Solar to provide 20% of energy by 2027

[jflorey2]

Seems like a double standard -- you're giving the benefit of the doubt to fast basement breeder reactors, but not to solar?

No, he said he's waiting to pass judgment. So am I.

To me, "basement reactors" make about as much sense as massive battery banks to "go off grid" which is what so many people who come here ask about.

Solar grid tie works, and is growing like mad. Great.
Large scale nuclear works, and can provide terawatt-hours of baseline generation. Also great.
Modern reactor designs (AP600 and the like) are even better. Great.

No need to wait for the future. All the pieces needed to solve the problem are here now. Nuclear for baseload generation, solar and wind for intermittent power, natural gas for peakers and a smart grid to manage all of the above.

[DanKegel]

Hmm, I don't. Maybe you're talking to the wrong liberals.

Yeah... blocking progress is rather the opposite of what progressives are about. I don't think he's getting that idea from liberals.

[DanKegel]

No, he said he's waiting to pass judgment. So am I.

Seems like he has come down very hard indeed against the notion that solar + wind + other renewables can achieve high penetration. That's not waiting to pass judgement.

[jflorey2]

Seems like he has come down very hard indeed against the notion that solar + wind + other renewables can achieve high penetration. That's not waiting to pass judgement.

I agree with him there. Intermittent sources (of whatever flavor) are not going to achieve high penetration (beyond about 20-25%) without:
1) baseload power to maintain grid reliability or
2) cheap grid scale storage.

We have 1) now, we don't have 2).

[J.P.M.]

Seems like he has come down very hard indeed against the notion that solar + wind + other renewables can achieve high penetration. That's not waiting to pass judgement.

Dan, read what I wrote. Then, read it again. Take from it what you want, but if you take any notion that I wrote or intimated or believe R.E. cannot make a significant contribution to the future energy mix for the U.S. or the rest of the planet, you are under a false impression of your own making.

A fraction beyond about 20%, maybe 25 % carried by renewables other than hydro seems unlikely to me for the foreseeable, near term - say 20 or so years given the state of things, but that's probably due to the distinct possibility that I've forgotten more about the subject than you're likely to know for some time. I'd like to be wrong, but I just don't see it as more. Many folks knowledgeable in the subject might well agree that's a rather significant chunk of the load, with most of that chunk being of the intermittent, non baseline variety.

You,on the other hand, seem to have passed judgment on what the future holds based on your incomplete knowledge and experience, have your mind made up, and don't need to learn the folly of your ignorance - that ignorance based only on what seems to fit a preconceived notion of reality that someone poured into your head rather than on experience, real education and actual knowledge of the situation.

Your actions are not helping to advance the state of knowledge.

[Mike90250]

small reactors - in the kitchen https://www.ted.com/talks/taylor_wil...ssion_reactors
and this one, you bury under your basement, 27 Mw baby http://www.dailytech.com/Miniature+N...ticle13389.htm
They have been made and sold around the world for the last 3 years according to the article.

[solarix]

These charts of CO2 emissions per person are misleading in that the reason the developed countries are so high is that their productivity is so high. China not only produces a lot of CO2 - they also produce a big share of the stuff that the whole world uses. Co2 emissions correlate better to GDP than to population.

[DanKegel]

I agree with him there. Intermittent sources (of whatever flavor) are not going to achieve high penetration (beyond about 20-25%) without:
1) baseload power to maintain grid reliability or
2) cheap grid scale storage.

We have 1) now, we don't have 2).

Thank you for stating your position so clearly without rancor. It's a pleasure discussing things with you.

Do you agree that one can whittle down the size of the problem with things like
- increasing appliance and building efficiency
- shifting load to when power is cheap (demand management)
- small amounts of grid scale storage sufficient to give time for efficient but slow peakers to start up
?

Also, I'm not sure 'cheap' is the right criterion for storage cost. It just has to be cheaper than the full cost of using fossil fuel, including externalities like the cost of dealing with pollution and climate change caused by that fossil fuel.

[SunEagle]

Sorry for not taking part much in the latest discussions. The wife and I are taking a few days of R&R at a nice quite beach resort in Panama City Florida. Cold but very quite so I wont' be taking any sides of this discussion or others that may get my blood pressure (which is usually 115/60) raised.

Have fun. I will be back and hopefully relaxed enough to enjoy the discussions in a few days.

[J.P.M.]

Sorry for not taking part much in the latest discussions. The wife and I are taking a few days of R&R at a nice quite beach resort in Panama City Florida. Cold but very quite so I wont' be taking any sides of this discussion or others that may get my blood pressure (which is usually 115/60) raised.

