Peak Oil is You

Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)

Page added on December 10, 2017

The Energy Transition: Too Little, Too Late

The idea of the energy transition (“energiewende” in German) originated in the 1980s and gained legislative support in Germany in 2010. The idea is good and also technically feasible. But it requires sacrifices and, at present, sacrifices are politically unthinkable since most people don’t realize how critical the situation really is. What we are doing for the transition seems to be is too little and too late.

So, how are we doing with the energy transition? Can we eliminate fossil fuels from the world’s energy system? Can we do it before it is too late to avoid the disasters that climate change and resource depletion will bring to us if we continue with business as usual? The debate is ongoing and it sometimes it goes out of control as in the case of the controversy between the group of Professor Jacobsen at and that of Professor Clack which even generated a lawsuit for slander.

As usual, the debate is often based on qualitative consideration: on one side we see plenty of naive optimism (“let’s go solar, rah, rah!”), on the other, we have pure statements of disbelief (“renewables will never be able to…..”).

But science is based on quantitative evaluations and we have plenty of data that should permit us to do better than playing the game of the clash of absolutes. This is what we did, myself and my coworker Sgouris Sgouridis, in a paper that was recently published on “Biophysical Economics and Resource Quality” and titled “In Support of a Physics-Based Energy Transition Planning: Sowing Our Future Energy Needs”

In our paper, we started from the Jacobson/Clack controversy and we tried to use physical considerations (not subjected to the vagaries of markets) to examine how fast we can grow renewable energy. That’s constrained by several factors but, as a first consideration by the fact that we need to invest energy now in order to get energy in the future.

This is why we refer to “sowing” in the title of the paper: every farmer knows that one needs to save some of the current harvest as seed for the future one – enough for eating in the future, but not so much that one would starve. In the case of energy, it is the same. We need to invest some fossil energy for the future harvest of renewable energy, but not so much that society would collapse (it is the “Sower’s Strategy“).

So, we propose an approximate, but physics-based, criterion for the possible speed of growth of renewable energy production. The model provides results similar to a more detailed one that we published earlier on. Let me cite from this recent paper:

These questions can be discussed in terms of the concept of “energy yield” or “energy return” and, in particular, from the “Energy Payback Time” (EPBT), a measurement of the time necessary for a new plant to return an amount of energy equal to the amount invested for its construction. EPBT can be expressed as the ratio of the energy invested in the manufacturing of the plant divided by the yearly energy generated. From this definition, we can derive a measurement of the energy investment necessary in order to obtain a certain yearly production of energy. We perform this calculations in the reasonable assumption of a transition period T that is less than or equal to the lifetime of the renewable energy installations; in this way, we do not need to take into account plant replacement. For equal intervals of time, the energy invested is Einv(t)= Etarget (for t= T) × (EPBT/T). If we set “Etarget” as the current global production per year and we assume that we want to maintain it constant throughout the transition, then EPBT/T is the ratio of the needed yearly investments to the current yearly production. Seen in this light, the current values of the EPBT for the most diffuse renewable energy technologies are promising. <..>

If, hypothetically, the EPBT were larger than T, the transition would be physically impossible since it would require more energy than the amount that could be produced. Instead, for T=30 years, EPBT values over ca. 5 years would require investing more than 15% of the overall energy production every year, hence making the transition extremely difficult, although not completely impossible. Conversely, values of the EPBT close to or under 1 year would make the transition relatively facile. For instance, an EPBT=1 year implies that about 3% of the world’s energy production would have to be set aside for the transition. Seen in this light, the current values of the EPBT for the most diffuse renewable energy technologies are promising. <…>

These considerations can be compared to the current situation. The nameplate renewable energy capacity that was installed in 2016 was 161 GWp (IRENA 2017). With an average capacity factor that we can assume to be roughly 0.2, it corresponds to an average power generation of 32 GW. In this case, for renewable technologies with EPBT= 3 years, the Energy invested is about 100 GW, or about 0.8% of the world’s average primary power consumption, 12 TW (IEA 2016). According to these estimates, the current level of energy investments in new renewable energy is not sufficient to attain the transition within the assumed climatic and energetic constraints and should be increased. <..>

With these calculations, we show that physical factors provide fundamental insight on the challenge that humankind faces: the energy transition will be neither easy nor impossible, but it will require a substantially larger rate of energy investment than the currently allocated one.

In short, a transition that could maintain the “BAU” (business as usual) would be physically possible if we were willing to increase of a factor of 5 (at the very least) our investments in it. But, in the current situation, the transition in these terms is politically inconceivable. Increasing investments in renewable energy requires sacrifices. And this is a no-no in the current political situation where, indeed, investments in renewable energy seem to have levelled off rather than to be increasing. In 2016, the global investments were approximately at the same level as they were in 2010. Too little, too late.

So, we are not making it, at least in terms of a smooth substitution of fossil energy with clean energy. It doesn’t mean returning to Middle Ages or even to Olduvai, but that in the future not everyone, and not even a majority of people, will have as much energy as we all have today. The sacrifices we refused to make today will have to be made, and much larger, in the future.

Cassandra’s legacy by Ugo Bardi

57 Comments on "The Energy Transition: Too Little, Too Late"

baha on Sun, 10th Dec 2017 7:48 am

That is the proper way to calculate and plan an energy transition. I did it 10 years ago. I didn’t wait for society to buy in or politics/finances to cooperate. My transition is almost complete.

I will have the same amount of energy in 20 years as I have today…just enough 🙂

onlooker on Sun, 10th Dec 2017 8:01 am

Yep, we go down because of and with FF

onlooker on Sun, 10th Dec 2017 8:10 am

U.S. vastly overstates oil output forecasts, MIT study suggests
https://www.thestar.com/business/2017/12/01/us-vastly-overstates-oil-output-forecasts-mit-study-suggests.html

Davy on Sun, 10th Dec 2017 8:22 am

This is an exceptionally good read and one that should sober up the techno optimist and fake greens. Science deniers won’t read it anyway. The one thing the article did not go into was the economy and how it will be needed to make this difficult transition. I must emphasize without a robust economy growing at an above average rate of growth this condition in itself will put even more pressure on an already unlikely transition. The physics are not there and the economy is not there for an easy transition.

What is even more problematic is poor behavior at all levels. We are talking people living the unreality of the status quo with unrealistic expectations of affluence. This is at the basic level of consumerism and mass travel IMA that is so important to a growing economy and so bad for climate. Fake greens thinking we can have a transition through affluence without the kind of sacrifice that hurts IMA is also politically unfeasible in market based capitalism and liberal democracy.

We live in an irrational unreality of fantasy with science denial. This science denial is with those who use science optionally and scientist themselves who deny the science when solutions are not adequate. Realizing human behavior must change to demand management, conservation, and austerity to sacrifice for the needed investment in alternatives to the status quo is more than can be asked for of a species in denial. It is likely also an economy killer because we are a growth based global economy that cannot degrowth. Demand management, conservation, and austerity is degrowth plain and simple.

This then points to more than the science and to the pseudo-science of economics and markets. It is not understood by those without a good handle on the economy that this type of transition promoted today by the mainstream is a global economy killer. Many understand the science but not the system itself which includes an economy of irrational and rational humans. We cannot expect an already dysfunctional economy to survive intact the shock that will come from this kind of demand management, conservation, and forced austerity. These efforts are anathema to a growing global economy with increasing affluence and declining poverty.

We need to look to the geopolitical also. We are not getting along as a world. We cannot have militaries militarizing and cold and hot wars if we are going to make this work. I see no end in sight to this behavior. It is especially a problem with the US and its continued militarism but now we have half a dozen other militaries following the US militaries lead of expansion.

We also have to realize a transition will mean triage of various parts of the world that will be driven back into the dark ages both from not being a part of the expensive renewable transition and the effects of peak oil dynamics and climate change dynamics. The money will not be there to deal with peak oil dynamics and climate change disasters in many poor places. We will have some rich regions partially transition and other poorer regions turn into failed states and regions. Transition is only partial unless the entire world transitions and it likely can’t. Continued population growth will not allow the kind of transition this article covers. The end of population growth or the triage of the excess of populations growing currently has its own economic and ecological costs.

It is the converging of multiple problems within and paradigm of an earth shattering catch 22 predicament we call modernism and its limits of growth that will likely not be overcome. This means not only is the physics marginal (science) for a transition the human behavior side (political economic) is equally marginal. This all points to a life boat and hospice type arrangement of adaptation and mitigation as our only realistic hope. Let’s do what we can but quit lying to ourselves about a transition. There will likely be no happy ending of safety and security of overcoming our problems that are predicaments. This means acceptance and acknowledgment of a coming collapse that we can only delay and not eliminate.

eugene on Sun, 10th Dec 2017 8:37 am

Dreams are wonderful and they always work so well. In dreams countless details are left out as there’s no reality to them. When reality arrives all the unforeseen problems of the dream arrive as well. But when sitting with a cup of coffee, all warm, full stomach and get out a piece of paper writing formulas/ideas, it feels so nice and fuzzy. All will be well “if”.

Shortend on Sun, 10th Dec 2017 8:44 am

No problem for me also…made my energy transition years ago….trained for a marathon shoeless, bought a cloths line for my lions cloth wardrobe, live in the Florida and made an open aired Palm hut and fish in the river, drink coconut milk, eat fruit from the trees and raise chickens and grow greens.
Collapse…BRING IT ON…

Cloggie on Sun, 10th Dec 2017 9:00 am

Mr Bardi is apparently missing that in Europe in 2016, 90% of total investment in energy was in renewable. Europe is not the world, that’s true. But… it is Europe first and slow lane rest of the world will follow.

Here in detail how it can be done:

https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/09/16/blueprint-100-renewable-energy-base-for-germany/

Blueprint for a 100% renewable energy base for Germany, from the renewable energy institute numero uno in the world: the Fraunhofer Institute. The gentleman who set up this study in 2012 is now the director of the solar branche of that renowned club.

Price tag for operational cost: 119 billion euro per year… once the system is in place. That is ca 1450 euro per German, all in. Home energy, transport, industry, everything. This is no more expensive than what Germany has now to pay on energy.

Assumption: all buildings need to be throughly renovated for energy saving.

The authors of the study made a computer program that would optimize the renewable energy configuration over solar, offshore and onshore wind, aiming at minimizing cost. The prices for installed kwh were taken from the IEA, values 2012. Currently prices are MUCH lower.

Bardi makes the beginners mistake not to take into account that in 2017 you get much more bang for your buck than 10 years ago:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/06/spectacular-drop-in-renewable-energy-costs-leads-to-record-global-boost

The European industry announced this month it wants to speed up transition:

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/12/08/european-utilities-commit-100-carbon-neutral-electricity-well-2050-cheaper/

Europe is not the problem and the Chinese at least have shown the ambition to embrace renewable energy as much as possible.

The problem is the rest of the world and the quite saboteurs like Davy, who spend all their energy in telling it won’t work, as solutions conflict with their desire for collapse and prefer to have an excuse to have to do nothing.

Davy on Sun, 10th Dec 2017 9:30 am

Lol, “saboteur” is that what you call moderation of extremism and the neutering of fantasy of optional reality? You are a joke dutchy. We prove your reality fantasy here daily. You are one big history revision of past reality and one huge fantasy future. You are a warped agenda pretending to deserve respect. After the Nazi’s robed Germany of legitimacy they also craved respect much like you dutchy. You will crash and burn just like them in unreality.

Cloggie on Sun, 10th Dec 2017 9:36 am

We prove your reality fantasy here daily.

No you don’t, dom amerikaantje.

The only thing you prove 24/7 is your low morale, your nihilism, your depressions, your “can’t do mentality” and your “no future” attitude.

“I’m a doomer”

Yeah, we know that by now. For you there is no hope.

Solutions won’t come from America, only problems.

Davy on Sun, 10th Dec 2017 10:30 am

translation: Ich bin pissed because in zwei comments I got my false teeth kicked in. LMFAO.

Hello on Sun, 10th Dec 2017 10:31 am

>>>> Solutions won’t come from America, only problems.

There’s no solution Clog. There’s only mudlin’ from one problem to the next. And each problem is a bit harder to solve than the previous one, needs a bit more energy, adds a bit more complexity, up until the whole machine we call civilization comes flying apart.

>>> you get much more bang for your buck than 10 years ago

Wondering how much of that increase is due to low oil price. Once fossils go up, renewables follow suit. But then again, nobody really knows. But we will find out. Patience.

Outcast_Searcher on Sun, 10th Dec 2017 12:25 pm

Cloggie, I think the point you don’t allow for, which is a completely reasonable assessment is the first half of the second to last paragraph.

“In short, a transition that could maintain the “BAU” (business as usual) would be physically possible if we were willing to increase of a factor of 5 (at the very least) our investments in it. But, in the current situation, the transition in these terms is politically inconceivable. Increasing investments in renewable energy requires sacrifices.”

The lack of willingness to sacrifice soon enough, and the political inconceivability are both right at the heart of the matter, at least for the US.

The article isn’t going over-the-top doomer porn — it’s simply pointing out what any realistic person knows — we’re not doing enough, not even close. Paris Climate Accords of kick the can being a PRIME example.

Human stupidity is rather persistent, in the big picture.

Cloggie on Sun, 10th Dec 2017 12:51 pm

@Outcast, Bardi does not substantiate where he gets this figure of 5 from . If Europe already invest 90% of its new energy capacity in renewable than you know in advance that after 50 years or so old fossil capacity will have been replaced completely.

Europe does that because renewable is already cheaper than fossil.

OK, it is true, we have no yet concern ourselves with storage, which is a complication, which will make things more expensive.

But he, do we have a choice? Of course not. Perhaps we will only be able to replace 50%. That’s 50% gain.

But I am not that pessimistic. The mood in Europe is that we should speed up and not aim at 2050, but earlier, 2040 or even 2030.

Example: Siemens closes down plants that produce fossil fuel based power plants:

http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/11/17/siemens-retreats-from-old-energy-wsj.html

Antius on Sun, 10th Dec 2017 1:10 pm

The energy payback time doesn’t include the energy invested in, or the losses that occur in storage does it? But of course, we don’t use storage at present. We use natural gas CCGT, and wind and solar power reduce the fuel bill.

When the energy investments and losses of storage is accounted for, how much does energy investment need to increase to produce a renewable system that would support modern lifestyles in 30 years, without fossil fuels? Would it be 5%, 10% or even more?

onlooker on Sun, 10th Dec 2017 2:22 pm

They had a very thorough report named the Hirsh report some years back, that stated we needed a headstart or leeway time of 30 years or so to transition before PO really hit.
Well, the effects of PO are already here and we have barely started a transition

onlooker on Sun, 10th Dec 2017 2:26 pm

And this report says we would need 130 years or so to fully replace FF
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es100730q

Apneaman on Sun, 10th Dec 2017 4:21 pm

Germany talks a good game on climate, but it’s still stuck on coal

Germany leads EU in CO2 emissions from coal

““Germany is not the greenest country in the world,” says a climate activist who refers to himself as Tom.

Germany has long pushed stronger global action to fight climate change. But Tom — who uses a pseudonym over fears of being targeted by police — says the reality is quite different. “It’s one of the biggest CO2 producers in the world,” he says. “What we have here basically is the best country in greenwashing.””

https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-11-15/germany-talks-good-game-climate-its-still-stuck-coal

The only thing the humans are transitioning to is a collapsed civilization, die back & likely extinction.

Daily CO2

December 8, 2017: 405.95 ppm

December 8, 2016: 404.02 ppm
November CO2

November 2017: 405.14 ppm

November 2016: 403.53 ppm

https://www.co2.earth/

Global atmospheric CO2 levels hit record high

“The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased at record speed last year to hit a level not seen for more than three million years, the UN has warned.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/30/global-atmospheric-co2-levels-hit-record-high

How can anyone look at the aggregate numbers and conclude the humans are transitioning? Talk, talk, talk and ceaseless infantile cheer leading.

40 years of environmentalism and alt energy efforts HAS NOT made a fucking dent in the growth of the cancer.

Fossil fuels are still 80% or so of the energy, same as 40 years ago.

The only change is that the banquet of consequences has started. So far just the appetizers like AGW Hurricane Harvey with it’s 33 Trillion gallon Rain Bombing and wildfires gone wild world wide. Just wait to see what the main course looks like.

Shortend on Sun, 10th Dec 2017 4:53 pm

Up Up and away….Merkel knows the science of Climate Change with her background

Merkel worked and studied at the Central Institute for Physical Chemistry of the Academy of Sciences in Berlin-Adlershof from 1978 to 1990. After being awarded a doctorate (Dr. rer. nat.) for her thesis on quantum chemistry in 1986,[31] she worked as a researcher and published several papers

Of course, easier here to point at the lack of effective response..somehow there is a lack tangible alternatives, other than everyone stop breeding.

Makati1 on Sun, 10th Dec 2017 5:34 pm

It’s ALL about money. If it cannot show a $$$ profit, it ain’t gonna happen. We are where we are because the capitalist economy requires profits. Capitalists are greedy. Capitalism is also dying along with the West in general and the US in particular. The crash will end it permanently. When the dust settles, we will be back in the 1800s, IF we are lucky, or dying of radiation. We shall see.

Davy on Sun, 10th Dec 2017 5:42 pm

“It’s ALL about money. If it cannot show a $$$ profit, it ain’t gonna happen.”
What is all about money mad kat? What is “it”?

“We are where we are because the capitalist economy requires profits.”
Where are we at mad kat? IMA all economies need profit or do you know of a special system that can operate with negative return?

“Capitalists are greedy.”
Who are capitalist mad kat? Are they all greedy? Are Asians capitalist? Are Filipino capitalist?

“Capitalism is also dying along with the West in general and the US in particular.”
How would you quantify that mad kat? Have you had your coffee yet? Sounds like you just woke up hungover or something you are talking stupid.

“The crash will end it permanently. When the dust settles, we will be back in the 1800s, IF we are lucky, or dying of radiation. We shall see.”
What is the crash? How are we going to be back in the 1800?

Makati1 on Sun, 10th Dec 2017 5:54 pm

America is burning…

“After destroying hundreds of buildings and forcing the evacuations of more than 200,000 people, the seven discrete wildfires ravaging Southern California finally receded over the weekend as the powerful Santa Ana winds that had fanned the flames earlier in the week died down. But firefighters early Sunday warned that the battle is far from over, as the progress made in containing the flames might soon be undone when the powerful Santa Aana winds return on Sunday.”

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-10/california-governor-warns-grim-future-fires-spring-back-life

A Trillion Dollar Disaster year in the US? Three weeks to go!

burnCAburn on Sun, 10th Dec 2017 7:46 pm

Timeline of the fire[edit]
In the spring of 1849, the population of St. Louis was about 63,000 with a western boundary of the city extending to 11th Street. The city was about three quarters of a mile in width and had about three miles of riverfront filled with steamboats and other river craft. St. Louis, located near the junction of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers, was the last major city where travelers could get supplies before they headed west. Here travelers bought supplies and switched steamboats before going up the Missouri River to Omaha, Nebraska or other trail heads for the Oregon and California trails west. At the time of this fire, the city was also experiencing a cholera epidemic which would end up killing about 10% of the population (over 4,500). The town was booming as people came in from around the U.S. and abroad and bought supplies before heading overland to participate in the California Gold Rush.
On May 17, 1849 at 9:00 p.m. a fire alarm sounded in St. Louis. The paddle wheeled steamboat “The White Cloud” on the river at the foot of Cherry Street was on fire. The volunteer Fire Department with nine hand engines and hose reel wagons promptly responded. The moorings holding the “White Cloud” burned through and the burning steamboat drifted slowly down the Mississippi River, setting 22 other steam boats and several flatboats and barges on fire.[1]
The flames leaped from the burning steamboats to buildings on the shore and was soon burning everything on the waterfront levee for four blocks. The fire extended to Main Street westward and crossing Olive Street. It completely gutted the three blocks between Olive and 2nd Street and went as far south as Market Street. It then ignited a large copper shop three blocks away and burned out two more city blocks. The volunteer firemen, after laboring for eight hours, were nearly completely demoralized and exhausted. The entire business district of the city appeared doomed unless something was done. Six businesses in front of the fire were loaded with kegs of black powder and blown up in succession. Captain Thomas B. Targee of Missouri Company No. 5 died while he was spreading powder into Phillips Music store, the last store chosen to be blown up.

St. Louis Fire, illustration in a German book from 1857
This fire was the largest and most destructive fire St. Louis has ever experienced. When the fire was finally contained after 11 hours, 430 buildings were destroyed, 23 steamboats along with over a dozen other boats were lost and 3 people had died including a Fire Captain.[1] As a result of these fires, a new building code required new structures to be built of stone or brick and an extensive new water and sewage system was started.[1]

burnCAburn on Sun, 10th Dec 2017 7:51 pm

Hello cunty twats. Please die.
Death
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“Dead” and “Dying” redirect here. For the coloring process, see Dyeing. For other uses, see Dead (disambiguation) and Death (disambiguation).

Allegory of death: skeleton holding banderolle “Vigilate quia nescitis diem …”, anon., possibly Dutch or German. Made c.1600
Death is the cessation of all biological functions that sustain a living organism. Phenomena which commonly bring about death include aging, predation, malnutrition, disease, suicide, homicide, starvation, dehydration, and accidents or trauma resulting in terminal injury.[1] In most cases, bodies of living organisms begin to decompose shortly after death.
Death – particularly the death of humans – has commonly been considered a sad or unpleasant occasion, due to the affection for the being that has died and the termination of social and familial bonds with the deceased. Other concerns include fear of death, necrophobia, anxiety, sorrow, grief, emotional pain, depression, sympathy, compassion, solitude, or saudade. Many cultures and religions have the idea of an afterlife, and also hold the idea of reward or judgement and punishment for past sin.
Contents [hide]
1 Etymology
2 Associated terms
3 Senescence
4 Diagnosis
4.1 Signs
4.2 Problems of definition
4.3 Legal
4.4 Misdiagnosed
5 Cause
5.1 Autopsy
6 Cryonics
7 Life extension
8 Reperfusion
9 Location
10 Society and culture
11 Consciousness
12 In biology
12.1 Natural selection
12.2 Extinction
12.3 Evolution of aging and mortality
13 See also
14 References
15 Further reading
16 External links
Etymology
The word death comes from Old English dēaþ, which in turn comes from Proto-Germanic *dauþuz (reconstructed by etymological analysis). This comes from the Proto-Indo-European stem *dheu- meaning the “process, act, condition of dying”.[2]
Associated terms
The concept and symptoms of death, and varying degrees of delicacy used in discussion in public forums, have generated numerous scientific, legal, and socially acceptable terms or euphemisms for death. When a person has died, it is also said they have passed away, passed on, expired, or are gone, among numerous other socially accepted, religiously specific, slang, and irreverent terms. Bereft of life, the dead person is then a corpse, cadaver, a body, a set of remains, and when all flesh has rotted away, a skeleton. The terms carrion and carcass can also be used, though these more often connote the remains of non-human animals. As a polite reference to a dead person, it has become common practice to use the participle form of “decease”, as in the deceased; another noun form is decedent. The ashes left after a cremation are sometimes referred to by the neologism cremains, a portmanteau of “cremation” and “remains”.
Senescence
A dead magpie
A dead Eurasian magpie
Senescence refers to a scenario when a living being is able to survive all calamities, but eventually dies due to causes relating to old age. Animal and plant cells normally reproduce and function during the whole period of natural existence, but the aging process derives from deterioration of cellular activity and ruination of regular functioning. Aptitude of cells for gradual deterioration and mortality means that cells are naturally sentenced to stable and long-term loss of living capacities, even despite continuing metabolic reactions and viability. In the United Kingdom, for example, nine out of ten of all the deaths that occur on a daily basis relates to senescence, while around the world it accounts for two-thirds of 150,000 deaths that take place daily (Hayflick & Moody, 2003).
Almost all animals who survive external hazards to their biological functioning eventually die from biological aging, known in life sciences as “senescence”. Some organisms experience negligible senescence, even exhibiting biological immortality. These include the jellyfish Turritopsis dohrnii,[3] the hydra, and the planarian. Unnatural causes of death include suicide and homicide. From all causes, roughly 150,000 people die around the world each day.[4] Of these, two thirds die directly or indirectly due to senescence, but in industrialized countries—such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany—the rate approaches 90%, i.e., nearly nine out of ten of all deaths are related to senescence.[4]
Physiological death is now seen as a process, more than an event: conditions once considered indicative of death are now reversible.[5] Where in the process a dividing line is drawn between life and death depends on factors beyond the presence or absence of vital signs. In general, clinical death is neither necessary nor sufficient for a determination of legal death. A patient with working heart and lungs determined to be brain dead can be pronounced legally dead without clinical death occurring. As scientific knowledge and medicine advance, formulating a precise medical definition of death becomes more difficult.[6]
Diagnosis

World Health Organization estimated number of deaths per million persons in 2012
1054-4,598
4,599-5,516
5,517-6,289
6,290-6,835
6,836-7,916
7,917-8,728
8,729-9,404
9,405-10,433
10,434-12,233
12,234-17,141
Signs
Signs of death or strong indications that a warm-blooded animal is no longer alive are:
Respiratory arrest (no breathing)
Cardiac arrest (no pulse)
Pallor mortis, paleness which happens in the 15–120 minutes after death
Livor mortis, a settling of the blood in the lower (dependent) portion of the body
Algor mortis, the reduction in body temperature following death. This is generally a steady decline until matching ambient temperature
Rigor mortis, the limbs of the corpse become stiff (Latin rigor) and difficult to move or manipulate
Decomposition, the reduction into simpler forms of matter, accompanied by a strong, unpleasant odor.
Problems of definition
Main article: Medical definition of death
Symbols of death in a painting: it shows a flower, a skull and an hourglass
A flower, a skull and an hourglass stand for life, death and time in this 17th-century painting by Philippe de Champaigne
Ivory pendant of a Monk’s face. The left half of the pendant appears skeletal, while the right half appears living
French – 16th-/17th-century ivory pendant, Monk and Death, recalling mortality and the certainty of death (Walters Art Museum)
The concept of death is a key to human understanding of the phenomenon.[7] There are many scientific approaches to the concept. For example, brain death, as practiced in medical science, defines death as a point in time at which brain activity ceases.[7][8][9][10]
One of the challenges in defining death is in distinguishing it from life. As a point in time, death would seem to refer to the moment at which life ends. Determining when death has occurred is difficult, as cessation of life functions is often not simultaneous across organ systems.[11] Such determination therefore requires drawing precise conceptual boundaries between life and death. This is difficult, due to there being little consensus on how to define life. This general problem applies to the particular challenge of defining death in the context of medicine.
It is possible to define life in terms of consciousness. When consciousness ceases, a living organism can be said to have died. One of the flaws in this approach is that there are many organisms which are alive but probably not conscious (for example, single-celled organisms). Another problem is in defining consciousness, which has many different definitions given by modern scientists, psychologists and philosophers. Additionally, many religious traditions, including Abrahamic and Dharmic traditions, hold that death does not (or may not) entail the end of consciousness. In certain cultures, death is more of a process than a single event. It implies a slow shift from one spiritual state to another.[12]
Other definitions for death focus on the character of cessation of something.[13][clarification needed] In this context “death” describes merely the state where something has ceased, for example, life. Thus, the definition of “life” simultaneously defines death.
Historically, attempts to define the exact moment of a human’s death have been subjective, or imprecise. Death was once defined as the cessation of heartbeat (cardiac arrest) and of breathing, but the development of CPR and prompt defibrillation have rendered that definition inadequate because breathing and heartbeat can sometimes be restarted. Events which were causally linked to death in the past no longer kill in all circumstances; without a functioning heart or lungs, life can sometimes be sustained with a combination of life support devices, organ transplants and artificial pacemakers.
Today, where a definition of the moment of death is required, doctors and coroners usually turn to “brain death” or “biological death” to define a person as being dead; people are considered dead when the electrical activity in their brain ceases. It is presumed that an end of electrical activity indicates the end of consciousness. Suspension of consciousness must be permanent, and not transient, as occurs during certain sleep stages, and especially a coma. In the case of sleep, EEGs can easily tell the difference.
The category of “brain death” is seen as problematic by some scholars. For instance, Dr. Franklin Miller, senior faculty member at the Department of Bioethics, National Institutes of Health, notes: “By the late 1990s… the equation of brain death with death of the human being was increasingly challenged by scholars, based on evidence regarding the array of biological functioning displayed by patients correctly diagnosed as having this condition who were maintained on mechanical ventilation for substantial periods of time. These patients maintained the ability to sustain circulation and respiration, control temperature, excrete wastes, heal wounds, fight infections and, most dramatically, to gestate fetuses (in the case of pregnant “brain-dead” women).”[14]
Those people maintaining that only the neo-cortex of the brain is necessary for consciousness sometimes argue that only electrical activity should be considered when defining death. Eventually it is possible that the criterion for death will be the permanent and irreversible loss of cognitive function, as evidenced by the death of the cerebral cortex. All hope of recovering human thought and personality is then gone given current and foreseeable medical technology. At present, in most places the more conservative definition of death – irreversible cessation of electrical activity in the whole brain, as opposed to just in the neo-cortex – has been adopted (for example the Uniform Determination Of Death Act in the United States). In 2005, the Terri Schiavo case brought the question of brain death and artificial sustenance to the front of American politics.
Even by whole-brain criteria, the determination of brain death can be complicated. EEGs can detect spurious electrical impulses, while certain drugs, hypoglycemia, hypoxia, or hypothermia can suppress or even stop brain activity on a temporary basis. Because of this, hospitals have protocols for determining brain death involving EEGs at widely separated intervals under defined conditions.
Legal
See also: Legal death
The death of a person has legal consequences that may vary between different jurisdictions. A death certificate is issued in most jurisdictions, either by a doctor, or by an administrative office upon presentation of a doctor’s declaration of death.
Misdiagnosed
See also: Premature burial

Antoine Wiertz’s painting of a man buried alive
There are many anecdotal references to people being declared dead by physicians and then “coming back to life”, sometimes days later in their own coffin, or when embalming procedures are about to begin. From the mid-18th century onwards, there was an upsurge in the public’s fear of being mistakenly buried alive,[15] and much debate about the uncertainty of the signs of death. Various suggestions were made to test for signs of life before burial, ranging from pouring vinegar and pepper into the corpse’s mouth to applying red hot pokers to the feet or into the rectum.[16] Writing in 1895, the physician J.C. Ouseley claimed that as many as 2,700 people were buried prematurely each year in England and Wales, although others estimated the figure to be closer to 800.[17]
In cases of electric shock, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for an hour or longer can allow stunned nerves to recover, allowing an apparently dead person to survive. People found unconscious under icy water may survive if their faces are kept continuously cold until they arrive at an emergency room.[18] This “diving response”, in which metabolic activity and oxygen requirements are minimal, is something humans share with cetaceans called the mammalian diving reflex.[18]
As medical technologies advance, ideas about when death occurs may have to be re-evaluated in light of the ability to restore a person to vitality after longer periods of apparent death (as happened when CPR and defibrillation showed that cessation of heartbeat is inadequate as a decisive indicator of death). The lack of electrical brain activity may not be enough to consider someone scientifically dead. Therefore, the concept of information-theoretic death[19] has been suggested as a better means of defining when true death occurs, though the concept has few practical applications outside of the field of cryonics.
There have been some scientific attempts to bring dead organisms back to life, but with limited success.[20] In science fiction scenarios where such technology is readily available, real death is distinguished from reversible death.
Cause
See also: List of causes of death by rate and List of preventable causes of death
The leading cause of human death in developing countries is infectious disease. The leading causes in developed countries are atherosclerosis (heart disease and stroke), cancer, and other diseases related to obesity and aging. By an extremely wide margin, the largest unifying cause of death in the developed world is biological aging,[4] leading to various complications known as aging-associated diseases. These conditions cause loss of homeostasis, leading to cardiac arrest, causing loss of oxygen and nutrient supply, causing irreversible deterioration of the brain and other tissues. Of the roughly 150,000 people who die each day across the globe, about two thirds die of age-related causes.[4] In industrialized nations, the proportion is much higher, approaching 90%.[4] With improved medical capability, dying has become a condition to be managed. Home deaths, once commonplace, are now rare in the developed world.

Americans smoking in 1910. Tobacco smoking caused an estimated 100 million deaths in the 20th century.[21]
In developing nations, inferior sanitary conditions and lack of access to modern medical technology makes death from infectious diseases more common than in developed countries. One such disease is tuberculosis, a bacterial disease which killed 1.8M people in 2015.[22] Malaria causes about 400–900M cases of fever and 1–3M deaths annually.[23] AIDS death toll in Africa may reach 90–100M by 2025.[24][25]
According to Jean Ziegler (United Nations Special Reporter on the Right to Food, 2000—Mar 2008), mortality due to malnutrition accounted for 58% of the total mortality rate in 2006. Ziegler says worldwide approximately 62M people died from all causes and of those deaths more than 36M died of hunger or diseases due to deficiencies in micronutrients.[26]
Tobacco smoking killed 100 million people worldwide in the 20th century and could kill 1 billion people around the world in the 21st century, a World Health Organization report warned.[21]
Many leading developed world causes of death can be postponed by diet and physical activity, but the accelerating incidence of disease with age still imposes limits on human longevity. The evolutionary cause of aging is, at best, only just beginning to be understood. It has been suggested that direct intervention in the aging process may now be the most effective intervention against major causes of death.[27]
Selye proposed a unified non-specific approach to many causes of death. He demonstrated that stress decreases adaptability of an organism and proposed to describe the adaptability as a special resource, adaptation energy. The animal dies when this resource is exhausted.[28] Selye assumed that the adaptability is a finite supply, presented at birth. Later on, Goldstone proposed the concept of a production or income of adaptation energy which may be stored (up to a limit), as a capital reserve of adaptation.[29] In recent works, adaptation energy is considered as an internal coordinate on the “dominant path” in the model of adaptation. It is demonstrated that oscillations of well-being appear when the reserve of adaptability is almost exhausted.[30]
In 2012, suicide overtook car crashes for leading causes of human injury deaths in the U.S., followed by poisoning, falls and murder.[31] Causes of death are different in different parts of the world. In high-income and middle income countries nearly half up to more than two thirds of all people live beyond the age of 70 and predominantly die of chronic diseases. In low-income countries, where less than one in five of all people reach the age of 70, and more than a third of all deaths are among children under 15, people predominantly die of infectious diseases.[32]
Autopsy
An autopsy, also known as a postmortem examination or an obduction, is a medical procedure that consists of a thorough examination of a human corpse to determine the cause and manner of a person’s death and to evaluate any disease or injury that may be present. It is usually performed by a specialized medical doctor called a pathologist.
A painting of an autopsy, by Rembrandt, entitled “The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp”
An autopsy is portrayed in The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp, by Rembrandt
Autopsies are either performed for legal or medical purposes. A forensic autopsy is carried out when the cause of death may be a criminal matter, while a clinical or academic autopsy is performed to find the medical cause of death and is used in cases of unknown or uncertain death, or for research purposes. Autopsies can be further classified into cases where external examination suffices, and those where the body is dissected and an internal examination is conducted. Permission from next of kin may be required for internal autopsy in some cases. Once an internal autopsy is complete the body is generally reconstituted by sewing it back together. Autopsy is important in a medical environment and may shed light on mistakes and help improve practices.
A “necropsy” is an older term for a postmortem examination, unregulated, and not always a medical procedure. In modern times the term is more often used in the postmortem examination of the corpses of animals.
Cryonics
Main article: Cryonics
Cryonics (from Greek κρύος ‘kryos-‘ meaning ‘icy cold’) is the low-temperature preservation of animals and humans who cannot be sustained by contemporary medicine, with the hope that healing and resuscitation may be possible in the future.[33][34]
Cryopreservation of people or large animals is not reversible with current technology. The stated rationale for cryonics is that people who are considered dead by current legal or medical definitions may not necessarily be dead according to the more stringent information-theoretic definition of death.[19][35] It is proposed that cryopreserved people might someday be recovered by using highly advanced technology.[36][37]
Some scientific literature supports the feasibility of cryonics.[36][37][38] Many other scientists regard cryonics with skepticism.[39] By 2015, more than 300 people have undergone cryopreservation procedures since cryonics was first proposed in 1962.[40]
Life extension
Main article: Life extension
Life extension refers to an increase in maximum or average lifespan, especially in humans, by slowing down or reversing the processes of aging. Average lifespan is determined by vulnerability to accidents and age or lifestyle-related afflictions such as cancer, or cardiovascular disease. Extension of average lifespan can be achieved by good diet, exercise and avoidance of hazards such as smoking. Maximum lifespan is also determined by the rate of aging for a species inherent in its genes. Currently, the only widely recognized method of extending maximum lifespan is calorie restriction. Theoretically, extension of maximum lifespan can be achieved by reducing the rate of aging damage, by periodic replacement of damaged tissues, or by molecular repair or rejuvenation of deteriorated cells and tissues.
A United States poll found that religious people and irreligious people, as well as men and women and people of different economic classes have similar rates of support for life extension, while Africans and Hispanics have higher rates of support than white people.[41] 38 percent of the polled said they would desire to have their aging process cured.
Researchers of life extension are a subclass of biogerontologists known as “biomedical gerontologists”. They try to understand the nature of aging and they develop treatments to reverse aging processes or to at least slow them down, for the improvement of health and the maintenance of youthful vigor at every stage of life. Those who take advantage of life extension findings and seek to apply them upon themselves are called “life extensionists” or “longevists”. The primary life extension strategy currently is to apply available anti-aging methods in the hope of living long enough to benefit from a complete cure to aging once it is developed.
Reperfusion
“One of medicine’s new frontiers: treating the dead”, recognizes that cells that have been without oxygen for more than five minutes die,[42] not from lack of oxygen, but rather when their oxygen supply is resumed. Therefore, practitioners of this approach, e.g., at the Resuscitation Science institute at the University of Pennsylvania, “aim to reduce oxygen uptake, slow metabolism and adjust the blood chemistry for gradual and safe reperfusion.”[43]
Location
Before about 1930, most people in Western countries died in their own homes, surrounded by family, and comforted by clergy, neighbors, and doctors making house calls.[44] By the mid-20th century, half of all Americans died in a hospital.[45] By the start of the 21st century, only about 20 to 25% of people in developed countries died outside a medical institution.[45][46][47] The shift away from dying at home, towards dying in a professionalized medical environment, has been termed the “Invisible Death”.[45] The “Invisible Death” process was extremely slow and infinitesimal. It took many years to shift to this new location where dying was commonly taking place outside of the home.[48]
Society and culture
Main articles: Death and culture and Human skull symbolism
A duke insulting the corpse of Klaus Fleming
The regent duke Charles (later king Charles IX of Sweden) insulting the corpse of Klaus Fleming. Albert Edelfelt, 1878.

Dead bodies can be mummified either naturally, as this one from Guanajuato, or by intention, as those in ancient Egypt.
In society, the nature of death and humanity’s awareness of its own mortality has for millennia been a concern of the world’s religious traditions and of philosophical inquiry. This includes belief in resurrection or an afterlife (associated with Abrahamic religions), reincarnation or rebirth (associated with Dharmic religions), or that consciousness permanently ceases to exist, known as eternal oblivion (associated with atheism).[49]
Commemoration ceremonies after death may include various mourning, funeral practices and ceremonies of honouring the deceased. The physical remains of a person, commonly known as a corpse or body, are usually interred whole or cremated, though among the world’s cultures there are a variety of other methods of mortuary disposal. In the English language, blessings directed towards a dead person include rest in peace, or its initialism RIP.
Death is the center of many traditions and organizations; customs relating to death are a feature of every culture around the world. Much of this revolves around the care of the dead, as well as the afterlife and the disposal of bodies upon the onset of death. The disposal of human corpses does, in general, begin with the last offices before significant time has passed, and ritualistic ceremonies often occur, most commonly interment or cremation. This is not a unified practice; in Tibet, for instance, the body is given a sky burial and left on a mountain top. Proper preparation for death and techniques and ceremonies for producing the ability to transfer one’s spiritual attainments into another body (reincarnation) are subjects of detailed study in Tibet.[50] Mummification or embalming is also prevalent in some cultures, to retard the rate of decay.
Legal aspects of death are also part of many cultures, particularly the settlement of the deceased estate and the issues of inheritance and in some countries, inheritance taxation.
Gravestones in Japan
Gravestones in Kyoto, Japan
Capital punishment is also a culturally divisive aspect of death. In most jurisdictions where capital punishment is carried out today, the death penalty is reserved for premeditated murder, espionage, treason, or as part of military justice. In some countries, sexual crimes, such as adultery and sodomy, carry the death penalty, as do religious crimes such as apostasy, the formal renunciation of one’s religion. In many retentionist countries, drug trafficking is also a capital offense. In China, human trafficking and serious cases of corruption are also punished by the death penalty. In militaries around the world courts-martial have imposed death sentences for offenses such as cowardice, desertion, insubordination, and mutiny.[51]
Death in warfare and in suicide attack also have cultural links, and the ideas of dulce et decorum est pro patria mori, mutiny punishable by death, grieving relatives of dead soldiers and death notification are embedded in many cultures. Recently in the western world, with the increase in terrorism following the September 11 attacks, but also further back in time with suicide bombings, kamikaze missions in World War II and suicide missions in a host of other conflicts in history, death for a cause by way of suicide attack, and martyrdom have had significant cultural impacts.
Suicide in general, and particularly euthanasia, are also points of cultural debate. Both acts are understood very differently in different cultures. In Japan, for example, ending a life with honor by seppuku was considered a desirable death, whereas according to traditional Christian and Islamic cultures, suicide is viewed as a sin. Death is personified in many cultures, with such symbolic representations as the Grim Reaper, Azrael, the Hindu God Yama and Father Time.
In Brazil, a human death is counted officially when it is registered by existing family members at a cartório, a government-authorized registry. Before being able to file for an official death, the deceased must have been registered for an official birth at the cartório. Though a Public Registry Law guarantees all Brazilian citizens the right to register deaths, regardless of their financial means, of their family members (often children), the Brazilian government has not taken away the burden, the hidden costs and fees, of filing for a death. For many impoverished families, the indirect costs and burden of filing for a death lead to a more appealing, unofficial, local, cultural burial, which in turn raises the debate about inaccurate mortality rates.[52]
Talking about death and witnessing it is a difficult issue with most cultures. Western societies may like to treat the dead with the utmost material respect, with an official embalmer and associated rites. Eastern societies (like India) may be more open to accepting it as a fait accompli, with a funeral procession of the dead body ending in an open air burning-to-ashes of the same.
Consciousness
Main article: Consciousness after death
Much interest and debate surround the question of what happens to one’s consciousness as one’s body dies. The belief in the permanent loss of consciousness after death is often called eternal oblivion. Belief that the stream of consciousness is preserved after physical death is described by the term afterlife.
In biology
After death the remains of an organism become part of the biogeochemical cycle. Animals may be consumed by a predator or a scavenger. Organic material may then be further decomposed by detritivores, organisms which recycle detritus, returning it to the environment for reuse in the food chain, where these chemicals may eventually end up being consumed and assimilated into the cells of a living organism. Examples of detritivores include earthworms, woodlice and dung beetles.
Microorganisms also play a vital role, raising the temperature of the decomposing matter as they break it down into yet simpler molecules. Not all materials need to be decomposed fully. Coal, a fossil fuel formed over vast tracts of time in swamp ecosystems, is one example.
Natural selection
Main articles: Competition (biology), Natural selection, and Extinction
Contemporary evolutionary theory sees death as an important part of the process of natural selection. It is considered that organisms less adapted to their environment are more likely to die having produced fewer offspring, thereby reducing their contribution to the gene pool. Their genes are thus eventually bred out of a population, leading at worst to extinction and, more positively, making the process possible, referred to as speciation. Frequency of reproduction plays an equally important role in determining species survival: an organism that dies young but leaves numerous offspring displays, according to Darwinian criteria, much greater fitness than a long-lived organism leaving only one.
Extinction
Main article: Extinction
Painting of a dodo
A dodo, the bird that became a byword in the English language for the extinction of a species[53]
Extinction is the cessation of existence of a species or group of taxa, reducing biodiversity. The moment of extinction is generally considered to be the death of the last individual of that species (although the capacity to breed and recover may have been lost before this point). Because a species’ potential range may be very large, determining this moment is difficult, and is usually done retrospectively. This difficulty leads to phenomena such as Lazarus taxa, where species presumed extinct abruptly “reappear” (typically in the fossil record) after a period of apparent absence. New species arise through the process of speciation, an aspect of evolution. New varieties of organisms arise and thrive when they are able to find and exploit an ecological niche – and species become extinct when they are no longer able to survive in changing conditions or against superior competition.
Evolution of aging and mortality
Main article: Evolution of aging
Inquiry into the evolution of aging aims to explain why so many living things and the vast majority of animals weaken and die with age (exceptions include Hydra and the already cited jellyfish Turritopsis dohrnii, which research shows to be biologically immortal). The evolutionary origin of senescence remains one of the fundamental puzzles of biology. Gerontology specializes in the science of human aging processes.
Organisms showing only asexual reproduction (e.g. bacteria, some protists, like the euglenoids and many amoebozoans) and unicellular organisms with sexual reproduction (colonial or not, like the volvocine algae Pandorina and Chlamydomonas) are “immortal” at some extent, dying only due to external hazards, like being eaten or meeting with a fatal accident. In multicellular organisms (and also in multinucleate ciliates),[54] with a Weismannist development, that is, with a division of labor between mortal somatic (body) cells and “immortal” germ (reproductive) cells, death becomes an essential part of life, at least for the somatic line.[55]
The Volvox algae are among the simplest organisms to exhibit that division of labor between two completely different cell types, and as a consequence include death of somatic line as a regular, genetically regulated part of its life history.[55][56]
See also
Death portal
Day of Judgement
Day of the Dead
Deathbed
Death drive
Death row
Death trajectory
Doomsday
Dying declaration
End-of-life care
Faked death
Karōshi
Last rites
List of deaths by year
Memento mori
Near-death experience
Origin-of-death myth
Spiritual death
Survivalism (life after death)
Taboo on the dead

burnCAburn on Sun, 10th Dec 2017 7:53 pm

Antius on Sun, 10th Dec 2017 8:47 pm

It is long past time that that ‘The West’ stopped dicking around with day dream, fake green energy solutions and actually started focusing on solutions that work.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/advanced-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx

Wind turbines and solar panels have no hope of producing the energy needed for industrial civilisation at an affordable cost or profitable EROI. As soon as the cost of storage comes into the equation, these alternatives are shown up for what they really are: fossil fuel extenders.

Antius on Sun, 10th Dec 2017 9:11 pm

I refer back to my previous post. Storage will roughly triple the cost and half the EROI of intermittent renewable electricity. These energy sources can do little more than reduce the fuel bill from fossil fuel power plants, without ever really freeing us from fossil fuels.

We need to focus our attention and funding on compact nuclear reactors with passive safety features. These are the only technologies with sufficient power density to save us at this point.

‘OK – to settle the storage cost question. There are three components to intermittency: (1) Short term fluctuations, lasting hours or days (See link below); (2) Inter-seasonal fluctuations; and (3) Inter-annual fluctuations.
https://www.withouthotair.com/c4/page_32.shtml
https://s3.amazonaws.com/jo.nova/graph/energy/electricity/sa-blackout/fig-2-wind-farm-output-sa-vic.gif

Short-term fluctuations in wind power are peaks and lulls, usually with a few days between peaks on average, but sometimes up to 5 days or longer. McKay estimated that for a wind power plant to be buffered to provide baseload, about 5 days of average power output should be stored. For a 33GW wind power plant with 33% load factor, that amounts to 1200GWh of storage, or 36.4GWh per GW installed. The Dinorwig pumped storage plant in North Wales, has storage capacity 9.1GWh, so to cover short term fluctuations, we would need roughly 4 Dinorwigs per installed GW.
https://withouthotair.com/c26/page_186.shtml

Dinorwig was completed in 1984 at a cost of £425million, about £1275million in today’s money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station

I am going to assume that 4 Dinorwig plants would cost £5.1billion in today’s money. Let us assume that the interest on the capital expenditure is 5%pa. Also assume that operation and maintenance costs are 25% of total costs – this is roughly in line with hydropower cost breakdown. Over 1 year, a 1GW wind farm will generate 2.92million MWh of electric power. The interest payments and O&M on the pumped storage plants will add £116.4/MWh generated. Dinorwig is 75% efficient. Let us assume that half of all power generated by the wind farm is stored and the other half consumed directly as it is generated. To cover storage losses, we need to generate an extra 12.5% power from our wind farm, or we lose 12.5%, depending on how you want to look at it. So the storage overhead cost is £131/MWh that actually reaches the grid for consumers.

For Walney wind farm, cost of electric power at the busbars in 2015 was estimated to be £117/MWh. Strike prices for new offshore wind farms reached a new low of £57/MWh in 2017. The large drop is due to competitive auctions that are squeezing vendor’s profit margins, a surplus of people and shipping thanks to declines in North Sea oil and gas; and record low steel prices, thanks to global deflation. It is uncertain how long this can continue, but let’s say £57-117/MWh. For 1.125MWh, cost would be £64-132. Adding this to the storage cost, gives £195-263/MWh (€215-289/MWh).

Inter-seasonal fluctuations are a different problem. I am going to assume that for the most part, we can combine a mixture of wind and solar power to even out the worst of these and that 5 days of pumped storage will suffice for the worst combined lull in each. I will also assume that solar can match the bus bar generating cost of offshore wind.

Inter-annual fluctuations need to be accounted for as well. The wind and solar climate doesn’t just vary over a year, they vary between years. To counter these sorts of fluctuations, we need energy that can be stored cheaply over long periods of time. Since this generating system is likely to be used only occasionally, fuel costs and efficiency are less important, but capital costs and fuel storage costs are important. I think the best option in this case would be some form of open cycle gas turbine plant, burning biomass derived liquid fuels. This sort of system can cover any freak long combined lulls in wind and solar as well.

Adding these costs up and ignoring transmission losses and costs, takes us to around €300/MWh for a buffered baseload renewable energy system. That is 2.5-5 times the actual bus-bar generating cost of offshore wind and 3 times the LCOE of new generation nuclear assuming we don’t benefit from scale economies for multiple plants. It is about 6 times what electricity actually sells for on the UK grid at present, which strongly indicates that UK power prices are not sustainable.

My pet favourite energy storage technologies are cryogenic energy storage and high temperature thermal energy storage. These are realistically about 50% efficient, but are much more power dense than pumped storage so capital costs should be lower. They can also be built more or less anywhere and do not need mountains, coastline or any specific topography, so transmission costs can be reduced. A little flat country like Holland could be energy self-sufficient with storage technologies like that. Again, I would expect the cost of buffered electric power to be roughly 3 times the bus bar generating cost of a combined wind/solar system. That does seem to be a good rule of thumb. No one escapes the second law of thermodynamics.’

Apneaman on Sun, 10th Dec 2017 9:14 pm

burnCAburn, what type of firefighting resources did they have in 1849?

Did they have satilites? Water bombers? Hi pressure water pumps? Smoke jumpers? Fire trucks? GPS? Instant communication network?

No you fucking retard they had water buckets, dirt and wet blankets and prayers.

Fuck off with your bunk comparisons.

We are at the height of techno industrial firefighting abilities and resources and cannot stop entire cities, Gatlinberg, Fort McMurray, Santa Olga, from burning the fuck down.

Looks like the industro humans are outmatched.

Antius on Sun, 10th Dec 2017 9:22 pm

Here is the judgement from two Stanford engineers that spent quite some time attempting to power Google with renewable energy.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/

Their verdict? There is no hope whatever of powering modern civilisation from intermittent renewable electricity. And the energy source that really does work? You guessed it: Nuclear energy. Over a million times more energy dense than fossil fuels.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/?page=2

We need to focus energy on building nuclear reactors with passive safety features. Green fantasies are actually toxic to our civilisation at this point.

Apneaman on Sun, 10th Dec 2017 9:39 pm

India transitioning to almost unbreathable air. Good fer da kids.

India facing an energy and environmental crisis as dirty coal worsens pollution and renewables remain too pricey

http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/south-asia/article/2123687/india-facing-energy-and-environmental-crisis-dirty-coal-worsens

Apneaman on Sun, 10th Dec 2017 9:45 pm

Record heat hits southern Alberta

“Lethbridge and Grande Prairie both set new record highs Friday, with temperatures above 14C”

“On Saturday Calgary officially broke a 127 year record by reaching 15.4C. The old record of 14.4C was set in 1890, just nine years after Environment Canada starting tracking temperatures.

The month of December is typically the second coldest month in Calgary, with temperatures ranging between -1C and -13C.”

“December is the fifth snowiest month of the year for Calgary, with at least eight days of snow.

As of Saturday, the city of Calgary had not had any snow in December 2017 and it is unlikely that will change in the immediate forecast.”

https://globalnews.ca/news/3907590/record-heat-hits-southern-alberta/

Go Speed Racer on Sun, 10th Dec 2017 11:24 pm

We can ship our old couches and tires,
to India so they can set them on fire
and make their air even dirtier.

The goal is to turn their atmosphere
into sort of a thin blackish grey
styrofoam. It could be cut up and
sold for packing material.

Cloggie on Mon, 11th Dec 2017 2:07 am

Intermittency latest:

http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/deutschland-offshore-windraeder-liefern-fast-immer-strom-a-1182654.html

Offshore windparks produce electricity 363/365. In the old days that was 340/365.

Cloggie on Mon, 11th Dec 2017 2:40 am

@Antius – your link to that Google project says:

A balanced energy R&D portfolio proposed by the authors would allocate the bulk of resources to proven technologies like hydro, wind, solar photovoltaics, and nuclear; devote 20 percent of funds to related technologies like thin-film solar PV and next-generation nuclear fission reactors; and keep a pot of money for “crazy” ideas like cheap fusion.

They do not reject renewables at all.

Furthermore:

RE<C invested in large-scale renewable energy projects and investigated a wide range of innovative technologies, such as self-assembling wind turbine towers, drilling systems for geothermal energy, and solar thermal power systems, which capture the sun’s energy as heat.

“Self-assembling wind turbines”?

Isn’t it possible that they set themselves way too high aims? Perhaps Google should stick to its core business, search engines and leave wind energy to professionals with decades of experience.

Self-assembling wind turbines CAN work and a project to that effect is carried out as we speak in the Netherlands:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUzwk_Gr-rE

https://www.parool.nl/binnenland/windmolens-worden-hoger-slanker-en-goedkoper~a4542206/

Another Dutch company is offering wind towers that are assembled on location, because the cylinders consists of lamellen, resulting in far easier transport with 15% cost reduction for the tower:

http://www.gic.nl/economie/fabriek-voor-windmolens-in-bouwpakketten-naar-eemshaven

And again in Holland, next year a hydrogen producing wind turbine will be installed:

https://www.detechniekachternederland.nl/article/energie/gebruik-duurzame-energie/waterstofwindmolen-zorgt-voor-duurzaam-transport

The hydrogen will be used to power trucks.

DerHundistlos on Mon, 11th Dec 2017 2:54 am

At the Global Climate Conference in Bonn last month. President Dump and the Republican controlled congress thought it was a swell idea to send representatives to “sell” the virtues of US coal. Needless to say, the US table was devoid of visitors.

Alternatively Democratic Governor Jerry Brown of California and ex-Republican and former Mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg attended as well. A number of joint venture agreements with other nations were discussed.

While Republicans enjoy belittling California and New York, these two states alone represent a staggering 40% of the entire US economy.

Davy on Mon, 11th Dec 2017 5:08 am

“And again in Holland, next year a hydrogen producing wind turbine will be installed….The hydrogen will be used to power trucks.”

I would love to see how those return on investment number shake out LOL. I am all for these efforts at transition within reason. I would not brag about them until they scale and show promise economically. It is the embracing of technologies without scaling and affordability that will make societies effort to battle entropic decay that much harder. I am curious how these effort will proceed in a Europe with a bad financial down turn. It is likely we will have a lot of half-baked projects with very poor returns on investment that may turn out to be lots of bad debt.

Davy on Mon, 11th Dec 2017 5:13 am

“At the Global Climate Conference in Bonn last month. President Dump and the Republican controlled congress thought it was a swell idea to send representatives to “sell” the virtues of US coal.”

Ah, ok, but do you have a reference and a link?

“While Republicans enjoy belittling California and New York, these two states alone represent a staggering 40% of the entire US economy.”

I would also say they represent over 40% of the issues that are driving the US and world economy into the ground. Both places are hotbeds of economic dysfunction. One need only review Wall Street activity or the debt California is carrying for its poor economic actions.

Mick on Mon, 11th Dec 2017 6:02 am

Hey Gsr just had a look of the satellite image of the California fires . Looks like one of your usual Saturday nite sofa Bon fire nites .

Cloggie on Mon, 11th Dec 2017 6:26 am

In Austria:

Wind –> power-to-gas –> H2 fed into natural gas network

https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/12/11/power-to-gas-thats-how-wind-power-is-stored/

Antius on Mon, 11th Dec 2017 6:47 am

Cloggie Wrote: ‘ A balanced energy R&D portfolio proposed by the authors would allocate the bulk of resources to proven technologies like hydro, wind, solar photovoltaics, and nuclear; devote 20 percent of funds to related technologies like thin-film solar PV and next-generation nuclear fission reactors; and keep a pot of money for “crazy” ideas like cheap fusion.’

I don’t know where that came from, but it wasn’t in any of my links. What they actually said was:

‘ At the start of RE<C, we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: We felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope …

Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.'

Sounds quite damning to me. These people aren't mugs. The fact that they didn't produce the answer that you wanted to hear, does not mean that they should 'stick to what they are good at'. I did a little bit of digging into the topic of energy storage and found the following link:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Charles_Barnhart/publication/255770835_On_the_importance_of_reducing_the_energetic_and_material_demands_of_electrical_energy_storage/links/54f5f5400cf2ca5efefd7f51/On-the-importance-of-reducing-the-energetic-and-material-demands-of-electrical-energy-storage.pdf

Highlights from the report: Energy Stored on Investment (ESOI) is 210 for CAES and 240 for pumped hydro storage, over a 30 year period. Sounds quite good doesn't it? But the devil is in the detail. I couldn't trace much of their workings, surely the ESOI on pumped storage for example, will vary significantly depending upon local factors like reservoir height and volume. But what they did present revealed a significant flaw: They assume that both technologies will be charged and fully discharged some 25,000 times over a 30 year period. That works out at charge-discharge cycle of 10.5 hours. Some PHS plants may be able to work at the frequency, but as I noted previously, a baseload renewable energy supply must maintain several days of storage. That reduces ESOI on many plants by up to a factor of 10 – enough to cut overall system EROI of a renewable energy system by half or more. If we built pumped storage systems gradually over a period of several decades or more, this might be a cost we could absorb. But in a rapid transition of a few decades, it looks exceptionally unlikely. The study authors also noted that:

" Pumped hydro storage faces another set of challenges. "Pumped hydro is energetically quite cheap, but the number of geologic locations conducive to pumped hydro is dwindling, and those that remain have environmental sensitivities," Barnhart said."

Another significant finding is that electrochemical (battery) energy storage is entirely impractical as a grid electricity storage solution. The ESOI values of battery energy storage systems barely rise above single figures, even if deep discharge cycles and short cycle times of 10.5 hours are considered. Such systems should only therefore be used for small energy demands that are not grid connected – i.e. things like weather stations.

Antius on Mon, 11th Dec 2017 6:53 am

Cloggie wrote:
‘And again in Holland, next year a hydrogen producing wind turbine will be installed:

https://www.detechniekachternederland.nl/article/energie/gebruik-duurzame-energie/waterstofwindmolen-zorgt-voor-duurzaam-transport

The hydrogen will be used to power trucks.’

A rather desperate attempt to get around the appallingly poor energy efficiency of a hydrogen energy storage system – probably no better than 20% when losses in electrolysis, compression and combustion are multiplied.

Kind of like: “Sure efficiency sucks. But if we eliminate the need for electricity transmission, maybe the economics won’t suck quite so much?”

Think about it. Why else would anyone do it?

