# Utilities are starting to invest in big batteries instead of building new power plants

##### February 22, 2019 by Jeremiah Johnson And Joseph F. Decarolis, The Conversation

Due to their decreasing costs, lithium-ion batteries now dominate a range of applications including electric vehicles, computers and consumer electronics.

You might only think about when your laptop or cellphone are running out of juice, but utilities can plug bigger versions into the . And thanks to rapidly declining lithium-ion battery prices, using to stretch electricity generation capacity.

Based on our research on energy storage costs and performance in North Carolina, and our analysis of the potential role energy storage could play within the coming years, we believe that utilities should prepare for the advent of cheap grid-scale batteries and develop flexible, long-term plans that will save consumers money.

Peak demand is pricey

The amount of electricity consumers use varies according to the time of day and between weekdays and weekends, as well as seasonally and annually as everyone goes about their business.

Those variations can be huge.

For example, the times when consumers use the most electricity in many regions is nearly double the average amount of they typically consume. Utilities often meet peak demand by building power plants that run on natural gas, due to their lower construction costs and ability to operate when they are needed.

However, it's expensive and inefficient to build these power plants just to meet demand in those peak hours. It's like purchasing a large van that you will only use for the three days a year when your brother and his three kids visit.

The grid requires power supplied right when it is needed, and usage varies considerably throughout the day. When grid-connected batteries help supply enough electricity to meet demand, utilities don't have to build as many power plants and transmission lines.

Given how long this infrastructure lasts and how rapidly battery costs are dropping, utilities now face new long-term planning challenges.

Cheaper batteries

About half of the new generation capacity built in the U.S. annually since 2014 has come from solar, wind or other renewable sources. Natural gas plants make up the much of the rest but in the future, that industry may need to compete with energy storage for market share.

In practice, we can see how the pace of natural gas-fired power plant construction might slow down in response to this new alternative.

So far, utilities have only installed the equivalent of one or two traditional power plants in grid-scale lithium-ion battery projects, all since 2015. But across California, Texas, the Midwest and New England, these devices are benefiting the overall grid by improving operations and bridging gaps when consumers need more power than usual.

Based on our own experience tracking lithium-ion battery costs, we see the potential for these batteries to be deployed at a far larger scale and disrupt the energy business.

When we were given approximately one year to conduct a study on the benefits and costs of energy storage in North Carolina, keeping up with the pace of technological advances and increasing affordability was a struggle.

Projected battery costs changed so significantly from the beginning to the end of our project that we found ourselves rushing at the end to update our analysis.

Once utilities can easily take advantage of these huge batteries, they will not need as much new power-generation capacity to meet peak demand.

Utility planning

Even before batteries could be used for large-scale energy storage, it was hard for utilities to make long-term plans due to uncertainty about what to expect in the future.

For example, most energy experts did not anticipate the dramatic decline in natural gas prices due to the spread of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, starting about a decade ago – or the incentive that it would provide utilities to phase out coal-fired power plants.

In recent years, solar energy and wind power costs have dropped far faster than expected, also displacing coal – and in some cases natural gas – as a source of energy for electricity generation.

Something we learned during our storage study is illustrative.

We found that lithium ion batteries at 2019 prices were a bit too expensive in North Carolina to compete with natural gas peaker plants – the used occasionally when electricity demand spikes. However, when we modeled projected 2030 battery prices, energy storage proved to be the more cost-effective option.

Federal, state and even some local policies are another wild card. For example, Democratic lawmakers have outlined the Green New Deal, an ambitious plan that could rapidly address climate change and income inequality at the same time.

And no matter what happens in Congress, the increasingly frequent bouts of extreme weather hitting the U.S. are also expensive for utilities. Droughts reduce hydropower output and heatwaves make electricity usage spike.

The future

Several utilities are already investing in energy storage.

California utility Pacific Gas & Electric, for example, got permission from regulators to build a massive 567.5 megawatt energy-storage battery system near San Francisco, although the utility's bankruptcy could complicate the project.

Hawaiian Electric Company is seeking approval for projects that would establish several hundred megawatts of energy storage across the islands. And Arizona Public Service and Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority are looking into storage options as well.

We believe these and other decisions will reverberate for decades to come.If utilities miscalculate and spend billions on it turns out they won't need instead of investing in energy storage, their customers could pay more than they should to keep the lights through the middle of this century.

