Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.

[Raffy.Roma]

We’re easily on track to handle air conditioning.

A real seasonality hurdle will be in winter where heat pumps will also be a large part of the solution. The larger dilemma will be significantly less solar radiance and significantly more electricity demand then for heating compared with summer. Yet the tools to solve that too are outlined today in this thread; we have time to solve it if not wasted.

Yes but this Air Conditioning (AC) matter worked out according to the NET ZERO spirit has to be implemented FOR REAL as soon as possible, and the technology exported to Countries like India which are using heavily COAL to run AC.

 

[dgdosen]

LED lighting is great! I'm using it right now, and it consumes a fraction of energy as those whale oil candles.

Unfortunately, we haven't figured out a way smelt aluminum or make concrete at that same small fraction of that from in the past. That's why the world is still burning more oil, gas and coal compared to the past (even while coal burning in the US and UK are dwindling to zero)

I'm all for more green energy, getting to 0 carbon, pro nuclear, pro Kurzweil exponential/accelerating change, etc. I think (or more correctly Smil thinks, and I agree) we're still on a pace of putting much more CO2 in the air for many decades before it gets better.

 

[nwdiver]

Unfortunately, we haven't figured out a way smelt aluminum or make concrete at that same small fraction of that from in the past.

Smelting Aluminum is still just electricity. For the 3rd time...

We don't need ~1000GWh/yr from solar to replace 1000GWh/yr from coal. PV doesn't dump ~70% of the energy it harvests like thermal plants do. We only need ~300GWh/yr.

We could be using ~2x more energy than we use now in 2100 but consuming less. That's the primary energy fallacy.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Smelting Aluminum is still just electricity. For the 3rd time...

The Shift Toward Renewable Power in Aluminum Smelting - Light Metal Age Magazine

As the primary aluminum industry strives to lower its carbon footprint one of the key pathways it shifting toward renewable power sources.

www.lightmetalage.com

In North America and some other regions it's almost all hydro now.
But globally, the majority of production is in China. So, it depends on whether China can or will decarbonize production rapidly, which of course just depends on whether it's cheaper.
At the rate of additions in China, looks like it is cheaper.

 

[gt2690b]

.

We could be using ~2x more energy than we use now in 2100 but consuming less. That's the primary energy fallacy.

Using and consuming mean the same thing.. I assume you mean consuming less fossil fuels though

Also lemme just say nothing heats like gas I hate heat pumps give me my natural gas furnace when it's -10

 

[mspohr]

Using and consuming mean the same thing.. I assume you mean consuming less fossil fuels though

Also lemme just say nothing heats like gas I hate heat pumps give me my natural gas furnace when it's -10

No.
My induction cooktop uses 1 kWh of electricity to boil water.
Your gas stove consumes 10,000 BTU (3 kWh) to boil the same water (and damages your health with NOx).
See the difference?

 

[gt2690b]

No.
My induction cooktop uses 1 kWh of electricity to boil water.
Your gas stove consumes 10,000 BTU (3 kWh) to boil the same water (and damages your health with NOx).
See the difference?

You are not using 2x the amount of energy then are you? Understand?

 

[mspohr]

You are not using 2x the amount of energy then are you? Understand?

You are consuming 3x the energy with gas than I am using to do the same task.
You are wasting 2/3 of the "primary energy" that you are consuming.

 

[dgdosen]

Smelting Aluminum is still just electricity. For the 3rd time...

My point is - it still consumes a great deal of energy. And depending on where you are on the globe, your first choice for that energy might be coal.

 

[nwdiver]

You are not using 2x the amount of energy then are you? Understand?

You're consuming ~3x more primary energy with coal instead of solar because coal uses ~3x more fuel per unit energy than solar. That's the primary energy fallacy. Primary energy is based on fuel consumed not energy used. That's how you can use 2x more energy while consuming less in terms of primary energy.

 

[eevee-fan]

You are consuming 3x the energy with gas than I am using to do the same task.
You are wasting 2/3 of the "primary energy" that you are consuming.

We need to look at this from a planet heat perspective.

When you burn fuel (stashed away potential energy and carbon) at 33% efficiency and use a low end air heatpump or decent water Heatpump (300% efficient), you are not making a difference.
When you set up renewables, it really does not matter what the efficiency is because it does not ADD heat to the planet and also does not ADD carbon into the atmosphere.
We are so close to the age of energy abundance. It's too bad old business interest and (Grand) Old Party stands in the way because they only have power in a world of non-abundance.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

You are not using 2x the amount of energy then are you? Understand?

Yes you are "using" 2x the amount of energy. The EIA charts are about energy content. Fossil fuels have significant amounts of energy capacity in them, but the "work" (which is usually in the form of kinetic or electrical energy) is significantly less.

 

[nwdiver]

My point is - it still consumes a great deal of energy. And depending on where you are on the globe, your first choice for that energy might be coal.

