The US should be making energy decisions based in reality too. Decisions based upon “dreams” are expensive, and not just financially, but environmentally too.
Since Kyoto World emissions have increased from 1.5%/yr for the previous 24 yrs to 2.2%/yr for the subsequent 19 yrs, including the depression that began in 2007. Some success that was. They've already blown well over $5 trillion on wind and solar with zero results. A recent analysis of the success of decarbonization efforts for electricity generation over the past 63 yrs have shown that Nuclear and Hydro both worked and were very successful. While wind and solar has been a dismal failure, showing no correlation between wind & solar penetration and the carbon intensity of electricity generation ( gms CO2 eq emitted per kwh generated). This of course is all due to the terrible problems of intermittent, seasonal, unreliable wind & solar electricity generation.
So a quick google search shows that in 2021 they had about 78GW of installed solar
This in turn provided 85,000gwhr of power.
In a year, 78GW of installed reliable generation would produce 683,000gwhr so this means the solar capacity factor is an awful 12%.
In Alberta a new 450mw solar site covers 6 sq miles of the prairie. So rough order of thumb, 1000sq miles covered to get 85gw.
Japan is famously mountainous so how much percentage of available flat land is used for this?
This story says utilities state they cannot handle any more solar, too destabilizing, but the same 10second google search yields several links to Pv magazines or activist groups saying they anticipate growth to 180 and one says 300gw installed PV.
Which is correct? As we see Australia curtailing as happens anywhere you have too much solar, I assume your info above is correct
Only 12% CF, that's abysmal. So I have to update my calc to say if they had spent that money on nuclear instead of solar they would have gone 262GWe equivalent on a MWh to MWh basis. 3.5X more for the same cost and far, far lower emissions. Insanity!
No big surprise. It's all laid out in Bjorn Lomborg's book "False Alarm". The net carbon push will make the world a poorer place pushing more people into poverty, making energy more expensive, and even if we were to achieve it, which is impossible, it would reduce the net temperature gain by 0.4 degrees F. It's all smoke and mirrors for political and geopolitical gain.
Possibly. In Lomborg's book he has references for many studies (UN included) that try and estimate these numbers. I don't do the stats justice. Best to read the book and decide for yourself if you believe the estimates or not.
He is 100% correct on all the economics, that is something you can calculate.
Temperature is something affected by a thousand things and it’s the absolute height of hubris to think you can give or take X tons of co2 and then use a biased model to tell us what the temperature will be to a fraction of a degree in 100 years.
I don’t think Lomborg actually believes that, he’s too smart for that, but I think he doesn’t publicly question it to avoid having the insane attack him too strongly.
And he doesn’t have to
Using their math he shows that all their ideas and plans are pointless and that is a valid approach.
Despite famously not being a Kyoto signatory I seem to recall reading US CO2 emissions are also a percentage point or three lower today than 1990. On a per capita basis vs population-stagnant Japan I suspect we've cut even more, and (as you note) running the statistic vs GDP growth is a slam dunk.
That's massively stupid. For sure that cost them at least $150B including necessary grid upgrades/transmission.
The UAE has just completed 4 of 1.4GW of the GenIII South Korean APR1400 reactors in 11yrs start to finish starting from scratch with zero nuclear expertise, and a deficient industrial infrastructure/skilled workforce. Cost of US$24B.
So $150B/$24B x 5.6GW = 35GW of nuclear which is the equivalent to 157GW of Solar in a simplistic MWh to MWh or Apples (nuclear) to Rotten Oranges(solar) comparison. So they could have got over double the energy from nuclear at the same cost and same period of time. Except the Nuclear is reliable 24/7, 365 days per year high grade energy that lasts for 60-100yrs vs the solar is intermittent, unreliable, seasonal low grade energy that lasts for 20-30yrs.
Does anyone not realize there is something very fishy going on here?
Energy output per annum. The 78GW (>$150B cost) of solar at Japan's CF (see above) of 12% CF solar produces 85TWh of energy per annum. Nuclear power plants running at a typical 90% CF produces 85TWh with 10.8GW of capacity. Using the recent UAE build a cost base, that would cost $46B. 78GW of solar costing $150B. So cost-wise if you spent that $150B on nuclear instead you would get 150/46 = 3.3X their current solar or 3.3X78GW = 257GW of Solar equivalent capacity (up from 157GW due to the lower CF of 12%). Or if you spent the $150B on nuclear you would get 280TWh of energy per annum rather than the 85TWh they are getting for solar.