## Related Stories

#### How energy storage is starting to rewire the electricity industry

March 22, 2018

The market for energy storage on the power grid is growing at a rapid clip, driven by declining prices and supportive government policies.

#### Tesla to build California utility battery storage project

September 16, 2016

Tesla announced Thursday that it will build a battery storage system at a California utility substation that will have the largest output of any existing lithium-ion storage facility.

#### California aims to become carbon-free by 2045—Is that feasible?

September 12, 2018

California Governor Jerry Brown has signed a new law mandating that the electricity the state consumes not cause carbon emissions by 2045.

#### Zinc-air batteries provide power in remote areas

September 26, 2018

Remote villages in Africa and Asia are receiving electricity using a little-known type of technology: zinc-air batteries.

#### World Bank bets big on batteries for solar energy boost

September 26, 2018

Solar energy could be a huge source of power in Africa, but its potential has been stymied by storage batteries that are too expensive and inadequate for use in poor countries.

#### PV, wind, batteries: Energy outlook research

June 23, 2018

Check out the latest energy stats as we face our renewable energy future. These facts and figures come from a Bloomberg report.

## Recommended for you

#### Overland migration of Arctic Terns revealed

March 25, 2019

Data from a landmark study of the world's longest migrating seabird reveals how overland migration is an integral part of their amazing journey.

#### Aiming for reinvention, Apple eyes streaming, services

March 24, 2019

Apple looks to begin a fresh reinvention on Monday as it rolls out Hollywood stars for its new streaming television service, part of a broad shift of direction for the California technology giant.

#### EPA adviser is promoting harmful ideas, scientists say

March 22, 2019

The Trump administration's reliance on industry-funded environmental specialists is again coming under fire, this time by researchers who say that Louis Anthony "Tony" Cox Jr., who leads a key Environmental Protection Agency ...

#### X-rays reveal termites' self-cooling, self-ventilating, self-draining skyscrapers

March 22, 2019

Many species of termites, whose societies are built on hierarchies of kings, queens, workers, and soldiers, live in towering nests that are ventilated by a complex system of tunnels.

#### Coffee-based colloids for direct solar absorption

March 22, 2019

Solar energy is one of the most promising resources to help reduce fossil fuel consumption and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions to power a sustainable future. Devices presently in use to convert solar energy into thermal ...

#### Radioactive material detected remotely using laser-induced electron avalanche breakdown

March 22, 2019

Physicists at the University of Maryland have developed a powerful new method to detect radioactive material. By using an infrared laser beam to induce a phenomenon known as an electron avalanche breakdown near the material, ...

#### Many sharks closer to extinction than feared: Red List

March 22, 2019

Human appetites are pushing makos and other iconic sharks to the brink of extinction, scientists warned in a new assessment of the apex predator's conservation status.

##### WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2019
Utilities should be forced by law to provide a complete solution(solar/wind + storage/batteries) and NOT only intermittent renewables acting as 'decorative facades' for coal/oil/gas/fracking.
Then let's see if the "whole solution" is indeed cheap.

Including batteries, wind and solar are ~20x costlier.
"The True Costs of Nuclear and Renewables" -Dec 2018
http://4thgenerat...x284.png
http://4thgenerat...newables
"The cost of wind & solar power: batteries included"
http://euanmearns...included
"Battery storage needed to convert solar generation equal to a year of Hinkley nuclear generation to baseload: $700 billion, about 28 times the ~$25 billion cost of the Hinkley plant."
http://euanmearns...-storage
##### granville583762
5 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2019
Good Ideas Are Always The Simplest

If your generator over its daily power output
more than meets demand
and
lithium ion batteries are financially viable
are cheaper than two or three backup power stations
it
is more efficient
to run your generator flat out
charging up batteries
for when the mongrel hoards come home from a hard days mongreling for their tea time break

