Musings at 300,000 Views

The internal, Google-based page-view counter for SLB just rolled over 300,000 pageviews on February 10, 2019.  It's just a round number, but it is a milestone of sorts.   

In the past year or so, the topics that appear on SLB have had a few items of interest.  Nuclear power plants are still closing in the US, while 2 of the 4 under construction were abandoned, never to be finished.  The remaining 2 reactors, at Vogtle plant in Georgia, are limping along with years-long delays and ever-escalating costs to construct.  The latest (but certainly not the final ) cost estimate is US $25 Billion, which is approximately $11,000 to $12,000 per kW of nameplate.   As is the usual case, the ratepayers in Georgia get stuck with outrageously costly electricity.   Perhaps one day the people of Georgia will say Enough.   For SLB article on the very high costs to build nuclear plants, see link.

Again in nuclear power, the US government has agreed in principle to construct the first small, modular reactor as designed by NuScale.  see link The reactor is not yet approved for license and construction, but one presumes that will occur in due course.  (see link to article on SLB re the NuScale SMR under review at NRC) At only 50 MWe output, the tiny reactor cannot possibly hope to be economic, but then rational people knew that all along. 

And, the news just today states that infamous TMI, or Three Mile Island nuclear plant (the one that did not melt down) is in jeopardy of shutting down permanently due to losing money.  The appeals for yet more subsidies are under consideration in the Pennsylvania state government chambers.  see link   The argument this time appears to be that nuclear should be given special consideration like wind, solar, and true renewables have, since a nuclear reactor produces no carbon dioxide, CO2, when it operates.   The money-losing nuclear plants cannot compete in the market, and they make that misleading appeal.  The fact is, the nuclear plants are off-line approximately 10 percent of the time, but require massive inflows of electricity during that off-line period to keep cooling pumps running and other parts of the plant operating.  The electricity consumed is from the grid, which produces CO2 according to the mix of coal and natural gas fired plants.   So, nuclear is not carbon-free power; it is actually limited carbon power. 

So much for nuclear.  As stated often on SLB, the technology is too costly and too deadly to be built.    

In the climate change arena, specifically the man-made global warming aspect, we see more of the same from the official IPCC and the false-alarmists.   The rational climate analysts, though, see through the various shenanigans that produce the alarmist conclusions; the constant data adjustments, the making up data, the ignoring data that refutes the warming trend, the inclusion of blatantly wrong data, the splicing together of horribly wrong past data with modern satellite data, and of course many others.  

It is fascinating to witness the gyrations by climate false-alarmists during this very cold and snowy winter of 2018-19, with polar vortex incursions blamed on CO2-warmed air invading the Arctic and displacing the cold air into Canada and the US.   Interesting idea, but one must pause and wonder exactly how the brutally cold winters of 1977-79 (and others) happened, since CO2 was so much lower back then.   SLB has articles on those three winters, with the label Abilene Effect.  As usual, the false-alarmists have no credible explanation for the cold winters then, nor now.  And that was just in the late 1970s.  (see Figure 3 at this link, "Cold Winters Created Global Warming.")

As snow piles up in the Sierra Nevada mountains in early 2019, one considers the record snows of 1952 and 1937 (more than 60 feet of snow fell in each of those years, per Central Sierra Snow Laboratory at University of California, Berkeley).   How, exactly, did those monster storms off the Pacific bring all that moisture into the mountains, when CO2 was even less back then than it was in the late 1970s?    We see the California snow pack, measured in early February this year, is above the long-term average for that date.   Of course, the false-alarmists say that global warming does not mean no snow.   In fact, they say that global warming is supposed to make more snow.   

Another warning from the false-alarmists is the sea surface temperature that is (supposedly) increasing as CO2 beams its warming rays down onto the ocean.  Meanwhile, it is a solid fact that hurricanes cool surface waters, and there are fewer and fewer hurricanes in the Atlantic.   What the false-alarmists fail to discuss is why there is a dearth of hurricanes, when their theory on CO2-induced global warming requires there be more hurricanes, and more intense hurricanes.   As to sea-surface temperatures increasing, one must wonder how the waters immediately along the US coast, from Brownsville around Florida and up the eastern seaboard, are below the long-term average temperature.   Perhaps the explanation will be that CO2 gets a bit confused right at the coastline, and refuses to shine its warming rays down on that bit of water.    Here's an explanation that just makes one laugh (they used this on why lakes are not warming as predicted): the trees on the shoreline shaded the lake.  Maybe the trees on the ocean shore are also shading the coastal waters.   Those will be some mighty big trees. 

And now, a brief plug for a colleague, a PE in chemical engineering, highly experienced and even more highly respected by his associates, colleagues, and clients around the world, Mr. Arthur Krugler.   Art published (in late 2018) his book Polar Bears in the Hot Tub, with his always-interesting views on why the Arctic ice recently declined.  Ocean currents that are heated from below by a long chain of undersea volcanoes, stimulated by earthquake activity, had a lot to do with it.    The book is available on Amazon and other outlets.   

