According to The Times political editor, Philip Webster, a new generation of nuclear power stations will be built to supply unlimited amounts of electricity to Britian’s national grid.
“The Cabinet will give the go-ahead for the new building programme today [Tuesday 8th January] and John Hutton, the Business Secretary, will announce the decision on Thursday.
“He will pave the way for the nuclear industry to play a much bigger part in meeting Britain’s energy needs by making plain that there will be no limit on the amount of electricity it can supply to the grid.”
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Along with this announcement they also announced a 20 billion dollar waste management program to deal with the long term waste, burying it in geological storage so it would be completely safe for thousands of years.
No hang on they didn’t announce this at all. Only the first part where we get the power and the future gets the problems.
don’t worry Ender, it will supply ‘unlimted power’
“and the future gets the problems.”
Based on what analysis Ender? Issues related to safe long term storage are political in nature, not technical and driven by scaremongers like you. Climate, nuclear power, Barbie dolls, doesn’t matter what. You will always create a scare story won’t you?
Mark, I think Ender could have been referring to the tab – $20B for storage is pretty steep don’t you think? How much as the Uk spent already? $100B?
Well certainly the cost of waste storage and disposal should be factored into the economic analysis and an OBJECTIVE decision made as to the optimum way to provide the electrical power required. While nanosolar sounds sexy, it has yet to be economically proven and it will be years before any significant amount of production capacity will be online. Achieving economic solar power in high latitude countries like the UK and Canada will be even more of a challenge. Like I’ve said before, I’ve got nothing against alternative methods of power generation as long as they are economically viable and not just a pipe dream.
So did the IPCC emissions “scarenarios” include any renewed UK nuclear program? Highly unlikely.
Add these to the 34 new plants in China, fill in the blank for India and, surprise, surprise, the CO2 Bunyip is looking like a “Teletubbie”.
Every new or replaced nuclear power plant is another nail in the coffin of the entire range of emission projections. No wonder they refuse to call them ‘predictions’, they are more than 50% wrong just 8% of the way into the century.
Ian, you’ve reached the end of the track and its dark and lonely. Stop scratching around and put yourself out of your misery. Engage the brain and return to the light.
Jen, I hate to be the spelling nazi, but it’s BritAIn.
The important thing is, after much dithering due to climate mythology, reality has kicked in and we will hopefully get the energy supplies that we need. One question is will they be built in time to bridge our looming 20% energy gap? There is also a £1 billion coal fired plant planned for Kent.
Typo fixed.
Mark – “Issues related to safe long term storage are political in nature, not technical and driven by scaremongers like you.”
Mark I am forwarding your details to the people at Yucca Mountain. Apparently you have the answers that have eluded them for the last 10 years and cost 25 billion dollars. I am sure with your help with the technical details, that you assure me are solved, they might even open the place before the due date of 2017.
Good luck with the project.
Ender!
If you took the time to search for facts in general, and not just opinions, based on a particular view, you would know that the storage problem per se. has been solved. Why it’s not being implemented? Politicians will not do anything damaging to their reelection prospects until they have no choice.
At the moment they still don’t have to act, and the average Joe, being generally ignorant of technical details, is either scared stiff by the negative propaganda from people like you, or just keeps to the motto: not in, my back yard!
I think Finland or is it Norway? is building a storage facility right now.
“Mark I am forwarding your details to the people at Yucca Mountain. Apparently you have the answers that have eluded them for the last 10 years and cost 25 billion dollars. I am sure with your help with the technical details, that you assure me are solved, they might even open the place before the due date of 2017.”
I’m not talking about Yucca Mountain. My brother is a geotechnical engineer who has been working on the project for waste disposal in Canada for over 20 years. The major technical assessment has long been completed. It’s primarily a matter of politics now. Any government trying to now move forward with such projets will inevitably get tarnished by the environmentla lobby and that will be the primary determinant on decisions, not the technology.
If all you can contribute to this thread, Anthony, is stupid ad hom without content then you can go to the far queue.
I see Ender has plucked that $20 billion number out of his backside again. Funny how he never substantiates the basis for it.
And this moronic guff about handing a problem to “the future” is really wearing thin. We hand problems to the future all the time. I gladly hand the problem of educating my grandchildren on to my children. My job is simply to ensure that my children are properly equiped to deal with whatever confronts them in future.
For all the Enders of this world know, spent nuclear fuel may even be regarded as a valuable resource in as little as 100 years. There have been far more dramatic changes in the past 100 years so anyone who insists on an absolute watertight solution that will last 1000 years is either seriously deluded or simply seeking excuses for inaction based on ideology.
But as Mark and Jonathan have stated, the technical issues have already been solved. The public will only recognise this fact when the price of oil hits $200 a barrel.
Not so much to worry about from a cost point of view:
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/46314/story.htm
Spiked has a nice little piece today called Ten Myths about Nuclear Power
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4259/
Despite claims that the UK has shut down their coal industry
“FIRST THE credit crunch, now the energy crunch. Just as household electricity bills go stratospheric the first coal-fired power station to be built in Britain for more than 30 years has been approved by Medway Council in Kent. The £1 billion plant at Kingsnorth, near Ashford, will be coal-burning – and carbon-producing – so is hardly an example to India or coal-rich China on how not to overheat the planet. But it will be built if only for one reason – to keep the lights on in the south of England.
Kingsnorth is an example of how the government is caught between preaching green but acting black. The final say on whether the plant will go ahead rests with the government’s business secretary, John Hutton. Faced with the prospect of the UK becoming over-reliant on foreign oil and gas and committed to cutting CO2 emissions, the feeling is that Hutton will approve Kingsnorth along with a generation of nuclear plants…”
http://www.sundayherald.com/oped/opinion/display.var.1945354.0.0.php
Ian, I’ll do you a deal.
You stop posting idiotic content and I’ll stop attacking you.
ps: i don’t believe this is an ad hom. Your comment on IPCC scenrio projection is truly idiotic. Its the ultimate straw man to say that IPCC scenarios are wrong. Scearios are created to test a range of potential future outcomes. IPCC doesn’t say on scenario will happen and another won’t. No scenario is ‘wrong’ – they are hypothetical thought experiments designed to explore what might happen if we make certain decisions in the future. Chinese nukes creating a relative decrease in future emissions doesn’t make a scenario wrong, it means we may not get the worst case scenario.
If you don’t get that, then I will continue to assert that you don’t know what you are talking about and we will go round in circles.
Anthony,
Talking about idiotic comments!
“IPCC doesn’t say on scenario will happen and another won’t. No scenario is ‘wrong’ – they are hypothetical thought experiments designed to explore what might happen if we make certain decisions in the future.”
And on this “EVIDENCE” re. AGW we are supposed to take measures, with unknown consequences?
The mind boggles!