Have fun. I will be back and hopefully relaxed enough to enjoy the discussions in a few days.

Chicken !! No guts no glory !!

[DanKegel]

small reactors - in the kitchen ...
and this one, you bury under your basement, 27 Mw baby ...
They have been made and sold around the world for the last 3 years according to the article.

I rather doubt that. I checked a bit, and wasn't able to find any evidence those reactors had been licensed or sold yet.

[DanKegel]

A fraction beyond about 20%, maybe 25 % carried by renewables other than hydro seems unlikely to me for the foreseeable, near term - say 20 or so years

Sounds like you strongly believe a high penetration (say, 70% by 2035, or 90% by 2050) is unlikely, and that the whole idea is a fool's errand.
Nothing wrong with that opinion, you're welcome to it.

Meanwhile, I'm interested in looking at the roadblocks to high penetration, and how each of them might be whittled down. The cost of continuing to burn fossil fuel is so high for our childrens' health and the country's future economy that it behooves us to keep working the problem.

[J.P.M.]

QUOTE=J.P.M.;n337449]
A fraction beyond about 20%, maybe 25 % carried by renewables other than hydro seems unlikely to me for the foreseeable, near term - say 20 or so years

Sounds like you strongly believe a high penetration (say, 70% by 2035, or 90% by 2050) is unlikely, and that the whole idea is a fool's errand.
Nothing wrong with that opinion, you're welcome to it.

Meanwhile, I'm interested in looking at the roadblocks to high penetration, and how each of them might be whittled down. The cost of continuing to burn fossil fuel is so high for our childrens' health and the country's future economy that it behooves us to keep working the problem.

[/QUOTE]

Don't assume you know what my opinions are. I initially changed careers to engineering about 40 years ago because of renewable energy. It's been more than a hobby and less than a job since then. I believe I know something of the subject. Or at least know B.S. when I smell it.

Also, don't try to assume or imply I'm unconcerned about the state of things like climate, or that I'm anti progress.

Additionally and FWIW, not that you may care or even understand, I've designed and engineered a lot of industrial scale equipment that went into refineries, chemical, pharmaceutical and power plants that's gone a long way to actually cleaning up some of the mess left behind before the EPA was created and environmental awareness came into vogue. I've consulted and I believe added to the body of knowledge relating to waste effluent remediation and air quality improvement.

I'm rather proud of those things.

What have you done besides finger point and repeat tree hugger platitudes relating to things you know little about ?

IMO, things would get better for the environment if folks with attitudes and lack of knowledge like yours would simply get out of the way and let those who know what they're doing get on with it.

In any case, don't try to paint me as an environmental or R.E. Luddite. You have no idea.

[DanKegel]

Also, don't try to assume or imply I'm unconcerned about the state of things like climate

Glad to hear you care about climate change. Well, ok, I'm sure I got that wrong, and you don't care about climate change. Or you do, but not in the way I mean. There simply is no way to restate anything you say without you objecting

In the interest of finding common ground, did I get you right when I wrote "Sounds like you strongly believe a high penetration (say, 70% by 2035, or 90% by 2050) is unlikely"?

[J.P.M.]

Glad to hear you care about climate change. Well, ok, I'm sure I got that wrong, and you don't care about climate change. Or you do, but not in the way I mean. There simply is no way to restate anything you say without you objecting

In the interest of finding common ground, did I get you right when I wrote "Sounds like you strongly believe a high penetration (say, 70% by 2035, or 90% by 2050) is unlikely"?

I only object to your B.S. and only then when I think it is misleading, inaccurate and useless, non productive junk. I consider most of your stuff the latter.

Lest you take any non response as tacit agreement, IMO, there is probably little common ground we both occupy. As for predictions about the future, with my crystal ball still in the shop. I have no idea of what the future holds. That's a lot different from seeing what I can do to improve things and acting accordingly to have as much of a positive impact as possible up to a perfect solution while keeping in mind wishing doesn't make it so. Doing something that actually produces what's thought to be positive results is a start along with the essentials of being persistent and professional about the execution.

If a number will make you happy, I'd like at least 110 % of the planet's energy use supplied by any source(s), renewables or otherwise, provided the mix is the most cost effective and environmentally benign. Until those goals are met, I say we ain't done yet.

The reality will probably be a bit different depending on the time frame, but the future's not been written yet.

Try thinking out of the box for solutions and ways to a better world that may include something other than what you already think you may know or what you have already concluded is the best way to go.