Deaths from climate change

[Matador]

There seems to be an unstated assumption than reducing fossil fuel sources means more expensive energy, and I'm not sure that's been conclusively proven yet.

There was a great breakdown published on the LCOE (levelised cost of energy) published by the EIA which tries to break this down (somewhat):

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
In short, over the next 20 years, if you include all of the parameters that factor into LCOE (including financing, subsidies, operating and fuel costs, decomissioning costs, etc), then wind and solar is already cost equivalent to CC gas turbines, and roughly half the cost of new nuclear plants (for nuclear plant, they consider both light water reactors as well as cost estimates for small modular reactors). Now detractors argue that manufacturing costs for renewables aren't accounted for (they mostly are, including capital manufacturing costs as well as shipping costs) insofar as they don't account for environmental effects of heavy metals or other waste products of manufacturing (which is true)...but on the flip side, they don't include the costs of long-term nuclear waste storage and maintenance either. Costs are averaged amongst 25 different power regions in the US with a 30 year plant horizon. Costs of dealing with climate change (building sea walls, moving infrastructure away from flooding, moving agriculture to new areas, etc) aren't included with any of the fossil fuel solutions as well.

So for a plant built today for service in 2027, the average cost (in dollars per megawatt-hour) for a combined cycle gas plant is $37.05, and for onshore wind is $37.80 and for standalone solar (include 4 hours of battery capacity) is $33.46. What is interesting is that wind and solar have increased capital costs for transmission integration (getting the power on the grid), however those costs are quickly overwhelmed by the fuel costs of fossil fuel plants over time.

 

[JohnRoberts]

There seems to be an unstated assumption than reducing fossil fuel sources means more expensive energy, and I'm not sure that's been conclusively proven yet.

OK I will state it, reducing fossil fuel energy sources means more expensive energy. Gasoline pump prices are not rising just because of Putin's adventurism***. Prices were rising before Putin attacked the Ukraine.

There was a great breakdown published on the LCOE (levelised cost of energy) published by the EIA which tries to break this down (somewhat):

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
In short, over the next 20 years, if you include all of the parameters that factor into LCOE (including financing, subsidies, operating and fuel costs, decomissioning costs, etc), then wind and solar is already cost equivalent to CC gas turbines, and roughly half the cost of new nuclear plants (for nuclear plant, they consider both light water reactors as well as cost estimates for small modular reactors).

The undependability of wind/solar power was very apparent to EU energy customers over the last several months. Reliance upon wind/solar requires back-up energy generation for when the wind don't blow, and sun don't shine. That back up generation typically involves fossil fuels (I think UK was able to buy some Nuclear generated electricity from France).

Now detractors argue that manufacturing costs for renewables aren't accounted for (they mostly are, including capital manufacturing costs as well as shipping costs) insofar as they don't account for environmental effects of heavy metals or other waste products of manufacturing (which is true)...but on the flip side, they don't include the costs of long-term nuclear waste storage and maintenance either. Costs are averaged amongst 25 different power regions in the US with a 30 year plant horizon. Costs of dealing with climate change (building sea walls, moving infrastructure away from flooding, moving agriculture to new areas, etc) aren't included with any of the fossil fuel solutions as well.

So for a plant built today for service in 2027, the average cost (in dollars per megawatt-hour) for a combined cycle gas plant is $37.05, and for onshore wind is $37.80 and for standalone solar (include 4 hours of battery capacity) is $33.46. What is interesting is that wind and solar have increased capital costs for transmission integration (getting the power on the grid), however those costs are quickly overwhelmed by the fuel costs of fossil fuel plants over time.

Conclusions vary... I am clearly in the minority so I do not feel lucky based on our current cultural trajectory.

JR

***Putin's invasion and boycotting of his oil is "a" factor but not the sole cause of gasoline price increase. EU has a much bigger problem replacing Russian NG supplies. We could help them with US NG but not without building out more LNG infrastructure.

 

[Matador]

Reliance upon wind/solar requires back-up energy generation for when the wind don't blow, and sun don't shine.

Yes, which was included in the pricing calculations in the report as well (they assumed 4 hours of storage costs for renewables, and factored in the efficiencies measured in the 25 regions for each source, and then did a weighted average based on the likely adoption in each region, etc, etc).

OK I will state it, reducing fossil fuel energy sources means more expensive energy.

So it's just a simple tautology for you?