Anthony’s capacity to dish up semantic distinctions, calling the IPCC crap scenarios rather than predictions, is breathtaking. Whatever the clowns call them, they are representations to a policy process that are made with a clear intention that they be acted upon. And the IPCC has made absolutely no attempt to prevent anyone from acting on those representations.
These “scarenarios” look like a prediction duck, act like a prediction duck, and were produced by a bunch of quacks.
The proper development of a policy for future action DEMANDS an accurate estimate of future conditions. And if this pile of duck$hit is not, as you laughably claim, that essential element of the proper process then it is incontestable evidence of incompetence on the part of the IPCC for failing to supply one. And it is equally incompetent of them for failing to withdraw a faulty product that has taken that role by default.
You, Anthony, have the strategic vision of an antechinus in rut.
John, the scenarios aren’t the evidence. You’ve knee jerked so hard you’ve knocked your head off your shoulders and forgot to re-attach before posting.
Ian’s capacity to trivialise semantic distinctions means his vocabularly is reduced to “you are wrong, I am right”.
Do you think China would be buying nukes if they didn’t see the high end scenarios and get worried?
Policy affects future outcomes motty. Scenarios inform Policy. Not that hard.
“Do you think China would be buying nukes if they didn’t see the high end scenarios and get worried?”
Perhaps. Maybe they looked at the economics of nuclear vs. coal stations equipped with superior pollution control equipment (and I’m not talking carbon sequestration here).
Mark, I’m sure they’ve done some economic analysis on best supply side option. I personally think they have been sold a lemon.
The point is they clearly have decided they need to source energy with less emissions than coal, even if this means increasing the unit cost of energy. They wouldn’t do that unless they were concerned about emissions.
Mottsys triumphant cries of IPCC error appear unfounded. China’s actions are attributable to the work of the IPCC in generating an undestanding of risks assoiciated with BAU emissions growth, not somehow indicative of IPCC prediction error
Anthony:
“The point is they clearly have decided they need to source energy with less emissions than coal, even if this means increasing the unit cost of energy”
Must be gratifying to ones ego to be able to read the mind of the Chinese govmnt. (a feat no one else yet could do).
Another good link:
http://www.theleaneconomyconnection.net/downloads.html#Nuclear
1. The world’s endowment of uranium ore is now so depleted that the nuclear industry will never, from its own resources, be able to generate the energy it needs to clear up its own backlog of waste.
2. It is essential that the waste should be made safe and placed in permanent storage. High-level wastes, in their temporary storage facilities, have to be managed and kept cool to prevent fire and leaks which would otherwise contaminate large areas.
3. Shortages of uranium – and the lack of realistic alternatives – leading to interruptions in supply, can be expected to start in the
middle years of the decade 2010-2019, and to deepen thereafter.
4. The task of disposing finally of the waste could not, therefore, now be completed using only energy generated by the nuclear industry, even if the whole of the industry’s output were to be devoted to it. In order to deal with its waste, the industry will need to be a major net user of energy, almost all of it from fossil fuels.
5. Every stage in the nuclear process, except fission, produces carbon dioxide. As the richest ores are used up, emissions will rise.
6. Uranium enrichment uses large volumes of uranium hexafluoride, a halogenated compound (HC). Other HCs are also used in the nuclear life-cycle. HCs are greenhouse gases with global warming
potentials ranging up to 10,000 times that of carbon dioxide.
7. An independent audit should now review these findings. The quality of available data is poor, and totally inadequate in relation to the importance of the nuclear question. The audit should set out an energy-budget which establishes how much energy will be needed to make all nuclear waste safe, and where it will come from. It should also supply a briefing on the consequences of the
worldwide waste backlog being abandoned untreated.
8. There is no single solution to the coming energy gap. What is needed is a speedy programme of Lean Energy, comprising:
(1) energy conservation and efficiency;
(2) structural change in patterns of energy-use and land-use; and
(3) renewable energy; all within
(4) a framework for managing the energy descent, such as Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs).
Ender,
As I said, get some independent facts not opinions that suit your mindset.
Yes I checked out your source, and no, I am not giving you any web links, you have proved, by the copious amount of links provided that you are well versed in the art of googling. All you have to do now is put in some balance.
According to Geoscience Australia known reserves that are economically viable had increased by 34% to 1.53M tonnes. The increase was due mainly to exploration however much of it is locked up by political “green bans”
thanks for having a dig John – do you think they are doing it for some other reason?
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/PEK78904.htm
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-06/04/content_6196302.htm
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aM8H5XjNVbFQ
Gee Jon, this is so good for my ego. I’m really getting off on this. Can you feel my satisfaction through the keys?
Perhaps if they were smart Britain could do this:
http://www.kombikraftwerk.de/index.php?id=27
“The Combined Power Plant
The secure and constant provision of power anywhere and at anytime by renewable energies is now made possible thanks to the Combined Power Plant. The Combined Power Plant links and controls 36 wind, solar, biomass and hydropower installations spread throughout Germany. It is just as reliable and powerful as a conventional large-scale power station.
The Combined Renewable Energy Power Plant shows how, through joint control of small and decentralised plants, it is possible to provide reliable electricity in accordance with needs. The Combined Power Plant optimally combines the advantages of various renewable energy sources. Wind turbines and solar modules help generate electricity in accordance with how much wind and sun is available. Biogas and hydropower are used to make up the difference: they are converted into electricity as needed in order to balance out short-term fluctuations, or are temporarily stored. Technically, there is nothing preventing us from 100 per cent provision with renewables.
The Combined Power Plant is an initiative of the companies Enercon GmbH, Schmack Biogas AG and SolarWorld AG, and is supported by many partners from the renewable energy sector. ”
Uranium is not the only fuel for nuclear power.
Go to http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/ for an overview of Thorium as an energy resource.
Jonathan Wilkes – “As I said, get some independent facts not opinions that suit your mindset.”
Independent facts – hmmmm what a concept.
And that would be different from the opinions from the pro nuclear crowd that suit their mindset how???
6. Uranium enrichment uses large volumes of uranium hexafluoride, a halogenated compound (HC). Other HCs are also used in the nuclear life-cycle. HCs are greenhouse gases with global warming
potentials ranging up to 10,000 times that of carbon dioxide.
We’re planning on releasing uranium hexaflouride to the atmosphere, Ender?
Get a grip.
As for “Combined Power Plant” it’s called a grid, Ender.
Anyway all that’s happening with fission power is that the inventory of radioactive materials in the Earth’s crust will be made less radioactive sooner than if it was left alone. Loonies like you should like that.
Ender,
Don’t take me for a luddite! I would be the first one to embrace alternatives if they were economically available, and reliable!
I am sure there are independent engineering companies who can provide some data, re. cost of building, running a nuclear plant. or even some gov. records. Try the French or Swiss gov.sites.
Incidentaly,
(I take it you also speak German since you picked the site)
Ich habe mir die Webseite “kombikraftwerk” angeschaut und durchgelesen. Sehr interessant aber momentan es produziert nur 1/10.000 den Strombedarf in Deutschland mit Erneuerbaren Energien.
man auch sagt:
Wind und Sonne sind nicht zu beeinflussen
If not,
I looked at the site and read most of the info.
