermal power from deserts, which use a steam turbine to generate electricity via a temperature differential, in the same fundamental manner as a coal-fired or nuclear power station. I asked Peter whether he was planning to do an analysis of CSP. He told me:

“I’ve had a bit of a look at doing a similar paper for CST, but I wasn’t able to obtain the detailed output and cost figures I need. It seems the researchers are holding the figures close to their chest.”

I’ve had similar advice on this matter from Ted Trainer. He has attempted an analysis of CSP, and I might post up a highlight of this shortly, and describe some of the gaps in knowledge that Ted and others are seeking.  Lang says the following on this matter:

There are two technologies for generating electricity from solar energy: solar thermal and solar photovoltaic. This paper uses solar photo-voltaic as the example because energy output and cost data are more readily available than for solar thermal. It is not clear at this stage which is the lower cost option for large generation on the scale required (see here): so any cost difference is insignificant in the context of the simple analysis presented here.

Lang’s ‘Solar Realities’ paper (download the 17 page PDF here) is summarised as follows:

This paper provides a simple analysis of the capital cost of solar power and energy storage sufficient to meet the demand of Australia’s National Electricity Market. It also considers some of the environmental effects. It puts the figures in perspective. By looking at the limit position, the paper highlights the very high costs imposed by mandating and subsidising solar power. The minimum power output, not the peak or average, is the main factor governing solar power’s economic viability. The capital cost would be 25 times more than nuclear power. The least-cost solar option would require 400 times more land area and emit 20 times more CO2 than nuclear power.

Conclusions: solar power is uneconomic. Government mandates and subsidies hide the true cost of renewable energy but these additional costs must be carried by others.

The analysis, which focuses on the Australian national energy market (NEM) but is obviously relevant for other countries, considers electricity demand, the characteristics of solar PV and one possible means of storing its energy (pumped hydropower), capital costs of a system that could reliably meet demand for 1-day through to 90 days, and then an attempt to frame these numbers in perspective with an alternative low-carbon energy source — nuclear power.

The ‘Introduction’ of Lang’s paper sets the context quite clearly, with the following statement:

The paper takes the approach of looking at the limit position. That is, it looks at the cost of providing all the NEM’s electricity demand using only solar power for electricity generation. Looking at the limit position helps us to understand just how close to or far from being economic is solar power.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Nuclear Energy, Renewable planet | 439 Comments »

Wind and carbon emissions – Peter Lang responds

Posted by Barry Brook on 13 August 2009

The following is a response from Peter Lang to various comments made in the post “Does wind power reduce carbon emissions?“

Energy Storage

Energy storage, at the scale required to make wind power a reliable source of dispatchable power, is uneconomic. This link provides comparative costs of energy storage technologies.

Even without energy storage wind generation is uneconomic. Wind must be mandated by governments and subsidised, otherwise it would not be built. Wind power is high cost for low value energy. It has low value because it cannot be controlled and called up on demand. It requires high cost upgrading to the grid in remote areas and requires costly systems to maintain power and frequency stability on the grid. Wind generators need $90/MWh to $140/MWh to be viable. As well, the electricity distributors and the national grid operator all incur substantial additional costs as a result of being forced (by government regulation) to buy wind energy. For comparison, the cost of new entrant baseload power is about $40/MWh.

Barry Brook will soon be posting another paper which provides insight into the amount of energy storage that would be required and just how far from being economic are intermittent, not dispatchable renewable energy generation technologies with energy storage. These technologies are not just 10% or 20%, or even 50% from being economic. Solar PV with energy storage, for example, would be some 20 times more costly than nuclear power to provide the electricity we demand. We have been researching and developing solar PV for the same time as nuclear power, and wind power for three times as long. Yet these renewables are still totally uneconomic. The advocates are making the same sorts of statements now as they were making in the early 1990s about the economics of these generation systems – “they are economic now if the government would just subsidise them and mandate them more”.

Regarding plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV’s), there are many technical and cost issues to be solved before these become economic and widely used. However, together with substantial nuclear power generation, some energy storage with PHEV’s may make sense in the future. With some 80% of electricity generated by nuclear (as in France), and the remainder from gas and renewables (mainly hydro), then PHEV’s may make sense. They could allow wind and solar to make a genuine, economic contribution to electricity generation.

The fallacy of Dr Mark Diesendorf’s “The Baseload Fallacy”

Dr Mark Diesendorf claims that “the wind is always blowing somewhere”, so, with sufficiently wide spread wind farms, wind power is dependable. Figure 1 demonstrates that this claim is wrong. Figure 1 shows the total output for wind farms in NSW, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia for June 2009. The conclusion: wind power is unreliable, not dispatchable, and often zero when needed, no matter how large the area over which the wind farms are distributed.

langfig0

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Emissions reduction, Nuclear Energy | 191 Comments »

GreenPower claims and merits – clearing confusion

Posted by Barry Brook on 12 August 2009

Guest Post by Tim Kelly. Tim works as a Principal Climate Change Advisor in the Water Industry and is a regular contributor to Brave New Climate.