In the political arena, President Trump created a storm of outrage among the false-alarmists with his 2019 State Of The Union speech, by completely ignoring climate change.  The implied message was, We have numerous, serious issues to address, and climate change is simply not one of them.   He addressed many other topics, including peace in Afghanistan, the opioid crisis, health care, illegal immigration and the wall along the US southern border, the booming economy, and socialism has zero place in the USA. 

So much for climate change and false-alarmism, although there is much, much more to be said.  Now to renewable energy. 

In renewable energy and electrical grids, wind turbines are still the stars and growing ever-more economic.  We see ocean-based wind farms with 8 MW turbines, and Vestas announced a 9.5 MW machine.  GE is still working on their double-digit machine, a 12 MW turbine.  These, along with floating-spar mooring systems, are bringing down the cost of electricity from offshore wind.  A project was announced in Asia that will have a profit at 10 cents (US) per kWh sold.   

The Scotland-based Hywind project with floating-spar turbines (6 MW each) has exceeded performance expectations, just as predicted here on SLB.   The floating-spar technology with larger turbines is fully expected to yield sales prices of 4 to 6 cents per kWh within 4 or 5 years.  

An interesting development occurred this past year, for on-shore wind installations.  The US Department of Energy issued a general call for help in solving the transportation problem in that industry.  see link  At present, the roads and railroads are a limit to transporting large turbine blades to the wind farms.  Turbines of 2.5 to 3 MW are the maximum that can be installed until a way is found to transport larger turbine blades.   Perhaps the ideas will result in workable solutions, I suspect the answer will be in blades transported in segments, then assembled on-site.  Perhaps the blade manufacturers can consult with the US Navy about their folding-wing aircraft.   Maybe it is time to rebuild the interstate highway system and design for larger items to be transported.   It is certainly possible to put crossings under the interstate, and eliminate the low-clearance bridges.   It may be cheaper just to make the crossing bridges into draw-bridges.  

Then, there is the high-level hilarity from the rookie Democrat proposal for a Green New Deal, which would eliminate fossil fuel use in the US by 2030, only 11 years away.   That one has much to discuss, and I anticipate an article or two on that on SLB.  

Finally, a word about all-electric vehicles and the profound transformation underway in the global energy industry.   Battery technology has improved and is fully expected to continue to improve, so that pure EV (electric vehicles) are being produced and planned world-wide.  OPEC is in disarray over this, and oil companies now mention Peak Oil Demand in their speeches and on their websites.   It won't be long before the following slogan will be patriotic, 

"Drive An EV, And 

OPEC Can Pound Sand" ™

With gratitude to all who visit SLB and read and leave a comment, 

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Houston, Texas
copyright (c) 2019 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved

Topics and general links:

Nuclear Power Plants.......here
Climate Change................here  and here
Fresh Water......................here
Engineering......................here  and here
Free Speech.................... here

Renewable Energy...........here  

Is 100 Percent Renewable Energy a Good Thing?

Subtitle: 100 Percent Will Not Happen on a National Basis

It has become increasingly clear that renewable energy forms, especially solar and wind turbines, are and will be important sources of electricity.   Along with this fact, some cities and even a few states have declared they will become 100 percent renewable.   What that means is they will somehow obtain all their annual electricity, measured in MWh, from renewable sources.   It should be noted that California (a large and rather stupid state on the West coast of the United States), has already sourced more than 27 percent of all power sold in the state in 2015 from renewable sources.   Not all of that was solar and wind, however, and not all of that was generated in-state, either.   California counts renewable energy in what is perhaps a unique way: large hydroelectric power is not part of their counting.   If large hydroelectric sources were included, California would be well past 40 percent for the year. 

A rather interesting discussion along these lines occurred several days ago (and may still be exchanging comments) at Dr. Judith Curry's blog Climate Etc. (see link)   The post was written by an anonymous author, who appears to be involved in some way with the PJM grid, the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland grid that serves multiple states along the East coast and Mid-West.   I read the post with some interest, then entered the discussion with a few comments.   Rather than replay all that here, this post will discuss some aspects of renewable power production and integration into existing grids.  

As background, a few comparisons between the California grid and PJM.  California grid is known by the name CAISO, for California Independent System Operator.  (see link to CAISO website)

PJM and CA have significant differences, and therefore will have different problems. The most obvious differences are in the thermal and nuclear portions of the generation mix: CA has but one nuclear plant of 2200 MW running, zero coal plants, and a great number of efficient and agile gas-fired plants. PJM, as I understand it, has several nuclear plants, many coal-fired plants, and also some gas-fired plants. A notable gas-fired CCGT plant will soon be brought online in Lordstown, OH for PJM to help cope with wind power changes. (see link to SLB article on this plant)

Next, renewables in CA are from approximately 11,000 MW grid-scale solar, and 5000 MW of wind. PJM, again by my reading, has also 5000 MW of wind and very little solar at grid scale.

It also must be noted that the CA grid is smaller in size, measured in peak load, annual generation, and generating capacity compared to PJM.

