The New Energy Economy

[vt]

The New Energy Economy

https://media4.manhattan-institute.o.../R-0319-MM.pdf

[shiny!]

Re: The New Energy Economy

Very interesting, vt. Thank you.

Does anyone here have opposing views?

[dcarrigg]

Re: The New Energy Economy

I didn't go through in detail. But I think the battery skepticism has warrant. I've been much more impressed with solar tech. Wind isn't coming down in price nearly as fast, but it scales better. The grid issues are real. Natural gas plays a big role, even here in New England where the renewable portfolio standards are strongest. There's a rational way to decrease carbon emissions. And solar has advanced a lot in the last decade. Much more than I would have guessed in 2009. I've been super unimpressed with computer tech over the last decade. But solar really did some remarkable things. That's my take anyways.

[Mega]

Re: The New Energy Economy

Thank you VT !
Good Layman easy to understand..............
Mike

[VIT]

Re: The New Energy Economy

Very interesting read "The New Energy Economy" but some numbers do not look right.
On figure 2 where there is a large gap between shale well and wind on kwh production I did not believe it and crunched the numbers, ended up with only 70k (and this is high side number assuming just drilling costs, no processing, transportation, conversions and so on) of mwh produced by shale well per 1 mln usd. He used 320k (wind is 55k). He might forgot to use electricity conversions to generate electricity from natural gas. Another possibility he just used "hardware" like metal pipe went in the ground for the well but than it is just misleading. Than we will have to compare all other hardware used in the process. Intangibles are the larger cost in drilling the well. It makes sense that financially they should have very similar results otherwise we would not see both at the same time.

[DSpencer]

Re: The New Energy Economy

Very interesting read "The New Energy Economy" but some numbers do not look right.
On figure 2 where there is a large gap between shale well and wind on kwh production I did not believe it and crunched the numbers, ended up with only 70k (and this is high side number assuming just drilling costs, no processing, transportation, conversions and so on) of mwh produced by shale well per 1 mln usd. He used 320k (wind is 55k). He might forgot to use electricity conversions to generate electricity from natural gas. Another possibility he just used "hardware" like metal pipe went in the ground for the well but than it is just misleading. Than we will have to compare all other hardware used in the process. Intangibles are the larger cost in drilling the well. It makes sense that financially they should have very similar results otherwise we would not see both at the same time.

Subsides can make up for the lack of parity, but that alleged gap does seem to be much larger than would be possible to cover without extraordinary subsidy levels.

[DSpencer]

Re: The New Energy Economy

I didn't go through in detail. But I think the battery skepticism has warrant. I've been much more impressed with solar tech. Wind isn't coming down in price nearly as fast, but it scales better. The grid issues are real. Natural gas plays a big role, even here in New England where the renewable portfolio standards are strongest. There's a rational way to decrease carbon emissions. And solar has advanced a lot in the last decade. Much more than I would have guessed in 2009. I've been super unimpressed with computer tech over the last decade. But solar really did some remarkable things. That's my take anyways.

I won't try arguing with a subjective opinion, but man, that's really hard for me to understand.

[dcarrigg]

Re: The New Energy Economy

It's totally subjective. But generally, it seems to me, that the pace of technological advancement in commercial computer hardware and software has slowed dramatically. I can pull out a laptop from 2009 in 2019 and the experience is almost the same as the same model 10 years later. In some ways it may even be better. The iPhone X hasn't improved much on the iPhone 1 from 10 years ago. It's a bit bigger, a bit more powerful, but generally quite similar.

But think about taking a laptop from 1999 or a phone from 1999 and dragging it forward into 2009. You'd be running Windows 98 in the age of Windows 7. The iPhone would seem like magic next to the Nokia 3310. You might be able to get your work done okay. But it's going to be a bit tough.

Now think about taking a laptop or phone from 1989 and bringing it forward to 1999. The phone would be in a backpack, cost $3k, and work almost nowhere. The mac portable's about the only laptop on the market, it costs 18 grand, weighs 16 pounds, and has a monochrome 9" screen. Doing your job with it would be impossible.

