The Renewables Myth #1, A response to Lou Gronoz

Yesterday a post by Margaret Harding appeared on the Energy Collective. The post was titled Myth #1: Renewable energy can generate all the world’s energy needs. Harding argued that land use requirements for renewables were excessive, and that the land use requirements for nuclear were far smaller. Lou Grinoz, a regular Energy Collective contributor commented:

If your assumptions and math are correct (and I have no reason to think otherwise, based on a first reading), then how does the 5X greater land requirement of renewables vs. nuclear power prove that "Renewable energy can generate all the world's energy needs" is a "myth"?

Lou had a point, but a point which I believed could be answered. I responded:

Lou, there are several issues here. First, in order build an energy gathering array over a large area, large materials and labor inputs are required. These inputs are expensive, and the massive deployment required will create a materials inflation. Peter Lang and Barry Brook have documented the materials input of renewables, and some of that documentation has appeared on the Energy Collective. There estimates show that nuclear power requires significantly less materials input per unit of generation capacity, and far less materials input per unit of electrical output. You have not disagreed with their estimation of materials input, or of overall expenses, as I recall.

Secondly, the land use requirements of renewables conflicts with other "green" values. Windmills kill birds and bats, soil disturbances required to build solar and wind arrays lead to soil erosion, and at least solar thermal requires large amounts of water, the equivalent amount of water required by a nuclear generating plant, in water scarce areas. In addition to the effect of windmills on flying animals, both solar and wind have other intrusions into wildlife habitat. Solar thermal has an especially egregious effect on both soil and habitat, because it requires scraping soil bare of all vegetation. In addition, renewables arrays are visually intrusive, and deface the landscape, Windmills also create noise pollution. The manufacture of PV modules is both energy intensive and creates large amounts of toxic waste. Since much of that manufacture has moved or is moving to China, the management of that waste is not under effective control.

Thirdly, the materials, labor and capital costs of a renewables solution are would all be extremely high, and many renewables advocates have expressed doubts that the massive deployment of renewables energy sources is possible by 2050. In fact, many renewables advocates see an energy gap that would require bridging by fossil fuel use to 2050 and quite probably beyond. Most hide the implication of this by limiting the fossil fuel use to natural gas, which is, of course, not green at all.

Fourth, renewables advocates acknowledge that renewables cannot fulfill current energy demands, but argue that demand can be dramatically lowered through investments in efficiency. Although current efficiency efforts are proving successful, there are potential structural impediments that may impede efficiency efforts down the road. In addition, successful efficiency efforts would also lower the cost of a nuclear substitute for fossil fuel generation.

Fifth, in order to be successful, an all renewable grid would require a huge and costly expansion of its electrical gathering and distribution system, and a large investment in energy storage systems. Nuclear would require far fewer modifications to the present grid, and energy storage with nuclear would be limited to cases in which it was clearly cost effective.

Sixthly nuclear has the potential for producing industrial process heat and cogeneration, while renewables do not. Waste heat and electricity from sea side nuclear plants can be used to desalinate sea water. Renewables are far more limited in their capacity to produce fresh water.

Lastly, and this is a very important point. The potential exists to dramatically increase the land use and materials input efficiency of nuclear power, by switching to a more advanced type of reactor. Labor costs can be dramatically lowered by changing nuclear manufacturing techniques. The means that nuclear capital costs can be dramatically lowered in a way that is not possible with renewables.

Greener Than A Thousand Suns

The wikipedia notes several definitions of Green Power:

An alternate term for renewable energy.
Energy generated from sources which do not produce pollutants (e.g., solar, wind, and wave energies).
Energy generated from sources that are considered environmentally friendly (e.g., hydro (water), solar (sun), biomass (landfill), or wind)
Energy generated from sources that produce low amounts of pollution.
Energy that is produced and used in ways that produce relatively less environmental impacts.

To these definitions we ought to add to further green dimensions, energy return on energy invested, and green land and water use principles.
Thus the green potential of LFTR technology can be illustrated by comparing its "greenness" to the the "greenness" of solar electrical generation systems.

