{"id":23920,"date":"2017-04-07T10:36:53","date_gmt":"2017-04-07T15:36:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/scienceblogs.com\/gregladen\/?p=23920"},"modified":"2017-04-07T10:36:53","modified_gmt":"2017-04-07T15:36:53","slug":"the-energy-transition-and-the-question-of-perfection","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/gregladen.com\/blog\/2017\/04\/07\/the-energy-transition-and-the-question-of-perfection\/","title":{"rendered":"The Energy Transition and the Question of Perfection"},"content":{"rendered":"

I just read an interesting piece on the widely influential VOX, by David Roberts, called \u201cA beginner\u2019s guide to the debate over 100% renewable energy<\/a>.\u201d It is worth a read, but I have some problems with it, and felt compelled to rant. No offense intended to David Roberts, but I run into certain malconstructed arguments so often that I feel compelled to promote a more careful thinking out of them, or at least, how they are presented. Roberts’ argument is not malconstructed, but the assumptions leading up to his key points include falsehoods.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m not going to explicitly disagree with the various elements of the solutions part of this article (the last parts). But the run-up to that discussion, in my opinion, reifies and supports a number of falsehoods, mainly the dramatic (and untrue) dichotomy between the perfect and wonderful large-plant mostly coal and petroleum sources of energy on one hand with alternatives fraught with All The Problems on the other. Since this VOX piece is a “beginner’s guide” I would hope we can stick a little more nuance into beginner’s thinking.<\/p>\n

I choose to Fisk. Thusly:<\/p>\n

\u201cDoing that \u2014 using electricity to get around, heat our buildings, and run our factories \u2014 will increase demand for power. \u201c<\/p>\n

It decreases the demand for power, overall. Internal combustion engines are inefficient compared to electric, to such a degree that burning huge amounts of petroleum or coal in one place to ultimately power electric vehicles in a reasonable size region is more efficient than distributing burnable material to all those vehicles to run them. Electrification is inherently more efficient and lower maintenance.<\/p>\n

\u201cThat means the electricity grid will have to get bigger,\u201d<\/p>\n

Our grid, in the US and generally, in the west, is fully embiggened. Globally, maybe. That depends on if a \u201cbig grid\u201d is the best way to deliver power everywhere. It probably isn\u2019t.<\/p>\n

[The grid must become] \u201cmore sophisticated, more efficient, and more reliable \u2014 while it is decarbonizing. \u201d<\/p>\n

This contrasts the improvement of the grid with decarbonizing as though they were opposites, but for most of the expected improvements of the grid, improvements of the grid and decarbonizing are the same actions. They are not in opposition to each other.<\/p>\n

\u201cOn the other side are those who say that the primary goal should be zero carbon, not 100 percent renewables. They say that, in addition to wind, solar, and the rest of the technologies beloved by climate hawks, we\u2019re also going to need a substantial amount of nuclear power and fossil fuel power with CCS.\u201d<\/p>\n

This is a false dichotomy in my opinion. There is uncertainty here, of course. But let\u2019s try this. Let\u2019s try decarbonizing 50% of our current power without nuclear. At that point we will know whether or not to invest trillions into an unpopular solution (and nuclear is unpopular). If we need to, we\u2019ll do it. If we don\u2019t, we won\u2019t. Maybe something in between. But worrying about this now, and using uncertainty to argue one way or another, is a waste of conversational energy.<\/p>\n

\u201c(If you shrug and say, \u201cit\u2019s too early to know,\u201d you\u2019re correct, but you\u2019re no fun to dispute with.)\u201d<\/p>\n

LOL. But no. Rather, I\u2019m thinking that it is too early to know and, in contrast, you are hiding a pro-nuclear argument in a blanket of uncertainty! Maybe you are not, but this is what such arguments almost always look like. Beware the nuclear argument wearing sheep’s clothing. A greenish tinged sheep, yes, but still a sheep.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe sun is not always shining; the wind is not always blowing.\u201d<\/p>\n

Another falsehood. Technically the sun is not always shining on us<\/em>, true, but as sure as the Earth is spinning, the wind is always blowing. People who say this have never been to the Dakotas.<\/p>\n

It does vary in intensity and by region. So does nuclear, by the way. Nuclear plants have to be shut down or slowed down regularly for refueling. When severe storms threaten, nuclear plants are often shut down, and that is not on a schedule. When any big power plant suffers a catastrophe there is a long term and catastrophic break in the grid, as compared to a cloudy day, or even, a broken windmill.<\/p>\n

