How do these elected leaders get it so wrong? They have access to plenty of money and the best minds that money can buy. These effects can be spreadsheeted and modeled.
David's recent column was about the difficulties of forecasting. I don't discount those difficulties. But here we're talking about physical systems. If 3,000 MW of nuclear power is turned off, where is the generation to make it up going to come from?
I suspect these people all have college degrees - many of them advanced degrees - but they've never had to put pencil to paper and balance a checkbook. They have a deep-abiding faith, if the government throws money at it, any problem can be solved. (When has that happened since the moon landing?)
When they're wrong, as they inevitably are, we're the ones who suffer.
Probably as many reasons as there are elected leaders. My guess is that for many they have messianic complexes - rising above politics and "saving the planet"... To help them on the way there are plenty of Gurus who use spreadsheets and models to "prove" that 100% renewables is not just possible, but right around the corner (how many times have you heard "it just needs the political will"?) I wrote about these false prophets here. https://pandreco.substack.com/p/never-mind-the-bllcks-heres-the-merchants
With the damage being done, you do have to wonder if they are "useful idiots" or actually foreign agents... If you wrote a fictional account of Germany's last 30 years, the great denouement at the end would be the unmasking of merkle as a Russian agent :-) In reality, it is farm more mundane - people want to believe we can have greener, cleaner and cheaper. Gurus line up to "prove" it is possible (for a fee) and the public adore it (until they have to pay for it). It was an easy vote winner - here's to hoping the Overton Window is shifting fast.
and of course some are ex-drama teachers - no advanced degrees in the hard sciences there...
Yes, they probably all have college degrees. That's the problem! Just look at what colleges are teachings nowadays. It takes a PhD to misunderstand common sense things.
Well written and well explained. I can offer two suggestions for further reading if you wish:
a) The following link is for recent Brattle report (written by and for lawyers, more or less I think) that gives a fairly good overview of NERC reliability standards and metrics for the Bulk Power System (BPS), the appendices are especially useful. I personally believe they are over optimistic about timelines, but they discuss how NERC is trying to adapt to more VRE and maintain reliability levels.
b) For readers who heard of LCOE, and swear by it, and its claims that VRE is cheaper, as you point out, its all false, but there are growing numbers of energy engineers, thinkers and analysts trying to develop methods to analyze Total System Cost as a metric to replace LCOE. There are things like LACE, VALCOE and many others. If your readers are not aware of these initiatives, they can do some searching and do some learning.
Thank you for writing this. An outstanding synopsis of the consequences of forcing renewables onto the Grid. Just off the top of my head I can think of three other large providers of reliable and Dispatchable Bulk Power. The 1,300 MW Zimmer coal plant (with full FGD and SCR equipment), Three Mile Island and Palisades Nuclear plant. I am fearful that our country is going to Finnish the job of self sabotaging our energy and our Bulk Power Supply if the politicians do not wake up. I live in the conservative (thought to be conservative) state of South Carolina. Both SC and NC had legislation to shut down coal plants and favor solar and wind. It is nuts. One example I wrote about, is Hawaii. They adopted the Green New Deal early and shut down their one coal plant. Leaving them to prove as a full scale science experiment, how Green Power can provide all the Bulk Power they need. Hawaii is provided naturally with a mild climate, lots of sun and reliable wind. So, what could go wrong? Here is my take: 55. “Update on Hawaii’s Glimpse of the Future of the Green New Deal” March 20, 2024: http://dickstormprobizblog.org/2024/03/20/hawaii-a-glimpse-into-the-future-of-the-green-new-deal-aka-inflation-reduction-act-here-is-an-update/
Thanks again, your article is important and I will be sharing! Dick Storm
Thank you Dick for these great additions. I suspect that Diablo Canyon would fall into the same category... And thank you for your post on Hawaii - I have looked at a similar experiment on a much smaller island in the Canary Islands (El Hierro) and have a draft post about how challenging even that is...
Thanks Philip. I am reasonably (very) pessimistic about the UK (see here: https://pandreco.substack.com/p/notes-on-a-death-spiral). A forthcoming election could make things much worse - I try not to be political, but on energy policy Labour is even worse that the incumbents and the Liberals are basically a "Green Party" in all but colour. Again, this is a comment only on energy policy. That said, people tend to vote on single-issues, and I do wonder just what is needed in the UK for people and politicians to understand the really perilous position the UK is putting itself into by aspiring to "lead" the energy transition. Lemmings and cliffs come to mind.
Totally agree with you. I'm now retired but spent my career in the power sector. Trained and spent the first 14 years with the CEGB. In my humble opinion the UK power industry is a shambles, no planning, no forethought, short term-ism etc.
I could go on. Our power system was once world renowned for engineering excellence, security and dependability but sadly no longer the case, absolutely tragic.
Thank you, Pandreco, for researching and explaining this. In my ignorance, I was thinking the only reason nuclear power plants were being shut down was because of political opposition caused by radical environmentalists and the irrational fear of radiation and radioactive waste. I've read about subsidies for renewables and negative rates in the UK, but hadn't connected the dots as to how this affects nuclear plant economics. This is horrible. We need more nuclear power, not less.
I do enjoy joining the dots in this complex landscape, but it is also important to talk about the origin of those "dots".
I came across this notion of economic consequences when listening to one of very many excellent epsiodes of The Power Hungry Podcast hosted by Robert Bryce (https://robertbryce.substack.com/). The episode in question featured Reiner Kuhr, an adjunct professor at University of Massachusetts Lowell - and can be found on most platforms like spotify etc. This is the youtube link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2CwETAYcXU
I also benefitted from several conversations with Meredith Angwin - who has just launched on substack:
This obsession with so-called clean energy is the root of the problem. Also the obsession with warming. Warming has been good, CO2 is plant food and it is still dangerously low. In terms of environmental damage solar and wind power are filthy compared with coal.
And anyway the transition to wind and solar can't work due to the combination of wind droughts and lack of feasible and affordable grid scale storage.
Thank you for your very informative article. GreenNUKE used the title of this excellent article as the conclusion to its 27 April 2024 article titled, "Top German Greens officials accused of deception in nuclear phase-out advice." https://greennuke.substack.com/p/top-german-greens-officials-accused.
__________
Here's a 2014 quote from multi-billionaire Warren Buffet regarding taxpayer-funded subsidies for wind power. "For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That's the only reason to build them. They don't make sense without the tax credit."
"Big Wind's Bogus Subsidies - Giving tax credits to the wind energy industry is a waste of time and money." By Nancy Pfotenhauer, Contributor | May 12, 2014, at 2:30 p.m US News & World Report
So, the "little people" get the worst of both worlds. Their taxes go up for the benefit of economic elites like Warren Buffet (whose father was a U.S. Representative) and their electric power becomes more expensive and less reliable. BTW, GreenNUKE has more to say regarding Warren Buffet and Berkshire Hathaway in some other recent articles.
The environmentalists aren’t afraid of nuclear energy, they hate it. They hate it because it doesn’t pollute and it’s safe. The environmentalists aren’t safe from greed with nuclear energy around. They hate the careless, maniacal ego of nuclear energy, how it leaves in its wake prodigious amounts of profit and electricity and the humans aren’t dropping dead from the pollution. That can’t happen. Industrial profits have to kill people, fighting that is what keeps an environmentalist alive. That’s why our industrial society and especially nuclear energy are always a danger to them.
I think there are now two kinds of environmentalists, those that "get" nuclear and those who oppose... and within the "opposition" camp there are also variations. Someone once noted that those committed to renewables hate nuclear because with nuclear you don't need renewables. The EU pushing France to increase its renewables (and punishing it with fines) is bizarre given that France has had the lowest CO2 electricity of any large industrialised country for decades.
It took real energy IQ to write this piece. Powerful and detailed. Thanks for the information.
Thanks for you kind words (and for your writings also!)
Thank You, I better understand.
How do these elected leaders get it so wrong? They have access to plenty of money and the best minds that money can buy. These effects can be spreadsheeted and modeled.
David's recent column was about the difficulties of forecasting. I don't discount those difficulties. But here we're talking about physical systems. If 3,000 MW of nuclear power is turned off, where is the generation to make it up going to come from?
I suspect these people all have college degrees - many of them advanced degrees - but they've never had to put pencil to paper and balance a checkbook. They have a deep-abiding faith, if the government throws money at it, any problem can be solved. (When has that happened since the moon landing?)
When they're wrong, as they inevitably are, we're the ones who suffer.
Probably as many reasons as there are elected leaders. My guess is that for many they have messianic complexes - rising above politics and "saving the planet"... To help them on the way there are plenty of Gurus who use spreadsheets and models to "prove" that 100% renewables is not just possible, but right around the corner (how many times have you heard "it just needs the political will"?) I wrote about these false prophets here. https://pandreco.substack.com/p/never-mind-the-bllcks-heres-the-merchants
With the damage being done, you do have to wonder if they are "useful idiots" or actually foreign agents... If you wrote a fictional account of Germany's last 30 years, the great denouement at the end would be the unmasking of merkle as a Russian agent :-) In reality, it is farm more mundane - people want to believe we can have greener, cleaner and cheaper. Gurus line up to "prove" it is possible (for a fee) and the public adore it (until they have to pay for it). It was an easy vote winner - here's to hoping the Overton Window is shifting fast.
and of course some are ex-drama teachers - no advanced degrees in the hard sciences there...
I also mused on the allure (and danger) of the widespread belief in "green and cheap" here
https://pandreco.substack.com/p/the-world-in-2040-part-1
Yes, they probably all have college degrees. That's the problem! Just look at what colleges are teachings nowadays. It takes a PhD to misunderstand common sense things.
Well written and well explained. I can offer two suggestions for further reading if you wish:
a) The following link is for recent Brattle report (written by and for lawyers, more or less I think) that gives a fairly good overview of NERC reliability standards and metrics for the Bulk Power System (BPS), the appendices are especially useful. I personally believe they are over optimistic about timelines, but they discuss how NERC is trying to adapt to more VRE and maintain reliability levels.
https://www.brattle.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Bulk-System-Reliability-for-Tomorrows-Grid_December-2023_Final.pdf
b) For readers who heard of LCOE, and swear by it, and its claims that VRE is cheaper, as you point out, its all false, but there are growing numbers of energy engineers, thinkers and analysts trying to develop methods to analyze Total System Cost as a metric to replace LCOE. There are things like LACE, VALCOE and many others. If your readers are not aware of these initiatives, they can do some searching and do some learning.
Keep up the great work.
Thanks Steven - great additions!
Great piece. Germany is lost, the bankruptcies are skyrocketing.
Not by accident. This is intended.
Thank you for writing this. An outstanding synopsis of the consequences of forcing renewables onto the Grid. Just off the top of my head I can think of three other large providers of reliable and Dispatchable Bulk Power. The 1,300 MW Zimmer coal plant (with full FGD and SCR equipment), Three Mile Island and Palisades Nuclear plant. I am fearful that our country is going to Finnish the job of self sabotaging our energy and our Bulk Power Supply if the politicians do not wake up. I live in the conservative (thought to be conservative) state of South Carolina. Both SC and NC had legislation to shut down coal plants and favor solar and wind. It is nuts. One example I wrote about, is Hawaii. They adopted the Green New Deal early and shut down their one coal plant. Leaving them to prove as a full scale science experiment, how Green Power can provide all the Bulk Power they need. Hawaii is provided naturally with a mild climate, lots of sun and reliable wind. So, what could go wrong? Here is my take: 55. “Update on Hawaii’s Glimpse of the Future of the Green New Deal” March 20, 2024: http://dickstormprobizblog.org/2024/03/20/hawaii-a-glimpse-into-the-future-of-the-green-new-deal-aka-inflation-reduction-act-here-is-an-update/
Thanks again, your article is important and I will be sharing! Dick Storm
Thank you Dick for these great additions. I suspect that Diablo Canyon would fall into the same category... And thank you for your post on Hawaii - I have looked at a similar experiment on a much smaller island in the Canary Islands (El Hierro) and have a draft post about how challenging even that is...
Excellent analysis, I do hope that some of the decision makers here in the UK take note.
Thanks Philip. I am reasonably (very) pessimistic about the UK (see here: https://pandreco.substack.com/p/notes-on-a-death-spiral). A forthcoming election could make things much worse - I try not to be political, but on energy policy Labour is even worse that the incumbents and the Liberals are basically a "Green Party" in all but colour. Again, this is a comment only on energy policy. That said, people tend to vote on single-issues, and I do wonder just what is needed in the UK for people and politicians to understand the really perilous position the UK is putting itself into by aspiring to "lead" the energy transition. Lemmings and cliffs come to mind.
Totally agree with you. I'm now retired but spent my career in the power sector. Trained and spent the first 14 years with the CEGB. In my humble opinion the UK power industry is a shambles, no planning, no forethought, short term-ism etc.
I could go on. Our power system was once world renowned for engineering excellence, security and dependability but sadly no longer the case, absolutely tragic.
Thank you, Pandreco, for researching and explaining this. In my ignorance, I was thinking the only reason nuclear power plants were being shut down was because of political opposition caused by radical environmentalists and the irrational fear of radiation and radioactive waste. I've read about subsidies for renewables and negative rates in the UK, but hadn't connected the dots as to how this affects nuclear plant economics. This is horrible. We need more nuclear power, not less.
I do enjoy joining the dots in this complex landscape, but it is also important to talk about the origin of those "dots".
I came across this notion of economic consequences when listening to one of very many excellent epsiodes of The Power Hungry Podcast hosted by Robert Bryce (https://robertbryce.substack.com/). The episode in question featured Reiner Kuhr, an adjunct professor at University of Massachusetts Lowell - and can be found on most platforms like spotify etc. This is the youtube link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2CwETAYcXU
I also benefitted from several conversations with Meredith Angwin - who has just launched on substack:
https://meredithangwin.substack.com/
Thanks for the additional suggestions.
This obsession with so-called clean energy is the root of the problem. Also the obsession with warming. Warming has been good, CO2 is plant food and it is still dangerously low. In terms of environmental damage solar and wind power are filthy compared with coal.
And anyway the transition to wind and solar can't work due to the combination of wind droughts and lack of feasible and affordable grid scale storage.
I love CO2!
Go coal and natural gas.
Thank you for your very informative article. GreenNUKE used the title of this excellent article as the conclusion to its 27 April 2024 article titled, "Top German Greens officials accused of deception in nuclear phase-out advice." https://greennuke.substack.com/p/top-german-greens-officials-accused.
__________
Here's a 2014 quote from multi-billionaire Warren Buffet regarding taxpayer-funded subsidies for wind power. "For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That's the only reason to build them. They don't make sense without the tax credit."
"Big Wind's Bogus Subsidies - Giving tax credits to the wind energy industry is a waste of time and money." By Nancy Pfotenhauer, Contributor | May 12, 2014, at 2:30 p.m US News & World Report
https://tinyurl.com/Buffett-Wind-Scam
So, the "little people" get the worst of both worlds. Their taxes go up for the benefit of economic elites like Warren Buffet (whose father was a U.S. Representative) and their electric power becomes more expensive and less reliable. BTW, GreenNUKE has more to say regarding Warren Buffet and Berkshire Hathaway in some other recent articles.
The environmentalists aren’t afraid of nuclear energy, they hate it. They hate it because it doesn’t pollute and it’s safe. The environmentalists aren’t safe from greed with nuclear energy around. They hate the careless, maniacal ego of nuclear energy, how it leaves in its wake prodigious amounts of profit and electricity and the humans aren’t dropping dead from the pollution. That can’t happen. Industrial profits have to kill people, fighting that is what keeps an environmentalist alive. That’s why our industrial society and especially nuclear energy are always a danger to them.
I think there are now two kinds of environmentalists, those that "get" nuclear and those who oppose... and within the "opposition" camp there are also variations. Someone once noted that those committed to renewables hate nuclear because with nuclear you don't need renewables. The EU pushing France to increase its renewables (and punishing it with fines) is bizarre given that France has had the lowest CO2 electricity of any large industrialised country for decades.