I was assuming a decent 20% CF for solar. But Pat found it is only 12%CF. Really bad. So that means they could have gone 3.5X more energy by going nuclear for the same cost as the solar. And a whole lot cleaner energy.
Japan is a famously cloudy and wet country. Installed nameplate capacity is meaningless, capacity factor is everything and it will be a fraction of installed rating
Since economics trumps politics, I believe the people who expect a 15-20 year delay before new nuclear may be overly pessimistic.
When Russia exposed the world's vulnerability a disruption in the supply of it fuel, the cost of all hydrocarbons, including coal, skyrocketed. When Europe was building its winter inventory last summer, it was physically challenging for all other countries to arrange fuel deliveries because European traders we willing to, and could afford to, outbid most other customers.
Countries dependent on imported fuel were temporarily saved by a warm winter and by the fact that most of Russia's fuel is still finding its way into the market.
Do economics, including a risk premium, really favor an increasing dependence on fossil fuel? Will that remain true if nuclear plants are built competently, with a national priority that speeds up approvals and mutes obstruction?
Pielke: “When policies focused on economic growth confront policies focused on emissions reductions, it is economic growth that will win out every time.”
Common sense and national survival trumps climate change BS.
Until climate change makes survival not possible.
The US should be making energy decisions based in reality too. Decisions based upon “dreams” are expensive, and not just financially, but environmentally too.
capacity factor is solar’s elephant in the room
Agree: 86000 / (75*24*365) = 13% capacity factor in 2021
Since Kyoto World emissions have increased from 1.5%/yr for the previous 24 yrs to 2.2%/yr for the subsequent 19 yrs, including the depression that began in 2007. Some success that was. They've already blown well over $5 trillion on wind and solar with zero results. A recent analysis of the success of decarbonization efforts for electricity generation over the past 63 yrs have shown that Nuclear and Hydro both worked and were very successful. While wind and solar has been a dismal failure, showing no correlation between wind & solar penetration and the carbon intensity of electricity generation ( gms CO2 eq emitted per kwh generated). This of course is all due to the terrible problems of intermittent, seasonal, unreliable wind & solar electricity generation.
So a quick google search shows that in 2021 they had about 78GW of installed solar
This in turn provided 85,000gwhr of power.
In a year, 78GW of installed reliable generation would produce 683,000gwhr so this means the solar capacity factor is an awful 12%.
In Alberta a new 450mw solar site covers 6 sq miles of the prairie. So rough order of thumb, 1000sq miles covered to get 85gw.
Japan is famously mountainous so how much percentage of available flat land is used for this?
This story says utilities state they cannot handle any more solar, too destabilizing, but the same 10second google search yields several links to Pv magazines or activist groups saying they anticipate growth to 180 and one says 300gw installed PV.
Which is correct? As we see Australia curtailing as happens anywhere you have too much solar, I assume your info above is correct
Only 12% CF, that's abysmal. So I have to update my calc to say if they had spent that money on nuclear instead of solar they would have gone 262GWe equivalent on a MWh to MWh basis. 3.5X more for the same cost and far, far lower emissions. Insanity!
3.5x more, far lower emissions, AND a fraction of the land area used.
Grow food instead
Or build playgrounds
Anything
Chinese blocking of rare earths failed. Prices fell. There were alternatives and they removed the block.
No big surprise. It's all laid out in Bjorn Lomborg's book "False Alarm". The net carbon push will make the world a poorer place pushing more people into poverty, making energy more expensive, and even if we were to achieve it, which is impossible, it would reduce the net temperature gain by 0.4 degrees F. It's all smoke and mirrors for political and geopolitical gain.
There is absolutely no data on how much temperature change can be ascribed to any change of emissions. That too is all a fantasy
Possibly. In Lomborg's book he has references for many studies (UN included) that try and estimate these numbers. I don't do the stats justice. Best to read the book and decide for yourself if you believe the estimates or not.
I have read all his books, yes.
He is 100% correct on all the economics, that is something you can calculate.
