Personal Hero falls for 100% RE myths, why Bill Nye? Why?

I've been a big fan of Bill Nye for a long time. He was one of the people who encouraged me to go and do the calculations required before deriving some conclusions. Right now he's making a 100% RE claim and I wonder if he has thought it through, and/or how he reached this conclusion. I think it is baloney...

I'm still a big fan, so I won't rough Bill Nye up, I would love to know how he derived these conclusions, based on what evidence, or what studies.

.@BillNye answers: How long would it take for the world to go 100%-renewable? #ClimateHope pic.twitter.com/UiVdII0hKF

— Climate Reality (@ClimateReality) December 15, 2015

Now there's two parts in this claim :

1. We can make the US (Caveat : nearly) 100% renewable by 2050 (if we wanted to)
2. We can make US ground transportation carbon neutral electrifying it by 2030

I agree on part 2, electrifying ground transportation is feasible, the electric vehicle is already becoming a force to be reckoned with. Even though the sum-total market share is pretty small, the materials used are pretty ubiquitous (Battery Chemistry being the limiting factor) and there are multiple ways of achieving electrification :

1. You can introduce smaller, short-range, BEV's
2. You can easily electrify all mass-transit
3. You can convert ICE vehicles into electrically driven vehicles

The other claim is more nuanced though. American electricity consumption has been quite stable for years now. The US consumes equivalent to about 24.000 TWh each year.

 

About 7000 TWh of the annual energy consumption in the US is from transportation. If you are able to electrify all ground-transportation you can cut about 50 to 65% (See my Tesla 90KWh vs 14KM/L Gasoline car calculations) of all ground transportation consumption. So you would be able to cut 4550 TWh (optimum scenario), which means that you'll be left with about 19.000 TWh to "decarbonize". This is an optimal figure, omitting diesel, hybrids, and other more economic transportation methods.

 

World-production of Wind Turbines and PV Panels is about 50GW's each year. Suppose we can double these numbers : 100GW Each. If we are able to achieve this we would be adding 482 TWh of annual production to the mix each year. The problem rises after the economic / practical lifespans of the first generations start to come to an end. Suppose this is a mean time of 20 years. You'd have to figured out how to double the production again by that time. Otherwise you'd be stuck at  around 10.000 TWh, that's about 9.000 short of the target number.

 

Why is it hard to ramp up the production figures of wind-turbines and solar panels? Even though most materials used in renewables are quite ubiquitous, some vital parts of them are not. We're talking about materials like Neodymium, Silver, Titanium, Copper, tellurium, Selenium and lot's of other materials that are limited by production. Why? Because they might be ubiquitous in the crust of the earth, they are however either scattered all over the place, or hard to find, or deeper in the earth, etc. etc.

We're now mining goldilocks deposits, and also consider that despite us mining goldilocks deposits, stuff like neodymium or titanium or tellurium are still hard to come by. Assuming that we're going to ramp up denuding the earth to get these deposits required to create these wind turbines and solar panels, it is still a tall order to envision us doubling / tripling the production values.

 

Suppose we remain limited to 482 TWh of world-wide added annual generation capacity, we'd be able to make the US 100% renewable it would take 45 years (that's 11 years longer than Bill Nye proposes). Also you have to remember that this is World Production rate, which means that the US would be usurping all panels and all turbines produced all over the world. This would mean that the rest of the world would be perpetuating their reliance on combustion.

 

Bill, my question is this : Why aren't you talking about a completely safe, viable and fully scalable solution : Gen III and Gen IV nuclear energy? Why are you occupying yourself with this push for renewable energy, while you know that deep-space exploration for instance is impossible without RTG. With the notion that nuclear propulsion might be the answer to several space-related quests. While you know that nuclear medicine is a boon for humanity. Without it we wouldn't have scanners, organ-function scans, certain cancer treatments, etc.

 

Why this narrow-minded push for RE?

Something to think about, there are breakthroughs in the nuclear world that will render a lot of the push for RE ineffective / obsolete. If you build 60 1000MW nuclear reactors in a year you achieve the same thing, with far less materials required. 100 GW of wind = 40.000 Wind Turbines weighing  roughly 1.3 million Kilo's each...

 

Think about the Molten Salt Reactors, Pebble Bed Reactors, Fast Breeder Reactors, Think about ITER (still a long way ahead) and the recent success of the Wendelstein 7-X.