Very interesting, the concept is sound, BUT they produce so little at the moment 1/10000th of total consumption that it’s but a pimple on a flea’s balls.
If you read the info on the site you will find that the potencial is there but to achieve
it you will need more land (17% of arable land in Germany) just for the biomass production, then what we have here under agriculture. Not to mention the area needed for solar, wind and water storage.
As I said I am all for anything new, but it has to be practical, not just some pie in the sky idea that sounds good.
Eyrie – “Loonies like you should like that.”
Loonies like you should learn about nuclear physics before calling other people names. Plutonium is a man made element that did not exist in nature before we started nuclear fission. Pray tell how is that reducing the Earth’s radioactivity when we are creating new, more radioactive elements that did not exist before we started.
Jonathan Wilkes – “Don’t take me for a luddite! I would be the first one to embrace alternatives if they were economically available, and reliable!”
Don’t take me for a luddite either I am anything but. The problem is that we have been conditioned to the notion that the only thing that can give 24X7 power is a huge central power station. That was probably true in the 1900s however recent technological changes have made it possible for distributed renewables to be completely reliable with a lot less waste.
Take a GWhr that a nuclear or coal plant produces. At the moment at least 50% if not 75% of that is wasted in inefficient appliances and huge transmission lines. We use 3 star aircons where 10 star ones exist. (they are labeled 6 star however they actually use a lot less energy). We heat water with electricity when most of the heating can be done with the sun. We have 3 star fridge when more efficient ones exist. The majority of our light bulbs use 10 times the amount of energy that they need. With cheap energy that takes no account of the environment there is no incentive to economise.
The point is with very little effort instead of wasting up to 75% of the GWhr we only really need 500MWhr to do the same job using efficiency gains. That means we do not have to generate nearly as much energy. Energy efficiency is the cheapest easiest and fastest way to reduce emissions. However if you have a 1GW nuclear plant it has no other mode of operation other than flat out all the time. It has energy to waste so there is no sense in conserving energy or making anything more efficient as this would compromise the profitability of the plant. Baseload power is the cheapest in the electricity market so there is no revenue when there is no demand. Nuclear plants face high costs however they sell the lowest priced electricity. The only way they can make money is to sell masses of cheap power so they want people to use heaps of electricity.
Renewables are the complete opposite. As in absolute terms they do not produce masses of 24X7 power by themselves they need to be connected to other renewables using different resources as well as storage and generators that used stored energy. However the benefit is that this supply is infinitely flexible. It can bid into the extremely high revenue ancillary market (grid stabilisation etc) and high revenue peaking market. Supply can be matched to demand instantaneously as in the German example by varying the output of various forms of renewable energy and fast reacting fossil fuel plants. Nuclear power with its inflexible block like power generation profile has no place in the highly flexible market. Also much of the power is generated at the place of consumption avoiding some distribution losses. Renewables need not take up extra land as crops can be grown and animals can and do graze under operating wind turbines. New nanoscale printed solar panels that are on the market now can be placed on structures that already take up land space like car parks and buildings of be placed offshore.
By also requiring storage renewables can also do us another huge favour. Battery electric cars and plug in hybrids can be made to be bi-directional. That is they can send power to the grid as well as charge from it. It is called V2G and is does work. This means that the storage for renewables can double as transport and help solve the huge impending problem of Peak Oil. Nuclear, other than supplying electricity, does nothing to replace personal transport however electric cars will be an integral part of a future renewable grid.
My objection to nuclear power is far from the irrational. I do not agree that the waste problem is solved. It is manageable as long as every nation that uses nuclear disposes of waste like the Swedish. They are closest in my opinion to a reasonable storage solution. Yet even then the no-one is sure enough to seal the waste forever. The Swedish dump is designed to be opened in a hundred years or so to see how it is going. How do we know that there will be a Swedish government that wants to open it in a century? This has cost them upward of 12 billion dollars and they only have 10 nuclear reactors. Nobody else seems prepared to spend the required amount of money to deal properly with their larger amounts of spent nuclear fuel.
Additionally witness the current hysteria over Iran building a nuclear reactor. If nuclear is to be the future power solution for everybody then countries worse than Iran will have to have it so how is this going to go?
Finally renewables are scaleable in a way that nuclear is not even close to. A solar panel can power a village in Africa just as efficiently and without the necessity for a non-existent and vulnerable power distribution system as it can be grouped together in massive power stations to power a technological town in Europe. The large scale exploitation of renewable power will make it easier to deliver cheap and appropriate solutions to all the world’s people no matter what their requirements.
Ender,
We seem to agree on all but one, that is that the storage of nuclear waste. Believe me, the tech. side is solved, the excess costs are political.
Ian Mott made a very good point, that I never thought of: “how do we know that in a 100 or maybe less years time, the waste we a fretting about now, won’t be a valuable resource???”
Now that I think about it, I am sure it will be, in less than 25 years, and I will be here to see it too! How is that for confidence!?
Apart from all this, I can reasonably say, having read your last post carefully, that our disagreement is purely political, for want of a better word. (ideological probably would be a better one?)
You want to change the way people behave, to match your ideology. I want to supply them with the means to live a life they are accustomed to, with the minimal damage to the environment.
Sure you can regulate how cool our homes are to be, or when we have lights on etc.
Ender! I come from a place where this was the norm when I was younger! Stuff that mate! never again I say!
Cheers
“A solar panel can power a village in Africa just as efficiently”.
Except at night of course and when it is cloudy. Get a grip!
Jonathan – “how do we know that in a 100 or maybe less years time, the waste we a fretting about now, won’t be a valuable resource???””
True however equally how do we know that the waste we are generating now will not be a huge danger?? More to the point whatever our waste is viewed as in 100 years will you or I be around to be accountable for it???? To me this is the height of irresponsibility. We generate the waste without any thought to what happens to it as we know we will not be accountable. Well we will be accountable however we will not be in a position to care.
“You want to change the way people behave, to match your ideology.”
No that is not true at all. All the comforts that we are accustomed too can be powered by renewables, albeit more efficient comforts. There are very few compromises that we would have to make other than using the energy we use more wisely.
“I want to supply them with the means to live a life they are accustomed to, with the minimal damage to the environment.”
And so do I however your statement needs qualifying – “with minimal damage to the PRESENT environment.” You have no way of knowing or being accountable for damage, if any, that you do to the future environment with long lived nuclear waste that will be dangerous longer that Australia has been settled by Europeans. Renewable power has no long lived waste and only people living now, that benefit from the electricity that is generated, will be accountable for any problems that renewables have.
