Deep dive into the Great Global Energy Transition

[woodgeek]

Agreed BG. I guess my comment is that that longest journey starts with the first step.

All the movement in the latest IRA bill and California ICE ban and Mass climate bills is just a start. It is just as far as we can see in the crystal ball. As big as some of the changes and projections for EVs and solar are... they are just the first big step.

We will not be 100% EVs on the road in 2032... the projection says we might be a bit over 50% of new cars, and a bit under 50% of used cars, and maybe 20-25% of cars on the road.

Similarly, if we build out an amazing 700 GW of new solar as projected over the next 8-10 years, that is not a plan for some pie in the sky '100% renewable' grid (with all its diurnal and seasonal storage issues), it just gets solar up to the level nukes or coal have today (about 20% of energy). Or where solar is in California today. Even if US wind went from 10% (today) to 20% of energy at the same time.... the grid would still be 30-40% fossil fired.

The transition, as in the OP of this necro-thread, will be SLOW. We don't what twists and turns it will take along the way, or when we will get to the end. And all the recent policy moves being discussed are just the START of that slow ramp.

 

[EbS-P]

If the last year has taught us anything it’s that external and unplanned factors could hasten the change, or I just stop it in tire tracks. Anyone care to speculate what happens if China invades Taiwan? Will we do more than just sell out stockpiles of weapons? What would need to be built and how quit and at what cost if it escalated into American boots on the ground? Green house gas emissions will take a back seat and rightly so to WWiii.

The IRA and other legislative actions are the first steps. Without some bipartisan support on some aspect of climate change we will just keep crawling along. I’m not even sure what the compromise the left could offer the right at this point.

A year later I feel like I should really be celebrating the IRA. I was almost certain nothing would get passed. But I’m only less pessimistic. Show me how Texas and Florida use there IRA money well and I’ll raise my weekly glass of scotch to a job well done. It sure feels Ike the ACA was a bigger victory to me. I don’t realistically think that.

 

[woodgeek]

A year later I feel like I should really be celebrating the IRA. I was almost certain nothing would get passed. But I’m only less pessimistic. Show me how Texas and Florida use there IRA money well and I’ll raise my weekly glass of scotch to a job well done. It sure feels Ike the ACA was a bigger victory to me. I don’t realistically think that.

Well said. The thing is that the 'change' is happening organically without public policy in the US, and around the world. Right now, the US is not leading the world on EVs or solar, nor will we be if the post-IRA projections manifest.

What I am excited about is a change in _thinking_. Since Carter and his cardigan, the idea of an energy crisis and environmentalism has been about doing more with LESS. People shaming themselves or others for usage. The **potential** of a scaled renewable energy system (with some sort of storage) is to break that connection. The emphasis on renewable energy is not on the low-carbon... its on the sustainable part. Go ahead.. use the energy! It won't break the climate, or take energy from a poor person in India or Africa or your great grand-children.

We can quibble here about the price of kWh in 2030 or a gallon of gas in 2040... but my point is that a whole chit-ton of brand new, cheap, low carbon sustainable energy is gonna get injected into the global energy system over the next 10 or 20 years. And that could bring us back something that we used to have decades ago... the simple enjoyment of using lots of energy for our needs and wants. Without guilt from within, or from the sneers from others. Energy could become apolitical again.

Stated still another way... at this point SOLAR and WIND power are POPULAR with folks on both sides of the political spectrum. Something like 70% or people last time I checked, which as I like to say is up there with rainbows and puppies in approval factor. Where we tend to disagree (aligned with politics) is about why we're doing it, or whether it will work, or whether it is being done correctly. When these things are actually being done at (greater than now) scale... and the sky isn't falling, and our bills are affordable... what will we bicker about then? OR will we just look at it and say we did good?

 

[Ashful]

When I did this in 2008-2010, all the contractors thought I was crazy, all this 'oil/hydronic heat is the best' and 'you'll regret it and go back' BS.

I've received similar comments and odd looks for suggesting the addition of an ASHP water heater to my too-warm boiler room. Even the HVAC guy, who has no stock in oil, looked at my oil-fired system and told me "your system is exactly what I'd put in my own house, if I could afford it." Those were the words of a guy who installs and maintains ASHP's for a living!

Without Nuclear power (which there is very little public support for here)...

There are historical reasons for this, which unfortunately paint nuclear energy in a very bad light, due to safety issues created more by finance and politics than actual engineering limitations.

To condense a very long story as much as possible, the nuclear power plants we have operating in the US today are not the safest option available for land-based nuclear power plants. In fact, they weren't even one of the better options in the 1960's / 70's, when most of these plants were conceived and funded.

There were several good options for nuclear power plants conceived in the 1950's, but those most conducive to Naval applications received the most funding and R&D, with a desire to build nuclear subs and carriers. So, these types of reactors were the first ready for evaluation and approval by the various nuclear regulatory agencies being formed at the time.

On their heels, industry and utility companies wanting to move into nuclear power generation for domestic use, found that adapting these Naval designs to land-based power plants was the only feasible option, rather than individual companies funding new R&D into likely-better designs, and then trying to overcome the utterly-crippling costs of seeking approval for completely new designs.

Many US companies have actually conceived, designed, and built much better and safer power plants than those we have operating in the USA today. But due to regulatory obstacles, they cannot afford to deploy them here. Some of these US-based companies have been building these safer and more efficient nuclear plants in other countries, where there is less history and there are lower costs associated with receiving approval.

PBS NOVA actually did an excellent special on this subject, several years ago. I just Googled it, and came up with the following hit, but I'm not sure if it's the one I remember. I actually thought I had seen it before 2017.

The Nuclear Option

How will we power the planet without wrecking the climate?

www.pbs.org

 

[sloeffle]

I was trying think of where to post this article. Here seems to really be best. My biggest take away is that true national energy independence is over. It’s a good read covering multiple aspects. I’m wondering what are big has changes in 15 months.

Europe's Energy Crisis Will Be Short-Lived & Reap Benefits - CleanTechnica

Anytime anyone uses the term 'energy independence', correct them to 'strategic energy interdependence'.

cleantechnica.com

That's a great article. I never knew about the nuclear issues that are going on in France.

 

[EbS-P]

That's a great article. I never knew about the nuclear issues that are going on in France.

Regular maintenance are refueling. Timing sucks. But with that many factors of similar design it will get done on time and probably on budget.

 

[begreen]

Regular maintenance are refueling. Timing sucks. But with that many factors of similar design it will get done on time and probably on budget.

More on that topic in this interesting article:

Europe's Energy Crisis Will Be Short-Lived & Reap Benefits - CleanTechnica

Anytime anyone uses the term 'energy independence', correct them to 'strategic energy interdependence'.

cleantechnica.com

Meanwhile, China has announced that they have found extractable Helium-3 in the moon rock samples they brought back. Helium-3 is very rare on earth. You can bet their long-term goals will be to mine this source and bring it back for fusion reactors somewhere down the road.

China plans moon mining to ‘power Earth for 10,000 years' | Taiwan News | Nov. 9, 2021 14:46

www.taiwannews.com.tw

 

[stoveliker]

I'm not sure He3 mining is feasible without humans present. The (to be closed) seals have to be more than perfect.

I've worked with helium -3 and it's easy to mess it up.

The price is very high though, so that offers room. I'm not sure it's enough though. $140 million per 100 kg. (And that is a lot of gas. Not sure it can be cooled on the moon to liquefy it...)

But what is the price of a rocket launch?

Same order of magnitude I think.

And the price of the helium will go down if a decent supply is mined out there whereas the price of launches (to the moon and back!) is not likely to get halved.

 

[peakbagger]

Helium 3 is a McGuffin in popular press. Yes it could be worth billions (or trillions) but its ultimately dependent on fusion technology that is about 20 years down the road and has been that way for forty years. My guess is that it is a good employment project for post docs and probably spinning off derivative tech but as for actual power generation the money spent to date would probably have been better spent on far more practical renewable power. I think the fossil industry ignored fusion funding for decades as they bet that it diverted funding from more near time fossil replacements.

BTW, the current nuclear power plants process was designed to be quite fuel inefficient on purpose. The military needed a source of weapons grade plutonium and that spent nuclear fuel is a source for it. There were more efficient cycles, like thorium based but they didnt produce waste that could be turned into weapons as easily.

 

[begreen]

I'm not sure He3 mining is feasible without humans present. The (to be closed) seals have to be more than perfect.

I've worked with helium -3 and it's easy to mess it up.

The price is very high though, so that offers room. I'm not sure it's enough though. $140 million per 100 kg. (And that is a lot of gas. Not sure it can be cooled on the moon to liquefy it...)

But what is the price of a rocket launch?

Same order of magnitude I think.

And the price of the helium will go down if a decent supply is mined out there whereas the price of launches (to the moon and back!) is not likely to get halved.

Reasonable questions, and perhaps the moon has more to offer where the He3 is a side benefit. My understanding is that the He3 is encapsulated within a crystalline rock structure. Mining should be much more straightforward than on earth in that regard. And I think the Chinese fully intend to have humans on the moon.

There were more efficient cycles, like thorium based but they didnt produce waste that could be turned into weapons as easily.

Yup.

 

[stoveliker]

Reasonable questions, and perhaps the moon has more to offer where the He3 is a side benefit. My understanding is that the He3 is encapsulated within a crystalline rock structure.

But moving rock through space is reaaaally expensive. The helium has to come out of the rock on the moon to make it worth it.

 

[woodgeek]

Yeah, I'm not putting a lot of hopes on He-3, LOL. Need to have at least paper designs for fusion reactors that are cost effective.... and I have never seen one of those.

As for fission... the existing fuel cycle is the way it is bc it is designed to minimize spent fuel reprocessing. IF (big IF) you can do reprocessing, then a whole raft of stuff gets possible like breeders and thorium and exotic stuff. But that reprocessing step... its really bad news. Attempts to do it at model breeders have been super expensive, not really scalable and accident prone.

The funny thing is that 'simple' pass through reactors are already very expensive to build and operate (compared to other sources). And then people like to talk about how breeders and thorium will be soooo much cheaper. And then invent all kinds of narratives about why we never built them... like the car the runs on water or the lightbulb that never burns out!

Simple nuclear is expensive (and not very scalable above current levels bc of fueling concerns) and then breeders that get around the fuel problem... they are far more expensive still.

IOW, a safe legacy nuke is a nice thing to have while we are developing storage and long-distance HVDC lines... but a fleet of new nukes (simple/breeder/whatever) is not a solution. Sorry guys!

 

[EbS-P]

Yeah, I'm not putting a lot of hopes on He-3, LOL. Need to have at least paper designs for fusion reactors that are cost effective.... and I have never seen one of those.

As for fission... the existing fuel cycle is the way it is bc it is designed to minimize spent fuel reprocessing. IF (big IF) you can do reprocessing, then a whole raft of stuff gets possible like breeders and thorium and exotic stuff. But that reprocessing step... its really bad news. Attempts to do it at model breeders have been super expensive, not really scalable and accident prone.

The funny thing is that 'simple' pass through reactors are already very expensive to build and operate (compared to other sources). And then people like to talk about how breeders and thorium will be soooo much cheaper. And then invent all kinds of narratives about why we never built them... like the car the runs on water or the lightbulb that never burns out!

Simple nuclear is expensive (and not very scalable above current levels bc of fueling concerns) and then breeders that get around the fuel problem... they are far more expensive still.

IOW, a safe legacy nuke is a nice thing to have while we are developing storage and long-distance HVDC lines... but a fleet of new nukes (simple/breeder/whatever) is not a solution. Sorry guys!

How about the small modular reactors? I have not looked into costs at all.

 

[woodgeek]

How about the small modular reactors? I have not looked into costs at all.

I haven't either tbh. But usually with engineering, making things bigger makes them cheaper, but OTOH, the optimum size might be that of a modular. Dunno.

The folks that DO know will be private investors. IIRC, the latest modular proposals were not getting a lot of investor attention.

 

[stoveliker]

I think modular reactors will be more likely (initially, or only) in places like remote heavy energy users. E.g. (remote) national labs (e.g. with supercomputers - known energy hogs), where they also have an interest in studying their performance, their interaction with the grid, etc.

 

[Ashful]

I have nothing to add, other than to be continuously impressed with the depth and breadth of woodgeek's knowledge. I don't know where you find the time, or the spare memory cells, but you are a true asset to this forum.

 

[EbS-P]

I have nothing to add, other than to be continuously impressed with the depth and breadth of woodgeek's knowledge. I don't know where you find the time, or the spare memory cells, but you are a true asset to this forum.

Have often thought that I’d we spent 1/10 of the time we spend consuming sports and instead read something to learn some new, society would be in a much different place.

 

[ABMax24]

Modular is definitely the way to go. We've went that way with most items for oil and gas construction. Well pads are being built with typical skid assemblies. The wellhead will have a typical skid, so will the piperacks, and dilutant modules, etc. Initial design is more complicated, and (thankfully) forces engineers to actually think about the design, construction, operations, and maintanance personal working on the equipment.

 

[EbS-P]

Predicting US natural gas prices hit 9$ per MBTUs by 22/23 time frame. More supporting evidence that the gas will go the way of oil with a single global pricing solution in the future.

 

[woodgeek]

Predicting US natural gas prices hit 9$ per MBTUs by 22/23 time frame. More supporting evidence that the gas will go the way of oil with a single global pricing solution in the future.

Not sure I follow. Transport is a big issue for nat gas relative to oil. Means different markets have different prices.

 

[stoveliker]

The issue is the availability of transport equipment. Natural gas is 55 MJ/kg, and crude is 44 MJ/kg. Liquifying natural gas and transporting it therefore makes economic sense. If enough ships and terminals are available, it could even out prices just like oil.

So it depends on whether enough infrastructure (terminals and ships) are built or not. This surely won't happen in 2023.

 

[ABMax24]

Oil is simple; pumps, tanks, pipes, and hoses and you have a delivery system.

Natural gas must be moved long distances by pipeline, it must be compressed and cooled to cryogenic temperatures at a terminal, before being loaded onto a ship to transport it. That ship must have insulated pressure vessels and either a method to keep the liquid cool, or a venting system to allow evaporative cooling to keep the liquid cool.

There is currently an LNG terminal being built on the west coast of BC in Kitimat, it is a $40 billion (yes with a B) project that will produce 6.5 million tons per year of LNG. Or the equivalent of about 115,000 barrels per day. A small drop in the bucket of global demand, and an immense cost for just the liquefaction terminal. LNG will help to level global prices, but it won't ever make them as equal as oil tankers have the price of oil.

I've worked with LNG equipment on more than a few occasions, it's a fickle product, and cryogenic liquids find leaks in heat exchangers and evaporators that will never be found at normal temperatures. I've spent days troubleshooting minute leaks that not even helium could escape from. Oil is easy, when it puddles on the ground you have a leak, and the source will be directly above the puddle.

 

[Ashful]

Oil is easy, when it puddles on the ground you have a leak, and the source will be directly above the puddle.

Good post, and good points about CTE-driven leaks.

But I wish roofing systems were this simple. Anyone who's ever chased a leak in a roof may already know that the leak in the roof could be half way across the house, from the wet spot on your ceiling. Water can chase purlins and rafters in unintuitive ways, as I suspect oil can down the structural components surrounding a tank.

 

[ABMax24]

Good post, and good points about CTE-driven leaks.

But I wish roofing systems were this simple. Anyone who's ever chased a leak in a roof may already know that the leak in the roof could be half way across the house, from the wet spot on your ceiling. Water can chase purlins and rafters in unintuitive ways, as I suspect oil can down the structural components surrounding a tank.

Generally piping isn't enclosed, it's almost always free and open. Makes oil leaks pretty easy to find in most cases.

Fugitive methane emissions are a big target around here right now. For the last 50 years small chemical injection pumps have typically been powered by fuel gas, not using combustion, but like a normal pneumatic powered pump that vents the compressed air once the job is done, except with these there using natural gas which is mostly methane and that's what is vented. There are now substantial government grants to replace the fuel gas with compressed air, one of our clients has been doing this a lot, a couple months ago I installed 3 50 gallon electric drive air compressors on a wellpad to replace fuel gas in such pumps.

Tanks are similar most have commonly been vented to atmosphere, which always includes hydrocarbons such as methane. Now new facilities are built with VRUs (vapor recovery units, essentially a low suction pressure compressor) that keep the pressure in the tanks at a couple in of WC and capture these vapors and feed them back into the process. Older plants are being retrofitted with these systems too.

 

[sloeffle]

I'm assuming this is being done because methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 ? Now if I could just tell my cows to stop belching.