 

[living sounds]

Fossile fuels get really expensive once you factor in the costs of dealing with the havoc that climate change wreaks. Uncontrollable positive feedback loops. That writing has long been on the wall in big, fat letters. Some people just choose not to see it.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Fossile fuels get really expensive once you factor in the costs of dealing with the havoc that climate change wreaks. Uncontrollable positive feedback loops. That writing has long been on the wall in big, fat letters. Some people just choose not to see it.

I am probably repeating myself but the cost of global warming to GDP growth is something like 4% total... So in 80 years when we reach the drop dead date, we will only be 450% wealthier.

Yes, which was included in the pricing calculations in the report as well (they assumed 4 hours of storage costs for renewables, and factored in the efficiencies measured in the 25 regions for each source, and then did a weighted average based on the likely adoption in each region, etc, etc).

So it's just a simple tautology for you?

No but pretty repetitive

JR

 

[living sounds]

I am probably repeating myself but the cost of global warming to GDP growth is something like 4% total... So in 80 years when we reach the drop dead date, we will only be 450% wealthier.

That's wishful thinking.

 

[JohnRoberts]

That's wishful thinking.

like all the rest of the projections....

JR

PS: I still suggest reading Koonin and Lomborg books.... they are both real scientists....

 

[living sounds]

PS: I still suggest reading Koonin and Lomborg books.... they are both real scientists....

 

[JohnRoberts]

Economic projections made by both sides 80 years out into the future are what I call "brown" numbers, because they were pulled out of somebody's butt....

JR

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Yes, which was included in the pricing calculations in the report as well (they assumed 4 hours of storage costs for renewables, and factored in the efficiencies measured in the 25 regions for each source, and then did a weighted average based on the likely adoption in each region, etc, etc).

So it's just a simple tautology for you?

So that was local (as in rooftop) systems, correct? What about the millions of people who live where solar is not practical because of latitude and/or prevailing weather (clouds, fog, etc.)? And four hours storage is ridiculous. Where I lived in CA we could be fogged in for a day or two in the summer. Winter storms could bring weeks of thick clouds and rain.

Peak energy use in CA is usually summer days when there is a stagnant high pressure system over the SW coast of the US. This brings 90-110F temps to most of the state including the population centers. Stagnant high pressure means little to no wind. Summer (especially late summer) is fire season. In August and September 2020 CA experienced an extreme outbreak of wildfires. Stagnant high pressure brought high temps, no wind, and thus smoke filled the air over many of the large solar farms. Large solar output to the grid dropped by over 30% and wind was worse.

Rolling blackouts during a fire emergency and heatwave resulted because CA had prematurely shuttered many gas-fired plants as well as one of its last remaining nuclear plants. The remaining one will go offline in the next year or two. Meanwhile CA gov (local and state) mandates idiocy like no NG hookups in new residential construction, eliminating ICE cars, forcing existing homes with NG to convert to electric, etc. Did I mention that electric rates there are outrageously high and increasing? Utopia? Hardly.

CA shows how NOT to go forward.

 

[Matador]

So that was local (as in rooftop) systems, correct? What about the millions of people who live where solar is not practical because of latitude and/or prevailing weather (clouds, fog, etc.)?

Yes, agreed, not all solutions are pertinent to each and every locale, and nobody argues otherwise. So if it's foggy in San Diego, the folks in Albuquerque can still use solar (or whatever) power. Perfection doesn't always have to automatically be the enemy of the really good.

Peak energy use in CA is usually summer days when there is a stagnant high pressure system over the SW coast of the US. This brings 90-110F temps to most of the state including the population centers. Stagnant high pressure means little to no wind

A good time for solar.

Large solar output to the grid dropped by over 30% and wind was worse.

So the effects of climate change can't be mitigated because....of the effects of climate change?

Again, solutions don't have to be binary, or all-or-nothing.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Yes, agreed, not all solutions are pertinent to each and every locale, and nobody argues otherwise. So if it's foggy in San Diego, the folks in Albuquerque can still use solar (or whatever) power. Perfection doesn't always have to automatically be the enemy of the really good.

I'm not advocating for perfect. I'm definitely advocating against pie-in-the-sky "solutions" that fail to account for reality.

A good time for solar.

It can be. And I'm good with distributed snall scale local installations where it can work to reduce demand on the grid. But it isn't a dependable source. If your "really good" solutions lead to rolling blackouts on a regular basis (CA) then you have failed.