Why did we not think of this sooner!
##### Da Schneib
1 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2019
They could do it cheaper if they weren't so hidebound.
##### WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2019
....That's why countries like China - are installing so much wind and solar...
"China is a net exporter of solar panels / wind turbines."
"We often have climate charlatans claiming China is leading the renewable revolution. Well here is the truth."
"China: No Wind Or Solar If It Can't Beat Coal On Price" - Jan 10, 2019
"China has said it will not approve wind and solar power projects unless they can compete with coal power prices."
https://www.forbe...aint-as-
"China is funding its nuclear power future by selling solar panels to those who don't know better."
"nuclear is cheapest electricity source after coal in China."
"The Dark Side of China's Solar Boom"
http://www.sixtht...ar-boom-
##### greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2019
goracle
Take a gander at Germany, jackass
I know quiet a bit about Germany - from my internet reading. They chose to shut down their nukes (a decision I would not have made - but hey it's their country right?) Now they are on track to totally replacing their grid with renewables. It may take another 50 years - but what are you doing about climate change goracle? Also note - that despite paying the highest electricity prices in Europe - Germans only spend about the same as USAerns on electricity - by being much more efficient, and most (like 90%) of Germans strongly support the energy transition.
##### greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2019
Liar liar Wille
China is a net exporter of solar panels / wind turbines
Cuz they can make really cheap panels and turbines. Do you think they should stop selling their stuff on the world market? Not much of a free market supporter are you?

Hey look - article of the day - https://www.green...uArub1Ws

Hornsea One plant, which started delivering power to the grid this month, could help make up for a lack of planned nuclear generation in the U.K., as plans for new reactors have fallen by the wayside
Yep - scrapping plans for expensive nukes - in favor of cheaper/better renewables.
##### RealityCheck
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2019
@Willie
@antigor.

The transition period between old and new tech is always 'messy'; especially if GOP/Russian/Fossil lobby/troll-factory stooges (like yourselves) try to sabotage that transition.

The point is that no-one (in their right minds) is actually advocating that no fossil fuels should be involved in the future 'mix' of energy options for certain regions not blessed with abundant wind/solar resources.

Moreover, higher temps experienced by many regions will require more air-conditioning to cool domestic/commercial spaces, hospitals etc; this will more cheaply/effectively be powered directly by local/regional wind/solar electricity than burning fossil fuels to produce that electricity.

Not to mention less overall pollution.

Besides, 'market forces' in Capitalist-social economies will drive transition trajectory based on (a)-new storage/distribution tech/systems and (b)-relative/comparative costs/benefits; eg, cleaner, safer, sustainable jobs, lower prices. :)
##### jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2019
Liar liar Wille

Willie is clueless. He is happy to have plutonium-239 buried in his back garden! Lol.
##### WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2019
...Cuz they can make really cheap panels and turbines...
China can make really cheap panels and turbines thanks to cheap coal and not thanks to expensive sunshine&breeze unicorn energy.
https://pbs.twimg...NI97.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...U_jn.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...L1wh.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...fPOv.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...uc-Z.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...9r_a.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...0Tyg.jpg

"...Offshore Wind Replacing Nuclear..."
wind = 20% wind + 80% coal/oil/gas/fracking to compensate intermittency.

"transition"? The only transition is being from coal to gas(methane: worse than CO2), from carbon-free nuclear to fossil fuels(backup for intermittent renewables), a disservice in the fight against Climate Change.

You green sociopaths have no option except to lie to themselves like there's no tomorrow and call liar who debunks your lies.
##### jonesdave
Feb 24, 2019
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
##### greenonions1
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2019
China can make really cheap panels and turbines thanks to cheap coal
Electricity is electricity - dumb ass. It does not matter if you get your cheap electricity from coal - or your cheaper electricity from renewables. Chinese panels are cheap - for many reasons. Not least of which is governments subsidies. - https://www.scien...ndustry/
But it is interesting to see people who have wet dreams over the U.S. government providing subsidies to their favorite industries - now having a cow over the Chinese government - doing the same thing.
and call liar who debunks your lies
You don't debunk lies - you are the source of lies - and then supply silly jpg pictures pulled from right wing propaganda sites to support your lies.
##### Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2019
This is enabling technology for renewables. I'm surprised @Eikka hasn't shown up to tell us all why it will never work.
##### cantdrive85
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2019
Several utilities are already investing in energy storage.

California utility Pacific Gas & Electric, for example, got permission from regulators to build a massive 567.5 megawatt energy-storage battery system near San Francisco, although the utility's bankruptcy could complicate the project.

LOL! Just a little detail of economic viability. No worries, AOC and the Jussie party can wiggle their noses and, poof!, their good intentions will make reality go away.
##### jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2019
This is enabling technology for renewables. I'm surprised @Eikka hasn't shown up to tell us all why it will never work.