Population – 65 million PJM; 38 million CAISO (ratio 1.71)
• Generating capacity – 176,569 megawatts PJM; 70,900 CAISO (ratio 2.48)
• Peak demand – 165,492 megawatts PJM; 46,000 CAISO (ratio 3.59)
• Annual energy delivery – more than 792 million megawatt-hours PJM; approximately 295 million for CAISO (ratio 2.68)
(the differences are almost entirely due to climate, mild in CA and typical US Northeast – aka brutal winters – in PJM region)
• Nuclear Power installed - 30,000 megawatts PJM; 2,200 in CAISO (ratio 15)
• Nuclear as percent of all capacity - 17 pct PJM; 2.8 pct CAISO (ratio 5.9)

The problems for PJM will stem from much higher nuclear as a percent of total annual generation; as has been noted, nuclear does not reduce load in the US. It appears that PJM has approximately 30 GW of nuclear installed, compared to 2.2 GW nuclear in CA. However, PJM is surely acutely aware that the nuclear plants are closing in great numbers, as they reach the 40 year age mark. The next 10 years will see many if not most of the nuclear plants in PJM territory close. CA will close its final nuclear plant in the early 2020s.


Also, PJM is facing offshore wind power generation as a soon-to-be reality, with Maryland already announcing projects of approximately 500 MW. That is small as a percent of the PJM market, but will likely grow quickly.

Another significant difference in the PJM versus California situation is that PJM has many states integrated into the grid, compared to just one state for CAISO.  The importance of this is that PJM member states each have a renewable goal, and those are not all the same.  California has just the one state with a renewable goal, however, that goal keeps changing.  

Yet another important difference is the resource availability - how much solar energy hits the ground, and how much wind energy exists.  On this, the two grids are just about the opposite.  California has what is likely the best solar energy resources of any large state in the country.  Arizona has comparable sunshine, but a much smaller population.   PJM has much less solar energy due to the higher latitude and much more cloudy conditions.   Wind energy is small in California - and essentially already tapped out.   PJM states have substantial wind resources that have yet to be harvested.  

Now, to the heart of the matter: can any location, city, or state actually obtain 100 percent of its electricity on an annual basis from renewable energy?  The answer is Yes, of course it can.   The only questions are how much will the grid be modified, and how much will the electricity price change, if any. 

The Climate Etc article referenced above referenced a PJM publication that claims a hard limit exists for a grid, with 20 percent annual production from wind and solar.    That may very well be true for PJM, with all the nuclear and coal-fired plants on that grid.   But, in California, that is not a problem at all.   Some grid-scale storage is required, which California already has.   More storage will be installed as more solar PV production is installed, keeping the grid safe, reliable, and cost-effective.   

SLB has previous articles on grid-scale storage, with example technologies including batteries, ARES rail-based gravity trains, pumped storage hydroelectric, and others.  

As to achieving 100 percent renewables, that actually will not occur as long as large hydroelectric generation is not counted as a renewable.  The US average for large hydroelectric generation is approximately 7 to 8 percent on an annual basis of total electricity produced.  Various states have different percentages, with Washington State the highest due to the Columbia River and the several hydroelectric dams there.   (for numbers, the US produces approximately 4,000 million MWh each year, of which large hydroelectric dams produce approximately 250 to 300 million MWh each year - source EIA Electric Power Monthly Table 1.1). 

Even if one did count large hydroelectric as a renewable, the near future will not allow 100 percent renewables due to the great number of nuclear power plants (99 of them, although the numbers keep falling as more and more give up and shut down to stop their huge economic losses).    On average, nuclear power produces approximately 18 percent of the US' electricity (recent decade numbers range from 769 to 806 million MWh per year; same EIA source as for hydroelectric).  

Next, coal-fired power plants still produce the lion's share of US electricity, although that is declining rapidly with environmental regulations now in place.  Coal-based electricity was approximately 1,200 million MWh per year in 2016, which is approximately 30 percent of the US total of 4,000 million MWh, same source as for nuclear and hydroelectric.  

Therefore, on a national average, the US presently stands at 30 percent coal, 18 percent nuclear, and 8 percent hydroelectric, which combined provide 56 percent.   Even with nuclear plants closing, as most of them will certainly do within 15 years, and with coal-fired plants shutting down as their economic mines are exhausted and shut down, again within 20 years, the US still has 8 to 10 percent hydroelectric, depending on the annual rainfall.  

Concluding, the post title asks Is 100 Percent Renewable Energy a Good Thing?   The answer must be, yes, but only on a local basis, as engineers take adequate care to ensure grid safety, reliability, and cost effectiveness.   As noted here and elsewhere, California has not had price increases due to a greater and greater share of wind and solar generation.   Indeed, CA prices have barely kept up with inflation. (see link to SLB articles on this topic).  The grid has also remained quite stable and reliable. 

For many policy reasons, wind, solar, and other renewables are a very good thing.  Among the many reasons for this are job creation, absolutely free energy that has no foreign implications, inexhaustible energy, pollution-free energy, industries expanding into solar production and wind turbines, other industries racing to produce economically attractive grid-scale storage systems,  and innovations in grid system technology and controls.

Can PJM meet their renewable energy targets (approximately 25 percent by 2025), or will they have insurmountable difficulties?   The answer there is no, not with all those nuclear power plants on their grid, and the many coal-fired plants.  It is quite expensive and time-consuming to shut off a large coal-fired power plant, then start it back up again.  Nuclear plants, of course, simply refuse to do that, citing safety concerns.   So, with nuclear plants on PJM system stubbornly running all-out, and coal-fired plants losing money if they cycle on and off, PJM has some daunting challenges.   