It was disappointing this week to see the level of confused and incorrect statements and criticisms in the media regarding GreenPower. Yes there are problems with GreenPower both currently (before an emissions trading system) and in the future (when a true cap on emissions comes into play) yet most of media reports this week incorrectly identified the issues in the flurry of copy and paste journalism and rush for comments by the experts.

The players that were silent in this flurry were GreenPower and the ACCC. These players could clear the air by explaining the problems in law and how GreenPower does reduce Australia’s emissions now but does not reduce customer emissions.

If you would like to understand renewable energy accounting in full without the green spin, I have prepared a this PDF slideshow ‘Renewable energy accounting in the new policy environment’ (20 slides in total).

The problems with GreenPower, and its double counting are not new. In fact I have been working on this matter since 2005. Initially, I sent constructive comments and concerns to the relevant agencies and program managers. I complained to the then Australian Greenhouse Office, the Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator, to the former Minister Campbell. I have made countless submissions that articulate the issues.

I had advised the Office of Minister Wong of the looming problems and sent a registered letter to the Prime Minister.

Despite efforts, the problems of GreenPower were built into law when the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER) Act and NGER Technical Guidelines 2008 came into force. Renewable energy benefits of ‘use’ and ‘reduced emissions’ was assigned to all customers rather than to the paying customer. GreenPower marketing continued unchanged.

I advised GreenPower, complained to the ACCC, and following a number of responses that did not address the issues, I again complained to the ACCC and copied my complaint to the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman in 2008. This year (on April 14) I formally complained GreenPower and later to the state Ombudsman Offices covering those states that are represented on the GreenPower Steering Committee.

All kinds of responses have been provided. Most totally misrepresent the issue or seek to find ways to avoid fixing or even acknowledging the problems.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Emissions reduction, Renewable planet | 20 Comments »

Does wind power reduce carbon emissions?

Posted by Barry Brook on 8 August 2009

Update: Peter Lang, author of the wind study referred to below, responds here.

If renewable or nuclear energy is going to be successful in decarbonising our electricity supply (and, ultimately, all energy use), it needs to hit a couple of fundamental benchmarks:

(i) its life cycle energy inputs must be low compared to its ‘clean energy’ output; and

(ii) it must be able to displace fossil fuels — with elimination of carbon emissions from stationary energy being the first major objective.

Regarding life cycle emissions from nuclear power, I’ve already touched on the issue, but will be exploring this in more detail in the future. But this post is about wind.

To tackle this topic, I profile a recent analysis circulated by retired engineer Peter Lang, called “Cost and Quantity of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Avoided by Wind Generation“. Peter has 40 years experience on a wide range of energy projects throughout the world, including managing energy R&D and providing policy advice for government and opposition. His experience includes: coal, oil, gas, hydro, geothermal, nuclear power plants and nuclear waste disposal (6.5 years managing a component of the Canadian Nuclear Fuel Waste Management Program). Click on the title of the paper to download the 14 page PDF.

Okay, so what does he say? Let’s start with the bottom line and then work back:

1. Wind power does not avoid significant amounts of greenhouse gas emissions.

2. Wind power is a very high cost way to avoid greenhouse gas emissions.

3. Wind power, even with high capacity penetration, can not make a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Strong statements, to be sure. Here’s the justification.

Peter looks at the issues of variability and back-up generation. Energy storage in the form of batteries is dismissed as uneconomic for the amount of energy required. For hydro, he says:

“We have insufficient hydro resources to provide peak power let alone provide back-up for wind power. Hydro energy has high value for providing peak power and for providing rapid and controllable responses to changes in electricity demand across the network. So our very limited hydro resource is used to generate this high value power.”

Pumped hydro is obviously an alternative route, if you are willing to accept the energy conversion losses in going from electricity from wind turbines to mechanical energy (pumps) to potential energy (water stored in the dam) to kinetic energy (falling water to turn the turbines) and back to electrical energy. But let’s focus for now on the most touted (and widely used) form of back up for wind: natural gas (that is, fossil methane) using open cycle gas turbines (OCGT).

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Nuclear Energy, Renewable planet | 166 Comments »

Power to the People – Nuclear energy in South Australia

Posted by Barry Brook on 4 August 2009

Update: Listen to me on ABC Radio, talking about nuclear power, fast breeder reactors, renewables, and the inevitability of growing societal energy demand. This also features an interview with Dr Jim Green, and my response. It runs for about 16 minutes in total: http://tr.im/vXE2

—————–

Published in the Adelaide Advertiser, 4 August 2009 (pg 18). This opinion editorial I wrote builds on the recent flurry of interest in the Australian media on introducing nuclear power.

BARRY BROOK IN MY VIEW

Imagine someone handed you a lump of silvery metal the size of a golf ball. They said you might wish to put on some plastic gloves to hold it, although that would not be necessary if you washed your hands afterwards.

You look down at the metal resting on your palm. It feels heavy, because it’s very dense.