Mark – “Except at night of course and when it is cloudy. Get a grip!”
http://www.radionetherlands.nl/radioprogrammes/earthbeat/071218-solar-power-mc
“Gosse Boxhoorn is managing director of Solland Solar, the only factory in the Netherlands that produces solar cells. When it comes to solar energy for the Third World, he speaks from experience:
“Many years ago, we launched a demonstration project in the Indonesian village of Sukatani, in which we supplied the entire village with solar panels. It is only one small solar panel on each roof, but that generates enough energy to provide light in the evenings.”
That little bit of electricity can make a fundamental difference. All at once, it makes radio and television possible. It means schools can also open their doors in the evenings and not just at the hottest time of the day. Gosse Boxhoorn believes that villages with solar panels on the roofs can benefit from substantial economic development and everything that entails: work, education and communication.”
Makes our demands for the second plasma seem a bit wrong doesn’t it.
Or this:
http://www.ata.org.au/about/projects/international-projects/
“The IPG was established in 2003 by a group of ATA members interested in assisting low income communities in South East Asia and the Pacific with technologies appropriate to their needs. We believe that the provision of sustainable technologies such as solar powered lighting, and micro hydro for electricity can lead to significant development benefits. For example lighting is a primary determinant of quality of life, providing lighting at night can assist the operation of medical clinics, providing night clinic and improved operating conditions. A single bulb can allow children to study thereby improving their educational status. Renewable technologies can operate “off the grid” and reduce the recurrent expenditure required for these services while reducing the demand for diesel fuel and other scarce resources.”
My mistake Ender. I should have quoted your whole sentence:
“A solar panel can power a village in Africa just as efficiently and without the necessity for a non-existent and vulnerable power distribution system as it can be grouped together in massive power stations to power a technological town in Europe.”
So your immediate post above suggests that solar panels can assist African villages with subsistence capabilities. Granted. No refridgeration though! (A minor shortfall!) But what about the next step? A little economic development would be nice! And in that case my statement “Except at night of course and when it is cloudy” still holds. Large scale electrical storage is impractically expensive! So not only do you have a higher capital cost for the initial solar arrays, but you’ve also got a massive capital cost to store power for time periods where the solar arrays don’t deliver. Such solutions do not yet make economic sense even in the desert never mind northern climes.
I know, I know, there’s all these neat solar solutions they’re working on! Bring ’em on! Let’s see them deliver!
So please, go back to your la la land and don’t bother us with solution proposals that currently don’t exist or don’t even come close to making economic sense. If one day they do then great! Let them compete fairly with all other alternatives. Let the best power supply technology win! Meanwhile there is a continued need to burn fossil fuels.
Oh and by the way Ender, I love the concept of V2G. I really do. But we need a fleet of economically practical electric cars first (and at that time I would give serious consideration to buying one). However, until then it’s just another pie in the sky concept from the Greenies that does diddly squat in meeting the real demands of today.
Sorry about calling you a loonie, Ender. I left out the “willfully ignorant” part.
Of course plutonium is a man made element. Made as a by product of fissioning uranium. You extract it and use it again as more fuel.
It isn’t terribly dangerous as a radioactive element as it is an alpha emitter with a long half life.(just don’t ingest any) You do understand that highly radioactive elements have short half lives and elements with long half lives aren’t highly radioactive? Elements with half lives of forever aren’t radioactive?
We should press ahead with Gen 4 fission plants – we might already have had them if it wasn’t for the noise made by you and your luddite mates.
This is however only my preferred Plan B if Plan A doesn’t work. Plan A seems to be on track so far – WB7 made first plasma a couple of days ago.
With any luck and a lot of smarts and hard work the human race will have a future of abundant clean electrical energy and your future of energy poverty and subsistence overseen by the Enders of the world will be consigned to the garbage.
I have to say, Mottys ‘in a 100 years’ comment is a big red herring. In 100 years, solar may be 50% efficient, cost next to nothing, operate through cload cover and be capable of cheap never ending storage!
There is no point building nuke power or renewables in developed countries while we have so much efficiency gains left untapped. I was killing time in a department store last night in Melb (40 degree day) – they had a hot air curtain operating!!! and some space age looking portable a/c set at 13 degrees?!?!? Never mind the 5000 halogens, overlighting etc etc.
From experience auditing commercial facilities, 50% gains can typically be had with paybacks under 4-5yrs. Given the demand commercial facilities create – thats big bikkies and much more economical than new power stations. Big, quick gains depend on efficiency and demand side changes – the supply side is sexy, but it is granted too much attention
Mark – “Large scale electrical storage is impractically expensive! So not only do you have a higher capital cost for the initial solar arrays, but you’ve also got a massive capital cost to store power for time periods where the solar arrays don’t deliver. Such solutions do not yet make economic sense even in the desert never mind northern climes.”
That would be dependent on what you are used to. You can a lot of economic activity with a lot less than we do now. The problem with our storage requirements is that our power system is so bloated with waste because we have always had cheap energy that we need massive amounts of storage to have enough energy to waste.
An economic system that grows up with a more constrained energy environment will make more with a lot less. This further reduces the storage requirement so a couple of batteries can be all that you need.
“So please, go back to your la la land and don’t bother us with solution proposals that currently don’t exist or don’t even come close to making economic sense.”
I see, so obviously the only way you can generate power is with huge central power plants otherwise you are not serious. I encountered the same sort of mentality with computing a few years ago when the only REAL computer was a mainframe and PCs were toys. Those people are now in their lonely, empty computer rooms still muttering about toy PCs and computing has passed them by. I expect that people such as you will go the same way. When we have a smart distributed grid that does not leave problems for others to solve you will still be clinging to 1890s technology.
Eyrie – “Of course plutonium is a man made element. Made as a by product of fissioning uranium. You extract it and use it again as more fuel.”
However this has never been economic and is usually only done by non-profit state run energy companies.
Also handling lots of plutonium increases the proliferation risk. If you think it is bad that Iran want to enrich uranium how much worse would it be if the wanted to re-process it?
“It isn’t terribly dangerous as a radioactive element as it is an alpha emitter with a long half life.(just don’t ingest any) ”
Right – just don’t ingest any. So a loaded gun is perfectly safe just don’t pull the trigger.
“We should press ahead with Gen 4 fission plants – we might already have had them if it wasn’t for the noise made by you and your luddite mates.”
How is wanting a distributed smart grid based on renewables luddite? What you want is cheap and easy energy so you can waste as much as you want. If anything your insistence on remaining the same and your apparent panic at having to change is more characteristic of a luddite than someone that embraces change.
“Definition of: Luddite
An individual who is against technological change. Luddite comes from Englishman Ned Lud, who rose up against his employer in the late 1700s. Subsequently, “Luddites” emerged in other companies to protest and even destroy new machinery that would put them out of a job. A neo-Luddite is a Luddite in the Internet age. ”
I think this term more applies to you. I am happy with new technology especially that which maintains my current lifestyle with a lot less waste and without emitting as much CO2.