Good luck to the engineers and planners on the PJM grid.  

It will be quite interesting to observe and report on their progress in meeting the 25 percent renewables mandates, in light of the PJM study that says 20 percent is an absolute hard limit.   

UPDATE 5/21/2017:  With 100 percent renewables on a national level clearly impossible, (hydroelectric will run for the foreseeable future), how then does a city or state intend to achieve 100 percent?  

The City of San Diego (again, in loony California), with a population of approximately 1.4 million, has a Climate Action Plan (2015) that calls for 100 percent renewable electricity by the year 2035.   They gave themselves a full 20 years to accomplish this, being such optimists.    How does this work, in San Diego's version?   The answer lies in a clever trick of buying electricity from a designated generator, but not from all the others that are also on the grid.   San Diego would identify solar, wind, and other renewable-energy generators and claim to purchase power only from them.   The problem occurs when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine.   Wind is quite erratic in California, so on nights when the wind is barely stirring, how would San Diego find electricity to purchase?  

One answer is grid-scale storage; another is small-scale home-based electricity storage; another is time-shifting demand for electric vehicle charging; yet another (remote possibility) is long-distance power imports.  

Grid-scale storage already occurs in California (and other states) via pumped storage hydroelectric, massive batteries, and a rail-based gravity storage system is under construction on the California-Nevada border near Pahrump. 

Small-scale home-based storage is already available from several vendors including Tesla. 

A favored scheme by many renewable advocates is using millions of EV (electric vehicles) as grid loads while the batteries are charged up during sunny days or windy nights.  Then, the cars are plugged into the home where power can be supplied by the car's batteries into the home to run the big screen TV and DVD player, the lights, charge the cell phones, and even run the refrigerator.    One must wonder just exactly how big that car's batteries must be to achieve all that.  Another consideration is, if the car is running the house at night, how will the car be able to travel the next morning to the workplace?

The very long-distance importing power is an interesting scheme.  California has already implemented a version of this, both importing and exporting power, to help balance the grid as more and more solar power plants are brought online.    The term is regional integration, or regional energy market.  see link to CAISO presentation from 2016.  The basic idea is to integrate several states into a regional energy grid, much as PJM grid has done on the East coast, MISO does in the Mid-West see link, and others.   California can no longer be an island, in the electrical grid sense.   With multiple states on a common grid, the hope is that the wind will always be blowing at some location, providing power that can be exported to users that are becalmed.   The problem with this, of course, is that on a day with strong wind over the entire region, far too much wind power would be produced.   As that happens, grid-scale storage would be needed to absorb the production.  ---  end update 

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California

copyright (c) 2017 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved

Topics and general links:

Nuclear Power Plants.......here

Climate Change................here  and here

Fresh Water......................here

Engineering......................here  and here

Free Speech.................... here

Renewable Energy...........here  

Year In Review 2016

Most-viewed new articles on SLB in 2016 were:

1. Wind Power Facts and Trends 2015  link
2. Why California Electricity Costs More than US Average  link
3. A Perfect Correlation - US Electricity Price v Consumption  link
4. California Electricity Rates - Residential - Not That High  link
5. Designing an Electrical Grid From Scratch  link

 The most-viewed articles from 2016 all have a common theme: electricity in California.  These were prompted by articles, and the comments on those articles, in various publications.  It is appalling to me that so many people write on such issues when their knowledge is very poor.  They typically opine that California's huge investment in wind and solar power production is responsible for high electricity prices; that is absolutely wrong.  They also opine that California is nuts to install wind and solar, because the electrical grid will have frequent blackouts; that also is absolutely wrong.    They offer statements on the high costs of installing wind turbines and the low productivity from wind turbines; both are absolutely wrong.   My articles above provide factual data from reputable authorities.  

Most important issues in 2016:

1. President Trump and the Future of American Oil
2. This Battery is a Game Changer
3. Nuclear Radiation Illness in Japan after Fukushima Dai-Ichi Meltdown
4. A Few Excellent Reasons To Oppose Nuclear Power Plants
5. A Perfect Correlation - US Electricity Price v Consumption
6. The Case Against Carbon Dioxide - Fatal Flaws
7. USCRN Shows Slight Warming in 2015

In my view, 2016 had a number of very important issues; the list above is for those that have articles on SLB.  The most important, by far, was the election of Republican Donald Trump as President of the United States.  His pragmatic, data-driven views on many subjects will finally halt the agenda-driven progress that has stifled the US and much of the world for far too long.  In particular, President Trump is not duped by the false narrative that the global climate is overheating due to man's consumption of fossil fuels.  The article above, President Trump and the Future of American Oil, also discusses how President Trump could negotiate and profoundly affect world affairs with the oil from just one oil field known as The Wolfcamp.   (20 to 50 billion barrels of shale oil, potentially wiping out OPEC).

The second article, This Battery Is A Game Changer, is about the novel battery for grid-scale electricity storage that is under development by a California company, BioSolar Inc. The battery would revolutionize power grids by storing excess power from wind and solar, then releasing the power into the grid in load-following mode.  This is the battery we have been waiting for. 