 

Consider these start-ups that are making real progress, they are going to build nuclear reactors at a fraction of the [materials] costs / with efficiencies of 90% and up and passive safety systems that make these units what they call "walk-away safe". 

 

www.thorconpower.com

www.terrestrialenergy.com

www.transatomicpower.com

www.flibeenergy.com

 

Or consider Bill Gates's Terrapower : www.terrapower.com

As you know energy density matters. The benefit of using the highest energy density possible means that in the long run you are using far less materials to get X generation in contrast to RE.

Did you know that there's enough steel in a 2,5 MW wind-turbine to build a 600MW nuclear reactor that delivers 90% of its nameplate capacity, in contrast to the 30% of the wind-turbine.

 

Also note that current CANDU and AP1000 reactors are perfectly safe, China builds them in a timeframe of 3 to 4 years and has multiple dozens in production as we speak. Russia is exporting it's nuclear designs like gangbusters, but the US is trailing behind while there's a push for RE, despite the fact that they have great potential, excellent designs, and real talent in terms of ushering in a new nuclear renaissance. You could be a flag-bearer for this movement, and I think that you, as an empiricist, a sceptic (where's the scepticism on RE though?), an engineer by trait, should be!!! These people deserve positive endorsement from a real Science-Guy like yourself.

I am absolutely confident that RE is going to play a small part in our plight against Anthropogenic Climate Change, I foresee a bigger role for Nuclear Energy though, especially as a new nuclear age is dawning. One that is far more optimistic and less ominous than the last one. Just think of the dream-combination of nuclear energy and BEV's. Completely carbon neutral transportation on a grand scale, delivered by a reliable, robust and plentiful energy source.

Remind yourself of the limited expansion capabilities of RE, the limited curvature of it's additions. If we're going to ignore nuclear energy in this matter, we'll be going into a ring against a formidable prize fighter, while taping both our hands behind our backs, and limping on one leg... It doesn't pack the punch required to knock fossil fuels out of the picture.

I am optimistic that we can avert the catastrophic effects from our emissions, but we have to abandon the idea that going "all renewable" and committing to just that is enough. I submit to you that it is not, and I even think it is very unwise to do so. Simply listen to some people who have given this a lot of thought :

 

 



 

One tip : Don't mention Germany, they are disqualifying as the major businesscase for 100% renewable as they are forced to keep their reactors running and have expanded on burning wood (yes most of it is wood) and lignite. Let's hope France is not going to make the same mistake...

The challenge of a life time : kicking coal...

Let's break down the necessity for the human species to change its "energy habits".

It begins with the premise that all resources in the world are finite, yes even the sun. And secondly, our survival depends on it. Now many people are still under the impression that Anthropogenic Climate Change isn't happening, NEWSFLASH it really is happening!!!

What are the implications in middle-term and long-term? (in escalating order)

• Increased heat waves
• Changes in precipitation from more gradual large volume to less volume torrential rains
• This precipitates an unbalance in fresh water source replenishment and leads to depletion (see California, Texas, Nevada)
• Increased water poverty
• Crop famine
• plant and tree life dying due to water scarcity or insect plagues
• All this dying flora will release methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere
• Ocean temperature is rising, this causes changes in the pyramid of marine life.
• Eventually plankton fails to adapt to these rising temperatures and start dying
  
  OR
• Plankton will die because of the increasing acidity levels in the oceans
• An extinction of plankton would mean an extinction of almost the entire marine life pyramid
  
  And
• An extinction of plankton would very severely harm the biosphere's capacity to capture carbon and redistribute it as biomass, coupled with the die-off of land based fauna this will mean an uncontrolled rise in global temperatures, vastly exceeding the 4 degrees as predicted by several fossil fuel companies.
  
  And now for the grand finale!!!
• The is quite certain that the arctic region holds somewhere between 100 and a 1000 GIGAtons of sequestered Methane. The current amount of methane in the atmosphere is roughly 5 gigatons. This means that if by some "accident" the methane from the Arctic gets released, we're probably "in for it". If this "methane-bomb" explodes all the aforementioned effects will speed up exponentially and 90+% of all life on Earth will cease to exist. This is a certainty...

It is that "simple" we are facing dire consequences if we do not mitigate our carbon emissions and start trying to reverse the collapse, which is already happening...

