Nice article, Michael. The tyranny of geography really puts deep decarbonisation for places like ISO-NE through wind and solar out of reach. A major enabler of greater decarbonisation from wind and solar for the US as a whole is more transmission and greater connectivity between the grids. From what I can tell there is some progress on that but not nearly enough. I totally agree with your framing - the conversation around decarbonisation should be laser focussed on "how do we decommission coal early" rather than "how do we build more wind and solar", which is a proxy for the thing we really care about (obviously decarbonisation itself is a proxy also, but we can leave it at that level). John Arnold is also on this case - https://x.com/JohnArnoldFndtn/status/1752010342786375784?t=0rQ0qhsXk3B3v1MphfvC5w&s=08
I am glad that we can find common ground on "how do we decommission coal early" rather than "how do we build more wind and solar"
I would also add that we need to do so in a way that promotes, or at least does not undermine, long-term economic growth. That is why I favor a strategy of natural gas, nuclear, and hydro. Renewables can play a role in some geographies, but those geographies are the exception.
Batteries will help with the load leveling, on a longer run we need a lot more peak power - far more than the grid demand -- to produce cheap low pressure Hydogen. Batteries have limited energy per weight, preventing their use for long haul flights, let alone military usage. Synfuels will work - and are straightforward to make given low cost Hydrogen. The Hydrogen can be used in fuel cells to make electricity as well - a flow battery if you will to help load level. The other use for Hydrogen, which I have NOT seen discussed, is feeding plants.
I have seen lots of discussion of growing plants under lights in destination areas - yes it avoids transit costs and a lot of pest and processing issues, but it is inefficient as hell -- maybe 20% for the solar cell, hopefully 75% for the light source (probably worse), and probably < 30% for photosynthesis (which is typically a 4 photon cycle, but in some crops can be a 3 photon process). I bet with some genetic engineering plants could absorb hydrogen and oxidize it to generate biomass - with far higher energy efficiencies. Note that there would be some interesting engineering to keep the growing zone from having an explosive atmosphere, but I am sure it could be done. For a ~ 10% energy loss, you could feed the plants Ammonia rather than Hydrogen, which would provide fixed nitrogen as well.
I agree with you, but, no, that does not count. Greens clearly do not want a combination of renewables/gas/hydro.
Your point is well taken, though. It is important to note that it varies greatly by geography. Most regions do not have reliable solar or wind energy sources to tap (at least not without a radical technological innovation which is possible)
Great data on the underlying potential power sources and the issues with all of them in the USA. Regarding nuclear, it’s not going to happen. The time delays and costs (especially cost overruns) are prohibitive. Further, we have not addressed the long term waste storage issues after spending tens of billions of dollars. We will be very fortunate to even maintain the current nuclear power output given the number of plants where operating licenses will be expiring over the next 20 years, including for example the Palo Verde complex outside Phoenix where I live, the largest nuclear power production site currently operating in the USA. Realistically, we will need to add more renewable energy, but keep necessary fossil fuel plants to provide power when renewables are not available, unless and until large scale battery storage is feasible and economical. In any event, what matters most is what happens in China, India and the developing world as those countries are the biggest consumers of fossil fuels, especially coal, and their energy demands are growing rapidly.
I agree with you that I do not see a major expansion of nuclear power in the near future because of cost and construction delays. It is going to take a major overhaul of regulatory rules and perhaps buying in bulk from South Korea, which has both low-cost nuclear and a shipping industry to ship them throughout the world.
I agree with you 100% about Asia, and I covered that in this recent article:
Nice article, Michael. The tyranny of geography really puts deep decarbonisation for places like ISO-NE through wind and solar out of reach. A major enabler of greater decarbonisation from wind and solar for the US as a whole is more transmission and greater connectivity between the grids. From what I can tell there is some progress on that but not nearly enough. I totally agree with your framing - the conversation around decarbonisation should be laser focussed on "how do we decommission coal early" rather than "how do we build more wind and solar", which is a proxy for the thing we really care about (obviously decarbonisation itself is a proxy also, but we can leave it at that level). John Arnold is also on this case - https://x.com/JohnArnoldFndtn/status/1752010342786375784?t=0rQ0qhsXk3B3v1MphfvC5w&s=08
Thanks for the comment, Bela.
I am glad that we can find common ground on "how do we decommission coal early" rather than "how do we build more wind and solar"
I would also add that we need to do so in a way that promotes, or at least does not undermine, long-term economic growth. That is why I favor a strategy of natural gas, nuclear, and hydro. Renewables can play a role in some geographies, but those geographies are the exception.
Batteries will help with the load leveling, on a longer run we need a lot more peak power - far more than the grid demand -- to produce cheap low pressure Hydogen. Batteries have limited energy per weight, preventing their use for long haul flights, let alone military usage. Synfuels will work - and are straightforward to make given low cost Hydrogen. The Hydrogen can be used in fuel cells to make electricity as well - a flow battery if you will to help load level. The other use for Hydrogen, which I have NOT seen discussed, is feeding plants.
I have seen lots of discussion of growing plants under lights in destination areas - yes it avoids transit costs and a lot of pest and processing issues, but it is inefficient as hell -- maybe 20% for the solar cell, hopefully 75% for the light source (probably worse), and probably < 30% for photosynthesis (which is typically a 4 photon cycle, but in some crops can be a 3 photon process). I bet with some genetic engineering plants could absorb hydrogen and oxidize it to generate biomass - with far higher energy efficiencies. Note that there would be some interesting engineering to keep the growing zone from having an explosive atmosphere, but I am sure it could be done. For a ~ 10% energy loss, you could feed the plants Ammonia rather than Hydrogen, which would provide fixed nitrogen as well.
To your challenge, I would respond that renewables can easily displace coal if combined with gas and where possible hydro dams. Does that count?
Thanks for the comment
I agree with you, but, no, that does not count. Greens clearly do not want a combination of renewables/gas/hydro.
Your point is well taken, though. It is important to note that it varies greatly by geography. Most regions do not have reliable solar or wind energy sources to tap (at least not without a radical technological innovation which is possible)
Great data on the underlying potential power sources and the issues with all of them in the USA. Regarding nuclear, it’s not going to happen. The time delays and costs (especially cost overruns) are prohibitive. Further, we have not addressed the long term waste storage issues after spending tens of billions of dollars. We will be very fortunate to even maintain the current nuclear power output given the number of plants where operating licenses will be expiring over the next 20 years, including for example the Palo Verde complex outside Phoenix where I live, the largest nuclear power production site currently operating in the USA. Realistically, we will need to add more renewable energy, but keep necessary fossil fuel plants to provide power when renewables are not available, unless and until large scale battery storage is feasible and economical. In any event, what matters most is what happens in China, India and the developing world as those countries are the biggest consumers of fossil fuels, especially coal, and their energy demands are growing rapidly.
Thanks for the comment.
I agree with you that I do not see a major expansion of nuclear power in the near future because of cost and construction delays. It is going to take a major overhaul of regulatory rules and perhaps buying in bulk from South Korea, which has both low-cost nuclear and a shipping industry to ship them throughout the world.
I agree with you 100% about Asia, and I covered that in this recent article:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-greens-should-stop-focusing-on