My point is - That using primary energy as Vaclav Smil does is at best misleading. It's like preparing for a 10k thinking it's 10 miles not 10km and not knowing you get a bicycle at the ~halfway point. When I put solar on my roof I didn't reduce coal consumption by 10MWh/yr. I reduced it by 30MWh/yr. AND the cost to get solar today is ~70% less. AND you get ~2x more energy for the same area. We're at the steeper part of the transition. We have less energy to displace than it appears and we're moving faster than we did. That's the primary energy fallacy.

 

[dgdosen]

My point is - That using primary energy as Vaclav Smil does is at best misleading. It's like preparing for a 10k thinking it's 10 miles not 10km and not knowing you get a bicycle at the ~halfway point. When I put solar on my roof I didn't reduce coal consumption by 10MWh/yr. I reduced it by 30MWh/yr. AND the cost to get solar today is ~70% less. AND you get ~2x more energy for the same area. We're at the steeper part of the transition. We have less energy to displace than it appears and we're moving faster than we did. That's the primary energy fallacy.

Then why is world consumption of coal still increasing (sure it might have dipped during covid)? We should be half off the peak! If we're lucky it peaks before the end of the decade. Throw in some political instability maybe oil and gas or other alternatives become too expensive for developing nations.

I'll happily agree with you if and when world coal consumption drops under 4B tons/year. You and I probably don't see eye to eye on when that can occur. I don't think Smil is trying to mislead anyone - I thing his goal is to be a realist.

 

[nwdiver]

I don't think Smil is trying to mislead anyone - I thing his goal is to be a realist.

So why is he using primary energy instead of useful energy?

 

[mspohr]

We need to look at this from a planet heat perspective.

When you burn fuel (stashed away potential energy and carbon) at 33% efficiency and use a low end air heatpump or decent water Heatpump (300% efficient), you are not making a difference.
When you set up renewables, it really does not matter what the efficiency is because it does not ADD heat to the planet and also does not ADD carbon into the atmosphere.
We are so close to the age of energy abundance. It's too bad old business interest and (Grand) Old Party stands in the way because they only have power in a world of non-abundance.

Burning coal does make a difference. You are adding heat and CO2.

 

[mspohr]

Then why is world consumption of coal still increasing (sure it might have dipped during covid)? We should be half off the peak! If we're lucky it peaks before the end of the decade. Throw in some political instability maybe oil and gas or other alternatives become too expensive for developing nations.

I'll happily agree with you if and when world coal consumption drops under 4B tons/year. You and I probably don't see eye to eye on when that can occur. I don't think Smil is trying to mislead anyone - I thing his goal is to be a realist.

He has a different version of reality.

 

[DanCar]

Quote:
“The ADVANCE Act will provide the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with the tools and workforce it needs to review new nuclear technologies efficiently, while maintaining the NRC’s critical safety mission and creating thousands of new jobs,” Carper added.

Now, all eyes are set on U.S. President Joe Biden, who is expected to sign this ADVANCE act to give it legal approval.
...
The bill aims to simplify the licensing procedure for new nuclear plants and reduce permission costs, making it less expensive for developers to get started.

Moreover, it supports the development of new, smaller nuclear reactors known as Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). These are smaller, cheaper versions of large plants in vogue today, offering more flexibility and faster deployment.

As per the press release, the bill also includes measures to encourage American companies to build these new nuclear technologies in other countries.

“Directing the Department of Energy to improve its process for approving the export of American technology to international markets, while maintaining strong standards for nuclear non-proliferation,” it stated.

US passes bill aimed at nuclear energy expansion to rival China

The ADVANCE Act, a bill meant to jumpstart America's nuclear energy sector, was passed with an overwhelming majority by the Senate.

interestingengineering.com

Trump says we need nuclear to power AI.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1803992844644028894

 

[nwdiver]

Quote:
“The ADVANCE Act will provide the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with the tools and workforce it needs to review new nuclear technologies efficiently, while maintaining the NRC’s critical safety mission and creating thousands of new jobs,” Carper added.

Now, all eyes are set on U.S. President Joe Biden, who is expected to sign this ADVANCE act to give it legal approval.
...
The bill aims to simplify the licensing procedure for new nuclear plants and reduce permission costs, making it less expensive for developers to get started.

Moreover, it supports the development of new, smaller nuclear reactors known as Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). These are smaller, cheaper versions of large plants in vogue today, offering more flexibility and faster deployment.

As per the press release, the bill also includes measures to encourage American companies to build these new nuclear technologies in other countries.

“Directing the Department of Energy to improve its process for approving the export of American technology to international markets, while maintaining strong standards for nuclear non-proliferation,” it stated.

US passes bill aimed at nuclear energy expansion to rival China

The ADVANCE Act, a bill meant to jumpstart America's nuclear energy sector, was passed with an overwhelming majority by the Senate.

interestingengineering.com

Trump says we need nuclear to power AI.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1803992844644028894

Those who do not learn from history...

Project Independence​

Energy Policy Act of 2005​

What are the odds this will be any different?

 

[mspohr]

Those who do not learn from history...

Project Independence​

Energy Policy Act of 2005​

What are the odds this will be any different?

Pro nuclear advocates have been whinging about "high cost regulation". I doubt that is the problem with nuclear cost and time to build.
They are still asking for more subsidies.