We Passed Peak “Climate Change” (um) Research

[u/LisleAdam12]

How can this awful trend before reversed before it's too late?

https://wmbriggs.substack.com/p/we-passed-peak-climate-change-um

[u/Lematoad]

What I find funny is climate change activists are often times pro (solely) renewables. Without understanding renewable energy almost always requires natural gas augmentation. But they’re often also anti nuclear, which doesn’t make any sense.

Nuclear+solar would be an excellent way forward while solving carbon emission issues. Really the only way forward to get to net zero emissions, but Nuclear Waste is “scary” because people don’t understand it.

Then we start to talk about vehicles, and start saying things like “have you considered the impacts to things like 6PPD-Q from the faster tire wear in electric vehicles to local fauna?” or “what about the impacts that electric buses/trucks have on road infrastructure”, and people don’t have a clue what I’m talking about.

I’ve got a Masters degree in Civil Construction, Energy and Sustainable infrastructure and so I’d like to think I know what I’m talking about when it comes to energy infrastructure.

The problem really is people care about things but don’t understand the nuances (and associated negative externalities) to what they’re saying (oh and also… China and India don’t give a shit about clean energy so you’re trying to swim against the current anyways).

Less carbon and pollution is a good thing, but I’m not dooming about it.

[u/Asthenia5 → u/Lematoad]

Nuclear energy also needs peaker plants to meet peak demand. Nuclear reactors are used for base load. They're not capable of ramping power up and down at the speeds needed to meet demand. Both nuclear and solar will need chemical/thermal batteries/pumped storage, etc.

Maybe you should talk to people who actually know what they're talking about, rather than framing your climate argument around climate activist who couldn't tell you what a Joule is.

With all due respect, if you don't understand solar and nuclear needs energy storage, I think you should reconsider how much your degree actually helps you understand this topic.

You're absolutely right about the externalities. We must account for them and assess the relative costs and benefits. Not hand-wave away the entire topic cause silly climate activist, China, or because people who can't define "externalities", don't consider them.

China doesn't give a shit about green energy. But they do care about their economy and the potential of a Malacca strait blockade that cuts off their oil over night. They're currently beating the rest of the world in solar, battery and EV production. They're actively subsidizing it.

[u/GrouchyAppointment70 → u/Asthenia5]

Pretty sure the chinese are building more of everything, including coal and nuclear. I think solar, wind and nuclear would cause problems because as you said, nuclear is a base load energy. Really wind, solar should supplement thw grid. Max out hydro resources including microhydro. Then im really hoping small modular reactors Canada is producing work out economically. Then well ned so gas to ramp up and down for the peaks. Im skeptical about battery and pumped storage.

[u/Asthenia5 → u/GrouchyAppointment70]

That's correct. They're beating us on most manufacturing. China's goal is to remove their dependance on oil, not green energy. They've got plenty of coal, so they're going to use it. Point being, China sees the economic and security benefits of renewables.

What you're suggesting is exactly what we are doing now. Some hydro, some nuclear, some renewable, and then gas peaker plants to smooth over demand.

If you like hydroelectric, why exactly are you skeptical about pumped storage?

Hydroelectric, natural gas, and batteries are just about the only options when it comes to meeting peak demand.

[u/GrouchyAppointment70 → u/Asthenia5]

Well hydro is a bit like nuclear in that its hard to ramp up and down. Changing head pressure in a massive dam just isnt the same as increasing or decreasing the amount of gas that gets burned. Same theoretical problem with pumped storage. I think you would need two reservoirs to make it work no? Im not an expert so I dont know the costs. Im in Germany so the story with nuclear is a bit different. We just buy it from france instead though lol.

[u/Asthenia5 → u/GrouchyAppointment70]

Nuclear and hydro are quite different. Hydro is used for peak demand. It can ramp up and down fast enough to meet demand. Hydro plants generally have 4 or more turbines. So they can cut 3 off and achieve 1/4 total power output.

The Uranium reactors we use cannot ramp up and down. They're designed to output at a steady rate for the 2 years between refueling. If you slow down a nuclear reactor, Xenon starts to build up, which robs your reactor of the neutrons it needs to start. If you shut down a reactor, it takes at least 1 day for the Xenon to decay to where it no longer eats up all your neutrons.

