Re: The Death Of Fossil Fuels
Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2021 10:18 am
Yes. We need to be ninety times better than that to meet the Paris target of 45% vs. 2010.Grumble wrote: ↑Wed Mar 17, 2021 11:11 pmWe’re on course to cut emissions by a massive... 2% by 2030 compared with 2017 and 0.5% vs 2010.
We need to get a bit better than that.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/un-new-nati ... ext-decade
Original publication.bjn wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 9:10 amInvestors are now demanding significantly higher returns from coal as compared to renewables, factoring in the risk of having stranded assets. This is how industries enter death spirals.
Notable also that there has been a big decrease in the absolute volume of financing for coal (page 6).bjn wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 10:45 amOriginal publication.bjn wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 9:10 amInvestors are now demanding significantly higher returns from coal as compared to renewables, factoring in the risk of having stranded assets. This is how industries enter death spirals.
During the day at least, we seem to have enough capacity to be exporting power to France and Ireland - though we are burning some coal - I assume that that will pick up as the sun sets.
As this thread makes clear, a lot of renewable tech is quite mature - the UN reckon we could replace 70% of energy demand with renewables already. Obviously we haven't done anything like that, for political reasons. So I'm looking forward to reading an academic overview of the issues when I get a minute. Hope it's of some interest to others.Abstract: After setting out the centrality of governance to understanding and engaging with energy transitions, I show how ideologies and strategies of governance have been shaped by broader shifts in capitalism around neo-liberalism regarding the role of the state and the re-scaling of the global economy through processes of globalisation. I show how at every level from local, city, national, to regional and global governance, political systems reflect and are imbued with the structural and material power of incumbent energy providers and interests, reinforced by institutional power through high levels of access and representation in the key discussion and decision-making centres to frame their needs as congruent with those of the state and their energy pathways as the most viable for tackling the energy trilemma of energy poverty, security and sustainability. I describe an energy governance complex: a web of distributed (but unevenly concentrated) power and agency over different parts of the energy system and its multi-functionality. Ecologising governance draws attention not only to its interconnections and interdependencies but also to its ecological blindness.
The present energy governance landscape is fragmented. This is in part due to the historic development of the modern energy system mirrored by the specialized “energy clubs” that emerged (including the IEA, IAEA, OECD, GECF, and IRENA). They are driven by traditional energy policy paradigms such as security of supply, economic efficiency and the development of (primarily) fossil fuel markets. This set of institutions has not been designed to tackle energy system decarbonisation in a comprehensive way.
In recent years, the G7 and G20 have strengthened their cooperation in areas with a “mission focus”. These include missions related to a sustainable and just energy transition, such as energy access, subsidies, energy efficiency and increasingly renewable energy. But as cooperation is voluntary, progress has been limited. Multilateral fora such as UN SEA4All and IRENA focus on sustainable decarbonisation of the global economy but lack funding and the ability to implement efficient policy instruments to drive transition. The Clean Energy Ministerial (CEM) and Mission Innovation (MI) work to scale up clean energy research, development, and policies and standards in key sectors. But issues including capacity building, shifting of consumer preferences, governance of technology and raw materials’ supply chains, creating standards and rules for decarbonisation, and stranded asset risks are largely unaddressed.
Aside from a bump between 2005-2011, that's a remarkably consistent decline.Pishwish wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 10:46 pmApologies if it has been posted before, but I find this astonishing.
graph from how renewables got so cheap
Yep. That's pretty much the argument I've been making all along, starting in The Other Place. Near zero opex, learning curves and the ability to deploy at smaller scales than any thermally based generation means that thermal systems were always going to lose. The one bit I don't agree with is.....Pishwish wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 10:46 pmApologies if it has been posted before, but I find this astonishing.
graph from how renewables got so cheap
Nukes can't complement renewables because to do that they need to be dispatchable to cover renewables' intermittency. Nukes can be made dispatchable, but it makes them more expensive to build to deal with frequent cycling. The bigger problem is that you will have spent £7B/GW* to build the thing, but the capacity factors will be much lower than current 'base load' nukes. Which means the levelised cost of energy will be markedly higher than currently expensive nuclear generation. You are looking at many hundreds of pounds per MWh. You could run the nuke with higher capacity factors and put any excess generation into storage and use that to cover intermittency, but if you do that, why not just use overbuilt cheaper renewables to do the same? While your at it build more interconnects to get access to hydro in Norway or areas with anti-correlated weather.But nuclear could still become more important in the future because it can complement renewables where these energy sources have their weaknesses: First, intermittency of electricity from renewables remains a challenge and a viable energy mix of the future post-carbon world will likely include all low-carbon sources, renewables as well as nuclear power.
