Ivo Welch
December 31, 2021
Do not leave your computer or notebook open when we have speakers.
Please pay attention, and ask good questions.
Book contains explanations about Watts and Watt-hours, power and energy.
We need to wrangle about 150 PWh of energy within one generation.
Hopeless, because it is too expensive.
Unknown Use Cases. Given whatever E cost:
Long-Distance Transport
Hopeless, because today’s reactors are economically uncompetitive against NatGas and clean energy.
Future (small?) reactors could become competitive…maybe
Humanity could sure use more energy solutions.
Fusion plants are economically no different.
If someone solves the clean-energy storage problem, nuclear plants could be obsolete before they even open.
Many other problems, too, but probably solvable
Modest toxicity, clean mining, water reactive.
Anode and cathode make huge difference
Batteries are getting much better every year, soon 3,000 cycles; could perhaps become 100,000 cycles!
Plenty of lithium (e.g., Salton Sea)
price: $1,200/KWh in 2010; $150/KWh in 2020! $75/KWh in 2035?
Many different possible chemistries
Solve the storage cost problem and fossil fuels are done.
Lots of FUD, often surreptitious.
Recycling of turbines is not a problem.
Large area needed is not a problem.
size of Massachusetts?
compare to agriculture (and not competing!)
should be placed close to use and grid
Huge energy transition takes lots of time.
Optimal deployment is slow while costs are coming down.
There will be many short-term delays and hickups
All heat plants that don’t operate 24/7 are very cost inefficient.
Even otherwise cheap NatGas plants.
Tremendous
Time and Location matters
uncertainty (supply and demand);
short-term (which plants to switch on);
long-term (which plants to build where);
how to move E around (transmission).
Balancing Act: Markets and Regulation
It is not enough to decarbonize US! In fact, it’s almost useless.
U.S. | NatGas | Coal | Wind |
---|---|---|---|
Power | 45% | 20% | 10% |
Energy | 40% | 20% | 9% |
U.S. | Nuclear | Hydro | Solar |
---|---|---|---|
Power | 10% | 10% | 5% |
Energy | 20% | 7% | 2% |
Nuke | GeoT | Coal | Gas | |
---|---|---|---|---|
USA | 20% | 1% | 19% | 40% |
World | 10% | 0% | 37% | 24% |
Hydro | Wind | Solar | Other | |
---|---|---|---|---|
USA | 7% | 9% | 2% | 2% |
World | 16% | 5% | 3% | 5% |
Almost all cases: First-order is fixed cost
built or not built
30-year replacement or new needs
Rest (variable cost) is often much lower.
Amazingly, solar PV fixed cost is now getting so cheap that NatGas plants are installing it to save on NatGas!
Within the OECD:
For many years now, really only new Wind and Solar plants have made sense;
will probably continue; explain below why.
Beyond the OECD:
Lots of Coal.
usually near coal mine and near pop centers
already or soon economically obsolete
Tries to take all costs into account.
Projected over lifetime of plant:
disagreement over lifetime → different LCOEs.
If you get it wrong, …
… you may lose a lot of money.
Following are ballpark inflation-adjusted figures, differ by location, regulation, etc.
Type | Today | est 2050 |
---|---|---|
Nuclear | $70 | $60 |
Gas, Always On | $40 | $45+ |
Coal | $75 | $65+ |
Probably have triple the variable costs in 2022, but LCOE is about planning for 30-50 years. Price probably more likely more like 2020 than 2022.
Type | Today | est 2050 |
---|---|---|
Nuclear | $70 | $60 |
Gas, Always On | $40 | $45+ |
Coal | $75 | $65+ |
— | — | — |
Solar Panels, Roof | $100 | $30 |
Solar Panels, Utility | $35 | $15 |
Wind, onshore | $35 | $20 |
Geothermal | $35 |
Type | Today | est 2050 |
---|---|---|
Solar Panels, Utility | $35 | $15 |
Wind, onshore | $35 | $20 |
— | — | — |
Hydro | $55 | |
Gas, Dispatch | $200 |
In sum:
Problem is No Longer Cheap Generation!
Problem Now is Cheap Energy Storage!
Solve it, and wind/solar will take over.
Think $200/MWh
Main Li Problem: wears out after 1,000+ cycles.
see above. If 10,000+ cycles at same price, good-bye fossil fuels for electricity and short transport.
heat is different. think half-price on E.
oversea transport is different.
Coal | NatGas | Nuke | Hydro | |
---|---|---|---|---|
USA | 1,410 | 1,317 | 797 | 249 |
China | 3,860 | 148 | 161 | 1,103 |
World | 9,621 | 5,585 | 2,440 | 3,843 |
Wind | Solar | (Oth) | Total | |
---|---|---|---|---|
USA | 191 | 39 | (2.2%) | 4,092 |
China | 186 | 45 | (1.1%) | 5,562 |
World | 828 | 263 | (2.6%) | 23,171 |
Coal | NatGas | Nuke | Hydro | |
---|---|---|---|---|
USA | 593 | 1,953 | 594 | 294 |
China | 3,556 | 803 | 1,002 | 1,448 |
World | 8,115 | 7,306 | 3,025 | 5,548 |
Wind | Solar | (Oth) | Total | |
---|---|---|---|---|
USA | 790 | 1,071 | (3.0%) | 5,458 |
China | 1,001 | 3,379 | (0.4%) | 11,230 |
World | 6,833 | 10,152 | (2.3%) | 41,953 |
Emissions not primarily a US but global problem
Industrial, Steel, Cement Heat and Inputs
Agriculture: Very tough.
Methane super-emitters (plus many small issues)
Sequestration (Timber! Algae, etc.)
Geoengineering
Lots of good changes, many more modest