Surprisingly the greenness of solar power cannot be taken for granite. The Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) of solar cells is at best about 10 over their life time, and when you add the energy consumed in the manufacture of materials used in large scale solar cell arrays and during the construction of those arrays, the EROEI of PV generated energy becomes even lower. Indeed it has been argued that the EROEI of PV technology may be as low as 1 to 1. There is some debate whether PV technology produces more energy than it consumes. It is quite clear that at present PV technology is not economically viable and would not be used for electrical production were in not for a system of generous state subsidies there would be PV would not be in play at all as an electrical producing technology. If we add to the discussion about the question of green land use practices, the greenness of widespread use of PV electrical generation technologies clearly can be questioned.

In the case of concentrated solar power (CSP), the potential for a positive return on energy invested is clearer. Although it cannot be said that there is a great deal of evidence, the EROEI of concentrated solar is reported to be about 10. Thus CSP is green by EROEI standards. But what about land use? Austra calculates that by using its technology a 92 by 92 mile square or 8464 square miles or 5.4 million acres would be sufficient to supply the entire United States with electricity at its current rate of consumption. David Rutledge, using real world data from Navada Solar One project land use asserts that it would take 11,600 square miles to supply current US electrical requirements. Bernadette Del Chiaro, Sarah Payne and Tony Dutzik claim about 10,000 square miles.

It should be noted that the general replacement of fossil fuels by electricity in economic sectors like transportation and process heating, could easily double solar land use requirements. Del Chiaro, Sarah Payne and Tony Dutzik claim that the land area disturbed by solar installations would be comparable to that disturbed by coal mining:

more than 9,000 square miles of the United States has been disturbed by coal mining over the nation’s history. And at least 1,644 square miles are disturbed by current mining operations

We may not have an entire picture of the land use impact of solar installations. In addition to the installations themselves, land would be occupied by electrical gathering systems, electrical substations, and high voltage electrical lines. 

There is little doubt then that at least 10,000 square miles of fragile desert habitat and quite possible twice that amount could be impacted by a full blown national solar electric scheme. Thus from a land use point of view, some "Greens" would seem willing to sacrifice green land use valuse in the cause of solar generated electricity, while others are not. Sandy Bahr of the Sierra Club states,

"We support solar power, but it is an industrial activity and putting it next to a wilderness area just is not a good idea".

There you have the Green dilemma.

Water conservation is a green value. Water use in concentrated solar power systems is almost completely ignored, but Joe Gelt points out that water use in concentrated solar is greater than that of coal and similar to nuclear per MWh generated:

a coal fired plant uses 110 to 300 gallons per megawatt hour; a nuclear plant uses between 500 and 1100 gallons/MWh; and a solar parabolic trough plant uses 760 -920 gallons/MWh.

Gelt adds:

Efforts to increase water efficiency in solar energy operations involve modifying the conventional cooling tower. For example, dry desert air could be used instead of water to cool the operation. This, however, would greatly increase building costs because enormous cooling towers would need to be constructed. Also relying on air to cool would not cool the water circulating through the plant to a low enough temperature for peak performance, decreasing the efficiency of the plant.

The Southwest has already has a significant water shortage, and climate projections are for the Southwest to become even dryer during the coming years. The only possible source of enough water for desert based solar thermal power facilities would be to withdrawal water from agricultural use and to transfer it to power production. This would in turn raise food prices in the southwest, and thus would paradoxically constitute a subsidy paid by poor food consumers who would pay higher food prices, to solar electrical producers who would profit from from nation wide electrical sales. Social justice is presumably a Green goals.   

Within the Southwest, concentrated solar power is not environment friendly.  It does not conform to green land and water use principles, and CSP water use requirements would indirectly make the life of the poor in the Southwest worst rather than better.  

Moving concentrated solar electrical production out of the Southwest is not an option, because solar electrical generation is highly dependent on cloudless skies.  There is ample reason then to view there hither to unquestioned "greenness" of concentrated solar generated electricity as open to question.  