You are then told that this metal golf ball can provide all the energy you will ever use in your life. That includes running your lights, computer, air conditioner, TV, electric car, synthetic jet fuel.

Everything. Using 1 kilogram of uranium (or thorium, take your pick).

That is what modern nuclear power offers. An incredibly concentrated source of energy, producing a tiny amount of waste.

Taken over its life cycle, when used in next-generation fast spectrum nuclear reactors, this energy generation will produce less carbon dioxide emissions than wind turbines. It gets better.

Your lifetime’s worth of energy waste, also weighing just under a kilogram, will be less radioactive than the natural rocks around Roxby Downs within 300 years. Not 100,000 years. Only 300 years.

South Australian rocks contain this metal in great abundance. We live in one of the most energy rich areas on the planet.

We are endowed with far more energy than all the oil and gas in the Middle East. We already export a few thousand tonnes of it each year, and are planning to ship much more overseas in the future. Yet, we don’t use it ourselves.

We recognise the fact that our natural gas supplies are limited. Worse, burning this fuel produces vast amounts of carbon dioxide, which is destabilising the climate system.

Coal, found in great abundance in Australia’s east coast states, is twice as bad as natural gas in terms of carbon emissions, and also dumps heavy metals, soot and chemicals causing acid rain into the air. Clearly, we must unhitch ourselves from the fossil fuel energy bandwagon, and quickly.

Right now, we are pushing for more and more wind and solar power. This is well and good, but these variable and diffuse renewable energy sources have severe limits that often go unacknowledged.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Emissions reduction, Nuclear Energy | 61 Comments »

Twitter Plimer on ice

Posted by Barry Brook on 31 July 2009

Okay, so the title of this blog post is rather cryptic, but that’s because I want to quickly talk about three different things. Twittering BNC. Brook v Plimer report back. And the famous disappearing Arctic sea ice.

First then, BraveNewClimate is now producing tweets. You can start following here: http://twitter.com/BraveNewClimate. I’ve also fed the latest 5 tweets on the right sidebar of the BNC blog, below the recent comments list. I’ll use this to feed snippets of interesting information or news that I’ve come across, which relates to the theme of BNC (climate change science and impacts, and sustainable energy for the world), as well as sending out announcements of new blog entries. Feel free to become a Twitter BNC follower, if this part of Web 2.0 takes your fancy.

Second, a brief reflection on that debate with Ian Plimer. It was an interesting night out, which I mostly enjoyed, though it admittedly did fell a bit like a Circus act. The audience turnout was certainly fantastic — a small hall in North Adelaide was packed to the hilt, which made for a great atmosphere. Ian Henschke from ABC Stateline made for a good, fair moderator.

I focused initially on communicating the methods of science and how many small elements come together in a vast body of knowledge that is the science of climate change and its impacts. Plimer then spoke for 10 minutes on the need to consider time (I’d pre-empted him on this), and stated that climate is ‘always changing’ and that the theory that carbon dioxide is causing current change, or has ever caused it, has been falsified. I’ve addressed why this is not the case many times before, and in my rebuttal I made mostly the same points again.

The question and answer session that followed was fairly routine, except for a rather dramatic ‘moment’ involving a poorly phrased  audience question that invoked a sharp retort from my opponent (you had to be there), and some less-than-gentle prodding of Ian by me in order to extract a clear on the question of water vapour’s contribution to the greenhouse effect — which resulted in Ian demanding intervention from the moderator. I’ll leave it to the audience to judge who was in the right. Perhaps some folks who were at the debate can provide their own perspective in the comments below — I know Geoff Russell and ‘John Smith’ already have, in the previous thread.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Ecological impacts, Non-greenhouse theorists ('sceptics'), podcast | 14 Comments »

The great climate debate 2009 – Brook vs Plimer

Posted by Barry Brook on 27 July 2009

A quick post to let you know that I’ll be ‘debating’ Ian Plimer of Heaven & Earth ‘fame’, tomorrow, in North Adelaide.

The event is hosted by ‘Engineers without Borders‘. Details below:

——————————-

Climate change debate! Barry Brook will be going head to head with Ian Plimer on the topic “Climate change is man made”.

6:30 pm on the 28th July at Engineering House, Bagot st, North Adelaide. Speakers have been told that they will be debating the topic: “Climate change is man made”. Speaker for the affirmative: Barry Brook. Speaker for the negative: Ian Plimer.

More information here:

The great Climate Debate

Brook versus Plimer: The great Climate-Change Debate

EWB (Engineers Without Borders) SA has organised a debate between two of South Australia’s most out-spoken climate-change scientists – Prof. Barry Brook (affirmative) and Prof. Ian Plimer (negative). The topic of the debate is “Man-made or not?” and will be moderated by Ian Henschke, presenter of ABC South Australia’s ‘Stateline.’ It promises to be a lively debate and it will shed light on some of the ‘finer’ aspects of climate change science.

WHEN: Tuesday, 28 July, 6 for 6:30 pm start

WHERE: 11 Bagot St, North Adelaide

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Non-greenhouse theorists ('sceptics') | 49 Comments »

« Previous Entries