Similar Posts

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

13 Comments

  1. Funny. But could be a coincidence. It says nuclear over a picture of coal as well. Maybe a cover up to make it more likely the first hidden nuclear was also a mistake.

  2. Still there as of Dec 11th 12:30 GMT. But I think it’s a mistake, possibly from place-holder text that didn’t get removed. ‘Hidden’ under the coal picture on p24(printed)/p28 of pdf it says ‘Nuclear Wind Coal + CCS’, and under the efficiency quote on p26/p30 is
    ‘By Fuel “2005” “2030” Oil 171.1 206.9
    Coal 112.3 127
    Gas 100.4 156.9
    Biomass 45.1 51.2
    Nuclear 28.6 50.9
    Hydro, Geo 11.8 20.1
    Wind, Solar, Biofuels 1.5 15.4
    Total Energy Growth 157.6’, which looks like the data underlying the adjacent bar graph. No evidence of closet nukes in Exon yet.

    PS if ‘Depleted Cranium’ has now got its data correct, happy birthday for yesterday.

    Luke

  3. Pretty funny, the placement of “nuclear” hidden in that sentence.

    Here’s what I get when I highlight the whole area, including the hidden text:

    Oil and natural gas
    remain essential
    through 2030,
    but the most
    important ?fuel?
    of all will be
    energy saved
    through improved
    efficiency.
    By Fuel “2005” “2030” Oil 171.1 206.9
    Coal 112.3 127
    Gas 100.4 156.9
    Biomass 45.1 51.2
    Nuclear 28.6 50.9
    Hydro, Geo 11.8 20.1
    Wind, Solar, Biofuels 1.5 15.4
    Total Energy Growth 157.6

  4. On pg 26 I see your quote, but not in the highlighted section top right, but left middle on the page. The highlited section says this: “Oil and natural gas remain essential through 2030, but the most important of all will be energy saved through improved
    efficiency.”

    Interestingly while copying this text I found there is a table hidden below the highlighted text:

    By Fuel “2005” “2030”
    Oil 171.1 206.9
    Coal 112.3 127
    Gas 100.4 156.9
    Biomass 45.1 51.2
    Nuclear 28.6 50.9
    Hydro, Geo 11.8 20.1
    Wind, Solar, Biofuels 1.5 15.4
    Total Energy Growth 157.6

  5. @ 4:14 CST the link does not work in both Chrome and MSIE. Did they remove it?

    Found a copy searching on the pdf file name in case they removed it permanently.

  6. @2:27 PST the link is no longer working. Obviously someone was embarrassed by whatever Rod discovered.

  7. Page 28 of the PDF (labeled as Page 24):
    (…The price of…) “Wind and solar exclude additional costs for intermittency and transmission investments.”

    This is the key, isn’t it?

    Intermittency has a cost; storage has a cost; transmission has a cost; and unreliability definitely has a cost. Not playing well with others (e.g. bad market behavior) has a cost. Wind can only compete in a grid without direct subsidies if its cost of intermittency and unreliability is externalized on to (subsidized by) other producers and on to consumers. Solar, as the graph shows, cannot compete at all, regardless of the price of carbon, and unreliability charges make it even less economically competitive.

    I can think of a great energy economics paper entitled: “Properly Placing The External Cost of Non-Corrected Intermittency & Unreliability (NCI&U Cost)”.

    It makes sense that unreliable power sources such as wind must only receive time of use metering, and should be penalized with fines (up to the revenue generated by power sales) by the amount of drift their output has from either a base, intermediate, or peak load generation pattern. Say a wind-mill’s power generation curve does not correlate with base, intermediate, or peak load; it would be fined based on the degree of non-correlation with these generation patterns. If wind and solar want to be treated as serious energy sources, they need to play by the same rules as everyone else, not have the rules changed to subsidize them. They should either pay for the cost of unreliability by storing their energy directly (or contracting with an energy storage firm), or pay for unreliability by being fined for not playing by the rules.

    You can call the fines “negadollar profits”. (Kind of like “negawatt power”.)

  8. @katana – I like that idea. Carrots and sticks to clear the playing field of the wannabees vs true players. When the wannabees have more fully developed, they can then start substituting into the game.

    Do you think Amory Lovins would entertain that?

  9. It was 1048 EST I downloaded. Yes I can’t comment at work on Java stuff unless I jump through hoops of flame first.

    Laughed heartily at first, until these other guys pointed out it was just a mistake embedded in Adobe magic.

    Or… was it? Look how the word was conveniently placed just so. Dang, conspiracy stuff can be fun. And just because I say “conspiracy” doesn’t mean it’s not one.

  10. @Doc – I think Lovins would start talking about the “baseload fallacy”. People don’t use electricity 24 hours a day, apparently, in Lovins la-la land. What he really means: “I WANT TO CONTROL YOUR ENERGY USE!”

    —–

    Now, I’m not knocking intermittent energy sources that correlate with demand – those have their place (like gas turbines – like nuclear gas turbines). Intermittent generation sources that don’t correlate with demand, they’re not intermittent – they’re unreliable. Unreliability costs money, and when you’re talking about something as essential as electricity, on a 0

  11. katana,

    Sounds like you’d appreciate this. There’s a sign on the wall of my cubicle at work that states “There’s a reason customer loads are called ‘demands’ rather than ‘hopes’.”

Comments are closed.