How much does it cost to fight Global Warming

Energy and Natural Resources

Related articles, background features and opinions about this topic.

Back to article

Rock of Ages/Maoz Tsur (a Hanukkah song) sung by the PS22 Chorus of 2009

Happy Hanukkah

Nuclear Green on the Energy Collective

Once again my plans to write new posts has been thwarted by a debate that has broken out on the Energy Collective over my The COP15 problem is not climate change skepticism, it is anti nuclear fanaticism post. My post now has over 1000 hits and has received 22 comments. I don't know if it is good or bad, but I am the blogger whose posts draw the most comments on the Energy Collective.

In the meantime you can view the this link on deciding the future of TVA Bellefonte’s nuclear power plant, and this one for the accompanying story.

Geothermal shutdowns

The future of geothermal power is very uncertain with the shutdown of two geothermal projects in Switzerland and the United States. Swiss earthquakes in 2006 and 2007, believed caused by the Basel, Switzerland project appear to be behind the shutdowns. Swiss researchers found that going forward with the Basel project would lead to a swarm of earthquakes. The following video was shot before and during one of the Swiss earthquakes, before project leaders learned that they faced possible criminal charges under Swiss law. At that point the cheering stopped.

Maryland project reveals photovoltaics system costs

The State of Maryland has announced plans to build a solar photovoltaic facility at Mount Saint Mary’s University in Emmitsburg, Maryland , not far from Baltimore and Washington DC. The facility has a nameplate capacity of 16 to 17 MWs, will cover 100 acres, and will reportedly cost around $60 million. of course it is doubtful that the $60 million figure includes subsidies. The PV system is expected to produce 21,000,000 kilowatt hours of electricity per year, and will be completed by December 2012. Since there are few "large" PV facilities in the United States, this information will be enough to learn about PV performance and cost.

Lets do a little analysis. First, 21 GW hours from a 16 MW facility means that the facility is expected to produce electricity at capacity for 1312.5 hours a year. There are about 8760 hours a year. So that will give us a capacity factor of about .15. But our performance estimate maybe a bit optimistic. Weather data for nearby Baltimore reports only 105 clear days a year, with another 108 partly cloudy days, and a staggering 152 sunless days a year. This would suggest that any PV system output would be diminished by low quality solar radiation for at least half of the day light hours during a year.

Near by Washington, D.C has even worse solar exposure. NOAA reports only 92 days of total sunshine a year, and an astonishing 168 sunless days. That would suggest optimal PV performance on only 25% of the days. Thus we are going to mark the estimated output estimates as questionable and quite possibly optimistic, and subject to revision once the system is up and running, but I will assume them for the sake of this analysis.

There are other, quite possibly optimistic figures in the press release, for example the $60 million price tag, but I am not going to argue about it now. If we multiply to higher of the two capacity figures given in the press release, 17 MW, by the capacity factor of .15, we get a 2.55 MW average output. And now we can calculate our capital cost per unit of real output. Each watt of average output will cost $23.53 in capital costs. Mark Cooper, who is an employee of anti-nuclear fanatic Ralph Nader, claims that

The likely cost of electricity for a new generation of nuclear reactors would be 12-20 cents per kilowatt hour (KWh) . . .

Cooper's motive for making this claim is to discourage new nuclear construction in the United States. In contrast Cooper refers to

renewable energies at 6 cents per kilowatt hour, . . .

Clearly that will not be the case for the Emmitsburg solar photovoltaic facility. Thus we have to mark Cooper's estimate of future nuclear cost as equally suspect.

These findings are in keeping with with the Energy Information estimate for the 2016 levelized cost of photovoltaics, which it places at 395.7 or close to 40 cents per kW hour. In contrast the EIA reported the 2015 levelized cost of nuclear power to be 107.3, or a little less than 11 cents per kWh.

There are few available case studies the actual performance of Photovoltaic projects. "NNadir" offers us one for a 52 kilowatts PV system on the roof of Boston's Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art. NNadir found that the Boston system produced on average 10.6% of its rated capacity. The system was paid for by a grant of $700,000. Thus for every watt of actual average output the MMCA paid $66.04. But it is worse because the MMCA paid in cash, and thus the $66 figure is overnight costs. Costs on which no interest needed to be paid in this case. I can only conclude that a large scale photovoltaic is and will continue be prohibitively expensive for the foreseeable future.