The sun is up during the day, and in may places and for many times, generally everywhere, the demand for power is greater during the day.<\/p>\n

Overall, this is a falsehood because it attributes perfection to the traditional sources, especially to Nuclear, and great imperfection to the non-Carbon and non-Nuclear alternatives. That distinction is not nearly as clear and complete as generally stated.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe fact that they are variable means that they are not dispatchable \u2014 the folks operating the power grid cannot turn them on and off as needed.\u201d<\/p>\n

Another falsehood. First, you can\u2019t turn a major traditional power plant on or off as needed. Indeed, there are already major storage technologies and variation methodologies at work. There are high demand industries that are asked to increase or decrease their use, on the fly, to meet production variation on large grids. There are pumped storage systems. Etc. The fact is that there is variation and unpredictability in the current big-plant system, it is a problem, and it is a problem that has been quietly addressed. Quietly to the extent that people making comparisons between traditional big-plant electricity and clean energy systems often don\u2019t even know about it.<\/p>\n

\u201cAs VRE capacity increases, grid operators increasingly have to deal with large spikes in power (say, on a sunny, windy day), sometimes well above 100 percent of demand. \u201c<\/p>\n

Yes indeed, and this is the challenge being addressed as we speak. Enlarging grid balancing systems, increasing storage, developing tunable high energy industries, and so on. This is the challenge, it is being met as we speak.<\/p>\n

\u201cThey also have to deal with large dips in VRE. It happens every day when the sun sets, but variations in VRE supply can also take place over weekly, monthly, seasonal, and even decadal time frames.\u201d<\/p>\n

Yes indeed, and this is the challenge being addressed as we speak. Enlarging grid balancing systems, increasing storage, developing tunable high energy industries, and so on. This is the challenge, it is being met as we speak.<\/p>\n

\u201cAnd finally, grid operators have to deal with rapid ramps, i.e., VRE going from producing almost no energy to producing a ton, or vice versa, over a short period of time. That requires rapid, flexible short-term resources that can ramp up or down in response.\u201d<\/p>\n

Yes indeed, and this is the challenge being addressed as we speak. Enlarging grid balancing systems, increasing storage, developing tunable high energy industries, and so on. This is the challenge, it is being met as we speak.<\/p>\n

The article mentions the economic problems. I don\u2019t see those as difficult to solve but they are important, but I’ve got no comments on that at the moment. Read the article.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe last 10 to 20 percent of decarbonization is the hardest\u201d<\/p>\n

Absolutely. And, know what? The first 25% will be the easiest. Do that now, and we\u2019ll know a LOT more about the next 25% and maybe it won\u2019t seem so hard after all. Maybe a major technological solution will come along before we get to that last 10%, maybe society will change enough that people will simply agree to having occasional reductions in energy availability. But certainly, the greatest difficulty and uncertainty is linked to that last 10%.<\/p>\n

Our goal should be to have that problem soon.<\/p>\n

\u201cA great deal can be accomplished just by substituting natural gas combined cycle power plants for coal plants.\u201d<\/p>\n

Yes, if by \u201ca great deal\u201d you mean the release of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Before extolling the virtues of methane, do check into it further. I once thought methane as a bridge was a good idea too, until I learned about what it involves, about leaking methane, etc. No, not really a good idea for the most part.<\/p>\n

\u201cNatural gas is cleaner than coal (by roughly half, depending on how you measure methane leakage), but it\u2019s still a fossil fuel.\u201d<\/p>\n

My impression is that every time we learn something new about leakage, it is that the leakage is worse than we previously thought.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf you build out a bunch of natural gas plants to get to 60 percent, then you\u2019re stuck shutting them down to get past 60 percent.\u201d<\/p>\n

Well put.<\/p>\n

Do read the article, but please, keep in mind that it is unfair (in the context of an argument) to attribute undue perfection to one option while emphasizing uncertain problems with the other. We need to forge ahead into that uncertainty and speed up this whole process. Everybody get to work on this please!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I just read an interesting piece on the widely influential VOX, by David Roberts, called \u201cA beginner\u2019s guide to the debate over 100% renewable energy.\u201d It is worth a read, but I have some problems with it, and felt compelled to rant. No offense intended to David Roberts, but I run into certain malconstructed arguments … Continue reading The Energy Transition and the Question of Perfection<\/span> →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":23921,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[1741,755,1014,1742,719,1743,720],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p5fhV1-6dO","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/gregladen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23920"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/gregladen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/gregladen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gregladen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gregladen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23920"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/gregladen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23920\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gregladen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/gregladen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23920"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gregladen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23920"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gregladen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23920"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}