“With any luck and a lot of smarts and hard work the human race will have a future of abundant clean electrical energy and your future of energy poverty and subsistence overseen by the Enders of the world will be consigned to the garbage.”
We already have abundant clean energy shining down on us we are just too stupid at the moment to use it. I don’t want to oversee anybody however I would like to help those people in REAL energy poverty with a scaleable, clean energy system that is as much at home in an small village as a huge city.
Mark – “But we need a fleet of economically practical electric cars first (and at that time I would give serious consideration to buying one).”
No we don’t. It can start from a very small number of cars bidding into the lucrative ancillary market which attracts a very high premium. As the advanced car controllers can change phase, voltage and current at second by second intervals they are ideal for grid stabilisation. As the number of cars grows you can start doing spinning reserve where you can get paid to have x amount of megawatts available on standby even if it not used.
You do not have to start big. The cars are available now if you want to buy one:
http://www.acpropulsion.com/ebox/
http://www.acpropulsion.com/technology/v2g.htm
Ender,
Scion xB 5-speed, new or low mileage, supplied by customer, $13,000 to $18,000 including options, taxes, and fees
+
Conversion to electric $55,000
—————————————–
Total Minimum cost $68,000 US$
————————
Battery Li Ion
Voltage 355V nominal
Capacity 35 kWh
Weight 600 lbs
Charger Onboard, plug in anywhere
Rating 1 to 20 kW
Input 100 to 250 VAC, 50 to 60 hz, 1 to 80A
————————–
Would be a bit expensive to run even on domestic rate.
Sorry definitely out of my reach.
“No we don’t. It can start from a very small number of cars bidding into the lucrative ancillary market which attracts a very high premium. As the advanced car controllers can change phase, voltage and current at second by second intervals they are ideal for grid stabilisation.”
Go talk to your local power company about doing it then. They’ll laugh in your face! No public utility is going to rely on a nickel and dime approach to ensure the integrity of it’s grid. They’ll only get interested when their is a well established base population of real electric vehicles (and not hybrids with minimal reserve capacity). Given that the technology isn’t their yet to support such a population, you’re just pipe dreaming again! (Surprise there!).
“We already have abundant clean energy shining down on us we are just too stupid at the moment to use it. I don’t want to oversee anybody however I would like to help those people in REAL energy poverty with a scaleable, clean energy system that is as much at home in an small village as a huge city.”
Ender obviously doesn’t understand economics!
Mark – “Go talk to your local power company about doing it then. They’ll laugh in your face!”
What do you imagine does ancillary services at the moment? Do you understand the term?
Saying that I do not understand economics is not a real reply just a fob off – do you understand economics to give a real reply?
Jonathan – “Would be a bit expensive to run even on domestic rate.
Sorry definitely out of my reach.”
Yes unfortunately our of my reach as well however it will soon be a bit closer as the new PHEVS that will be available soon will have V2G capability.
For all the nuclear luddites I just thought I would throw this one in:
http://www.b2i.us/profiles/investor/ResLibraryView.asp?BzID=546&ResLibraryID=22877&Category=987
“ALTAIR NANOTECHNOLOGIES COMPLETES MANUFACTURING OF BATTERY PACKS FOR TWO MEGAWATT BATTERY SYSTEM ON SCHEDULE
$1 Million System for the AES Corporation
RENO, NV — January 2, 2008 — Altair Nanotechnologies, Inc. (Nasdaq: ALTI), a leading manufacturer of safe, high-performance lithium-titanate battery and energy storage products, announced today that it completed on schedule in December the manufacturing of battery packs to be used in a two (2) megawatt energy storage system ordered by the AES Corporation. The $1 million purchase initiated by AES was previously announced in August 2007. Altairnano expects the system to be connected to the grid and tested during the first quarter of 2008.
“This is a significant manufacturing milestone in Altairnano’s battery and energy storage go-to-market strategy,” said Altairnano President and CEO Alan J. Gotcher, PhD. “We believe that stationary power represents a large market opportunity for Altairnano, and are proud to be working with global power leader AES to develop these large-scale energy storage systems.”
Earlier this year, AES and Altairnano announced a joint development and equipment purchase agreement related to Altairnano’s battery and energy storage products. Under the terms of the agreement, the companies will jointly develop a suite of energy storage solutions specifically for AES. Altairnano is working with AES to apply these systems at strategic points within the electrical grid. The quick response time, extended life and power profile of the Altairnano batteries and energy storage products are well suited to improving performance in these areas with potential for lower environmental impact than traditional generation solutions. ”
These are also the best prospect for really practical Battery Electric Car batteries as they can recharge in minutes and have a cycle life of 10 000 cycles or more. With a few more contracts like this AltairNano can start to bring the price down.
Sounds terrific Ender.
If I was as excited as you about the prospects of AltairNano, I’d be on to my broker posthaste.
I have been watching this discussion, complete with mud slinging, with interest.
In the back of my mind, I have a couple of thoughts rolling round that will not go away.
First is the projection that global population will increase to 9 billion before it flattens out. This means almost 30 persent more people to feed, while about 5% of land suitable for agriculture is not yet in use. So there will be increasing demand for food production from almost no more agricultural land.
This will mean that supply of energy from biomass will have problems in fuel supply. We are already seeing this with production of biodiesel driving up the price of food.
It will also mean that demand for energy can be expected to increase by about 30%
Second, the developing world is exactly that, developing. This means that inhabitants in these countries can realistically expect to have access to the same standard of living that we enjoy now. This means billions more refrigerators, billions more air conditioners, billions more cars, electric trains, steel production, aluminium production etc. The idea that this increase in demand can be met by renewables is beyond my imagination.
Third, for all the discussion here and elsewhere about other options for energy production, I have to assume that governments are aware of these and factor them into their decisions to build coal fired power plants and nuclear plants. The reality is that decisions have to be made today on the basis of best information and proven technology. To do otherwise will mean commitment of very large amounts of money which may well be wasted.
Fourth, there is the perception that majority consensus regarding AGW is a sufficient argument to justify implementing strategies and policies based on AGW principles. So if consensus is a valid argument for AGW policy, then surely majority consensus is equally valid for implementation of policies and strategies re nuclear power.
For your consideration.
Re. Altairnano
Ooooo! An announcement! Anyone remember these types announcements from Ballard Technologies about how we would see fuel cell vehicles enter the mass market by the end of the decade? So where are they? In fact, you may have noticed announcements recently that Ballard has in fact abandoned its attempts in this market!
C’mon Ender! There’s a huge gap between an announcement and something becoming technically/economically viable! And at least 9 times out of 10 that gap never gets crossed! So no responsible organization is going to go ahead at this stage and plan on ensuring the integrity of the future delivery of power to the masses based on something that doesn’t exist yet – a technically and ECONOMICALLY proven capability for mass power storage.
What do you know, a very timely article! What do you have to say on this Ender?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120001331482082629.html
Mark,
Very good article, even if half of it is accurate, given the standard of most jurnos, it is very revealing, of the true stage of development, of storage batteries for electric vehicles.
