Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Suppose you want to shut down all global coal-fired power stations in five years. Can any sustainable supply be ramped up at the rate this would require?

OK, that's a bit of an arbitrary target, but let's see. Using figures from the REN21 Global Status Report 2012, and the IEA.

Coal was about 40% of global electricity, which was around 2500GW, so we'd be looking for about 1000GW of electricity.

PV has been increasing at about 70% a year. Wind at about 30% per year. And that's without global co-ordinated effort. What could be done with such an effort? Shall we double those rates? After all, this is as serious as a World War, and so merits the same sort of industrial response.

Global annual PV production capacity was around 60GW at the start of this year. Global annual wind production capacity was around 50GW or so (hard to be sure). Let's take a PV capacity factor of 15%, and a wind capacity factor of 30%, assuming most deployment in high-yield places. So that gives us a base figure of 9GW of extra electricity from PV, and 15GW from wind, for 2012. Let's see what could be produced for the five years 2013-2017, in terms of additional electricity (not capacity, but mean power) per year:

+GWePVWind
2012915
20132228
20145244
201512471
2016299113
2017717181

Total (2013-2017): +1627GW of additional electricity production

So that's easily met the 1000GW, before we've accounted for any extra hydro, and any conversion of coal plant to biomass.

So, it doesn't seem entirely unfeasible, at least at the level of generation.

And how much extra nuclear could we bring on board in that time, assuming planning and design started tomorrow? Well, in round figures, as close to zero as makes no odds. And would you really want anyone living on the same planet as a panic-built nuclear fleet anyway?

Now, maybe you've got additional questions about balancing. But that would need a systems model for the entire world, and that's a decent-sized research project (call it a million Euro, off the top of my head - please send a formal request for quotation to andrew at {my EuroTrib username} dot info ;-). The bottom line is probably going to be something about building a few million gigawatt-km of extra transmission infrastructure, and converting as much of the world's existing storage hydro to pumped-storage as possible, and maybe building a hundred GW of peaking gas plant). I don't yet know how to assess the feasibility of those things.

by LondonAnalytics (Andrew Smith) on Tue Sep 11th, 2012 at 03:46:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You probably know about this Finnish invention: Waveroller

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Sep 11th, 2012 at 04:01:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ooh, no, I didn't, and thank you. That looks interesting. Yes, I've excluded tidal barrage, tidal stream, wave, OTEC, osmotic power, and probably a few other things too. Of those, I wouldn't expect to see many new tens of gigawatts of them combined by 2017, even in a "global war on carbon" scenario. Geothermal and concentrated solar thermal might provide quite a few gigawatts of new electricity in such a scenario, though.
by LondonAnalytics (Andrew Smith) on Tue Sep 11th, 2012 at 04:53:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think the actual build time of a nuke is a few years. The approval process can be lengthy, though...
by asdf on Tue Sep 11th, 2012 at 04:50:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
oh yeah so we'll just ram 'em through without any planning or approval process. That'll work well. After all, we have all these armies sitting around doing nothing. They can just dig in on the perimeter of the construction sites.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 04:55:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Not to mention that the "actual build time" recently is more than just "a few years."

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
by Crazy Horse on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 06:34:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Wasn't there evidence that casting the metalwork needed for reactors was a significant bottle neck? You'd need a couple of years to build the systems required to build a lot of reactors, at least. Or you'd end up using more dangerous reactors.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 06:36:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Bloomberg: Samurai-Sword Maker's Reactor Monopoly May Cool Nuclear Revival (March 12, 2008)
From a windswept corner of Hokkaido, Japan's northernmost island, Japan Steel Works Ltd. controls the fate of the global nuclear-energy renaissance.

There stands the only plant in the world, a survivor of Allied bombing in World War II, capable of producing the central part of a nuclear reactor's containment vessel in a single piece, reducing the risk of a radiation leak.

Utilities that won't need the equipment for years are making $100 million down payments now on components Japan Steel makes from 600-ton ingots. Each year the Tokyo-based company can turn out just four of the steel forgings that contain the radioactivity in a nuclear reactor. Even after it doubles capacity in the next two years, there won't be enough production to meet building plans.

Much water under the river since early 2008...

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 06:42:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Has there been an expansion of capacity?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 06:46:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In the middle of a depression?

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 07:05:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There are but a very few forges in the world which can make the unwelded containment vessels, i think. Current capacity was a half dozen a year, again, off the top of my head.

