Prof Jenkins presents a very detailed engineering analysis on what is needed to achieve 100% fossil fuel free energy. He finds that wind, solar, and nuclear are all going to be needed if we are to succeed.
It is basically what the IPCC has suggested for years now. Only it keeps being twisted by environmentalist groups into "100% renewables" when actually, BECCS, nuclear, big hydro and VRE all have a role to play. If there is something that is alarming it is that BECCS has yet to materialise. That is a _big_ chunk of sequestration that is completely missing from real life deployment. Molten Salt supertorrefaction could be that technology, but it has seen little exposure outside of Taiwan and Taiwan itself is hopelessly addicted to coal. ua-cam.com/video/xx2LLCuxdH4/v-deo.html But should it become more widely deployed, we could finally see BECCS - which is arguably one of the most important "slices" of mitigation - become a reality.
Thank you for sharing your insights on getting to zero. I still think it makes sense to 'getting to zero' in a more timely fashion, also means getting to one or unity power factor to maximize the efficiency regardless of ingredients. It is like going from a unbalanced 12 inch plate to balanced 9 inch plate.
The UAE is building 4 reactors that'll cover about a third of their energy needs for about $3.75/W with South Korean help, so it's hardly an intrinsic problem of the technology, more a structural problem with how the US does things. Also keep in mind the power plants last a really long time, by the time they decommission the equivalent solar or wind generation would have needed to be replaced two or three times over.
@@coreymicallef365 Turns out that if you follow Western safety and labor standards it's a bit more expensive. Are you suggesting we cut corners so we can have cheap nuclear power? The Russians tried that... didn't work out so well. www.energyandpolicy.org/price-tag-for-plant-vogtle-jumps-higher-total-project-now-at-27-3-billion/
@@Chris-ie9os Western nuclear power safety standards are paranoid, based on LNT and the hysterical imperialist hypocrisy of nuclear anti-proliferation. A rational assessment of the risks, and consideration of total economic impact, would give us nuclear power more economical than hydroelectric in any location where a dam is not desirable, or the river does not have high, steep banks and plenty of water.
@@coreymicallef365 a structural problem like paying liable wages? UAE is notorious for near-slave labour conditions for manual workers. LCoE takes all capital costs, including decommissioning costs - into account over any given period of time. Wind and solar are less than a quarter of the LCoE of nuclear most places in the world. Read the Bloomberg LCoE reports the come out every year for yourself.
@@bashful228 structural problems as in lacking an experienced nuclear qualified construction industry, the project management experience in developing singular projects on that scale and an established manufacturing base for a lot of the specialised components that are needed for building nuclear power plants. That's most of what the South Koreans provided the Emirates. The sort of ultra low skilled effectively slave labourers you're referring to are incapable of meaningfully contributing to any part of a nuclear construction project because practically every job needs a skilled worker to complete (even just pouring the concrete requires higher than normal training to get the additional strength required out of it to be fit for purpose).
there are so many shell and pea tricks going on here with this modelling it’s hard to know where to start explaining all the mathematical and logical tricks he is using to reach very dubious conclusions. all modelling is suspect to manipulation of assumptions. and this guy is a master manipulator. so before i get started debunking his conclusions consider what Jenkins is saying, beyond 20-30% of mix solar PV has “no” market value at all. similar for wind. and yet in South Australia, coal is departed at (~40% RE) and gas is being eroded as the market operator stops curtailing so much wind and the hornsdale battery eats the FCAS market. and what has happened to wholesale energy prices on the thin SA node of the Australian NEM? They’ve gone down in comparison to every other state. that’s what. soon they will be at 75% with cheaper power prices and according to this master of knowledge manipulation that defies the laws of physics and economics. another point to consider is that if the market doesn’t reward cheap and very low emissions capacity, only flexibility then what is wrong ruth the market. nationalising the markets should be considered if the market reformers can get it right. decarbonising is not choice, it’s a necessity. NY State has legislated it with ambitious targets and eschewing the use of dubious “carbon offsetting” mechanisms and products. (often of suspect provenance). so either reality is right or Jesse Jenkins’s modelling. which do you think has erred? i know a fair bit about modeling so i can see his slight of hands. like a magician it’s invisible to ordinary people. in future comments i will explains. how he does it. but why does he do it? does he really want to destroy the small chance we have of preventing catastrophic climate change? or does he take money from those who are opposed to climate action? or is he just carving out a Bjorn Lomborg type fortune in counter-narrative?
I imagine that Dr. Jenkins is reeling from your articulate and coherent attack on his views, and that Harvard University is carefully reconsidering its decision to hire him.