Recent BPA Data

Who says wind output is better in December than it is during the Summer?

The COP15 problem is not climate change skepticism, it is anti nuclear fanaticism

We are in a historic transition period between energy technologies that are clearly failing, and an as of yet uncharted new energy system. As in many moments of major historic transitions confusion reigns. The transition is a product of a double failure of carbon based energy technology. First world production of crude oil appears to either be near a peak or to have have peaked already. Geologists have been telling us for 50 years that this day would come, but the global economic system is not built on foresight. Demand for oil based products can be projected to increase, as consumers in massive emerging economies, China and India, are entering the car market. Thus an upward price pressure on global demand for petroleum will emerge, at a moment global petroleum production has stopped growing. It is clear that other essential carbon based commodes, coal and natural gas, although perhaps not at their peak production levels, will not last forever.

The Anthropogenic Global Warming, caused by the emission of CO2 from natural gasses is the second issue. I am not a AGW skeptic, but I do not see a point in arguing about it. There is no doubt that global temperatures are still increasing. 2009 is the 5th warmest year on record, despite an unusual event which should have a negative impact on global climate. I am referring to the quiet sun, the unusual prolonged minimum of sun spot activity this year. Skeptics who argue for a solar driven warming would be hard pressed to explain the relative lack of apparent climate effect by the current solar minimum.

A second grounds for skepticism rests on a denial of the concept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. this argument is basically anti-science and is rejected by more sophisticated AGW skeptics. They point to unverified theory about clouds, or suggest that a Medieval Warm Period demonstrates past climatic changes that are not explained by the CO2 warming theory. There is no conclusive evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was a global climate event. But even if the "Medieval Warm Period" was a world wide global climate phenomena, it is not sufficient to demonstrate that the 20th century climate trend was not caused by CO2 emissions. Falsifiability, not the existence of alternative hypotheses is the standard of science, and AGW skeptics have not demonstrated that the CO2-AGW hypothesis is false.

I am not going to argue this, there are plenty of Internet venues where those who are looking for climate debate can find it, and I suggest that those who wish to debate these points seek out venues like Real Climate, Grist or Joe Romm's blog to play their climate debate games. Furthermore, I would not be greatly surprised if the AGW skeptics fold their tents and slip quietly into the night within the next 5 years. Evens, I suspect, will catch up with the skeptics as global heat records are repeatedly shattered.

On Nuclear Green, I simply assume that global climate change is one of several reasons why the Age of Carbon should be swiftly ended. Most AGW skeptics can be reached by arguments such as ending the use of carbon based fuels will lower the cost of health insurance. or will contribute to American long term energy independence. For this reason I am not targeting AGW skeptics in this present post. In fact I share with them a deep concern regarding the protection of human freedom from the excesses of the eco-extremest. I believe that material prosperity is both possible and highly desirable in the post carbon era, and that this prosperity can and should be spread to everyone on the planet. I further believe that the goals of organizations like Greenpeace is to make future human freedom and prosperity impossible.

Paradoxically, the AGW skeptics are not the most serious enemies of AGW mitigation. The eco-extremests are. If AGW skeptics are basically in denial about AGW, they are not in denial about the essential role of nuclear power in a future of energy. Many AGW skeptics harbor rational doubts about the use of renewables in future energy schemes. The Green mainstream remains incapable of anything but a dogmatic hostility toward nuclear power. This anti-nuclear attitude, leads anti-nuclear environmentalists to hugely exaggerate the liabilities of nuclear power as well as engage in self-deceptive denials of the liabilities of renewable generation systems.

My own analysis has lead me to believe that renewables are not the answer to global warming and that the renewable solution would be the ruin human civilization. I am not alone in this. A generation ago, Alvin Weinberg concluded that among renewable options, only solar power had any potential for displacing fossil fuels, and that solar power would be far to expensive.

Weinberg wrote,

The yearly demand for solar electricity (50 x 10l2 kWh to 100 x 1012 kWh) could be met, in principle, by photovoltaic arrays (PV), by power towers (PT), or by ocean thermal energy converters (OTEC). The first two are intermittent, the last is not. If these intermittent systems are small and are backed up by firm power from a grid, they would need little storage; if they stand alone, or if the total demand exceeds what can be met by reliable backup, these systems would need large amounts of storage -say 6 t o 12 days. Electrical storage is much more expensive than heat storage; hence, a priori, we would expect the PV system with full electric storage to be more expensive than the PT, which uses heat storage. . . .