In contrast as I have already pointed out there are many aspects of LFTR greenness.  Thorium is a sustainable energy source, with the potential to provide people all of the energy they need for millions of years.   There is already a great deal of Thorium above ground in the form of mine tailings, enough to supply human demands for hundreds of years.  Thorium energy conversion is 100 to 200 time more efficient, that current uranium reactor technology.   LFTR reactor designs use materials more efficiently than conventional reactor designs to.  Recycling of existing coal fired power plants sites for LFTR use has the potential to create energy savings of 50% to 75% compared to start from scratch power plant construction.  LFTR produce little   
to no nuclear waste, thus greatly diminishing energy inputs into waste control.  Material outputs from nuclear daughter products would be an energy savings, that would be unique to LFTR technology.  It is clear then that the LFTR EROEI would from somewhere in the three figures at its lowest on up. From the EROEI stand point, the LFTR would be the ultimate in energy efficiency.

Since most of the chemical output of the LFTR is already recyclable, and some materials processing and separation is expected to be a normal part of reactor operation, the LFTR is expected to produce little unused byproduct.  There are existing markets for some radioactive byproducts and other markets can be developed.  Molten Salt Reactors have been proposed for the disposal of transuranium nuclear waste.  Thus the potential exists to completely eliminate 

not only their own nuclear waste, but also the nuclear waste of conventional reactors  through the use of LFTRs.  Thus the LFTR hasthe potential to be a 100% pollution free technology.

The LFTR has the potential to be very parsimonious in its land use. First I have proposed the recycling of existing coal power plant sites. It should also be noted that much of the landused by nuclear power facilities is actually used as a land buffer for the mitigation of accidental release of radioactive products. Thus up to 95% of the land occupied by a LFTR facility may actually be set aside for conservation purposes. Compared to CSP facilities, LFTRs would have a very modest land use footprint.  Underground placement of the reactor would further restrict visual intrusions, as well as add to reactor safety defenses.  

The LFTR would typically runs at a far higher temperature than conventional reactors. This higher temperature could be used to improve energy efficiency in electrical output. Thus a smaller percentage of the heat produced by LFTR would need to be dissipated by water cooling, In addition most potential LFTR sites are located in areas which do not experience chronic water shortages. Water conservation measure could be applied if needed, and water conservation facilities would already exist at some coal fired plant sites. If needed LFTRs could be air cooled. In the Southwest, LFTRs could be located near the sea coast, an option not available for CSP..

The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor is by definitions green. The LFTR is green by the principles of green engineering. The LFTR conforms to the goal of green chemistry by not producing polluting waste. There is little doubt that the LFTR is greener than CSP in terms of energy efficiency, land use and water conservation, and could potentially be as pollution free as well. The LFTR thus is by conventional definitions of green, greener than all forms of solar power.

Killing the Holy Cows of Renewable Energy

"the blame [for bad movies and poorly performing sports teams] can be laid at the feet of the people of South Asia, whose tolerance of mediocrity knows no bounds." - Chan Akya

"Leadership is not just charisma or showmanship. It means consistency, being forthright, having no tolerance for mediocrity, and not compromising integrity." - Rahul Bajaj

Chan Akya an Indian writer pointed out the consequences of a lack of critical standards. If people are tolerant of mediocrity, mediocrity is what they will get. When I began to read discussions of renewable energy sources as couple of years ago, I noticed that these discussions invariably left important questions unanswered. Pro-renewable environmentalists like David Roberts basically wrote public relations copy for the renewables industries. Needless to say they left many questions unanswered. I started to look for answers, and the answers I found, the things that Robers, Romm and others were trying to sweep under the rug, were disturbing.

The basic question with renewables is how much is is it going to cost. Other questions include where is the power going to come from if the wind does not blow and the sun goes down. Renewables advocates seldom provide satisfactory answers to these questions. Indeed they seemed to sweep these very real questions under the rug. Or offer answer that said in effect, "Don't worry, every thing will turn out oK." Eventually I began to find answers that were less comforting. For example, I discovered the question of summer wind. At first I found a reference to the problem in California, then New England. Senator Lemar Alexander was upset because wind generators only provide electricity 7% of the time during August in Tennessee. Texas has a summer wind problem too, including windy Amarillo, and so do the Northern Great Planes and Ontario. Nowhere in North America seemed safe from the summer wind scourge.

So there was a wind reliability problem even when during the summer. There are other issues. The cost of windmills has been going up. Yet none of the windbags seemed to be talking about that, There is a disconect, because the cost of reactors have been going up and all of the windbags seem to be talking about that.