China and South Korea could indeed build more forges and ramp up the supply chain within five years. Then we'd be back to the original  blindness that the answer is staring us in the face, but we refuse to see it.

A healthy civilization would want its energy directly from the sun, distributed throughout society, period. Not with 400 million years of poison added on, not with ersatz suns created by a military-technical elite, not with the danger of a "whoops" hanging around for a few thousand years.

But what do eye know?

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin

by Crazy Horse on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 06:49:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So that's a build time of five years plus a few years for a reactor, and producing enough of them to be useful could take twenty years? (Leaving aside the whole question of whether we should be building them at all.)
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 07:00:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And by then we'll have clean fusion anyway ...
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 07:00:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What, in 50 years' time?

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 07:04:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, that was 30 years ago.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 07:32:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yeah, now it's more like 60 to 80.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 08:17:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, actually it has been 30-40 years. Constantly. And in 30 years it will still be at least 30 years away.
by Katrin on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 08:42:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Containment vessels are so 20th century...there will be no accidents in the glorious nuclear future...
by asdf on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 10:11:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, I was suggesting what was likely to happen, not what "should" happen...
by asdf on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 10:03:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There isn't the political will to build new nukes. Which politician would want to tie their future to nukes? I mean more than just Sunday speeches: advocate a plant at a given location where the population would have to be made not to oppose it. This campaign would depend on Tepco's ability to suppress the news. Fat chance of that. Every member of any local council would have to bear that in mind: their political career would be ended.

Even if we can conceive of a politician advocating a new nuke near a given village AND being successful at that: the costs. Nukes need a lot of subsidies, they can't be profitable. Who is to (successfully!) argue for these subsidies?

Forget nukes. They are politically dead. As much as I like to give arguments against them (because it is so dead easy and I am by nature lazy), it's not worth it. We are flogging a dead horse.

by Katrin on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 07:09:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
i wish i were so sanguine...italy was about to roll over for them under burlesquoni.

thing is there's a split in the road coming up for big energy investment/subsidies, one leads to alternative/renewables, the other goes nuke.

germany has a spirited defence against them, so much so even merkel had to fake it, but the rest of europe.... i hope so.

energy costs being so fundamnetal to the sucess of any industrial efforts, no serious investments will happen here in europe until this is resolved, and the obstacle is the lobbying power from the enrgy cartel vested interests, who count on a passive, scared and ignorant public.

as you said upthread, the nuke road will need a police state to ram it down the public throat.

as renewables get cheaper every day, the dark side has to move soon, or the narrative will change too much and they will have lost the bet to nuclearise the planet, using global warming as cudgel to get 'er done.

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 08:11:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
thing is there's a split in the road coming up for big energy investment/subsidies, one leads to alternative/renewables, the other goes nuke

Not true. There are no serious private investments in nukes, and public ones are decreasing rapidly. The old model of shifting costs and risks to the public, but privatising the profits no longer works for new plants.

The only interesting debate is what to do with old plants. They are written off, that makes them profitable. They clash with renewables though. So, do we want technological stagnation, and exponentially growing risk (from ancient nukes) or do we want innovation, investment in renewables, and a different structure of the producers (large entities or a network of small ones) and the corresponding grid?

by Katrin on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 08:40:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As I pointed out above, the balancing is less urgent. While you're doing your war-mode build-out of renewables capacity, you need a war-mode expansion of transmission infrastructure, but the balancing is provided by the fossil plants you're displacing. You don't need any new peaking gas plants, surely?

So, when you hit your target in terms of renewables capacity, and your fossil plants are only producing say 25% of the electricity they are producing today, you switch the war-mode effort to pumped storage etc... having done the planning carefully in the meantime of course.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 05:01:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
eurogreen, I agree with you when you write that:
the balancing is provided by the fossil plants you're displacing. You don't need any new peaking gas plants, surely?

But the challenge set by asdf was an end to all coal-electricity within five years. So, I took that to mean no balancing with coal either, at least for this extreme-test scenario.

Yes, you're right that it would be cheaper to have some coal for balancing, in a 10-15 year transition. And in reality, that's what's happening: fossil plants just run with lower capacity factors, and might spend much of the year in mothballs.

by LondonAnalytics (Andrew Smith) on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 06:49:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
and even if we're still using existing plants less efficiently, the real goal of moving from poison is being accomplished. Under a "war-footing" we probably could eliminate coal within 5-10 years, but that would entail the enlightenment of an ignorant population, and the immediate germination of a new class of visionary politicians.


"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
by Crazy Horse on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 07:00:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series