Now one the things that have a great influence on the climate are anthropogenic energy consumption patterns, mainly the consumption of fossil fuels, we burn them to create heat and motion. That's basically it! But the scale in which we do it is so vast that we're already seeing the cliff, we know there's an end to this route. We're going to reach the end of Coal around 2121 sounds quite specific doesn't it? This estimation can be found here. The end of oil is expected to be somewhere between 2050 and 2060, this estimation can be found here. And if this all isn't depressing enough, we will run out of Natural Gas as well, if current consumption rates continue we will run out somewhere between 2070 and 2080.

Let's face it, we are running out... If the world doesn't evict us before we have run out, we will run out there is no question about it. We have 100 years worth of coal burning left, 60 years of gas and 40 years of oil. This is no fable, this is the truth, any wingnut, any moron that is yelling that we need to be burning fossil fuels like crazy is out of his mind. But that was already clearly implied with the titles I used to describe them.

The demand for energy is going to increase, we have all sorts of drivers in this respect. Let's have a look at the growing economies and the developing countries. We [the west] are already energy hogs, we produce and consume energy at an alarmingly high rate and the "upcommers" want to do the same. They also want a life of plenty, prosperity, wealth. The demand for energy is still low in this regard, and yet the end of our energy sources in terms of fossil fuels are already in sight...

Let's have a look at the prime suspect, the culprit that is arguably one of the worst contributors to Anthropogenic Climate Change : Coal-burned power plants. There are about 2300 Coal-fired power plants in the world, an estimated 7000 individual "units". I guess that by "unit" they mean a furnace tied to a generator. Source : https://www.worldcoal.org/resources/frequently-asked-questions/

Now let's have a look at something from which I could find a complete record, the total energy generation in the world in 2012 : 22.668 TWh. Source : http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld2014.pdf

The fun bit is that 40.4% of this energy generation came from coal : 9158 TWh Let's assume this previously dictated number of 7000 generators was quite accurate in 2012 (give or take 500) : 1,308TWh (1308000 MWh) per Coal-fired generator. Now divide this number by 8766 hours gives a figure of 148MW per Coal-fired generator. They run 60% of the time which means that the total capacity of each of these generators on average is 250MW. This is roughly 750MW per Coal-fired energy plant, seems legit...

In total this would mean that there would be about 1.75 million MW/1750GW worth of coal-fired energy capacity in the world in the year 2012.

Why would I do this rather arduous math, I hate math!!! Well it's quite simple, I try to get a grasp of the scope of the problems we are facing here.

We want to supplant coal-fired energy, it's one of the most essential steps in aggressively mitigating our negative influence on the biosphere.

So I am going to look at two technologies in particular because that's where the discussions are leading me, wind's up first : An average 5MW wind turbine generates about 15340 MWh (0.01534 TWh) a year at a capacity factor of 35%. In order to fill up the 9158 TWh required to supplant every Coal-fired plant you need about 597.000 windmills. Filling up the 22.668 TWh gives us the stupefying amount of 1.48 million windmills every 20 years... This is only if we wanted to maintain business as it was in 2012 and only for the electricity portion of it.

The average Nuclear power plant is worth 862MW @ 90% of the time. This translates into 6800662 MWh / 6.8 TWh. We can supplant Coal fired electricity by building 1350 nuclear power plants... And somewhere in the range of 3300~3400 for the business as it was in 2012 for all electricity generation.

Now what seems more feasible to you? Acknowledge that there ARE 2300 coal-fired plants in the world, so supplanting them with a lesser number of nuclear power plants is absolutely possible and it can be done!

The problem is that energy demand is going to grow significantly, and we need heavy punchers to wack coal out of the equation. it will be unsurprising if the amount of energy required will grow with at least 15/30% within the next couple of decades. Let's soup things up with up by electrifying transportation, let's buy Tesla Model S shall we? Don't get me wrong!!! I think the Tesla Model S is an AMAZING car, I would like to own one very very badly. The electrification of the transport sector, the end of fossil fuels is going to shift the burden from fossil fuels to electricity generation.

Think about it, electrifying our transportation is going to take a shitload of electricity... This is going to make the demand for electricity going to grow waaaaaaay out of proportions. And yes, fossil fuels are running out, so we will be forced to do it... Want to stack up even more inefficiency in an already stressed energy sector? Add Hydrogen...  Nope, the hydrogen economy doesn't work, it is a ridiculous idea that is never going to work, ever...