. . . we have not taken into account the varia- tion in solar flux between winter and summer. This is about a factor of 2 to 3, depending on the latitude. Thus to provide firm power, winter as well as summer,might require three times the capital investment incollectors, though not in storage. Thc storage for thc PT system is much cheaper, though it is too early to say whether the PT or PV system itself is the cheaper. Thus if a large PT can be installed complete for as little as $10 per ft2,we might achieve solar electricity at 20 per- cent fixed charges for, say 10 cents per kWh, but this still does not take into account the winter/summer variation. Firm power, winter as well as summer, might cost at least twice as much.

Weinberg laid out his cost estimates in 1977 dollars,

If a PV system, possibly with a light condensing system, can be installed for $10 per square foot
(ft(2)) without storage (this is 15 times cheaper than the present cost of photovoltaic silicon surfaces), then at our average output of 30 kWh per ft(2) per year, the capital cost of the system is about 33 cents per kWh per year; at 20 percent fixed charges, this comes to about 7 cents per kWh; a t 10 percent fixed charge, 3.5 cents per kWh. If the system were supplied with six days' storage and the batteries cost , with one replacement, $40 per kWh, we would add 66 cents per kWh per year t o the capital costs. The total cost of firm electricity would come to 20 cents per kWh and 10 cents per kWh at 20 percent and 10 percent fixed charges, respectively. Actually, even these may be underestimates for a full solar system, since we have not taken into account the varia- tion in solar flux between winter and summer. This is about a factor of 2 to 3, depending on the latitude. Thus to provide firm power, winter as well as summer,might require three times the capital investment in collectors, though not in storage. Thc storage for thc PT system is much cheaper, though it is too early to say whether the PT or PV system itself is the cheaper. Thus if a large PT can be installed complete for as little as $10 per ft2,we might achieve solar electricity at 20 percent fixed charges for, say 10 cents per kWh, but this still does not take into account the winter/summer variation. Firm power, winter as well as summer, might cost at least twice as much.

There dollar has undergone considerable inflation since 1977. A 1977 dollar was worth about $3.61 in2009 dollar buying power. Weinberg also noted that the size of a world wide high energy solar array would pose a huge financial challenge:

The total land required in the 100 x 10(12) kWh per year scenario is about 80,000 square miles.

Weinberg concluded:

To summarize, it would appear that the high solar electric scenario seems to be very expensive; the high biomass scenario seems to use too much land; the high OTEC scenario seems to imply serious cl matic changes. An all-solar future is almost surely a low-energy future, unless man is prepared to pay a much larger share of his to a1 income for energy than he now pays.

My own analysis has focused on more limited cases, but it has pointed too the same underlying cost problem. Solar is too expensive to be practical. These conclusions find further support in the analysis offered by Barry Brook, Ten Trainer, Peter Lang, and others.

Our present problems in fighting global warming are large due to view preached by eco-extreemest that climate change can be prevented through recourse to renewable energy. \Dogmatic anti-nuclear ideology, and the attendant renewables schemes are the real cause of the failure of the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol explicitly rejected nuclear power, the only viable solution to AGW that would protect civilization. The failure of Kyoto was in large measure due that it advocated climate solutions that were simply impossible. Even if Kyoto had not been such an total failure, a report prepared by the IAEA demonstrates that a successful Kyoto would have eliminated far fewer emissions by 2010 than the world's 437 reactors were already eliminating by 2000.

The anti-nuclear fanatics are in no small measure responsible for the failure of the United States Congress to pass much needed climate change legislation this year. Congressional Republicans would by in to a reasonable program to promote nuclear power, with very little actual costs to the tax payers, while the eco-fanatics are doing everything they can to sabotage a pronuclear approach to climate change legislation.

The present Copenhagen conference appears to be headed to an even more disastrous failure than Kyoto. The Copenhagen conference appears to be headed toward buying of poor nations with large bribes, rather than giving them what their people need, access to high levels of energy though low cost nuclear power. This is what India plans to give its people, and there is no excuse for not benefiting the rest of the poor people on earth with a similar plan.

If we are serious about fighting global warming and global poverty, we have no choice but to adopt the nuclear option. We must reject the fanatic misanthropies of the eco-extremests, that will inevitable lead to poverty for everyone, and universal misery.