Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumNatural Gas a Weak Weapon Against Climate Change, New Study Asserts
Nathan Myhrvold found "some really counterintuitive results" when he and study coauthor Ken Caldeira set out to see what the climate effect would be if the world switched from coal power plants (like the one seen above in West Virginia) to natural gas and other sources.Although natural gas burns more cleanly than coal, a new study argues that replacing all the world's coal power plants with natural gas would do little to slow global warming this century.
"There are lots of reasons to like natural gas, but climate change isn't one of them," said physicist Nathan Myhrvold, lead author of the new study. "It's worthless for [fighting] climate change, as far as we can tell."
The reason for that grim assessment: The carbon dioxide burden already is so large, and its lifetime in the atmosphere is so long, that even a switch to completely carbon-free electricity couldn't stop temperatures from rising over the next 100 years. Switching from coal to natural gas would cut the warming effect in 100 years' time by only about 20 percent, while switching to renewable or nuclear energy would slash the warming effect about two-thirds to three-quarters.
More: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/03/120314-natural-gas-global-warming-study/
Paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/1/014019/article
FBaggins
(26,757 posts)Why not switch to renewables and nuclear energy?
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)Nuclear power plants are suited for slow rises to steady operating outputs, not rapid cycles up and down.
Now maybe in some areas solar might work okay, because it's pretty predictable and generally in good solar areas more of electricity demand is related to AC, so perhaps you can work in a higher percentage of nuclear with solar. Still, in midline areas like even GA, where much of the heating/cooling is done by heat pump, in the winter season demand ramps up at night.
You have to consider the overall costs of the mix you choose to implement, and that includes everything - required transmission grid changes and costs, the inefficiencies almost all traditional power plants run into when being used to comp highly variable sources such as wind, etc.
If we ever actually do shift to a lot more EV transportation, we are desperately going to need more electricity, highly reliable electricity, and cheap electricity, because unless the electricity is cheap EVs don't work.
Theoretically at least, nuclear power plants can be used to create a highly stable grid with at least controlled electricity costs, but the expected cost per transmitted kwh surely has to go up if they are going to be used in conjunction with a lot wind! They can dump power okay into cooling towers, but the cost factors remain pretty static.
I can't see any way, given a 70% variability in demand curves, plus the 30% output function of wind, that nuclear power plants can be used as too much of the grid inputs.
I really like this site on wind power:
http://www.wind-power-program.com/intermittency.htm
This particular graph is generated from actual UK data using the furthest apart wind farms:
You seem to know a lot about nuclear power. Can you envision a 50% average demand nuclear capacity combined with very much of this?
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)It's just their new way of being able to profit by controlling our fuel. Environmental groups were paid off and keep quiet about this during the years some key energy decisions were being made. Corporate profit beats clean energy again. Not a big surprise unfortunately.
hunter
(38,326 posts)Bought & paid for by the natural gas industry.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Coal is responsible for a significant, but minority, amount of our carbon emissions. Since, using established measures of emissions natural gas emits about 40% of coal's CO2 emissions, replacing coal with natural gas would have a immediate positive impact, but by itself would do little to change the trajectory we are on.
The primary positive benefit would be the difference in the economic and operational profile of the grid that such a change would bring about. Natural gas plants make it technologically far easier to integrate large amounts of variable energy sources like wind and solar, and, because of their low capital cost and relatively high fuel costs they also are easier to economically displace as more and more renewables come online. Their relatively small capital investment is far easier to work out with a renewable induced decline in market share because there is a related steadily escalating value in the ability to ramp up and down quickly. This will assure increased per MWH revenue even as the number of MWH generated declines.
In other words they phase out without even a whimper, much less the titanic struggle that coal and nuclear wage. For them, the encroachment of renewables is an almost immediate existential crisis because they can only recoup their capital and operating costs by operating almost constantly. If they lose 25% market share it is nearly impossible for them to raise the price of the power they sell into the remaining 75% enough to make up for the revenue lost.
We have more than enough installed natural gas plants to make the transition to renewables if we decide to just build out all of our renewable alternative and I'd prefer that we pursue that path with all haste. However given the real choices on the table, the quickest route is to shift the economics and technological profile of the grid by shutting down as much large scale centralized generation as rapidly we can.