The third article, Nuclear Radiation Illness in Japan after Fukushima Dai-Ichi Meltdown, shows there has been, and continues to be, human suffering from radiation sickness in Japan.  This is part of a long-running controversy about nuclear power plants, whether or not their operation causes any excess diseases.   Nuclear proponents, or cheerleaders, of course claim that the plants are safe and no one gets diseases.  The facts show quite the opposite.  

The fourth article, A Few Excellent Reasons To Oppose Nuclear Power Plants, see link, was a comment I wrote in response to a challenge by a commenter at WUWT, Watts Up With That blog, related to nuclear power.  Anthony Watts' blog (WUWT) is widely read with a huge following worldwide.  Most of the commenters, it appears, are pro-nuclear but are woefully ill-informed on the subject.   Much like the false-alarmism of climate change or global warming, there is a concerted effort in the nuclear power industry to over-sell the technology by ignoring, downplaying, and falsifying the vast number of negative issues and facts. I am continually amazed by how many people dig deep into the data and misrepresentations put forth by the climate alarmists, yet accept the nuclear power industry's misrepresentations without challenge.

The fifth article, A Perfect Correlation - US Electricity Price v Consumption, was also one of the most-viewed articles from above.  As with every article on SLB, hard data from reputable sources - in this case, from US Energy Information Agency - put the lie to California having high electricity prices because of renewable energy investments.  This article shows that nationwide, residential electricity prices are almost perfectly correlated with annual electricity consumption per customer (r-squared of 0.9997).  California price is on the high end of the range, but the specific consumption (kWh/yr/customer) is very low.   California's unique climate results in low electricity use per customer, but the state has a very large infrastructure that must be paid for.  Each kWh sold therefore has a higher price because so few kWh are sold each year on a per-customer basis.  In contrast, the low prices in the US Southeast are due to very high consumption per customer and small infrastructure.  When one obtains an almost perfect correlation using actual data, there can be no argument over the cause.   The anti-renewables crowd refuses to accept this; but science and statistics are not swayed by their acceptance or not.

The sixth article, The Case Against Carbon Dioxide - Fatal Flaws, is yet another article in the long series on why false-alarmism on global warming is in fact, false.  One of the bedrock principles of science, any science, is correct attribution of causation to any observed phenomenon.  The Fatal Flaws article presents and discusses seven actual causes that result in positive temperature trends over time in cities.  None of those seven are increased Carbon Dioxide, CO2.   The only way to correctly measure atmospheric temperature trends is to completely exclude measurements from cities and other non-pristine sites.

The seventh and final article, USCRN Shows Slight Warming in 2015, also relates to the global warming issue.   As expected and widely written about, the El Niño event in 2015 caused a slight increase in the annual average temperature across the US.   The declining temperature trend from 2005-2014 was slowed by the El Niño.  However, it is also expected that the temperatures will continue dropping as the years unfold and the El Niño fades into history.  

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
copyright (c) 2017 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved

Topics and general links:

Nuclear Power Plants.......here
Climate Change................here  and here
Fresh Water......................here
Engineering......................here  and here
Free Speech.................... here
Renewable Energy...........here

Nuclear Plants Unreliable In A Hurricane - St. Lucie Shut Down

Subtitle:  St. Lucie Nuclear Plant Unreliable in a Hurricane

The recent flap in Australia that saw the state of South Australia suffer a grid blackout due to high winds prompted a storm of controversy over whether or not wind power, a renewable energy source, was to blame.   Of course, many of the anti-renewable crowd advocated for more nuclear power plants, saying they are reliable where wind power is not.    The irony is that here, half a world away in Florida, hurricane Matthew forced the St. Lucie nuclear power plant to shut down.   The story was given as: 

"St. Lucie Power Plant shut down because of Hurricane Matthew" --  see link to TCPalm.com story 10/7/2016. 

From the article: "Federal rules require nuclear plants to be shut down at least one hour before hurricane winds hit the site, spokesman Peter Robbins said. FPL closed the Hutchinson Island plant at 11:15 a.m. and will reopen it after the category 4 storm is over. Its reopening might be delayed if access roads are blocked because rules require an evacuation route for a power plant to remain open, he said."   (note: FPL is Florida Power and Light; the St. Lucie nuclear plant is located on Hutchinson Island just south of Vero Beach, Florida)

For background, Hurricane Matthew was a category 4 that traveled northward as it remained offshore but brushed the entire eastern seaboard of Florida from October 5 through October 8, 2016.  Hurricane winds are sustained wind of 75 miles per hour or greater.   Wind speeds reported by the National Weather Service at Vero Beach, just 10 miles north of the St. Lucie nuclear plant, showed maximum sustained winds of 49 miles per hour at 3:53 a.m. on October 7, 2016.  Winds gradually increased to that point, then decreased steadily after.  Wind gusts were higher, as expected, with the highest at 74 miles per hour. 

It is also noteworthy that Florida reported more than 1 million customers lost power due to hurricane Matthew's winds.   Those were most likely the low-voltage lines, and not the high-voltage backbone of the grid.   This is crucial because an offline nuclear power plant consumes a great deal of electricity to run cooling systems and other critical systems to prevent a meltdown.   St. Lucie also has, by law, backup generation capability to supply power for a few hours when the grid cannot.  

