(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



Carbon Free by 2040? Not With Wind. [1]

['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.']

Date: 2023-07-13

Windmills have been around forever, maybe not literally, but over 1000 years ago. Initially they were used primarily to pump water. Later, they were used to grind grain. Wind power is definitely a real thing.

Wind turbines also have a use. The problem is that that use is not, except in rare cases, to make electricity. Can they do it. Absolutely.

Is it a good idea? With one exception, absolutely not. We’ll get to that exception later.

Here is the problem in a nutshell, and I’ll quote from the European Wind Energy Association. This is a group dedicated to the creation and use of wind energy.

A modern wind turbine produces electricity 70-85% of the time, but it generates different outputs depending on the wind speed. Over the course of a year, it will typically generate about 24% of the theoretical maximum output (41% offshore). This is known as its capacity factor.

Wind energy frequently asked questions (FAQ) | EWEA

For our purposes, lets focus on the best case scenario. Offshore wind (OSW) energy.

As cynics sometimes say, the problem is…math.

You cannot add percentages together unless are numerals representing the same values. Four-thirds of an apple does not make four thirds of an orange. You cannot say, in any real-world way, that, okay, if I triple the 41% of the energy from offshore wind, I’ll have all the energy I need. Sure, there will be plenty of energy, no it will not be the energy you will need.

No matter how this math is done, 59% of the time you will not have enough energy. Sometimes, you will have no energy from the wind turbines. Sometimes you will have a fraction of the “nameplate” energy you need. Sometimes that will only be a small fraction. Sometimes it will be a large fraction. Rarely will you hit that Goldilocks, “Just right”, fraction.

Sometimes you can have a whole lot more energy than you need, but how will you transmit and/or store it? Well over half of the time there will be not enough energy. Sometimes, there will be too much. Heck, sometimes the wind will blow so strongly the entire system will have to be shut down.

Variable renewable energy sources all have that same limitation. Either they will not supply the energy we want when we need it, or we will have to change our lifestyles to fit the energy production patterns. Some of this, but not most of it, is doable.

So, we will need back-up, or dispatchable, energy. Now this can come in basically two forms, fossil fuel-produced energy or nuclear energy. To be clear, we want to eliminate fossil fuel use as quickly as possible.

When you have eliminated all possible options, the answer that remains must be the answer. Thus, nuclear energy it is. All of the problems, all of the fears of nuclear, must be examined closely and either eliminated or minimized to as great an extent as possible. But, for as long as we need on-demand energy, and for as long as we face a climate crisis, nuclear energy will be our only best bet.

Can renewables help us more quickly rid ourselves of the worst fossil fuel options? Yes. But, for as long as we have a significant percentage of variable renewable energy, we will continue to need either fossil fuels or nuclear.

What we need is an energy system that delivers the clean energy we need when we need it. As long as there is any foreseeable period when variable renewables will provide no energy… a windless night, a windless cloudy day, we will need a back-up, dispatchable energy source the equivalent of the size of the entire energy system.

Rather than build an energy system based primarily on variable renewables, backed-up by a nuclear energy system, why not simply build the entire system using nuclear energy? One system could do the work of both, with the cost of just the one system.

Is this too simplified? Somewhat. But the math is clear. Either we build two systems or one. One is the better value.

So, when should we build/use variable renewables? Answer: only when the math works. Is the project already underway? We can probably reduce carbon emissions in the short run while we transition to a majority nuclear system. But, again, so long as we rely on variable renewables, we will not create a greenhouse gas emissions-free society. So, the deployment of any new renewable energy system should be viewed very cautiously.

Are nuclear energy technologies ready now? Yes. Is the American public ready for them now? Probably not. Polls do show the majority, 55% of Americans support nuclear energy. This is the highest support for nuclear energy in recent years, and that support is increasing year after year.

Climate change itself, is a growing concern in America, but only among Democrats.

Nearly eight-in-ten Democrats (78%) now describe climate change as a major threat to the country's well-being, up from about six-in-ten (58%) a decade ago. By contrast, about one-in-four Republicans (23%) consider climate change a major threat, a share that's almost identical to 10 years ago. AEI.org

But face it, that support is soft. If the question was would you want a nuclear plant in your neighborhood, a majority would likely say, “No”.

Oddly, Republicans favor nuclear more strongly than Democrats. Currently, 39% of Democrats versus 60% of Republicans and 53% of independents favor nuclear energy. The 21-percentage-point gap between Republicans and Democrats is similar to the average for the past two decades.

What do we make of this? I think Democrats are simply more distrustful of big energy corporations. Rightly so. Here is an excerpt from the 1973-74 energy crisis.

“Let the bastards freeze in the dark” & “Drive 80 mph and freeze a Yankee”

"Let the bastards freeze in the dark” (or “Let the Yankee bastards freeze in the dark” or “Let them freeze in the dark") and “Drive 80 mph and freeze a Yankee” (or “Drive 90 mph and freeze a Yankee” or “Drive fast and freeze a Yankee") were bumper stickers that were popular in Texas during the 1973-74 energy crisis. Face it, oil industry supporters were not too big on environmental regulations. They still are not. But, in the 70’s, the environmental movement was not razor-focused on climate. To a certain extent, there is a hangover from those environmental battles. We need to down a couple of cups of coffee and get over it.

Support for renewables is somewhat contingent upon the belief that individuals can change society by their own actions. I admit I have a solar roof. It felt like I was helping the environment. With government subsidies, it was a good deal.

It simply does not work as the percentage of the system expands. France, relying on largely on nuclear energy has electricity rates 45% lower than does Germany.. California’s energy costs are nearly double the national average. Neither France nor California have come close to eliminating GHG emissions.

Individual actions, while fine, are not enough. we need collective action to face what is now a clearly visible climate emergency. The problem is that individuals cannot build their own nuclear plant.

Individuals can convince their friends that the climate crisis demands that we revisit the nuclear energy options available. We need to create small study groups to self-educate ourselves on the strengths and weakness of all the options for eliminating greenhouse gas emissions. Then, climate activists, can convince their elected officials that nuclear energy is the only workable option.

The hardest fight might be in Blue states. Democrats are making progress, using renewables and energy efficiency programs, to cut emissions. Thus, they are somewhat reluctant to admit that this approach will not get us to a Zero-Emissions end game. Internal fights are always the hardest. Further, there is a fear that admitting to any political mistake creates an opening for an attack from the opposition party.

On the other hand, Red states might be willing to take a look at nuclear energy. Heck, Texas is burning and Floridians cannot go into the waters. Are Democrats talking to blue collar workers employed in outdoor activities? Are we talking to folks without air conditioning? Are we talking to farmers who have had to readjust their practices in the face of climate reality?

The climate crisis in these states is happening under Republican leadership that denies that climate change is real. Democrats who are willing to reach out and lead, have an opportunity to make rapid progress. Heck, Democrats who endorse popular nuclear energy options in these states have a tremendous opportunity to talk across the Red-Blue divide.

We have our work cut out for us. We do not have a lot of time to get the job done.

Read up on nuclear, and on other energy options. Learn the strengths and weakness of each. Learn the arguments on all sides and be as prepared as possible to answer questions or to admit you have to do a little more research. Learn about mitigation programs for climate-impacted communities. Then commit to plan a workable clean energy program while making sure no community is left behind.

To wait is to fail.

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/7/13/2180930/-Carbon-Free-by-2040-Not-With-Wind

Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/