How about strip mining? Do we want to get rid of it? Or at least mitigate it?

 

 

Then don't go for the most strip mine intensive process of them all... The less your energy density is, the more materials you are going to need, this is an absolute no-brainer which I can easily back up with math, but it's to cumbersome... I've run out of my "math juice" for the day...

 

And the great thing about nuclear energy is that it's basic fuels are ubiquitous! Not only can we do nuclear on Uranium and Thorium, but with SEA WATER as well! Yes Fusion is going to happen eventually...

The issue is : TIME IS RUNNING OUT!!! LET'S SETTLE THE DEBATE!!!

Recapturing carbon will be one of the things we seriously have to consider, we need to balance the CO2 levels back below the 350PPM mark. It can be done naturally and mechanically. I'm not particularly fond of the latter because it takes energy to do it. So I will settle for natural carbon capture, which is quite easy to achieve actually. Reverse "deforestation" I will call it. We need to reverse deforestation... Let's start giving back some area's to nature, you know let forests grow, help them a little bit by germinating your own tree seeds and such... Not that I'm a real tree-hugger, but I love the atmosphere we live in and trees play a pretty big role in keeping the air breathable...

Honest disclaimer : I am a nobody, don't cite me, I don't have any credentials or credibility, don't take my word for it, be very sceptical about my writings, go and look for the truth yourself. If you do, I'm quite certain that it will roughly coincide with what I've presented to you in this article.

Energy matters, be prepared to re-examine your reasoning.

Nuclear power invokes a strong reaction, particularly in environmentalists. Often times when I debate these people they tend to react from a clear stance filled with all sorts of confirmation bias. Why would I debate them? Why have I become a proponent for nuclear energy?

I used to be opposed to nuclear energy, simply because I thought that the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents were really terrible and caused a lot of death and destruction. After careful consideration of the facts, having read countless of articles and looking at how things are today, I've had to re-examine my reasoning. This basically means that I have been convinced to take on a new stance on energy related subjects : Renewables aren't as green as advertised, coal, gas and petroleum are very dangerous, cause thousands of deaths each year and may well precipitate the doom of many species currently alive. The most efficient, safe and plentiful way to produce energy is Nuclear. We need to address the nuclear stigma and gradually defeat it, using reason and by forming our judgements based on the evidence, rather than on our gut feelings. Why? Because we otherwise would never be able to get fossil fuel energy generation out of the picture.

The biosphere of Earth is changing rapidly, species are going extinct at a terribly high rate. The increased extermination of species is being precipitated by several factors : pollution, the increase in temperature, a steady decline in precipitation, poorer air quality, acidifying oceans and of course the hunting practices of humans. It all comes down to this, the environment is changing faster than these animals, fish and insects can adapt to.

A couple of these factors are clearly tied to Anthropogenic Climate Change. Our influence on the biosphere of Earth cannot be ignored anymore. People always tend to focus on models, temperature, sea ice, etc. I am concerned about them as well. Climate change deniers can educate themselves using the links in the navigation bar, sceptical science is particularly good.

What needs to be done? Firstly we desperately need to mitigate carbon emissions aggressively. This means supplanting fossil fuelled energy generation with some renewables but mainly nuclear energy. Secondly we need to transform our transportation system, we have to shift from the internal combustion engine (ICE) to preferably a battery electric vehicle future. A future in which our transportation methods are either completely electrified, and in which airplanes would run on synthesized fuels.

If we achieve these goals, we would be cleaning up our air significantly, mitigating not only carbon emissions but also emissions like Nitrous Oxides, Sulphur Oxides, Flea Ash containing all sorts of harmful elements (including radioactive Uranium particles for instance).

Another thing we need to acknowledge is the growing need for fresh/potable water. Currently about 800 million people do not have access to potable water. This number is now declining, however... With the growing instability of precipitation patterns, and the increasing droughts, the availability of water becomes a growing problem. Just look at the American state of California for instance. They depend on water from the Colorado River, and the Sierra Nevada Snowpack. It is estimated that California will run out of potable water reserves before this decade is over, some people even go as far as to say that it will happen this or next year.