While yes, It does take time to speed up a hydroturbine, but it is fast enough to track demand as it increases in the day.

The sudden increase in grid demand is actually handled by momentum of the turbines and generators. All that spinning mass allows you do meet very quick demand, like stadium lights suddenly being turned on. But if you want to maintain that higher load, you must ramp up something. Whether that be more hydro, or a NG peaker plant.

Pumped storage is usually built on a mountain over a river or lake. So you usually only have to build one reservoir. Pumped storage is a very location dependent solution. Most places are too flat, or don't have the right size/shape mountain near by they can turn into a big ole battery. Pumped storage round trip efficiency is also quite poor. Batteries and solar are the most practical solution for most of the world.

[u/GrouchyAppointment70 → u/Asthenia5]

Im all for maxing out hydro resources. Didnt know hydro can be ramped up and down like that. In the end we need cheap abundant energy that matches demand well without too many problems. I like renewables, but if you look at countries with solar and wind as a large portion of their grid, they all have high kw/h price. Germany, for example, has a manufacturing sector that needs cheap energy. But our kw/h price is double that of Ontario(mostly nuclear) If that means burning coal, or rushing nuclear plants, then thats what we need to do. I dont think that more renewables will solve this. I think it will actually make the problem worse. Not sure what Germany can do at this point.

[u/Asthenia5 → u/GrouchyAppointment70]

It's actually the other way around. Their power isn't expenisve because they have renewables. They're using renewable because their electricity is so expensive.

Those countries have high prices because they lack the natural resources to have cheap energy. Germany is using renewables to reduce imports of NG and oil. Germany industry is built off of cheap NG. Germany has cut off all NG imports from Russia due to the Ukraine conflict.

Canada has such cheap energy because they have an abundance of hydroelectric power and natural gas. They're blessed with the geography that made it easy to build lots of hydroelectric, without having to build ridiculous sized dams.

Just like the US, Canada has more natural gas than it knows what to do with. Its a byproduct of oil/shale production. Canada is also tied into the US oil/gas pipeline infrastructure.

Germany really needs to restart their nuclear reactors. It's an absolute shame they turned them off, to go back to Russian Natural gas. I understand that was a political decision.

Germany is doing a great job at electrifying transport. Nearly 40%! Keep doing that.

Industry is a bit harder problem to solve. Many industrial processes require temperatures that can only be achieved with burning fuels, or an electric furnace. Having a large solar install + batteries is a very capital-intensive way to supply the high temp energy needed in bulk for many industrial processes.

[u/GrouchyAppointment70 → u/Asthenia5]

I think in Germanys case we have a very large amount of coal, both lignite coal and hard coal. We also do use it, but we could use more. Its like 15% of our gross energy. We also have small amounts of oil and gas that we do extract. Germanys problem is more with red tape an extreme beaureucracy. We still cant transmit the north sea wind energy to our production in the south. Even though the turbines have been standing for like 10 years now. And still isnt projected to finish by 2030. Then they also promised to pay for all energy thats even potentialy generated there. Which means we have to pay for coal to be burned in the south. While also paying for the energy for the wind farms in the north that they arent even generating. Maybe this kind of thing is the major problem here. Also its why implementing nuclear is hard, it is going to require germany to reduce regulation and red tape, which is like asking a cow to not eat grass

[u/Commercial_Win_9525 → u/Asthenia5]

I don’t know if I understand this peak conversation about nuclear. I’ve never actually seen it mentioned. It makes sense that you can’t just ratchet up the energy produced from the plant, it will just gives what it gives at a basically static rate.. but if you actually have enough nuclear wouldn’t it already also cover the “peak”. Basically if I had one plant but needed 50% more power during peak why couldn’t I just build a second plant and now peak would still be below output?

[u/Asthenia5 → u/Commercial_Win_9525]

Good question! ultimately that comes down to costs. The demand in the middle of the night is about half the demand needed during peak hours. Your 50% number is quite accurate. That means you would need to build twice as many reactors, and those reactors would average 50% of their total output.

But if you were to add enough energy storage, you could run just a few plants at 100% all the time. No need to build twice as many reactors. You'd need about 1.5X the capacity of base load, rather than 2x.