Until you let us "ordinary people" know what your "fair bit of modelling knowledge" revealed to you while being invisible to us, you sound like just another crackpot youtube commenter.
South Australia had the highest energy prices in the world in 2017 before Hornsdale started participating in FCAS, so they had a pretty easy job bringing prices down. South Australia still had the highest prices in Australia through 2021. In January 2022, prices there spiked to $5 per kWh, when normally they are 40c. Sometimes prices fall negative because the renewables are overgenerating and they are paying people to increase demand or else the grid will be damaged and suffer blackouts, but negative spot prices are not good in the long term: it reflects difficulty for generators to make a predictable income, which leads to generators dropping out, less supply, higher prices. The rest of the world wants cheap energy, which South Australia does not have. Nowhere in Australia has cheap energy.
@@TheMrEarbrass an appeal to authority is it? I raise you Mark Jackobsens 2021 modelling including sectorial coupling with heat and cool storage for every single state in USA covering not just current grid demand, but electrifying everything and covering that demand for every 30 second dispatch period in three years of weather data, oh and bound with a climate model to get the changing PV and wind outputs year by year.
@@xfreeman86 I can't paste them here, but I have graphs that compare the SA wholesale average price over time with the other states on the NEM. It is unequivocal truth that SA wholesale price has gone from highest to in the low end of the pack. you say price peaked at $5 ?! prices peak at the limit $14500 in all states in Australia from time to time. It wasn't the Hornsdale battery that reduced the wholesale prices in SA so much as having ~58% RE over the year being dispatched. Yes, Hornsdale and now other batteries are able to play the FCAS market and reduce that cost from expensive gas speaker use too. Comparing Australian or SA energy prices with the rest of the world is a bit disingenuous because SA is one of the most spread out grids per MWh of dispatched energy in the world. Same for the other states in SA but a few of them have much bigger capital cities, i.e; VIC, NSW, QLD, ACT. In a carbon constrained world Australia will become a cheap energy country because we have excellent RE resources. In the past cheap coal provided relatively low energy price, Australia is (unfortunately) the largest exporter of coal and LNG in the world.
Prof Jenkins presents a very detailed engineering analysis on what is needed to achieve 100% fossil fuel free energy. He finds that wind, solar, and nuclear are all going to be needed if we are to succeed.
It is basically what the IPCC has suggested for years now. Only it keeps being twisted by environmentalist groups into "100% renewables" when actually, BECCS, nuclear, big hydro and VRE all have a role to play.
If there is something that is alarming it is that BECCS has yet to materialise. That is a _big_ chunk of sequestration that is completely missing from real life deployment. Molten Salt supertorrefaction could be that technology, but it has seen little exposure outside of Taiwan and Taiwan itself is hopelessly addicted to coal.
ua-cam.com/video/xx2LLCuxdH4/v-deo.html
But should it become more widely deployed, we could finally see BECCS - which is arguably one of the most important "slices" of mitigation - become a reality.
he’s got it badly wrong. see my other comments.
Very good
Thank you for sharing your insights on getting to zero. I still think it makes sense to 'getting to zero' in a more timely fashion, also means getting to one or unity power factor to maximize the efficiency regardless of ingredients. It is like going from a unbalanced 12 inch plate to balanced 9 inch plate.
If we could build nuclear for $6/w I would support it... just not at >$10/w. Vogtle is closing in on $15/w :(
The UAE is building 4 reactors that'll cover about a third of their energy needs for about $3.75/W with South Korean help, so it's hardly an intrinsic problem of the technology, more a structural problem with how the US does things. Also keep in mind the power plants last a really long time, by the time they decommission the equivalent solar or wind generation would have needed to be replaced two or three times over.
@@coreymicallef365 Turns out that if you follow Western safety and labor standards it's a bit more expensive. Are you suggesting we cut corners so we can have cheap nuclear power? The Russians tried that... didn't work out so well. www.energyandpolicy.org/price-tag-for-plant-vogtle-jumps-higher-total-project-now-at-27-3-billion/
@@Chris-ie9os Western nuclear power safety standards are paranoid, based on LNT and the hysterical imperialist hypocrisy of nuclear anti-proliferation. A rational assessment of the risks, and consideration of total economic impact, would give us nuclear power more economical than hydroelectric in any location where a dam is not desirable, or the river does not have high, steep banks and plenty of water.