...
According to the EIA, the drop in generation from the black rock is the result of warmer weather and increased natural gas use. Total electricity consumption was down 7% in December 2011 compared to December 2010.
Despite this, natural gas saw its consumption rise 12% to 86 terawatts between December 2010 and December 2011 On the other hand, coal's generation dipped 21% to 132 terawatts during the same time frame.
For energy providers, coal is still the number one option, however, low prices and the high efficiency rate of combined cycle power plants is making natural gas more competitive with America's old stalwart energy source.
Coal's competitive advantage in the energy sector looks as though it will continue to decline in near future. New environmental regulations imposed on the industry by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has led to a series of power plant closures, as utilities claim it is too expensive to implement the technology required to meet the new standards.
http://www.energyboom.com/emerging/us-electricity-coals-share-drops-33-year-low-winter-2011
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)The global consumption of coal in 2010 was the highest it's ever been. Likewise for NG and oil - at least according the the BP numbers. The same goes for global CO2 emissions. Don't look back - Mother Nature is gaining on us.
To a first approximation, all the excess CO2 produced by human activity comes from the burning of fossil fuels. The only way to reduce our CO2 emission (which is the real planetary life-killer, the dangers of nuclear power notwithstanding) is to reduce our fossil fuel consumption. The only effects that have been demonstrated to accomplish that so far are political or wartime supply interruptions (1973 and 1980) or global economic recessions (2008-2009). Of those, by far the greatest impact has been from economic slowdown: -1.8% for the recession compared to -1.6% for the Iran-Iraq war and -0.4% for the 1973 OPEC oil embargo.
One other point:
It's interesting how you spin this: "Natural gas plants make it technologically far easier to integrate large amounts of variable energy sources like wind and solar."
This is the closest you've come to admitting the logical inverse of that statement: Adding larger amounts of variable power to the grid brings with it an increased need for natural gas to smooth out the power delivery. I think you recognize the inconvenient truth of this situation, but of course admitting that truth in straightforward terms significantly undermines a cheerleading position for renewables - at least in today's resource environment.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)The primary positive benefit would be the difference in the economic and operational profile of the grid that such a change would bring about. Natural gas plants make it technologically far easier to integrate large amounts of variable energy sources like wind and solar, and, because of their low capital cost and relatively high fuel costs they also are easier to economically displace as more and more renewables come online. Their relatively small capital investment is far easier to work out with a renewable induced decline in market share because there is a related steadily escalating value in the ability to ramp up and down quickly. This will assure increased per MWH revenue even as the number of MWH generated declines.
In other words they phase out without even a whimper, much less the titanic struggle that coal and nuclear wage. For them, the encroachment of renewables is an almost immediate existential crisis because they can only recoup their capital and operating costs by operating almost constantly. If they lose 25% market share it is nearly impossible for them to raise the price of the power they sell into the remaining 75% enough to make up for the revenue lost.
We have more than enough installed natural gas plants to make the transition to renewables if we decide to just build out all of our renewable alternative and I'd prefer that we pursue that path with all haste. However given the real choices on the table, the quickest route is to shift the economics and technological profile of the grid by shutting down as much large scale centralized generation as rapidly we can.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)So long as the apparent cost per MWH of renewables stays above that of gas, we won't see any significant transition.
Could you clarify your assertion: "We have more than enough installed natural gas plants to make the transition to renewables"? Specifically, what does "transition to renewables" actually mean in this statement? How big a transition, in terms of MWH or percentage of penetration, would the world's current inventory of NG plants actually support, in your opinion?
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)The real reason why NG plants are so often included in low-carbon energy plans is that they work better with renewables.
It's the overall effect of the mix you have to consider rather than any one component, and what works well in one area may not work in another.
And most renewables plus nuclear power in high percentages of the mix don't work very well. Nuclear power plants really are designed for steady output - they don't ramp up and down well at all. Given that in most areas electricity demand fluxes a lot (generally by at least 45% most days, and the low daily demand part of the year might well be 30% of the high daily demand period of the year, it's clear that any workable electricity system needs to have considerable flex built into its supply base.