The controversy over wind power continues.    It is clear, though, that nuclear power plants are not quite as reliable as the nuclear cheerleaders claim.    In this case, no one could know if Hurricane Matthew would veer westward and bring 74-mph and greater winds across St. Lucie nuclear plant.   As it turned out, no hurricane winds hit the nuclear plant.   Still, shutting it down as a precaution was the correct thing to do.   Nuclear plants pose a sufficient danger that it is much better to shut one down in a calm and orderly manner than to have a crash shutdown in the midst of a hurricane.  

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
copyright (c) 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved.

Renewable Energy Saves California from Grid Blackouts

Subtitle: Record-Setting Solar Power Reduces Natural Gas Demand

The peak summer heat is now ended in Southern California, indeed, a winter storm warning was issued for the central Sierra Nevada mountains.  One short and fairly mild heat wave occurred last weekend, with temperatures measured at Los Angeles (USC Campus)  reaching 104 degrees F for one day.  (see adjacent Figure 1).   The orange oval shows the period in which heat waves typically occur, this year only twice did temperatures break 100 degrees F.   The major conclusion is that zero blackouts occurred, because renewable power from solar PV, solar thermal, and wind turbines produced electricity at rates up to 10,000 MW throughout the summer. 

Figure 1  -  2016 year-to-date temperatures
at Los Angeles, California

As is well-known, officials have concern that grid instabilities or blackouts would occur this summer during heat waves, because the natural gas storage supply is much reduced due to the Aliso Canyon storage facility being out of operation.  

However, solar power and wind power need no natural gas, and provided power routinely through the summer.   Solar PV actually broke records for power production.    

The California grid has many efficient, combined-cycle gas turbine power plants with quick response capability to adjust their output when solar or wind output changes suddenly.    The state also imports some power from adjacent states, notably nuclear power from Arizona, hydroelectric from Nevada (Hoover Dam), and both wind and hydroelectric from Washington.    It is notable that long-distance transmission lines are required to ship the power into California.  It is also noteworthy that the adjacent states have surplus power to sell to California and do so profitably. 

Now that Fall and Winter are here or looming, the gas shortage continues due to Aliso Canyon's problems.   However, wind power increases in those seasons, which offsets the declining solar power production.    Next year will have even more solar power production as California installs even more PV power plants.   The state's renewable energy plan requires approximately 3,000 MW of renewables installed each year.  Almost all of that will be solar PV, since wind locations are essentially built out, and solar thermal has much worse economics. 

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California

copyright (c) 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved.

Driessen on Renewable Energy as Racism

Subtitle:  No Racism In Renewable Wind and Solar Power

Every week or so, I receive another article from Paul Driessen, Senior Policy Analyst for CFACT (Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow), and this week’s article has so many things wrong I take keyboard under fingers to respond.   Driessen exhorts recipients in his prelude to each article to post his article, quote from it, and forward it. 

This week’s article concludes, falsely, that renewable energy policies and increased renewable energy use are racist because they have, or will have, serious negative economic impacts on black people, who Driessen describes as poor people.   His statements are in quoted italics below, my responses in normal font. 

"Few if any developing nations will reduce their oil, natural gas or coal use anytime soon. That would be economic and political suicide."

This statement is about the Paris Agreement on climate change (see link), under which various nations strive to reduce their man-made carbon dioxide emissions to (they say) reduce global warming.    

What Driessen fails to grasp is that energy production and use world-wide is already undergoing a massive and permanent structural change.   This has precedent.   As but one example, oil use for power generation dropped dramatically in the late 1970s and 1980s after the oil price shocks and the Arab oil embargo.   Oil-burning power plants were replaced in many countries by nuclear power plants.  The US, Japan, France, and many other countries built nuclear and shut down the oil-fired plants.  

Developing nations, the subject of Driessen's article, almost always have severe limits on capital, the money needed for infrastructure and for on-going expenses.  Some of those on-going expenses include fuel for transportation, such as gasoline for cars and diesel for trucks, but also fuel for power generating plants.   With limited funds, it is crucial that developing nations obtain the best results for the money they do have.   That means smaller, more efficient cars.  It also means building the most cost-effective power plants.  

Driessen then says, 

"Meanwhile, the United States is shutting down its coal-fueled units. Under Obama’s treaty, the USA will be required to go even further, slashing its carbon dioxide emissions by 28% below 2005 levels by 2025. That will unleash energy, economic and environmental impacts far beyond what the Administration’s endless, baseless climate decrees are already imposing."

In this statement, it is false to call the Paris Agreement a treaty.  It is not, under US law.  A treaty must be ratified by the US Senate.   The Paris Agreement is a non-binding agreement among nations to try to do various things.   

It is true that the US is shutting down coal-fired power plants, however, the shutdowns are occurring because US pollution laws are finally imposed on such plants.   For decades, many coal-burning power plants in the US were exempted from air pollution regulations under the Clean Air Act.  No more.  Now, they must comply or shut down.   The plant owners are choosing to shut down.  (see link and this link to articles on SLB)

The power grids remain stable as coal-fired plants are closed, primarily because natural gas-fired plants are being built.  However, wind power and solar power are also being built in record numbers in the US.   These developments have important ramifications for developing nations.    