@@coreymicallef365 a structural problem like paying liable wages? UAE is notorious for near-slave labour conditions for manual workers. LCoE takes all capital costs, including decommissioning costs - into account over any given period of time. Wind and solar are less than a quarter of the LCoE of nuclear most places in the world. Read the Bloomberg LCoE reports the come out every year for yourself.
@@bashful228 structural problems as in lacking an experienced nuclear qualified construction industry, the project management experience in developing singular projects on that scale and an established manufacturing base for a lot of the specialised components that are needed for building nuclear power plants. That's most of what the South Koreans provided the Emirates.
The sort of ultra low skilled effectively slave labourers you're referring to are incapable of meaningfully contributing to any part of a nuclear construction project because practically every job needs a skilled worker to complete (even just pouring the concrete requires higher than normal training to get the additional strength required out of it to be fit for purpose).
there are so many shell and pea tricks going on here with this modelling it’s hard to know where to start explaining all the mathematical and logical tricks he is using to reach very dubious conclusions. all modelling is suspect to manipulation of assumptions. and this guy is a master manipulator.
so before i get started debunking his conclusions consider what Jenkins is saying, beyond 20-30% of mix solar PV has “no” market value at all. similar for wind. and yet in South Australia, coal is departed at (~40% RE) and gas is being eroded as the market operator stops curtailing so much wind and the hornsdale battery eats the FCAS market. and what has happened to wholesale energy prices on the thin SA node of the Australian NEM? They’ve gone down in comparison to every other state. that’s what. soon they will be at 75% with cheaper power prices and according to this master of knowledge manipulation that defies the laws of physics and economics.
another point to consider is that if the market doesn’t reward cheap and very low emissions capacity, only flexibility then what is wrong ruth the market. nationalising the markets should be considered if the market reformers can get it right. decarbonising is not choice, it’s a necessity. NY State has legislated it with ambitious targets and eschewing the use of dubious “carbon offsetting” mechanisms and products. (often of suspect provenance).
so either reality is right or Jesse Jenkins’s modelling. which do you think has erred? i know a fair bit about modeling so i can see his slight of hands. like a magician it’s invisible to ordinary people. in future comments i will explains. how he does it. but why does he do it? does he really want to destroy the small chance we have of preventing catastrophic climate change? or does he take money from those who are opposed to climate action? or is he just carving out a Bjorn Lomborg type fortune in counter-narrative?
I imagine that Dr. Jenkins is reeling from your articulate and coherent attack on his views, and that Harvard University is carefully reconsidering its decision to hire him.
Until you let us "ordinary people" know what your "fair bit of modelling knowledge" revealed to you while being invisible to us, you sound like just another crackpot youtube commenter.
South Australia had the highest energy prices in the world in 2017 before Hornsdale started participating in FCAS, so they had a pretty easy job bringing prices down. South Australia still had the highest prices in Australia through 2021. In January 2022, prices there spiked to $5 per kWh, when normally they are 40c. Sometimes prices fall negative because the renewables are overgenerating and they are paying people to increase demand or else the grid will be damaged and suffer blackouts, but negative spot prices are not good in the long term: it reflects difficulty for generators to make a predictable income, which leads to generators dropping out, less supply, higher prices.
The rest of the world wants cheap energy, which South Australia does not have. Nowhere in Australia has cheap energy.
@@TheMrEarbrass an appeal to authority is it? I raise you Mark Jackobsens 2021 modelling including sectorial coupling with heat and cool storage for every single state in USA covering not just current grid demand, but electrifying everything and covering that demand for every 30 second dispatch period in three years of weather data, oh and bound with a climate model to get the changing PV and wind outputs year by year.
@@xfreeman86 I can't paste them here, but I have graphs that compare the SA wholesale average price over time with the other states on the NEM. It is unequivocal truth that SA wholesale price has gone from highest to in the low end of the pack.
you say price peaked at $5 ?! prices peak at the limit $14500 in all states in Australia from time to time.
It wasn't the Hornsdale battery that reduced the wholesale prices in SA so much as having ~58% RE over the year being dispatched. Yes, Hornsdale and now other batteries are able to play the FCAS market and reduce that cost from expensive gas speaker use too.
Comparing Australian or SA energy prices with the rest of the world is a bit disingenuous because SA is one of the most spread out grids per MWh of dispatched energy in the world. Same for the other states in SA but a few of them have much bigger capital cities, i.e; VIC, NSW, QLD, ACT.
In a carbon constrained world Australia will become a cheap energy country because we have excellent RE resources. In the past cheap coal provided relatively low energy price, Australia is (unfortunately) the largest exporter of coal and LNG in the world.