So the effects of climate change can't be mitigated because....of the effects of climate change?

Assumptions. Wildfires are a natural part of the western US which has a wet winter/dry summer climate. The problem is that humans actively suppressed fire for a century and also removed old growth forest which is less prone to crown fires.

Look, even the maroons in charge have figured it out:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/c...t-wildfires-with-traditional-burns/ar-AAVOsdN

Again, solutions don't have to be binary, or all-or-nothing.

I never said they did. Only one side is thinking and acting this way. Banning small engines (CA), eliminating ICE vehicles (CA), banning NG for homes (CA), shutting down working gas turbine generation plants (CA), shutting down all nuclear plants (CA), not permitting any new nuclear plants (CA). I could go on.

CA is the green poster child, is it not? Gov leaders there brag regularly that "California leads the way!" Well, I was there for 29 years and experienced the results of very bad policies of all kinds. I will not be following their blindly ideological lead.

 

[cyrano]

OK I will state it, reducing fossil fuel energy sources means more expensive energy. Gasoline pump prices are not rising just because of Putin's adventurism***. Prices were rising before Putin attacked the Ukraine.

Strange...

There was a lot of noise in the mainstream press about prices going up, then. I was amazed, so I checked thoroughly. Prices weren't going up. Prices were going down a bit, even. OPEC was even meeting about what to do about it.

News from the future?

It was very clear back then the pipeline from Russia had to die.

The undependability of wind/solar power was very apparent to EU energy customers over the last several months. Reliance upon wind/solar requires back-up energy generation for when the wind don't blow, and sun don't shine. That back up generation typically involves fossil fuels (I think UK was able to buy some Nuclear generated electricity from France).

We have several forms of green energy over here. None of them failed.

Of course, wind isn't always blowing, sun isn't always shining. That's obvious...

Energy stocking facilities are still being built. Danmark, Germany, The Netherlands, Belgium are all setting up major storage facilities. Not ready yet, of course.

Conclusions vary... I am clearly in the minority so I do not feel lucky based on our current cultural trajectory.

JR

***Putin's invasion and boycotting of his oil is "a" factor but not the sole cause of gasoline price increase. EU has a much bigger problem replacing Russian NG supplies. We could help them with US NG but not without building out more LNG infrastructure.

That would just be shifting the problem, unless you're proposing a transatlantic pipe. US natural gas would need to be transported by tankers. I hope I don't need to explain that wouldn't be a good solution.

A transatlantic pipe has been studied. It was very, very expensive and reliability would be worse than tankers.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Strange...

There was a lot of noise in the mainstream press about prices going up, then. I was amazed, so I checked thoroughly. Prices weren't going up. Prices were going down a bit, even. OPEC was even meeting about what to do about it.

Gasoline prices in the US absolutely increased after Biden took office. And, no, it wasn't caused by "greedy companies," but by market forces reacting to the terrible policies his administration implemented and planned to implement. From August 2021 until Mid February 2022, prices here were up 15%. Prices were even lower at the end of 2020 into early 2021 before I moved here, so the total price increase between election/inauguration and the Ukraine invasion was 20%+.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Strange...

reality

There was a lot of noise in the mainstream press about prices going up, then. I was amazed, so I checked thoroughly. Prices weren't going up. Prices were going down a bit, even. OPEC was even meeting about what to do about it.

News from the future?

It was very clear back then the pipeline from Russia had to die.

Yes ex-President Trump opposed Nord stream pipeline, President Biden reversed that position until polling showed it was unpopular

We have several forms of green energy over here. None of them failed.

I guess it depends on how you define success

Of course, wind isn't always blowing, sun isn't always shining. That's obvious...

should be obvious

Energy stocking facilities are still being built. Danmark, Germany, The Netherlands, Belgium are all setting up major storage facilities. Not ready yet, of course.

Energy storage like massive water reservoirs behind high dams are fairly mature technology. Pumping water up into elevated water tanks is also mature. Battery storage for utilities are newer high technology but expensive. IIRC Elon Musk did a huge utility battery installation in Australia a while back. ( A search of utility energy storage systems in Australia reveals about half use pumped hydro, one uses compressed air, and several battery banks.

That would just be shifting the problem, unless you're proposing a transatlantic pipe. US natural gas would need to be transported by tankers. I hope I don't need to explain that wouldn't be a good solution.