We have similar issues with solar. While solar generators have the potential of generating electricity for up to 8 hours a day, But depending on where you live, and that includes 75% of the United States, it could be 5 to 6 hours a day. So what do you do for electricity for the other 18 to 19 hours a day. Solar advocates will talk about various storage schemes, none of which have been demonstrated to be practical and cost effective on a massive scale. When I examined the costs of storage schemes such as giant batteries, and pump storage facilities, they turn out to be as least as expensive as nuclear plants. Why build storage facilities that do not produce electricity when for the same amount of money you can build a nuclear plant that does produce electricity?

I have been posting recently on the cost of solar power. I have not based those cost estimates on information found in glossy handouts written by PR people, but on information from people who are actually building or paying for solar generating facilities. i am not trying to make the solar industry look bad. I am not cherry picking data. The information I have found, does not look as good as the information from the glossy handouts.

Tuesday I wrote about the costs of BrightSource solar facilities:
"A further consideration would be that BrightSources own estimated cost estimates falls within the cost range of current cost estimates for nuclear power plants costs. For the basically the same price as a 1 GW BrightSource generating facility PG&E could buy a 1 GW reactor that would generate power day and night, rain or shine with 3 times the daily electrical output of the BrightSource facility."

No one has disputed my calculations or conclusions. Yet in a comment posted on "Energy from Thorium", sam j demanded to know, "Why denigrate renewables?" Sam followed, of course, with the tired anti-nuclear line that we are running out of uranium and there is of course no other possible reactor fuel - I wonder what he thinks the "Energy from Thorium" title is about. Sam appears to believe that the problems of Renewables should be swept under the rug.

Jesse Ausubel has raised questions about the land use requirements of renewables. (Also see here, here, here, here Ausubel is a conservationist in the traditional sense, but not a green, and not a Amory Lovins clone. (also see here)  Jesse Ausubel is the Director of Rockefeller University's human environment program.  He looked at how much energy a given unit of land produced through different technologies.  His conclusion was that hydroelectric power made the least efficient use of land.  

Ausubel argued if the entire provence of Ontario Canada was surrounded by a 60 foot high dam, and the water behind the dam were used to produce electricity, the amount of electricity generated would only equal 80% of the electricity generated by Canada's nuclear 25 power plants.  

If American energy needs were meet by wind power, Ausubel argued that an area the size of Texas, would need to be covered with windmills.

To power New York City by electricity from solar cells, an area the size of the entire state of Connecticut would have to be covered by the solar array. 

Ausubel has argued that:

* renewables are not green
* nuclear is green

Needless to say, Ausubel's argument has driven the supposedly pro-environmental, anti-nuclear greens crazy, and no one went crazier than Joe Romm.  

Romm seems willing to sacrifice every tree in the forrest, if it means that we don't rely on nuclear power.    In his attack on Ausubel, Romm engaging in spin doctoring, worthy of an Exxon employed climate change skeptic. He accuses Ausubel on not mentioning climate change in a speech he gave in which he sumerized his findings. He accuses Ausubel of thinking that "if decarbonization is all but inevitable, then global warming will mostly take care of itself. He doesn't come out and say this, but his talk never discusses the threat of climate change, which is much more likely to rape nature than renewables."

Say what?

If we decarbonize society, that is we stop using carbon based fuels. then we stop adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Once this happens the processes that lead to anthropogenic global warming are interrupted, and eventually the climate change will no longer be driven by increasing levels of greenhous gases. So it would seem that there is no problem with this assumption. It is tasit in Ausubel's thinking. Ausubel is addressing the issue of how much land would be required to impliment various post-carbon energy schemes. We understand the reasons for wanting to do this. Romm is not pushing a weak case against Ausubel. He has no case at all, and simply substitutes words for statements containing substance.

Romm quibbles about land requirements for various renewable options. He argues, for example, that Windmills only occupie 5% of the land on which they are placed. The other 95%, the rest of the land could have alternative uses, Rumm argues. The issue is not just the question of competing land use, each installed wind generator must be connected by a service road and a power line. Thus an area larger than Texas must be densely packed with wind generating towers, service roads and electrical lines. This would represent an enormous investment for what is at best intermittant electrical service. But for windmills, roads and electrical lines, vegitation must be cut back, and maintance must be given, The impact on the environment will be considerable, and as yet largely unacknowledged by Greens like Romm.