Re; announcements from companies, I found that it’s more likely to come from hopeful small companies than established ones.
I’m sure we will get there, with alternative energies, but not as fast as some here and elsewhere would hope, and people just don’t want to stay in an almost suspended animation, while we do
Hence the new coal fired and nuclear power stations, they give us a chance to develop the renewable energy types to a stage where they can take over.
All the talk about saving, and doing with less, and managing with a couple of batteries is just wishful thinking. If one believes it himself that is fine he can make it work for himself and like minded groups, but everyday average people are not like that.
Once you have electricity for light, wouldn’t you want it to use it for something else as well? Like grinding flour, pump water, and there goes your two battery idea out the window.
Mark – “What do you know, a very timely article! What do you have to say on this Ender?”
Nothing at all. It is written in a style that is very negative. Altair Nano is delivering batteries as is A123. RC modellers are using them extensively and if you buy a Dewalt Cordless drill they are there.
AltairNano does have a lower energy density that A123 and other lithiums however it is still twice that of Nickel Metal Hydride and 4 times that of lead acid. Also the 10 minute full charge and the 15 000 cycles outweigh the lower energy density. The Prius works perfectly with a NiMh battery now. An AltairNano battery would more than double the EV range as it could be discharged to 20% of its capacity for longer than the life of the car. At the moment the Prius battery is only discharged to about 60% to preserve the cycle life which for NiMh is only about 2000 cycles.
You can put your own slant on anything. The big car makers have been dragged kicking and screaming to build PHEVs and BEVs. Battery electric vehicles will be far too reliable and maintenance free for a good revenue stream and will cut out entirely big oil companies and their franchises that make most of their money selling milk and cigarettes. If you do not go into the petrol station to pay for the fuel you will also not impulse buy the 2 or 3 other things that you invariably do.
The two new leading battery manufactures, AltairNano and A123 are delivering batteries that are completely safe and have outstanding energy density, cycle life and charge rates.
“Nothing at all. It is written in a style that is very negative.”
No, it is written in a style that accurately reports on what is really going on with the technology. It’s the world’s foremost business publication after all and tries to avoid reporting on pure BS.
“The two new leading battery manufactures, AltairNano and A123 are delivering batteries that are completely safe and have outstanding energy density, cycle life and charge rates.”
For cordless drills maybe, not yet for cars.
Anyway, no point continuing this “dialogue” with you as you live in la la land while I live in the real world. Never shall the two meet.
Mark – “No, it is written in a style that accurately reports on what is really going on with the technology. It’s the world’s foremost business publication after all and tries to avoid reporting on pure BS.”
No it style is slanted to the status-quo which of course appeals to your mindset. Cordless drills are the mass market that will drive down the price of the larger format batteries. It is exactly the same technology.
“Anyway, no point continuing this “dialogue” with you as you live in la la land while I live in the real world. Never shall the two meet.”
I am sure this conversation is done however it is you that is in la la land. Yours is a land of never ending energy where economics creates resources.
You are going to HAVE to change in about 10 years anyway. No matter how scared it makes you in about that time oil supply will not meet demand no matter how many oil wells we drill.
Your la la land of never ending oil is about to come to a screaming halt and you will have to confront the reality that the Earth has limited resource and not matter how much money you have if they are not there you cannot buy it.
So fine stick your fingers in your ears and scream la la la nice and loud however no matter what you do you will have to confront reality soon.
Jonathan – “All the talk about saving, and doing with less, and managing with a couple of batteries is just wishful thinking. If one believes it himself that is fine he can make it work for himself and like minded groups, but everyday average people are not like that.
Once you have electricity for light, wouldn’t you want it to use it for something else as well? Like grinding flour, pump water, and there goes your two battery idea out the window.”
Have you ever heard or imagined the term “starting small”? Renewables are scaleable. You can start with a couple of lights, a battery and a solar panel or wind turbine. As your power needs increase you can add to this power plant in increments and even connect it to others with exactly the same high efficiency as the tiny plant.
This is the beauty of renewables. They are scaleable from village to city in a way coal and nuclear are not.
Ender,
“They are scaleable from village to city in a way coal and nuclear are not.”
When we lived on the farm near Trentham in Vic. the mains power would have cost over $15000, and that was in 1989.
I set us up with wind (slavonius and others), a (then VERY expensive) solar, two 200w panels, and a small Chineese manufactured steam engine driving a 7.5 KVA alternator, and a shed full of ex. Telecom deep cycle batteries, connected up to provide 220 volts for my inverter. (220 volts so I didn’t have to deal with huge currents. I used high voltage thyristors in the inverter.
The whole setup cost me about $10K and it was only possible at the price because I am in the engineering game.
Now if there were say six of us in a group with vastly different equipment but the same capacity, do you think we could have managed to connect this hotch-potch of stuff into a working grid?
The only realistically (cost-wise) scalable part of my equipment at the time was the (coal or wood) fueled little steam engine.
I am not fond of the chineese rubbish we import now, but my hat off for that little donkey engine, more than 17 years on, it’s still working!!!.
Sadly we now live in Melbourne, I personally didn’t mind the inconvenience and the hassle of look after the equipment, it just became part of the daily routine. Even the wife learned to be careful, to note what appliance could be on, when we were on batteries only. But believe me, it’s just not PRACTICAL for most people and larger communities.
I forgot to mention that if many people would buy some of this stuff individually, it would make more sense to buy bigger communally, and then we would be where we are today! A central power plant (whatever flavor)!
So Ender, let us know when you have your solar panels installed, you’re driving one of these fancy new electric cars and you’re off-grid and off-refinery, will ya? Until then, you’re either a liar or a hypocrite, as most climater alarmists tend to be.
Jonathan – “Now if there were say six of us in a group with vastly different equipment but the same capacity, do you think we could have managed to connect this hotch-potch of stuff into a working grid?”
Since 1989 technology has improved a bit. The Sunny Boy range of inverters will do this for you as you can connect all the hotch potch on the AC side and the inverters talk to each other to control the battery charging.
http://www2.sma.de/en/solar-technology/products/solar-inverter/sunny-boy/index.html
However again you are talking about First World power requirements. Where power lines don’t exist or are stolen five minutes after they are installed , village based solar/wind makes far more sense that foisting a huge nuclear plant on a place where it will only benefit the elite.
Mark – “So Ender, let us know when you have your solar panels installed, you’re driving one of these fancy new electric cars and you’re off-grid and off-refinery, will ya? Until then, you’re either a liar or a hypocrite, as most climater alarmists tend to be.”
So down to the final argument when there is nothing left. This is exactly what I am working toward so I will keep you posted.
And if you need any help when you are in a load shedding blackout and petrol is $5.00 per litre and rationed please don’t hesitate to bugger off. I will hopefully be fine.