@DaSchneib,
Off topic, but you might like this;

http://www.intern...50706915
##### Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2019
Sorry, don't go there. They got all hissy when I said Randi was a crank because he was denying global warming.
##### jonesdave
Feb 24, 2019
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
##### cantdrive85
Feb 24, 2019
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
##### jonesdave
Feb 24, 2019
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
##### WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2019
Chinese panels are cheap - for many reasons ... https://www.scien...ndustry/
"Why China Is Dominating the Solar Industry"
Because China has cheap coal.
"Why is China ever more addicted to coal? Because solar and wind are a joke at replacing fossils, it becomes clear in the Transportation Sector, not even the green sociopaths rely on sunshine&breeze to power their cars, they use fossil fuels instead.
...Electricity is electricity - dumb ass...
An electrical fossil-fueled grid(a host) is required by parasites(intermittent renewables) in order to survive.

Many of the things currently happening in energy / climate are not in the West anymore.
Examples:
#1 CO2 emitter: China
#1 Coal consumer: China
#1 in hydro electricity: China
#1 in wind turbines: China
#1 in solar panels: China
#1 in nuclear power growth: China

*FACT* #nuclearenergy in #china is:
* 51% cheaper than #wind
* 82% cheaper than #solar
##### gculpex
3 / 5 (2) Feb 24, 2019
##### gkam
3 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2019
with wind plus battery storage at 2.1 cents/kWh and the power from the Vogtle nukes pegged at least 15 cents/kWh, Willie has no rational argument.

And with no toxic or intensely radioactive waste from battery operation, Willie is still stuck with finding a way to store his Plutonium, the nastiest stuff on Earth.
##### greenonions1
4 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2019
NotFact
nuclearenergy in #china is:
* 51% cheaper than #wind
If it were fact - China would be building more nukes than they are wind - but they aint...

Experts, including some with links to the government, see China's nuclear sector succumbing to the same problems affecting the West: the technology is too expensive, and the public doesn't want it.
Reactors built with extra safety features and more robust cooling systems to avoid a Fukushima-like disaster are expensive, while the costs of wind and solar power continue to plummet: they are now 20% cheaper than electricity from new nuclear
##### antigoracle
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2019
##### WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Feb 25, 2019
...with wind plus battery storage at 2.1 cents/kWh...
If it were true that "wind/solar plus storage" is only "2.1 cents/kWh", then droves of people would be buying and installing solar panels/windmills/batteries and disconnecting from the grid with no need for any incentive/propaganda/authoritarian laws/mandates.

"Why cheap electricity doesn't necessarily result in lower bills" - Feb 8, 2019
"The main reason is subsidies for wind and solar construction."
https://www.utili.../547320/

"Wind and solar are very inefficient at capturing natural power from the environment. However, wind an solar are very efficient at capturing subsidies from hard pressed taxpayers."

"If Solar and Wind are so cheap, why is the taxpayer subsidising them so heavily and even after all the expensive subsidies we are still paying exorbitant prices for power. It was cheaper before renewables."
##### WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Feb 25, 2019
...costs of wind and solar power ... 20% cheaper...
Comparing unreliable/intermittent unicorn energy with reliable/weather-resilient carbon-free nuclear is the same as comparing apples and oranges.
Solar and wind are only reliable when backed up 100% by coal/gas-fired plants.
"Intermittent sources like all wind and all solar need firm backup to 100% of their capacity. So, if you have to build the firm backup anyway, what do you need wind and solar for? Nothing."

You RE cultists are now just a bunch of sociopaths that lie like there's no tomorrow, calling liar who debunks your lies.
Shame on you! But of course, you green sociopaths have no shame, no ethics, no integrity, you just want to lure the public to continue to steal taxpayers' money.
https://pbs.twimg...gz1X.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...CVKC.jpg
##### greenonions1
4 / 5 (4) Feb 25, 2019
is the same as comparing apples and oranges
No it's not. They both produce electricity. Yes - renewables are intermittent - but they are also a lot cheaper - which is why there is so much wind and solar being built - and not so much nukes. Look - article of the day - https://cleantech...storage/

It is so fun to watch the transition happening real time....
##### WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2019
...why there is so much wind and solar being built...
Coal consumption is increasing worldwide, as well consumption of fracked gas, because intermittent renewables are a joke, a fraud, a trillion-dollar fiasco at replacing simultaneously coal/oil/gas/fracking, e.g. EnergieWende.
http://phys.org/n...ide.html

"The question is not whether we need nuclear or not. The question is whether we need wind and solar, and the answer has always been no, we don't need them, and we certainly don't need wind and solar lobbyists insisting that we exclude the only energy source we DO actually need!"
"Why Renewables Can't Save the Planet"-2/2019
http://quillette....-planet/
"The problem with nuclear is that it is unpopular, a victim of a 50 year-long concerted effort by fossil fuel, renewable energy, anti-nuclear weapons campaigners, and misanthropic environmentalists to ban the technology"
##### greenonions1
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2019
Coal consumption is increasing worldwide, as well consumption of fracked gas
As well as wind and solar. Oh you forgot that little fact didn't you Willie? And as the cost of wind and solar continues it's downward slope - obviously we will see more and more renewables. From a cost basis - it makes so much more sense - it is just a question of building out the infrastructure.
##### MR166
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 01, 2019
If you are going to use batteries to replace 1KWH of gas fired backup capacity you need at least 7KWH of capacity, perhaps even double that. Batteries are good for peaking but what about longer term backup? It it very easy to have weeks with little wind or solar.
##### MR166
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 01, 2019
As wind an solar provide a greater percentage of power the problem gets worse. Fossil backup charges skyrocket as the less used plants still have to be manned and paid for.
##### RealityCheck
3 / 5 (6) Mar 01, 2019
@MR66.
As wind an solar provide a greater percentage of power the problem gets worse. Fossil backup charges skyrocket as the less used plants still have to be manned and paid for.
Natural Gas power plants are quick response and mostly automated or remotely triggered (with minimal number of humans on site). And anyway, as high-capacity BATTERY developments/constructions/sitings allow almost-instant/distributed back-up systems not needing to 'import' power over long distances from large/centralised 'coal' plants, the grid/power distribution system's response times and region-wide failure-modes both decrease. All making renewable power systems/prices cheaper/safer and more efficient/reliable in the long run. Try to get all the info next time; and to be more objective. :)
##### greenonions1
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2019
MR
If you are going to use batteries to replace 1KWH of gas fired backup capacity you need at least 7KWH of capacity
I think you probably don't understand the units you are referencing here - but let's be kind and assume you do know the difference between a Kw, and a Kwh - please give us a link that supports your assertion - that replacing 1 Kwh of gas fired back up - you will need 7 Kwh of battery backup.
##### MR166
3 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2019
"I think you probably don't understand the units you are referencing here."

KWH is the proper term Onions. KW is a unit of instantaneous power and KWH is a unit if energy. I hope that I am having a discussion with some one who knows the difference between the two.
##### MR166
3 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2019
"please give us a link that supports your assertion - that replacing 1 Kwh of gas fired back up - you will need 7 Kwh of battery backup."

Onions a 1KW gas generator can supply 1KW for an infinite number of hours. Thus if you have a home that uses 7KWH of energy a week the generator can back the house up in the event that solar or wind fails for one week. Whereas a battery backup for the same house would need to store 7KWH in order to power the same house for a week.
##### greenonions1
4 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2019
I hope that I am having a discussion with some one who knows the difference between the two
To someone who does understand the difference - this statement makes no sense
If you are going to use batteries to replace 1KWH of gas fired backup capacity you need at least 7KWH of capacity
Had you said 1 Kw of gas fired backup - then it would make sense.
Onions a 1KW gas generator can supply 1KW for an infinite number of hours
Correct. Which means you are not replacing a "1 Kwh of gas fired backup" as you assert - but you are replacing a 1 Kw generator - which as you say can supply 1 Kw for ever.
##### WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 02, 2019
...the cost of wind and solar continues it's downward slope...
Low-quality product is usually cheap because it doesn't work when it's most needed or you need to buy something else to pretend it works, such as coal/gas-fired backup plants, expensive and complex transmissions lines(smart grids), etc.
"This is why studies show that in California when solar penetration reaches 30%, a solar kWh will lose two-thirds of its value"
https://www.natur...gy201636
https://pbs.twimg...JhtT.png
"If you think renewables are cheap, read this. You need massive grid uprades & new transmission to make it work. The Germans still need 5900kms of transmission. Germany already has the highest electricity costs in Europe. What an expensive mess."
https://reuters.c...8N1SD09B
##### MR166
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 02, 2019
"Correct. Which means you are not replacing a "1 Kwh of gas fired backup" as you assert - but you are replacing a 1 Kw generator - which as you say can supply 1 Kw for ever."

Onions in the context in which it was written 1KWH of gas fired backup makes a lot of sense. We were talking about what was needed to provide 24/7 renewable energy. Thus KWH is the proper unit of measurement.
##### MR166
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2019
Costs might not be the proper term.
##### MR166
3 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2019
Equipment is a better term. One needs to compare apples to apples and that was what I was trying to do. Since a battery can only store a limited amount of energy and a fossil generator is only limited by its fuel supply the term 1KWH of gas fired backup capacity is a perfectly reasonable unit of measurement.
##### Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2019
@greenos, they're innumerate and don't understand the difference between power and energy, that is the difference between kW and kWH.
##### greenonions1
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 02, 2019
term 1KWH of gas fired backup capacity is a perfectly reasonable unit of measurement
No it is not. It is gibberish.
Perhaps I can show your gibberish this way. A 1 Kw gas generator - running for 1 hour - will supply 1 Kwh of energy. Please explain how you need 7Kwh of battery energy - to replace this 1 Kwh of gas generator energy. This is your assertion. I will post it again for you.
If you are going to use batteries to replace 1KWH of gas fired backup capacity you need at least 7KWH of capacity

##### MR166
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 02, 2019
MR said "Onions a 1KW gas generator can supply 1KW for an infinite number of hours. Thus if you have a home that uses 7KWH of energy a week the generator can back the house up in the event that solar or wind fails for one week. Whereas a battery backup for the same house would need to store 7KWH in order to power the same house for a week."

Onions if you cannot understand this simple concept then I now realize why you feel that renewables and batteries are ready to replace fossil.
##### greenonions1
4 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2019
Thus if you have a home that uses 7KWH of energy a week

##### greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Mar 10, 2019
You have only showed CleanTechnica...
Yep - I read these sites every day. Beats you quoting Breitbart, Daily Mail etc. And these sited don't contain lies - like you do. They have well researched factual articles - i read them every day.
For every \$4B spent on "renewables," always keep in mind that at least 1GW of nuclear power could have been built
Yeah - and the 2 points you fail to mention - is that once built - wind and solar have no fuel costs, and also no radio active waste that will need managing for the next 10,000 years. Wonder how much that will cost - and who will pay!!!! https://www.scien...-source/
##### WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Mar 11, 2019
..wind and solar have no fuel costs..
Wind is free, Coal is cheap, DIESEL is costlier than Coal and Wind, but even so most of ships, including Greenpeace's ships, are powered by marine DIESEL.
"LIKE the old sailors say, "The wind is free…but everything else costs money". "
http://pbs.twimg....9oqe.jpg
http://pbs.twimg....0esc.jpg
http://pbs.twimg....eodN.jpg

..and also no radio active waste..
"Rare earth metals are used in solar panels and wind turbines-as well as electric cars...there's not enough to meet growing demand."
http://motherboar...e-energy
"..one ton of rare earth minerals produces about one ton of radioactive waste.."
"It's now also recognised by UNSCEAR that wind and solar energy are resulting in significant radiation exposure."
##### greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Mar 11, 2019
I know Willie - you would think if nukes were so great - there would be more nuclear ships around - wouldn't you??? Well - we are starting to see battery powered ships hit the market now Willie - https://electrek....y-packs/

Wow - the times they are a changing! Guess nukes really are a pipe dream - time to wake up willie liar.
##### WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Mar 14, 2019
...nuclear ships...
Nimitz-class nuclear-powered supercarrier(up to 25 years without refueling) is virtually carbon-free. It emits less CO2 and radiation than Greenpeace's ships.
"Greenpeace Rainbow warrior emits up to 33000000 Bq of radioactivity for each tank of fuel it burns. It may be as little as 1000000 Bq, if they buy clean diesel. (The latest Greenpeace ship holds 110,000 litres of diesel. Diesel can have 300 Bq/litre see"
https://pbs.twimg...ugBf.jpg

"HIGH SPEED MANEUVERS! US Nimitz-class SUPERCARRIER..."
https://pbs.twimg...w7uD.jpg

If solar/wind+batteries are so great? Why is Greenpeace explicitly advocating for fossil fuels? Because they know from practice that sunshine&breeze are a joke.
"Greenpeace UK expressly argues for ongoing use of fossil fuels."
https://pbs.twimg...GN1t.jpg
https://www.green...r-power/
##### greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Mar 14, 2019
Nimitz-class nuclear-powered supercarrier
Development of nuclear merchant ships began in the 1950s but on the whole has not been commercially successful
Cuz they are too expensive. As usual - Willie is pushing outrageously expensive - nuclear unicorn farts. http://www.world-...ips.aspx

In the world in which costs are an issue - we are starting to see the development of commercial - battery powered ships. - https://gcaptain....-system/

The world is changing Willie - keep plugging your nuclear unicorn farts - real people are doing the heavy lifting.
##### WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 15, 2019
...Cuz they are too expensive...
So it's why Greenpeace, and other faux-green organizations and Eco-hypocritical celebrities, prefer DIESEL.

"Nuclear opponents routinely claim that they have little to do with nuclear's high costs and lack of success. This article is one more example of how and why that is clearly not true."
http://www.markey...ing-rule
http://pbs.twimg....h6BX.jpg

"By forcing changes in how gas power plants operate, greenhouse regulations could actually make it more difficult for utilities to use renewables."
http://www.techno...newables
##### greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Mar 15, 2019
...prefer DIESEL.
For the same reason most trucking companies prefer diesel, and most airlines use aviation fuel. It is the legacy system. A system that has taken a hundred years to evolve. But that does not mean it will always be that way. And on the same logic - how come only 15% of countries in the world have a nuclear power plant - and 100% have renewables? How about that cost curve on nukes for us Willie??????
##### WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2019
...A system that has taken a hundred years to evolve...
Free energy: Windmills/Wind power
Obsoleted ~1820 by steam engine

"In 1869 ... the first parabolic style solar cooker"
"214-212 B.C. - Archimedes' Heat Ray"
July 20th 1891: New York Times: "Solar Energy would drive all the steam engines in the World".

RE "snake oil salesmen" are good in promoting:
- old technologies as they were new;
- land-intensive bird-choppers/ land-intensive monstrosities as they were Eco-friendly;
- dirty toxic solar/wind manufacturing processes as they were clean;
- expensive energy as it were cheap.
http://pbs.twimg....w5mT.jpg
http://pbs.twimg....tMFh.jpg
http://pbs.twimg....uq5L.jpg
http://pbs.twimg....DZzL.jpg

"..renewable sources, the vast majority...is just people...burning wood...and dung for energy. That's right: feces is a more important energy source than wind power."
##### greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2019
That's right: feces is a more important energy source than wind power.
And so of course - feces is a more important energy source than nuclear. So what's your point?
##### WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2019
...feces is a more important energy source...
Indeed, it's an important energy source, although it's deadlier than fossil fuels.
"Indoor air pollution from burning yak dung..."
https://www.scien...14009327
https://slate.com...elp.html
"4 million people a year die from indoor cooking smoke"
https://www.treeh...oke.html
https://www.sciel...7a04.pdf
"Pollution Due To Burning Of Cow Dung & Wood As Fuel Killed 1.24 Lakh People In One Year"
https://www.india...719.html
"There are no low-energy, rich countries."

"Only nuclear power can lift all humans out of poverty while saving the natural environment."
##### greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2019
Only nuclear power can lift all humans out of poverty while saving the natural environment
Nope - solar and wind can do the same thing - cheaper. Good thing really - cuz that is where all the action is these days. Only 15% of countries have nukes - and many planned nukes are now being scuttled - for cheaper, better wind and solar. Keep up there Willie.
##### WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2019
...solar and wind can do the same thing...
"solar and wind" is like socialism: a lot of promises to fool the younger/naive; historically: short term gain (for the unproductive) and long term pain for all.
http://pbs.twimg....BhnC.jpg
http://pbs.twimg....nTV5.jpg
"Socialism always works in the beginning, so people are fooled... in the beginning. It's easy for governments to confiscate money, but eventually there's no more money to confiscate."
http://pbs.twimg....a8Xh.jpg
"Churchill: Socialism may begin with the best of intentions, but it always ends with the Gestapo."
http://pbs.twimg....hgKn.jpg

Socialism resulted in the impoverishment & death of hundreds of millions of people.
Capitalism has lifted billions from absolute poverty.
"No country ever dragged itself out of agrarian poverty without an Industrial Revolution. And no Industrial Revolution was ever powered by sunshine and breezes."
##### greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Mar 19, 2019
a lot of promises to fool the younger/naive
Stop projecting. The engineers at Shell can do math - and they see the writing on the wall - https://renewecon...n-70440/
Maybe that is why - Shell's plans do not include nukes, but they do include renewables and storage. May also be why only 15% of the countries in the world have a nuke, but 100% have wind and solar.
##### WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 20, 2019
...The engineers at Shell can do math...
Yes, indeed, they did the math and concluded that intermittent renewables lock in fossil fuels, specifically oil/gas/fracking.
"Solar and Wind Lock-In Fossil Fuels -- And That Makes Saving the Climate Harder & More Expensive"
http://www.forbes...pensive/
http://reason.com...nd-solar

"You hear sometimes that renewables lock in gas-powered backup. The Norwegians are at least honest about it (picture taken at Brussels airport)."
http://pbs.twimg....ODVl.jpg

"Industry spent more than €100m in 2016 ... deployed over 1000 lobbyists plus an army of PR and lobby consultancies, who helped to ... push the myth that gas is a 'clean' fuel to partner renewable energy." - Oct 2017
http://corporatee...gas-lock
##### greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Mar 20, 2019
they did the math and concluded that intermittent renewables lock in fossil fuels
No they didn't - that's a lie. They concluded that the world is changing - renewables are the future - and unless some game changer comes along - nukes are uneconomic. So Shell plans to be the biggest electricity producer in the world - in 10 years - and they are looking to cheap renewables as the back bone of said plan. No wonder only 15% of countries in the world have nukes - but 100% have renewables. Where is that cost curve on nukes Willie?
##### WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Mar 21, 2019
...renewables are the future...
"renewables are the future" to keep mankind stuck on fracked gas in the future.
"In REAL life, 100% renewables = 80% natural gas & 20% renewables. No wonder natural gas is the fastest growing fuel worldwide."
"For every barrel of oil consumed over the past 35 years, two new barrels have been discovered."
https://blogs-ima...misu.jpg
https://www.forbe...e-world/

...100% have renewables...
But only ones with hydro and carbon-free nuclear have reduced emissions and dependence on coal/oil/gas and kept the electricity prices affordable.

Shell is in love with intermittent renewables.
https://pbs.twimg...0hL9.jpg
...So Shell plans to be the biggest electricity producer in the world - in 10 years...
And they will be, because in 10 years most of solar panels and windmills will be just a bunch of junkyards.
##### greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Mar 21, 2019
renewables are the future" to keep mankind stuck on fracked gas in the future
Or to do the heavy lifting of replacing our fossil fuel power system - with a cheaper, better, renewable one. Here's a neat fact
as the installations of rooftop solar and large scale renewables grows, the output of fossil fuels reduces – initially this hit brown coal, but more recently it has impacted gas generation because of its high cost
Keep up Willie liar. No wonder only 15% of countries in the world have nukes - but 100% have renewables. https://renewecon...r-28485/
##### WillieWard
5 / 5 (1) Mar 23, 2019
RenewEconomy, CleanTechnica, biased articles written by green sociopaths, it's all you have.
Just compare Australia with France/Sweden/Ontario.
https://pbs.twimg...6Li1.jpg
"GHG emissions from Australian energy in the age of the renewables investment boom. PS we banned nuclear in 1998."
https://pbs.twimg...GsQs.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...K8Ro.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...HXx7.jpg
##### greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Mar 23, 2019
Just compare Australia with France/Sweden/Ontario.
Why should I? You are the one claiming that no country will ever get to be 100% renewables. I am the one showing you that we are on the way there. Australia has enough wind and solar in the pipeline - to reach 100% renewables by 2030. Show us a country on track to do that with nuclear unicorn farts! Oh right - you know that only 15% of countries in the world have nukes - and 100% have renewables. Shame you can't keep up Willie.
https://renewecon...s-81953/
##### WillieWard
not rated yet 20 hours ago
... Australia has enough wind and solar in the pipeline - to reach 100% renewables by 2030...
If electricity in Australia is already insanely expensive with penetration of intermittent renewables into the grid, just imagine when it reaches "100%".

Not including batteries, at 1/3 of penetration into the grid, solar and wind make electricity ~5x costlier, including batteries, solar and wind can be ~50x costlier than carbon-free nuclear.
"The cost of wind & solar power: batteries included"
http://euanmearns...ncluded/
"Batteries Included: Wind + Solar + Batteries = Insanely Expensive Power"
https://stopthese...e-power/

The "100% renewables" zealots never talk about emission reduction.
Because there is already enough practical data to conclude that intermittent renewables are trillion-dollar fiascos at reducing emissions.