So in comparison to earlier decades, the last decade in commercial computer electronics seems like a big bust. Far more capital has been invested for far less visible return. The tell-tale sign is all the SaaS nonsense. Running these kind of billing scams, to me, is a surefire sign the creativity of an industry has dimmed. It's something you expect to see mature industries do as a matter of course. But one suspects they can't innovate when they're putting more effort into duping folks into monthly payment plans instead of working to provide a better product next year that people will want to buy.

Meanwhile, the solar ramp-up has been pretty incredible. A system from 2009 is essentially unrecognizable in 2019. Wholesale prices are just a bit over a quarter of what they were a decade ago. The giant inverters are gone, replaced with the little micros. You're getting about twice the wattage out per panel as then. The 10 year old PV systems seem like dinosaurs.

Put simply, In 2019, I'd much rather have a 10-year-old PC than a 10-year-old PV array. So you're not wrong that it's subjective. But maybe that makes it easier for you to understand how I'm thinking?

[jk]

Re: The New Energy Economy

movement away from carbon is going approx nowhere until people accept nuclear. just read somewhere that germany pays twice what france does for electricity while producing 10 times the co2 in the process. this is because germany renounced nuclear. solar and wind just won't be adequate.

[dcarrigg]

Re: The New Energy Economy

PV ain't gonna be the answer to everything. Around here, natural gas is king, and will be for a while yet. I'm just saying I'm impressed with the technology's progression. If you asked me in 2009, I wouldn't have thought we'd see 430w panels, etc. by 2019. I'm not a purist about energy sources. There's probably a role for all of them, even if policies move increasingly towards lower carbon impact.

You remember this old local yarn? They managed to turn 1,200 acres nestled up on the New England shoreline uninhabitable just reprocessing spent fuel because of a minor error by a tired worker at his second job. Groundwater contamination resultant from the criticality incident all but surely got into the river and the Atlantic, including fun stuff like Strontium 90 and Technetium 99. And this was from a site with no nuclear plant whatsoever.

The French have managed to pull it off for a good while. But they take shit very seriously.

Meanwhile, back in our backyards, look at Vermont Yankee. Had a 40 year lease set to end at 2012. In 2007 a cooling tower collapses. They don't take it offline. In 2009, underground pipes start leaking, and by 2010 tritium's detected in the groundwater. They re-route the pipes. They still don't take it offline for more than a day. 2011, the NRC extends the license for 20 more years despite all the fuck-ups. The State of Vermont tries to close it. 2012, a Federal Judge rules the State of Vermont can't close the plant. Finally public pressure shuts it down in 2014.

It can be done, and largely safely, but the black swan costs are high. If there's anything you want to over-regulate the living hell out of, it's nuclear. The MWh price doesn't include those 1,200 acres, Peabody's life, etc.

[jk]

Re: The New Energy Economy

i agree, regulate the hell out of nuclear. in fact, what would really help would be standardized designs. build plants, but make sure every plant built for the next 25 years is built on exactly the same design. which of course also means study the hell out of that design first, and have a devil's advocate team tasked with, and REWARDED FOR, finding design errors and points of failure. but i don't see another way to stop producing co2.

[dcarrigg]

Re: The New Energy Economy

i agree, regulate the hell out of nuclear. in fact, what would really help would be standardized designs. build plants, but make sure every plant built for the next 25 years is built on exactly the same design. which of course also means study the hell out of that design first, and have a devil's advocate team tasked with, and REWARDED FOR, finding design errors and points of failure. but i don't see another way to stop producing co2.

To me, the real question is no whether we're going to stop producing CO2 (jokingly not while we're breathing air, but really, I don't see the ICE engine going anywhere anytime soon either). The real question is whether we get the low-hanging fruit in line. Wyoming produces about 12 times the CO2 per capita of Rhode Island. Louisiana produces about 5 times per capita what they do in Massachusetts or Oregon or Washington or New Hampshire. Even Idaho is spitting out only 10% of what Wyoming is.