“This is exactly what I am working toward so I will keep you posted.”
Well you’re not there yet then are you? Oh, and getting by on 2 40 watt equivalent CFLs and a hemp loincloth doesn’t count either. This stuff needs to work for those of us that live in the real world! So I guess that makes you a liar for implying that we can get by just fine without continued reliance on nuclear and fossil fuel power.
“And if you need any help when you are in a load shedding blackout and petrol is $5.00 per litre and rationed please don’t hesitate to bugger off.
The only reason I’ll ever have to face a load shedding blackout is because Greenie hysteria causes my spineless provincial government to mess around with the tried and proven ways of generating power for the masses. They campaigned on shutting down our limited coal plants here in Ontario and they’ve already had to back off on the associated target date once – I certainly expect them to have to do it again. Meanwhile they are building a number of wind farms and pathetically even a solar farm in our northern clime. Naturally these are totally uneconomic and the power utility is being forced by the government to pay 2x the going rate for the wind generated electricity and 8x for the solar generated electricity. What a farce. And this doesn’t even account for the fact that these so called renewables would be completely untenable except for the fact they piggyback on the existing grid to cover for them when they aren’t able to produce to their rated level of power.
And the petrol thing? We’ve got hundreds of billions of barrels of oil here in Canada so I don’t expect to run into any shortages any time soon.
Again, I have nothing against electric cars. I think they are a great idea but the technology and associated economics are not yet ready for prime time. Maybe 5-10 years if we’re lucky. To say otherwise is just being plain dishonest. However, once the technology is there I wouldn’t be surprised to see oil prices plummet as the future threat of scarcity built into current pricing disappears and the first world can tell the despots in Venezuela, Russia and the Middle East to stick their barrels of oil where the sun doesn’t shine! This will make the economic equation around the viability of such electric cars a bit more problematic.
Mark – “So I guess that makes you a liar for implying that we can get by just fine without continued reliance on nuclear and fossil fuel power.”
I like how you can bandy about the liar thing. I have never said anywhere that we have to eliminate all fossil fuels. We can however get them under 30% with renewables so that the CO2 emissions will be low enough to keep us under 2 deg of warming. At this level we have enough fossil fuels to last a considerable time and we never have to resort to nuclear power. Nuclear is an expensive waste of money that leaves a legacy of dangerous waste that you are no accountable for. If you think renewables are subsidised have a look at the subsidies for nuclear power over the years. Start with the Price Anderson Act and go on from there.
“And the petrol thing? We’ve got hundreds of billions of barrels of oil here in Canada so I don’t expect to run into any shortages any time soon.”
Assuming that you use all of Canada’s natural gas exports, every single cubic meter and diverted it to Alberta you might be able to ramp up the oil sands to 10 million barrels per day. However most of your gas goes to the US and even if you did ramp up the oil sands to this figure you would be obliged under the NAFTA to send this all to the US leaving possibly none for Canada. So what are you going to export the gas or the oil or both. Perhaps you might think about voting to repeal the NAFTA so that you can use some of Canada’s resources for yourselves.
“To say otherwise is just being plain dishonest. However, once the technology is there I wouldn’t be surprised to see oil prices plummet as the future threat of scarcity built into current pricing disappears and the first world can tell the despots in Venezuela, Russia and the Middle East to stick their barrels of oil where the sun doesn’t shine”
You could do that today. Your oil sands are just an expensive method of converting natural gas into liquid fuel, the heavy oil deposits in Venezuela are only a bit better. Why not start today building a V2G electric car network and use the wind resources that Canada is very well endowed with? You do not do it because of people like you that are so afraid of changing one little bit that they ignore the massive environmental damage that their choices make.
I admit that I am still much the same. I drive a car and use electricity and in that I am a hypocrite however at least I am not afraid to change the way I think and I am not afraid to change the way I live. I ride public transport even though it would be easy to drive to work. I do use CFLs and I do unplug electric appliances that are not in use. I do look for the most efficient electrical appliances when I buy them.
Yes I am a hypocrite but I realise that I have a problem and I am trying to change AND keep a family at the same time. We will in 5 or 10 years be off the grid and hopefully driving an electric car that we charge from our grid. As I said assuming that I am still posting here then I will keep you posted. The point is that I started late and therefore it is so much more difficult to change. I might through my actions encourage younger people that can start early when it is easier.
Or I could be like you and just bring on more of the status-quo where it is comfortable and easy. Just don’t mention the war. (Fawlty Towers quote not the Iraq war)
There are so many inaccuracies in your statements above I frankly don’t have the time or interest in rebutting them and what would be the point?
What gets me is just the plain deception of most alarmists when it comes to both the supposed problem and the so called solutions.
A little less hype and a better grasp of the reality should be the order of the day. The fact of the matter is that most of the world’s population in the developed or developing world will always be dependent on delivery of electric power via the grid unless someone develops a “Mr. Fusion” someday. That power will have to come from a variety of sources including hydro, nuclear, fossil fuels and yes, renewables! But those renewables have to earn their way and inevitably technology will probably let that happen some day. Until then, however, let’s not pretend they are some panacea that are going to immediately save the world from a contrived climate crisis!
Mark – sure then perhaps you would like to read something on the oil sands – it is a good resource and you will see what the energy requirements really are. The EROI of oil sands is less than 3:1.
http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rnrgynfmtn/nrgyrprt/lsnd/pprtntsndchllngs20152006/pprtntsndchllngs20152006-eng.pdf
http://www.energy-daily.com/reports/Canadian_Oil_Sands_Development_An_Economic_Boon_But_Leaves_A_Mess_999.html
http://www.eub.ca/docs/products/STs/st98-2006.pdf
As to the NAFTA stuff:
http://moneymanager.blogspot.com/2005_10_01_archive.html
“Almost all Canada’s exports of oil and oil products go to the United States. In 2004, these exports totalled 70 per cent of Canada’s production, up from 60 per cent in 1998 and 50 per cent in 1990.
NAFTA limits the extent to which the Canadian government can act to reduce exports to the United States. Article 605(a) of NAFTA prohibits measures that would reduce these exports as a share of Canada’s production to below “the proportion prevailing in the most recent 36-month period for which data are available.” In effect, NAFTA prevents a reduction in the amount of oil or oil products going to the U.S. — unless both Canadian production and consumption fall.
This clause of NAFTA could also prevent issuance of a licence to export oil to a third party such as China. Because the U.S. share of 70 per cent of production must be maintained, oil could be sent to China only if (a) Canada’s consumption were reduced; (b) Canada’s imports were increased or (c) Canada’s production were increased by several times the amount to be sent to China (to maintain the 70-per-cent share going to the U.S.).”
It is a bit hard to rebutt the truth.
Ender,
Just a thought, what do you think of putting a tidal power generator at the Heads of the Port Phillip Bay? the tidal movement is phenomenal!