The other alternative are the coal-to-gas plants, which can produce high efficiencies, relatively low emissions and are more flexible. Still, at least in the US NG plants currently kick their ass on costs. NETL has a bunch of studies on such technologies:
http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/baseline_studies.html
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)We're exporting our coal, as I established again and again.
http://205.254.135.7/coal/production/quarterly/
US consumption of coal is on a decline, sure, but that's meaningless when CO2 pollution is a global issue.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)The change has to start somewhere; we led the way in building a carbon based socio-economic system and someone is going to lead the way to a renewable socio-economic system.
I've asked you repeatedly to chart a course to a carbon free economy and all I've ever heard back is crickets.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)The coal must stay in the ground. Greenwashing natural gas by making it look like the coal is on a decline doesn't help do that.
I believe I basically said I don't think there's a "course to a carbon free economy" thus repeatedly asking me to do that is a task in futility.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)What part of this do you not understand or can you refute?
Coal is responsible for a significant, but minority, amount of our carbon emissions. Since, using established measures of emissions natural gas emits about 40% of coal's CO2 emissions, replacing coal with natural gas would have a immediate positive impact, but by itself would do little to change the trajectory we are on.
The primary positive benefit would be the difference in the economic and operational profile of the grid that such a change would bring about. Natural gas plants make it technologically far easier to integrate large amounts of variable energy sources like wind and solar, and, because of their low capital cost and relatively high fuel costs they also are easier to economically displace as more and more renewables come online. Their relatively small capital investment is far easier to work out with a renewable induced decline in market share because there is a related steadily escalating value in the ability to ramp up and down quickly. This will assure increased per MWH revenue even as the number of MWH generated declines.
In other words they phase out without even a whimper, much less the titanic struggle that coal and nuclear wage. For them, the encroachment of renewables is an almost immediate existential crisis because they can only recoup their capital and operating costs by operating almost constantly. If they lose 25% market share it is nearly impossible for them to raise the price of the power they sell into the remaining 75% enough to make up for the revenue lost.
We have more than enough installed natural gas plants to make the transition to renewables if we decide to just build out all of our renewable alternative and I'd prefer that we pursue that path with all haste. However given the real choices on the table, the quickest route is to shift the economics and technological profile of the grid by shutting down as much large scale centralized generation as rapidly we can.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)We're exporting our coal, as I established again and again.
http://205.254.135.7/coal/production/quarterly/
US consumption of coal is on a decline, sure, but that's meaningless when CO2 pollution is a global issue.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)You don't think there is a path, yet when shown a path you can't explain why it will not work...
Odd.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)...to try to sway the viewers into thinking that there was actually action being taken.
My evidence suggests no action is or even will be taken.
Which completely justifies my position that I don't think there is a path.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)You don't think there is a path, yet when shown a path you can't explain why it will not work...
Beyond odd and into the realm of irrationality.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)It's nice of you to put your assumptions out where we can see them (as you did with your earlier response to me, "We have more than enough installed natural gas plants to make the transition to renewables". However, leading with them and stating them as facts doesn't make them any less assumptions (aka your opinions).
Speaking for myself, I don't agree with either of them. I don't think someone "is" going to lead the way to a renewable valhalla. I think many people are trying to lead us in that direction, but your core assumption is not about leadership. It's about whether such a state is achievable. I don't think it is - at least not within the context of a socio-economic system that has more than a few tens of percent of the level of human activity that we currently enjoy. That's my assumption/opinion, based on what I've learned about technology, logistics, politics and human nature as enshrined in our current culture - and especially about the economic, material and energy costs of changing out core infrastructure in a constrained world.
If you were to limit the sweep of your pronouncements to be a little more realistic, you might even find me agreeing with you. If you were to say, for example, "We are already moving toward a world in which by 2050 a global economy of half its current size will be underpinned by an energy mix that includes 50% renewables," we'd have the starting point for a discussion. But if you insist on saying "all", I will continue to respond with "nothing" and no dialogue at all flows out of that.