Burning natural gas for power produces far less carbon dioxide that does burning coal, for the same amount of electricity produced.  The ratio is approximately 2-to-1.  Having wind power and solar power in production, as their respective natural energy sources blow or shine, further reduces carbon dioxide emissions.  

The simple and orderly change-over from coal burning to natural gas with renewables will easily reduce carbon dioxide emissions by much more than 28 percent that Driessen mentions.   

The important point, though, is that electric power prices will not increase, indeed, they remain stable or decrease as coal-burning plants are closed. 

"Wind turbines, photovoltaic solar arrays and their interminable transmission lines already blanket millions of acres of farmland and wildlife habitats. They kill millions of birds and bats (but are exempt from endangered species laws), to provide expensive, subsidized, unreliable electricity. Expanding wind, solar and biofuel programs to reach the 28% CO2 reduction target would increase these impacts exponentially."

Here, Driessen shows his bias against wind power and solar PV plants.   This is the common cry of the anti-renewable crowd, the death of birds.  The fact is that many more millions of birds are killed each year by artificial structures than do wind turbines.  Solar PV plants do not kill any birds nor bats, to the best of my knowledge and research.   Yet, anti-renewable advocates refuse to admit what US Fish and Game experts report: renewable power plants have had zero impact on species populations.  

Driessen also seems unhappy over power transmission lines being added as renewable power plants are built.  One has to be happy that his mind-set did not prevail back when electricity was being expanded across the country, many decades ago.  

He then rants about expensive, subsidized, unreliable electricity.    Perhaps Driessen would like to point out any electricity rates that are outrageously priced in Iowa, Kansas, Texas, or even California that can be attributed to wind power or solar power.   The answer is, he cannot because there are no high prices due to renewables.    What is indisputable is that solar power and wind power allow utilities to run more efficient power plants, not the horribly expensive peaker power plants with simple cycle gas turbines.  

As to subsidized electricity from wind and solar, this is no different from almost every form of power generation in the US.  Subsidies, and in some cases almost full subsidies, exist for nuclear, coal, hydroelectric, and geothermal power production.   One must wonder why Driessen does not object to subsidies for those forms of power generation. 

The last claim is that electricity is unreliable when it is from renewable sources.   Again, Driessen cannot point to any grid in the US that has reliability issues due to wind power or solar power.   They simply do not exist.  Grid operators are well-aware of the wind conditions and sunshine conditions, and operate load-following power plants quite effectively to compensate for any changes in wind and sunshine. 

"This racism is the sneaky, subtle, green variety: of government policies that inflict their worst impacts on the poorest among us, huge numbers of them minorities."  

Here, Driessen equates renewable energy production and the policies that encourage it to racism.   That is despicable, playing the race card.  There are plenty of issues in which race is a valid issue, but this is not one of them.   For one thing, where utility prices are increased, and where any poor people are impacted, government in the US has subsidy programs for the poor, based on demonstrated need.   

For another, when coal runs out, as it certainly will at present consumption rates within 20 years in the US, there must be power plants installed and running to keep the lights on.  The alternative, to blindly keep burning coal until one day there is no more and the power grids fail, is simply not tenable.  There won't be just poor people impacted, everyone will be impacted.  

"In the Real World, soaring energy prices mean poor families cannot afford adequate heating and air conditioning, cannot save or afford proper nutrition, and must rely on schools, hospitals and businesses whose energy costs are also climbing – bringing higher prices, reduced services and lost jobs."

Here, Driessen finally gets something right, but it is not renewable energy that should be the target of his ire.   That same sentence, almost verbatim, is what I wrote about nuclear power plants, if they become a major supplier of world electricity.  see link to my article "Preposterous Power Pricing if Nuclear Power Proponents Prevail"

Renewable power from wind, and from solar, have negligible impacts on electricity prices in the US, even at penetrations of 30 percent as shown in Iowa.   The impacts on prices will be even smaller in the very near future, as low-cost grid-scale storage batteries are installed to allow utilities to stop running those horribly expensive simple-cycle peaker power plants mentioned just above. 

Conclusion

I agree with Driessen on one thing, and that is there is zero global warming due to carbon dioxide and no reason to curb fuel consumption to stop global warming.  That is a false issue.   

The real issue, though, is running out of coal world-wide in a couple of decades in the US, and within 50 years worldwide.  Coal provides 40 to 50 percent of all electric power worldwide, and that must be replaced long before the coal runs out.  Nuclear cannot do the job, and there is not enough hydroelectric power nor geothermal resources to replace coal.  The only viable option is natural gas with wind power and solar power where the wind and sunshine resources are sufficient.  

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California

copyright (c) 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved.

Another Convert to the New Electrical Grid Paradigm

Subtitle:  Grid Will Remain Robust - But Times Are Certainly Changing

A former nuclear engineer, Michael Liebreich, says what SLB articles have said for quite some time: the electricity grid in the US will rapidly change from coal, nuclear, and natural gas to one that is powered by solar, wind, natural gas, and some hydroelectric with grid-scale batteries for balancing.   He goes on to describe some of the impacts that millions of

Smart Grid Schematic - NREL 2012

electric cars, EVs, will have as loads to absorb excess power when needed, and resources when the grid needs a boost.    