Temperature is something affected by a thousand things and it’s the absolute height of hubris to think you can give or take X tons of co2 and then use a biased model to tell us what the temperature will be to a fraction of a degree in 100 years.
I don’t think Lomborg actually believes that, he’s too smart for that, but I think he doesn’t publicly question it to avoid having the insane attack him too strongly.
And he doesn’t have to
Using their math he shows that all their ideas and plans are pointless and that is a valid approach.
Agreed and well stated. It is the economics that is the dire part of the conversation and how we could do so much more for the rest of the world.
Despite famously not being a Kyoto signatory I seem to recall reading US CO2 emissions are also a percentage point or three lower today than 1990. On a per capita basis vs population-stagnant Japan I suspect we've cut even more, and (as you note) running the statistic vs GDP growth is a slam dunk.
USA reduction in emissions is due to switching from coal to gas for the most part
Thank you.
Very informative.
You said that Japan had 75 gw of solar. It's this correct? That's a massive amount. Did you mean megawatts?
That's massively stupid. For sure that cost them at least $150B including necessary grid upgrades/transmission.
The UAE has just completed 4 of 1.4GW of the GenIII South Korean APR1400 reactors in 11yrs start to finish starting from scratch with zero nuclear expertise, and a deficient industrial infrastructure/skilled workforce. Cost of US$24B.
So $150B/$24B x 5.6GW = 35GW of nuclear which is the equivalent to 157GW of Solar in a simplistic MWh to MWh or Apples (nuclear) to Rotten Oranges(solar) comparison. So they could have got over double the energy from nuclear at the same cost and same period of time. Except the Nuclear is reliable 24/7, 365 days per year high grade energy that lasts for 60-100yrs vs the solar is intermittent, unreliable, seasonal low grade energy that lasts for 20-30yrs.
Does anyone not realize there is something very fishy going on here?
Apologies for my ignorance, but why does 35GW of nuclear equal 157GW of solar? I don't understand this bit.
Energy output per annum. The 78GW (>$150B cost) of solar at Japan's CF (see above) of 12% CF solar produces 85TWh of energy per annum. Nuclear power plants running at a typical 90% CF produces 85TWh with 10.8GW of capacity. Using the recent UAE build a cost base, that would cost $46B. 78GW of solar costing $150B. So cost-wise if you spent that $150B on nuclear instead you would get 150/46 = 3.3X their current solar or 3.3X78GW = 257GW of Solar equivalent capacity (up from 157GW due to the lower CF of 12%). Or if you spent the $150B on nuclear you would get 280TWh of energy per annum rather than the 85TWh they are getting for solar.
Many thanks. I get it now.
I was assuming a decent 20% CF for solar. But Pat found it is only 12%CF. Really bad. So that means they could have gone 3.5X more energy by going nuclear for the same cost as the solar. And a whole lot cleaner energy.
Japan is a famously cloudy and wet country. Installed nameplate capacity is meaningless, capacity factor is everything and it will be a fraction of installed rating
According to BP, Japan's installed solar capacity in 2021 was 74,191 megawatts, or about 75 gigawatts. And yes, it's a huge amount.
Cheers Rob. So how do they manage it? Are there massive battery storage facilities? (Great book btw ;-)
Since economics trumps politics, I believe the people who expect a 15-20 year delay before new nuclear may be overly pessimistic.
When Russia exposed the world's vulnerability a disruption in the supply of it fuel, the cost of all hydrocarbons, including coal, skyrocketed. When Europe was building its winter inventory last summer, it was physically challenging for all other countries to arrange fuel deliveries because European traders we willing to, and could afford to, outbid most other customers.
Countries dependent on imported fuel were temporarily saved by a warm winter and by the fact that most of Russia's fuel is still finding its way into the market.
Do economics, including a risk premium, really favor an increasing dependence on fossil fuel? Will that remain true if nuclear plants are built competently, with a national priority that speeds up approvals and mutes obstruction?
Economic reality will always govern
Not if the climate/insane radicals run government.
Yes, in actual fact economic reality has been completely replaced with Wokeism and Malthusianism.
Pielke: “When policies focused on economic growth confront policies focused on emissions reductions, it is economic growth that will win out every time.”
Hargraves: "Economics trumps politics"
No Wokeism & Malthusianism trumps economics. Is that not obvious looking at the insanity going on now?
TRUMP 2024