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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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?
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
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"