An article from AIChE, "Michael Liebreich Says Electric Vehicles Are a Global Revolution Sitting in Your Garage" see link  has the story.  
The graphic at right, from NREL, shows PHEVs (plug-in hybrid electric vehicles) being charged and discharged.  EVs can and will also be charged and discharged as needed. 

Liebreich is correct that there will be many winners, and losers too in all this.  Winners will be the battery companies and EV manufacturers.  Losers will be conventional auto mechanics and mechanical garages.   Solar panel producers and wind turbine-generator producers will have a brisk business. 

What Liebreich did not mention, though, is the booming business of the nuclear power plant decommissioning companies.  There will likely be 50 or more nuclear plants shut down in the next 10 years, certainly more in 20 years. 

There are also major implications for railroads in the US, since moving coal is one of their primary business segments.  Freight rates will likely decline, and other items will find rail transport more attractive.  As written several times on SLB, and documented quite well at the EIA, coal consumption in the US is dying rapidly.  Indeed, there are less than 20 years of coal remaining in the US, absent massive government subsidies to prop up the industry.  Subsidies are not likely, though, with the government's fixation on reducing carbon dioxide emissions and penalizing those who produce CO2.  

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California

copyright (c) 2016 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved 

US Still Has the Can-Do Attitude from the Apollo Program

Subtitle:  Renewable Energy and Grid Integration have Plenty of Can-Do

A commenter asked me an excellent question the other day on another forum.  My reply follows the question.   This is about providing safe, reliable, affordable, and environmentally responsible power to the US grid, in the near future as nuclear plants shut down in great numbers and coal is more scarce.  

He asked: 

“The U.S.A. used to be a “Can-do” country. Now people go around wringing their hands and saying, “But what if…?”. Meanwhile, China is building nuclear power plants, while we give Iran’s mullahs hundreds of $billions to build nuclear bombs. Are our priorities screwed up, or what?”

My reply:  

We are still very much a can-do country, at least the fellows are that I hang around with. We look at coal, nuclear, natural gas, wind, solar, ocean current, and the various storage technologies. The best answer we have is that nuclear has zero chance of improvement, because we’ve given it our best shot for decades and that was one helluva shot. Nuclear can never compete. I’ve written on this in depth on my blog.

Coal is a losing proposition, not because of technology but because of limited resources. It is a solid fact that current prices limit recoverable coal to less than 20 years in the US, and 50 years world-wide. see link  Perhaps government will subsidize coal by $1 or $2 per ton produced, which would be only $9 to $18 billion (in US dollars) annually worldwide. That would increase coal’s economic life by a few years at most. Then what?

The can-do attitude is in finding much more natural gas than anyone ever expected via precision directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing in shale deposits. Lucky for mankind, shale deposits occur world-wide.

The can-do attitude is also alive in designing and installing economic wind turbines and solar PV systems. Sandia Labs has a fabulous new design for a flexible-blade wind turbine that continues to provide power in high winds. see link  and this link  That will cause capacity factors to skyrocket. New tower materials will allow 300 meter hub heights, with 50 MW turbine-generators. The combination of more output and greater size will make wind power even more attractive.

The best, and perhaps most important can-do attitude is in power plants that harvest electricity from the oceans’ currents. Those are renewable, inexhaustible, environmentally benign, and hold far more energy than mankind will ever need. The plants are not yet economic, but they will be. It’s just a matter of time. see link 

The can-do attitude is very much alive with battery innovators and inventions, such as the BioSolar halogenated polyactylene super battery. That is not science fiction, it is a reality. As I wrote on my blog, and others posted elsewhere, the HPA battery is a game-changer. Tesla has already made electric cars, while not perfect and not yet economic, his new car the Tesla 3 will be close to economic.

Finally, he stated “If today’s media was around in the 1960’s, we never would have gone to the moon.”

We had mass media in the 1960s. The media was on-board because we also had a fear that the Russians would occupy the high ground of outer space and drop rocks on our cities. Big ones. The rocks, that is. I remember those times, with the can-do attitude coupled with careful research and data acquisition by sober, somber and talented people. We didn’t fudge the numbers just to get the desired result. Rockets exploded or fell out of the sky without that, as it was. Space is a very unforgiving place. Physics had to be right, and the engineering had to be solid. I grew up in Houston in the 1960s and my family knew some of the important players in the Space Race. I met and got to know Astronaut Gus Grissom’s younger son.

Today’s climate scientists with all their data manipulation, making up data, using false statistics, should never be allowed anywhere near a space program.

My personal view is that the climate or global warming scare today is taking the place of the Soviets-in-space scare of the 1960s. The global warming scare is spurring innovation in certain industries that will be very beneficial long-term as the Earth runs out of economic coal and nuclear plants close by the hundreds, yet the people still need electricity.

see link  to SLB article of 2014:  "Forecasting the Future - Hubris or Honesty: Coal Exhaustion Looms - Renewable Energy to the Rescue"

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California

copyright (c) 2016 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved