ABG: U.S. carbon emissions spike in 2018 after years of falling

[SageBrush]

China's economy is slowing and they are shifting somewhat from a largely manufacturing based economy to a less carbon intense, service based one. A rising middle class will increasingly demand cleaner air there and more renewable sources. The data trends already show this; China is not a lost cause.

China also happens to be the king in VRE, accounting for ~ HALF on the worldwide yearly installations. Trumpers vacillate between proclaiming that AGW is a hoax engineered by China (because they are installing so much VRE) and whining that the US should ignore AGW because of other countries like China (!) that pollute.

Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, is more pathetic than a trumper.

[GRA]

baseload thermal plants typically operate at 70%

You should look at the data for the total fossil fleet.

If you're referring to the fact that non-baseload plants have lower CFs, I know, and some fossil-fuel plants are required to be curtailed due to "must dispatch" regulations for VRE. Here's a decent general online source for U.S. plants (scroll down to "Capacity factors by energy source - United States"): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor

There are also numbers for the UK, for comparison.

[GRA]

So your position from Post #171 is "a"?

We should all be able to come to an agreement on the foundational numbers, then go from there.

For some reason I'm no longer seeing the post numbers, but assuming you're referring to your previous post, yes, which is why I suggested using Smil as a single source, as he provides the numbers and also does many of the calculations so we don't need to repeat them here, and can just argue about what conclusions we draw from them.

[GRA]

One question: Is there nuclear technology that can qualify as "backup" versus baseload? I'm asking about start-stop capabilities versus whether having that type of technology would be cost effective or not.

Don't need "start stop" or load following with sufficient daily storage, which batteries can provide. The nuclear plants could be run in a baseload type way, with shorter than daily variations handled by batteries. The problem is seasonal variability especially in northern locations, and the potential costs of seasonal storage. One possible way of dealing with seasonal variation in northern climates would be nuclear plants that would be mostly operated in winter, when demand is higher and PV production is lower. Hydrogen, flow batteries and other alternatives do exist today, but all would need development before meeting the requirements. Also some imports from warmer places, as the air conditioning load would be reduced in the winter, so they might have excess PV to export north.

Hydrogen currently looks like the best seasonal length store, months of storage. Batteries for as long as a week. Hydrogen doesn't seem to make sense for vehicles, other than perhaps aircraft and rockets.

I'd add we'll also need H2 for most long distance commercial shipping if that's to be 100% ZE, replacing all those marine diesel engines that move all the stuff we buy from Asia to here (assuming that we can only make enough biofuels without large-scale disruption of land use to handle long-range aviation, if that), and also any rail line that doesn't have enough traffic to justify electrification, which is most of them in the U.S. outside the NE corridor and a few other routes. We'll see what happens with H2 for long-haul trucking, but any truck that isn't on the road isn't earning, and once AV trucks arrive I don't see BEVs as viable, barring battery swapping with all the issues of standardization that implies, unless we are willing to accept much slower transit times. We'd also need to eliminate most regional air traffic (say less than 4 or 500 miles) on higher-traffic routes, shifting that to high-speed rail instead, and that requires building dedicated track separate from freight rail lines.

[iPlug]

So your position from Post #171 is "a"?

We should all be able to come to an agreement on the foundational numbers, then go from there.

For some reason I'm no longer seeing the post numbers, but assuming you're referring to your previous post, yes, which is why I suggested using Smil as a single source, as he provides the numbers and also does many of the calculations so we don't need to repeat them here, and can just argue about what conclusions we draw from them.

Apologies, I see now that was my total post number on the forum at the time, not sequential post number for all users in this thread.

Wanted to understand who was on the same page with the core basis numbers (the amount of energy solar would have to produce, at a minimum, if could be produced at exactly the right demand time, even if demand times could be altered somewhat in the future, to offset fossil fuels currently used to generate electricity).

1-2 folks here posited significantly different numbers and that math (or lack thereof) didn't seem to check out.

Understand a few here have significantly different estimates as to the amount of energy that would be required in reality (to account for no sun at night, much less production in the winter, lack of current existing grid infrastructure and storage...). There should be room to debate these later estimates, but not the foundational numbers which are hard figures published by reliable government regulatory agencies.

[GRA]

I expect off-shore wind to take off in the next 10 years despite NIMBY, specifically in the northeast.

Although particularly solar poor there in the winter, off-shore wind is a resource available for them to develop and quite available in the winter. Relatively shallower than the Pacific coast is a plus.

Oh, absolutely. Most of the Eastern seaboard is a tremendous resource.

As for the West coast, there are already good solutions to deep seabeds. I think the most promising I have read about are floating platforms. The main obstacle I have read about off CA is the Military. I expect that to go way once the trumpers are flushed.

While I'm hopeful about the floating platforms, they have essentially no track record as yet, so we just don't know if they'll prove commercially viable, and they're highly unlikely to be less expensive than fixed ones. But out here it's pretty much them or nothing for off-shore wind, as the continental shelf is too narrow most places for extensive deployment, and many of the areas that are shallow enough are around harbor entrances. It's not just the military who has concerns.

[iPlug]

...But out here it's pretty much them or nothing for off-shore wind, as the continental shelf is too narrow most places for extensive deployment, and many of the areas that are shallow enough are around harbor entrances...

The coast off the upper 1/3 of our state has excellent wind harvesting potential.

[GRA]

...But out here it's pretty much them or nothing for off-shore wind, as the continental shelf is too narrow most places for extensive deployment, and many of the areas that are shallow enough are around harbor entrances...

The coast off the upper 1/3 of our state has excellent wind harvesting potential.

Yup, that's the area they're talking about developing with floating platforms, and you'll notice that there are no major shipping harbors around Crescent City and Eureka (the commercial fishermen in those ports are not happy at the prospect). Of course, there's also not much in the way of transmission infrastructure, so aside from getting the power onshore you may also have to build the lines to move it to Portland/Seattle as well as the major urban areas to the south. [Edit] OTOH, I was forgetting that there used to be a Nuke in that area (which closed in 1976, so it's been awhile) and they're also talking about Morro Bay, where they can use the existing transmission lines for Diablo Canyon once that closes. Even ignoring the potential cost of that, if there's one area that Nimbyism is guaranteed to fight to the death, it's transmission lines, and it doesn't matter if the Nimbys are environmentalists or cut it and burn it conservatives - they'll all oppose it, so it will take years of litigation.

[GRA]

Re China, they've cleaned things up a fair amount although they have a long way to go, and India now has the cities with worst urban air pollution (PM 2.5). Like China the only fossil fuel they have in abundance is coal, which is one reason why those two countries are the only ones with extensive nuke development and construction.

[Oilpan4]

I find it ironic that the trump administration approved an over the water wind farm.
As far as I can tell that 400 million dolllar farm project has made it further than any other.
It doesn't seem possible that the nimbys can stop this one, but you never know.
(Aside from the insignificant 30Mw experimental one)
Why couldn't the Obama administration accomplish this. They said they cared about the environment. Or did they just March to the drum beat of the nimby useful idiots and other noisy special interest groups?