One thing people who promote nuclear as a low-carbon option often get wrong is claiming that nuclear can supply a constant base-load. Linking lots of nuclear plants via an interconnected grid can supply an approximate base-load, but the availability of an individual nuclear power station is only 70-90% (not dissimilar to coal). So for somewhere remote like Trondheim to be run on nuclear power they either need two power stations (and hope that one doesn't trip while the other is being maintained) or use nuclear with back-up such as battery/pumped hydro.bjn wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 10:12 amYep. That's pretty much the argument I've been making all along, starting in The Other Place. Near zero opex, learning curves and the ability to deploy at smaller scales than any thermally based generation means that thermal systems were always going to lose. The one bit I don't agree with is.....Pishwish wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 10:46 pmApologies if it has been posted before, but I find this astonishing.
graph from how renewables got so cheap
Nukes can't complement renewables because to do that they need to be dispatchable to cover renewables' intermittency. Nukes can be made dispatchable, but it makes them more expensive to build to deal with frequent cycling. The bigger problem is that you will have spent £7B/GW* to build the thing, but the capacity factors will be much lower than current 'base load' nukes. Which means the levelised cost of energy will be markedly higher than currently expensive nuclear generation. You are looking at many hundreds of pounds per MWh. You could run the nuke with higher capacity factors and put any excess generation into storage and use that to cover intermittency, but if you do that, why not just use overbuilt cheaper renewables to do the same? While your at it build more interconnects to get access to hydro in Norway or areas with anti-correlated weather.But nuclear could still become more important in the future because it can complement renewables where these energy sources have their weaknesses: First, intermittency of electricity from renewables remains a challenge and a viable energy mix of the future post-carbon world will likely include all low-carbon sources, renewables as well as nuclear power.
There are certainly places where a nuke makes sense (Trondheim?) and can be run economically with high capacity factors, but those will be the exception not the norm.
*Current capital cost of Hinkley Point C, expect it to cost more by the time it finishes.
Martin_B wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 12:15 pmOne thing people who promote nuclear as a low-carbon option often get wrong is claiming that nuclear can supply a constant base-load. Linking lots of nuclear plants via an interconnected grid can supply an approximate base-load, but the availability of an individual nuclear power station is only 70-90% (not dissimilar to coal). So for somewhere remote like Trondheim to be run on nuclear power they either need two power stations (and hope that one doesn't trip while the other is being maintained) or use nuclear with back-up such as battery/pumped hydro.bjn wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 10:12 amYep. That's pretty much the argument I've been making all along, starting in The Other Place. Near zero opex, learning curves and the ability to deploy at smaller scales than any thermally based generation means that thermal systems were always going to lose. The one bit I don't agree with is.....Pishwish wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 10:46 pmApologies if it has been posted before, but I find this astonishing.
graph from how renewables got so cheap
Nukes can't complement renewables because to do that they need to be dispatchable to cover renewables' intermittency. Nukes can be made dispatchable, but it makes them more expensive to build to deal with frequent cycling. The bigger problem is that you will have spent £7B/GW* to build the thing, but the capacity factors will be much lower than current 'base load' nukes. Which means the levelised cost of energy will be markedly higher than currently expensive nuclear generation. You are looking at many hundreds of pounds per MWh. You could run the nuke with higher capacity factors and put any excess generation into storage and use that to cover intermittency, but if you do that, why not just use overbuilt cheaper renewables to do the same? While your at it build more interconnects to get access to hydro in Norway or areas with anti-correlated weather.But nuclear could still become more important in the future because it can complement renewables where these energy sources have their weaknesses: First, intermittency of electricity from renewables remains a challenge and a viable energy mix of the future post-carbon world will likely include all low-carbon sources, renewables as well as nuclear power.
There are certainly places where a nuke makes sense (Trondheim?) and can be run economically with high capacity factors, but those will be the exception not the norm.
*Current capital cost of Hinkley Point C, expect it to cost more by the time it finishes.
It’s viable now isn’t it? As I write this the U.K. has about 6GW from solar, or about 18% of its power. Cf nuclear at 4.4GW and 13%.
Government LCOE estimates for a range of tech in the UK over the next decade(pdf).