Aquifer depletion is a serious problem, especially in America's plains. The food basket for a large portion of the world's population depends on the availability of potable water in the Ogallala Aquifer, a source of water that is depleting i.e. running out... Replenishment rates need to be higher than the rate at which we draw water from these fresh water sources, at this moment replenishment rates are down, if this unbalance continues, aquifers will deplete eventually.

We can desalinate water, this is already being done on a large scale in countries like Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The problem with water desalination is that it takes a lot of energy.

I foresee a giant shift in energy consumption i.e. a shift from fossil based transportation to electricity based transportation; And a very steep increase water desalination activities. These changing paradigms have forced me to take a new view on electricity generation.

Let's look at current energy generation ratio's, in particular the coal fired energy plants. Roughly 75 to 80% of all the electricity on Earth is generated through burning coal and lignite. This amounts to 2300 coal fired energy plants in the world. It is estimated that we have about 100 years worth of coal left in the ground (source : worldcoal.org). So we will be forced to alter our course eventually, there's no denying it.

Also the currently known oil reserves of the world only add up to roughly 4 decades. So we don't have a lot of time left. Another consideration is that if we burn all these reserves, we will precipitate an uncontrollable temperature rise which in term will lead to increased extreme weather patterns, droughts, famine and eventually extinctions.

So it is clear, something needs to be done.

Why would I advocate nuclear and not renewable?

I've been an avid supporter of renewable for a long time. Until I started looking at the figures, the amount of energy produced all over the world. There are some optimistic figures claiming that by 2050 roughly 30 to 40% of the energy production in the world will come from renewable energy sources. The punch required to deliver the final knock out to coal fired energy production simply isn't there.

I've tried to look at predictions about future energy consumption and it didn't seem that they had included a paradigm shift in the transportation sector, meaning that one has to assume that we would still be making massive use of the ICE. If the current BEV revival starts gaining momentum, and it seems that it does, it would mean that the source of energy would shift from petroleum to electricity. Depending on the amount of shift, one can only conclude that the figures of future energy consumption in terms of electricity are too conservative.

Secondly people have not looked at our growing water issues. Which will also require vast amounts of energy.

Thirdly the capricious nature of renewable energy production requires load following energy production, which can only come from either nuclear or fossil energy generation.

Finally the amount of materials required to create this vast network of renewables is incredible, and the waste streams tied to them remain unaddressed. Also take into consideration the limited life span of said technologies, the limited amount of possible repurposing and the inability to recycle key components like wafers, turbine blades, certain electronics. And let's not forget that it takes a huge amount of energy to create for instance 99.99999% silica, required to produce these wafers.

Trying to understand renewables, fossil fuel energy generation and nuclear energy have led me past several interesting routes and have given me new insights. There is no optimal form of energy generation, there's always a catch. The renewables aren't as green as advertised and in our struggle for survival, even though it may not be evident at this moment, requires high energy density, low feedstock, zero emission energy generation. Nuclear is the form of energy generation that does just that and then some. Nuclear energy has a very good track record. France for instance has one of the lowest possible carbon footprints per energy unit produced, simply because they have embraced nuclear energy.

While delving into the history of nuclear energy and looking for possible innovations I came across the terms Generation IV and Molten Salt Reactors. I will dedicate a new article to "new nuclear". These developments are very promising, we can expect a shift from 3~4% fuel efficiency to 90~95% fuel efficiency, passive safety features which make a reactor "walk away proof" and the propensity to get rid of the so-called "spent fuel" or "nuclear waste". As an added bonus we get the propensity to "eat" the world's nuclear arsenals. Turning Megatons into Megawatts, a tremendous force for peace if you ask me!

Nuclear energy has a near perfect track record, compared to the fossil fuel industry it is by far the cleanest source of energy with the least amount of deaths tied to it. Even renewable energies have a higher death toll, these technologies are used in places rather hostile to humans, especially with regards to heights. People tend to fall of roofs a lot. Deathprint per energy source...

We are looking at a bright future if we embrace the possibilities of nuclear energy. We would be cleaning up our atmosphere, we would be able to provide everyone with ample electricity, we would endeavour in sciences and technologies which will help humanity build a completely sustainable future here on Earth, and will allow us reach out farther into space.

If you're interested in these developments I would suggest you to visit these websites :

NASA on nuclear

Letter to the California Energy Commission - by Alex Cannara

What is happening in the world of MSR's?

http://thoriumremix.com/th/

I will be dedicating the next articles to MSR development and Nuclear Fusion.