Cheers
“Mark – sure then perhaps you would like to read something on the oil sands – it is a good resource and you will see what the energy requirements really are. The EROI of oil sands is less than 3:1.”
I’ve read lots on the oil sands and yes I know they consume lots of energy. However, the EROI beats the hell out of the EROI for ethanol production in N. America which is touted as this great environmental option by the Greenies!
As to the natural gas, the choice of fuel to drive the processing will be guided by that wonderful thing called economics. If gas availability is limited and the cost goes up then alternatives such as nuclear (egads), the bitumen itself and even geothermal will be used.
When electric cars become viable as a mainstream option (likely 5 to 10 years out) certainly the picture will change and is something for the oil sands producers to think about. Again, once the fear of future scarcity is removed, I think you will see oil prices plummet and that will not be good news for them as these oil sands operations take a huge capital investment.
A key concern around the viability of electric cars is the associated material availability and what that will do to the economics. Hopefully they will be able to use abundant materials as the mainstay of the battery technology but the power stills needs to be moved around a vehicle and so what will this do to copper prices?
But even if ecars are viable for the masses in 5 to 10 years, it will take at least another 5 to 10 years for sufficient number to be available to even begin thinking about V2G as a mainstream capability in support of renewables. Sure, it’ll happen around the edges before then but again the vast majority of electricity consumers will rely on the grid and so you’re looking at probably 15-20 years minimum before wind and solar will be able to play more than a marginal role in supplying electricity. Until then new nuclear and fossil fuel plants will have to be built to replace aging plant and meet increasing power demands.
Mark – “I’ve read lots on the oil sands and yes I know they consume lots of energy. However, the EROI beats the hell out of the EROI for ethanol production in N. America which is touted as this great environmental option by the Greenies!”
I completely agree with you here. This is one Greenie that does not support biofuels in anything other than small scale niche areas where nothing else will do. It is not the silver bullet and I totally agree with you. It causes more enviromental damage and compromises our food supply.
“As to the natural gas, the choice of fuel to drive the processing will be guided by that wonderful thing called economics. If gas availability is limited and the cost goes up then alternatives such as nuclear (egads), the bitumen itself and even geothermal will be used.”
Again I agree with you however using the bitumen will double or triple the CO2 output making the tar sands and even bigger environmental disaster. Nuclear is not even an option as most tar sands projects are now running into cost overun problems let alone adding a completely new type of reactor to finance. I don’t think crude oil can climb high enough for that to be economic.
“A key concern around the viability of electric cars is the associated material availability and what that will do to the economics. Hopefully they will be able to use abundant materials as the mainstay of the battery technology but the power stills needs to be moved around a vehicle and so what will this do to copper prices?”
Actually Lithium will turn out to be the problem as there is a limited amount available. If Lithium batteries become widespread then we will have to be really aggressive in recycling them to make the available lithium go further.
“But even if ecars are viable for the masses in 5 to 10 years, it will take at least another 5 to 10 years for sufficient number to be available to even begin thinking about V2G as a mainstream capability in support of renewables.”
I agree again however the utilities are already installing storage for grid stabilisation as are wind farms so that they can sell more valuable power and become more economic. Wind is growing faster than most even in China where they are suprisingly very big on renewables. The new solar thermal systems should be online soon displacing more and more fossil fuels.
Hopefully in a few years you will not need the tar sands and can let them return to the wilderness. However if I were a Canadian I would be really really worried about that NAFTA you people signed and it’s obligations. In an energy constrained future can you really afford to send so much energy to the US. Are Canadians going to freeze so people in the US can be warm? I guess that is a question for you and the way you vote.
“Again I agree with you however using the bitumen will double or triple the CO2 output making the tar sands an even bigger environmental disaster.”
That’s if you agree with the CO2 alarmism – but let’s leave that for another thread!
“Nuclear is not even an option as most tar sands projects are now running into cost overun problems let alone adding a completely new type of reactor to finance. I don’t think crude oil can climb high enough for that to be economic.”
$100 a barrel oil buys a lot of financing. The cost overruns are being driven by supply vs. demand of all the resources required to build any sort of infrastructure in Alberta. Nothing special about nuclear here. Nuclear infrastructure can be very competitive particularly since it can be run on a cogeneration basis thus utilizing far more of the energy produced. Just don’t let the government run the show. When a socialist government slipped through the middle to win a majority government here in Ontario 20 years ago, they put that idiot Maurice Strong in charge of the public power utility – what a disaster!
“Actually Lithium will turn out to be the problem as there is a limited amount available. If Lithium batteries become widespread then we will have to be really aggressive in recycling them to make the available lithium go further.”
Oh my god – where will you get your pills? (Sorry, couldn’t resist that one!). But seriously, you’re right! Material will be a challenge even with recycling in terms of just building up the base of such storage capacity and not just in cars either! I’m not sure if you’ve heard of EESTOR who claims to have developed ultracapacitor technology that outperforms lithium ion batteries. They are supposed to be coming to market this year although they are already late and I’ve seen comments by people claiming to be experts in this field who state that EESTOR’s claims are impossible. Then again, that is what was said about manned flight 100 years ago!
“I agree again however the utilities are already installing storage for grid stabilisation as are wind farms.”
What technology are they using? I assume this is more to cover smaller fluctuations in the supply and demand balance rather than as any sort of larger scale storage capability?
“However if I were a Canadian I would be really really worried about that NAFTA you people signed and it’s obligations. In an energy constrained future can you really afford to send so much energy to the US. Are Canadians going to freeze so people in the US can be warm? I guess that is a question for you and the way you vote.”
This doesn’t seem to be a big area of concern for Canadians. NAFTA or no NAFTA, the reality is that the Canadian and American energy infrastructure has been highly integrated since its infancy (as is the industrial infrastructure). The 49th parallel is a political construct not an economic one. Energy flows both ways across the borders. Because of the ineptitude of our provincial government who owns the power utility (and to be fair these failures span all the main political parties), it is the American power infrastructure that has bailed out Ontario power consumers on hot summer days for the last 10 years or so.
Historically western Canada has tended to over produce and send its output south while Eastern Canada imported oil. Due to the vast distances involved, it just made economic sense to do that. In addition, the only refineries that used to be able to handle the processing of the synthetic crude from the oil sands were down in the States. I believe that situation is now changing with the building of upgrading capability in Alberta that will allow Canadian refineries to process the output from the oil sands.
But it comes down to more than just that. Although there are certainly differences, for better or for worse (mostly for the better) Canadians and Americans have much in common and would see themselves in it together on a great deal of things. I don’t think many Canadians (or Americans for that matter) would sit idly by while their neighbour hard to endure hardship. And the reality is that due to the strongly intertwined economies, Canadians would suffer too along with the Americans. It’s not always a perfect relationship but in terms of the scope of history, it works pretty damned well. I’m sure this seems a bit strange to Australians who I am sure value their economic independence. Then again as they say, you don’t “sleep next to an Elephant!”.