So...Wyoming's well above average in wind production. They produce almost all the uranium mined for US nuclear purposes. And they're also one of the top crude producers and the top coal producer. Make a good chunk of natural gas too. But they generate their electricity 80 or 90% with coal, most of the rest with renewables. They have plenty of other energy sources available. But the state policy is to burn the cheapest stuff at home (electricity prices 15% under US average), and export the more expensive stuff. It's how they make money. It's also how they make 1,200% more CO2 emissions than they would if they burned natural gas instead. Because it hits on 2 levels. 1: The cheap shit makes efficiency comparatively more expensive. So Wyoming is the 2nd biggest per capita energy user after Louisiana. Average person uses 4 or 5 times what average person in Mass does. And 2: The cheap shit's more carbon-intensive to begin with to make up the rest.

That's kinda the low-hanging fruit I'm thinking about. One foot in front of the other. Buy some insulation for houses in Wyoming and get them on natural gas. We can drop the total national output a huge amount if we can even get that done.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: The New Energy Economy

i agree, regulate the hell out of nuclear. in fact, what would really help would be standardized designs. build plants, but make sure every plant built for the next 25 years is built on exactly the same design. which of course also means study the hell out of that design first, and have a devil's advocate team tasked with, and REWARDED FOR, finding design errors and points of failure. but i don't see another way to stop producing co2.

The U.S. Navy runs a fleet of standardized nuclear reactors, with no expense spared in the design, and an essentially perfect safety record.
There's gotta be a way to build more of these and put them into commercial power service on the grid.

[dcarrigg]

Re: The New Energy Economy

The U.S. Navy runs a fleet of standardized nuclear reactors, with no expense spared in the design, and an essentially perfect safety record.
There's gotta be a way to build more of these and put them into commercial power service on the grid.

It's the no-expense-spared part that's key. How do you get a cooling tower collapse and pipes leaking unless you've got a plant run by a company that's actively deferring maintenance? It's the mentality thing. See people all the time wrecking their things for penny-wise, pound-foolish decisions. France sees a problem in one, and shuts down 28 built the same way to address it immediately. Vermont Yankee has the cooling tower collapse and the pipes leak, and they go out and fight to extend it's license 20 years beyond the end of its designed useful-life. It really is a culture and institution problem. It's not that Americans can't do these things. It's that the commercial regulatory structure is screwed up. It's screwed up so badly that on the one hand no new plants have come online since what, the first Clinton Administration, unless you count the 2nd TVA unit at Watts Bar? Yet at the same time it has never denied a lifespan extension. The NRC itself needs to be nuked first. Start over. Provide it with a per MWh fee paid to it for the lifetime of plant operations and let it keep fines so it isn't dependent on annual appropriations. Have it pay people highly. Shut down the revolving door. Then confidence will come back. I remember Diamond Joe on the topic a few years back:

[DSpencer]

Re: The New Energy Economy

It's the no-expense-spared part that's key. How do you get a cooling tower collapse and pipes leaking unless you've got a plant run by a company that's actively deferring maintenance? It's the mentality thing. See people all the time wrecking their things for penny-wise, pound-foolish decisions. France sees a problem in one, and shuts down 28 built the same way to address it immediately. Vermont Yankee has the cooling tower collapse and the pipes leak, and they go out and fight to extend it's license 20 years beyond the end of its designed useful-life. It really is a culture and institution problem. It's not that Americans can't do these things. It's that the commercial regulatory structure is screwed up. It's screwed up so badly that on the one hand no new plants have come online since what, the first Clinton Administration, unless you count the 2nd TVA unit at Watts Bar? Yet at the same time it has never denied a lifespan extension. The NRC itself needs to be nuked first. Start over. Provide it with a per MWh fee paid to it for the lifetime of plant operations and let it keep fines so it isn't dependent on annual appropriations. Have it pay people highly. Shut down the revolving door. Then confidence will come back. I remember Diamond Joe on the topic a few years back:

Interesting video. Since he was VP for 2 terms, is it safe to assume that he got all that fixed up?