Yes please explain.... LNG prices vary hugely around the world because of supply/demand imbalances. NG as a gas is too much volume to effectively ship. Compressing it to liquid form (LNG) makes it cost effective to transport, but there are significant capital costs to build more LNG carriers (special ships), more LNG export terminals , and LNG import terminals on the receiving end.

A transatlantic pipe has been studied. It was very, very expensive and reliability would be worse than tankers.

Pipelines are generally safer (more reliable) that tankers (trucks, rail). Pipelines are so politically unpopular in the US right now that we don't even have effective pipeline capacity to move NG from where it is, to where it is needed (like New England) inside our own country, let alone to new coastal export terminals.

An under ocean NG pipeline would be hugely expensive and in my judgement impractical. The time frame to build one, and even longer time for payback on the huge investment might take longer than the surplus NG is still available to export from some regions. Ocean going LNG tankers are more practical (shorter payback time frame) and flexible about being redeployed to where the NG is, and deliver it to where it is needed. It is not crazy for large energy consumers to invest in LNG import terminals, likewise sensible for countries with excess of NG to invest in LNG export infrastructure, to capitalize on worldwide price spreads.

Germany is developing multiple LNG import terminals to make up for Russian NG that they are still buying because they have no other option. Spain already had working LNG terminals.

JR

 

[Matador]

Gasoline prices in the US absolutely increased after Biden took office. And, no, it wasn't caused by "greedy companies," but by market forces reacting to the terrible policies his administration implemented and planned to implement.

On Trump's inauguration day of Jan 20th, 2016, avg. pump price was $1.965, and when he left office in 2020 it was $2.665, an increase of 35%. Ergo, it was the market reacting to his terrible policies? It also broadly increased under Bush, and Obama as well.

How exactly does the US president control the price of an internationally traded commodity, which generates about 100 million barrels daily, of which the US utilizes roughly 15-20%? In fact, oil today (inflation adjusted) is still significantly cheaper today than it was broadly during the last Bush presidency between 2007 and 2009.

 

[JohnRoberts]

On Trump's inauguration day of Jan 20th, 2016, avg. pump price was $1.965, and when he left office in 2020 it was $2.665, an increase of 35%. Ergo, it was the market reacting to his terrible policies? It also broadly increased under Bush, and Obama as well.

How exactly does the US president control the price of an internationally traded commodity, which generates about 100 million barrels daily, of which the US utilizes roughly 15-20%? In fact, oil today (inflation adjusted) is still significantly cheaper today than it was broadly during the last Bush presidency between 2007 and 2009.

Under ex-President Trump we were a net energy exporter. The oil we were bringing to market had a price impact in the margin on world prices.

I am surely repeating myself but President Biden has attacked the US energy industry since day one of his administration. Oil production is down while as COVID fades energy demand is returning.

International oil is priced in US dollars so the current 7%+ dollar inflation is also pushing up oil prices.

Inflation is caused by too much money chasing too few goods. Less oil production means higher prices. One of the more remarkable political spins I heard was a suggestion that more government spending could reduce inflation... There no need to even fact check that total BS.

JR

[edit- Big oil is testifying before congress right now and they will be blamed for the high prices (I don't even need to watch).... I think I'm starting to understand politics, blame everybody else. /edit]

 

[hodad]

I never said they did. Only one side is thinking and acting this way

Really? I've only casually perused this thread but you seem to spend an awful lot of time bashing green energy tech for someone who supposedly believes in non-binary solutions. If you actually believe that, maybe you should stop trashing wind and solar.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Guys lets not make everything so personal....

we need a Group hug...

JR

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Really? I've only casually perused this thread but you seem to spend an awful lot of time bashing green energy tech for someone who supposedly believes in non-binary solutions. If you actually believe that, maybe you should stop trashing wind and solar.

I'm actually fine with any viable technology for energy production. What I'm against are political solutions to engineering problems via authoritarian mandate, especially those that break functioning systems and/or rely on hope/wishful thinking/ideology rather than math, science, engineering, and rational thinking.

I'm investigating installing some solar at my current location, in fact. But first I'll be adding a radiant barrier in my attic spaces, improving and increasing insulation, and replacing some windows. I'm doing this without any government incentives or mandates because I'm a rational engineer motivated by economics and driven by a desire to live more efficiently.

BTW, my first 1500sq ft of radiant barrier was delivered today.