Re-thinking your comments in viewtopic.php?f=54&t=7689&p=453883#p453828
There is a principled reason why I stick to published analysis. What, on the other hand, are the principles behind your opinions?
You have not made reference to any study based on your assumptions. On the other hand I have shown that the Lazard study (which was suggested by Kim) comes to a conclusion the opposite of yours.
Although alternative energy is increasingly cost-competitive and storage technology holds great promise, alternative energy systems alone will not be capable of meeting the base-load generation needs of a developed economy for the foreseeable future. Therefore, the optimal solution for many regions of the world is to use complementary conventional and alternative energy resources in a diversified generation fleet. --https://www.lazard.com/perspective/leve
A more principled approach means relying on published work.
Sure it's fun to speculate but as the saying goes, show us the numbers! State your assumptions. Back up your claims with solid analysis by others. That IMO is a more principled way to proceed. Less opinionating and more study.
it is not in question that it would be theoretically possible to build a reliable energy system excluding all bioenergy, nuclear energy, and fossil fuel sources. Given unlimited resources to build variable energy production facilities, while expanding the transmission grid and accompanying energy storage capacity enormously, one would eventually be able to meet any conceivable load. However, in developing a strategy to effectively mitigate global energy-related CO2 emissions, it is critical that the scope of the challenge to achieve this in the real world is accurately defined and clearly communicated.
IMO your post fails this test.
I am optimistic because there are known solutions which are scalable and which solve all of the problems which I have seen raised.
The Lazard analysis says otherwise. The study quoted above doesn't support it. We have read your opinions -- what more do you have? If the indications as you call them are so strong then you should be able to cite peer reviewed analysis. Which you haven't.
You can always claim that the future is bright and that you have more up to date information -- but people living in illusion, con men and liers liars do that too. That's why a principled approach matters.
AND those people who used to say that solar and wind would make the grid unstable have now changed their tune (now that they have been shown to be wrong)
I say the opposite is true. Either that or you are playing with words. It's widely accepted that adding wind and solar make the grid unstable (or I would say add instability). If you need citations for that point then please admit that there is are big holes in your basic knowledge of the subject matter.
Also I think you conflate a couple of related concepts. One reasonably wonders why solar PV hasn't been used much or at all in some regions for grid stabilization until very recently. But one can't ignore that it wasn't and mostly still isn't providing stability services. But I think I've covered this topic well in recent posts.
AND those people who used to say that solar and wind would make the grid unstable have now changed their tune (now that they have been shown to be wrong) and they say that solar and wind will not be able to provide continuous supply 24/365....and I'm telling you that every indication EVERY indication is that the known solutions to this problem will soon be cost allowable.
Great! But please explain why you haven't cited anything more than your opinion. I don't call that a principled approach.
The arguement you are making about storage is just like the arguement that solar is too expensive which was all in vogue not so long ago......now it is not too expensive....and soon it will be the cheapest pretty much everywhere...
Great! But where is your study? And also please show the level of net reduction in green house gases from your favored solution.
Again, please pay attention to what I and many others are saying
. We believe a broad mix of solutions is better than a narrow mix or a single solution.
A principled response should account for qualified, peer reviewed studies which suggest:
With all available technologies at our disposal, achieving an 80% reduction in GHG emissions from the electricity sector at reasonable costs is extremely challenging
, even using a new continental-scale high-voltage transmission grid. Decarbonizing the last 20% of the electricity sector as well as decarbonizing the rest of the economy that is difficult to electrify (e.g., cement manufacture and aviation) are even more challenging. These challenges are deepened by placing constraints on technological options.
A principled analysis considers the degree of penetration of wind and solar. In recent posts I've written of specific numbers and levels and why it's important to know. That is a principled approach.
There are no electric storage systems available today that can affordably and dependably store the vast amounts of energy needed over weeks to reliably satisfy demand using expanded wind and solar power generation alone. These facts have led many US and global energy system analyses to recognize the importance of a broad portfolio of electricity generation technologies, including sources that can be dispatched when needed.
Do you claim that you have more insight into future possibilities than do the 21 authors of this peer reviewed study? That they somehow just "forgot" to consider the predictions of technology improvements?
Strategies for a Low-Carbon Electricity Grid with Full Use of Nuclear, Wind, and Solar Capacity to Minimize Total Costs
http://energy.mit.edu/publication/strat ... tal-costs/
Regarding Nuclear Energy
I think your answer shows that you have a double standard when it comes to your technological optimism. In my estimation your your approach is not principled in this regard.
Costs come down as volume and experience grows, fields mature and become more efficient. There is no reason to assume that the same cost reductions enjoyed by solar and wind won't also apply to nuclear. Other countries nuclear programs which build the same design over and over seem to show this improvement.
“The growing cost-competitiveness of certain alternative energy technologies globally reflects a number of factors, including lower financing costs, declining capital expenditures per project, improving competencies and increased industry competition” ( Financial advisory firm Lazard )
If I could see some method which could become cost allowable for the disposing of nuclear waste and a path for development which did not have formidable obstacles then I would be more optimistic.....but I haven't seen it.
Show us that you can 'see
' what you are less inclined to see and can avoid the trap of defining opinion laden terms like "formidable" to suit your preconceptions.
For more on this subject you might start with: CCST Report on Nuclear Power in California’s 2050 Energy Mix
http://ccst.us/publications/2011/2011en ... ichter.pdf
see "Spent Fuel Disposal"
This is worth a post of it's own.
IMO Much of your argument is reasonably described as being or being close to "hand waving".
Also written handwaving. In formal conversation / speech omitting important details about the subject matter either because 1) the audience is perceived to be ignorant 2) the speaker themselves is not well-informed on the subject matter or 3) a little from column A and a little from column B.
Hand-waving (with various spellings) is a pejorative label for attempting to be seen as effective – in word, reasoning, or deed – while actually doing nothing effective or substantial.
It is most often applied to debate techniques that involve fallacies, misdirection and the glossing over of details. It is also used academically to indicate unproven claims and skipped steps
in proofs (sometimes intentionally, especially in instructional materials), with some specific meanings in particular fields, including literary criticism and speculative fiction, mathematics and logic, and science and engineering. The term can additionally be used in work situations, when attempts are made to display productivity or assure accountability without actually resulting in them.
The term can also be used as a self-admission of, and suggestion to defer discussion about, an allegedly unimportant weakness in one's own argument's evidence
, to forestall an opponent dwelling on it.