Antius on Mon, 11th Dec 2017 6:58 am

Cloggie wrote: “In Austria:

Wind –> power-to-gas –> H2 fed into natural gas network

https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/12/11/power-to-gas-thats-how-wind-power-is-stored/
”

Electrolysis efficiency: 60%
Compression efficiency: ~90%
Pumping efficiency: 95%
CCGT efficiency: 50%

Total storage efficiency = 25.7%

Yeah, that sounds like a great way of using expensive electric power.

Cloggie on Mon, 11th Dec 2017 7:05 am

@Antius “I don’t know where that came from, but it wasn’t in any of my links.”

Correct. It came from a link within your link:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/

Search for: “In an article posted at IEEE Spectrum”

The Siemens Silyzer 200 PEM electrolysis system operates with a conversion efficiency of 65-70%:

https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/08/19/water-electrolysis-in-mainz/

What is your reference for that 20% of yours?

Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.’
Sounds quite damning to me. These people aren’t mugs

OK, so these Google guys failed in their Startrek-like ambitions and to cover up their own failure, they declare the entire renewable enterprise impossible anyway.

For these two Googlelists I can produce tens of highly-qualified people who say it IS possible to have a 100% renewable energy base.

https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/09/16/blueprint-100-renewable-energy-base-for-germany/

Davy on Mon, 11th Dec 2017 7:20 am

Antius, I follow every one of your posts. You are a wonderful source of balanced technical information. Your comments are sobering for those who are peddling an easy techno future of change. It is crystal clear to anyone honest with the physics and the economics that this type of transition is at a minimum a huge undertaking that will require immense sacrifice. This effort is not something to be parading as a party or a cake walk as is so often the case here with the fake greens and techno optimist. It is a worthy effort and one that even if it fails at 100% transition is still important as an extender of modernism. I appreciate your impute immensely because I am here to determine how bad it is going to get and when. I am investing in a different future and it is vital to try to determine when a wall of limits it hit that disrupts modernism. I don’t want fluff and fantasy I want the real deal.

Cloggie on Mon, 11th Dec 2017 7:23 am

Electrolysis efficiency: 60%
Compression efficiency: ~90%
Pumping efficiency: 95%
CCGT efficiency: 50%
Total storage efficiency = 25.7%

60% for electrolysis is too pessimistic with evolving technology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water

Reported working efficiencies were for alkaline in 1996 lying in the 50–60% range for the smaller electrolysers and around 65–70% for the larger plants. Theorical efficiency for PEM electrolysers are predicted up to 94%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-temperature_electrolysis

At high temperatures efficiencies >100% are possible.

The other efficiences you mention apply to natural gas or any gas as well and don’t count in comparison.

Cloggie on Mon, 11th Dec 2017 7:32 am

Antius, I follow every one of your posts. You are a wonderful source of balanced technical information.

You realize, Davy, that Antius is advocating a global 100% nuclear energy “solution”. On this planet there is only for 14 years uranium left, which Antius knows. His solution: uranium reprocessing, leading to a plutonium economy, not just for advanced nations, but for the third world as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing

Plutonium is the most toxic material ever produced by mankind. This means the entire world covered with Sellafields/La Hagues

http://www.irishnews.com/news/2016/09/07/news/-serious-safety-concerns-at-uk-nuclear-plant-684608/

This “solution” has zero chance of ever to become materialized. After Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear energy has no future.

Who would have thought, Davy the Plutonium Guy.lol

Cloggie on Mon, 11th Dec 2017 7:41 am

Haha, this is (((Google))):

https://www.google.org/

Only white people with (mental) disabilities are shown, for the rest black folk only.

Welcome to America.

No wonder this renewable energy enterprise failed. America no longer has the power to innovate itself out of problems. It has become a third world country and third world countries don’t do innovation.

Antius on Mon, 11th Dec 2017 8:17 am

Cloggie, there are few if any free lunches in this world.
Point 1: The efficiency of electrolysis. The efficiency of an electrolysis cell is a function of its current density. High current density = low capital cost, but lower efficiency. Low current density = high efficiency, but higher capital cost. Obviously, there is a sweet spot where the capital cost and lifetime electricity cost curves cross and give you the optimum design current density for minimum lifetime aggregate costs. It won’t necessarily be the point that gives you the highest efficiency and working it out is not going to be simple.

High temperature electrolysis does indeed reduce the electricity inputs required to produce hydrogen. But this does not come free. You still need to provide the high quality heat that makes up the balance of energy needed for electrolysis. But heat is generally cheaper than electricity. As the water temperature gets close to the critical point of water (374 °C) water starts to behave as a gas. This means that your electrolysis cell must be designed to contain progressively higher pressures with increasing temperatures. That pushes up capital costs. Corrosion becomes more of an issue at higher operating temperatures. That pushes up operational costs, requires more precise chemistry control, reduces capacity factor and can bring down operational lifetime. The density of the fluid (water) also declines with increasing temperature, which starts to reduce impact efficiency at the working current density. Again, no free lunches. The efficiency of electrolysis cells involves a lot of economic compromises. The assumption that we can keep pushing efficiency up by investing more and more in generic ‘renewable technology’ is naïve and ignores the reality of how these things work.

Point 2: “The other efficiencies you mention apply to natural gas or any gas as well and don’t count in comparison.”

Actually, only the CCGT efficiency applies to natural gas. And I am sure I don’t need to remind you that hydrogen has lower calorific density and lower flame temperatures than natural gas. There is no reason to assume it will perform better in a CCGT.

I assume the use of CCGT because it is off the shelf technology and there are existing plants already in place that we don’t necessarily have to pay for. You can assume the use of super-efficient solid oxide fuel cells with waste heat boilers if you prefer. Your efficiency will be marginally better, but your capital costs will be substantially higher – on the order of several thousand $ per kW rather than <$1000/kW. Again, I make the point that real engineering is about trade-offs that lead to optimum whole system costs. Just because something can theoretically achieve a greater efficiency doesn't mean that that will be the practical option in the real world.

You can estimate the compression work involved in compressing hydrogen to 163bar by integrating the ideal gas equation. Then compare it to the higher heating value of hydrogen. That will be better than your real compression efficiency, because inter-stage cooling in a compressor will never be perfect in the real world. It takes a lot of energy to compress a MJ of hydrogen, because it is a very low energy density gas at room temperature, with a very low triple point – you are basically compressing an ideal gas from start to finish.

Point 3: " Theorical efficiency for PEM electrolysers are predicted up to 94%."
Is this technology around at all outside of a laboratory? If it were commercially available at an affordable capital cost and half decent system lifetime, there are a lot of places where it would already be used.

Cloggie on Mon, 11th Dec 2017 9:19 am

Cloggie, there are few if any free lunches in this world.

The sun is One Giant Free Lunch:

http://costofsolar.com/management/uploads/2013/07/solar-energy-potential.png

Is this technology around at all outside of a laboratory?

Perhaps Antius you want to update your electrolysis knowledge, as I just did, with news from the Hannover Messe, earlier this year:

https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/12/11/high-temperature-electrolysis/

German company Sunfire can produce hydrogen with an efficiency of 82% from saturated steam 40 kg/h @ 150°C and pressure: 3 bar(g). Forget this 60% efficiency, it is much better.

In parallel a British company is working on 100 MW electrolysis. That’s like servicing 20 large offshore wind turbines.

And I am sure I don’t need to remind you that hydrogen has lower calorific density and lower flame temperatures than natural gas.

At the same pressure/temperature yes, per kg no:

http://d2vlcm61l7u1fs.cloudfront.net/media%2F9bf%2F9bfbf732-410e-4e84-8f62-02edac4349c8%2FphpV0mc7Y.png

Hydrogen doesn’t need to be used in its purest form, you can convert in into anything, including “carbon neutral hydrocarbons” or ammonia.

Antius on Mon, 11th Dec 2017 10:34 am

Cloggie wrote: ‘You realize, Davy, that Antius is advocating a global 100% nuclear energy “solution”. On this planet there is only for 14 years uranium left, which Antius knows. His solution: uranium reprocessing, leading to a plutonium economy, not just for advanced nations, but for the third world as well.’

Cloggie, your right. We should find perfect solutions for all of our problems .

The perfect energy source is a bit like a unicorn. From a distance and without too much attention to detail, it can appear real and glamorous. But the closer you get, the more you have to accept that it is a mule with an ice cream cone stuck on its head.

I am advocating that we replace the declining output of fossil fuels with some form of nuclear energy. Exactly how it is done and which technologies to use is up for debate. I have my own ideas, others have their own. But there are options, some more developed and attainable than others.

I am not so naïve as to imagine that it can be a perfect solution or that there will not be problems with scaling it to provide enough energy for all of humanity. It will solve some problems and create others. On balance, I think we will be better off, given that the alternative is poverty and starvation for all but small elites in the first world and accelerating climate change for everyone. Putting nuclear technology into the hands of more nation states is not an ideal solution; there will be risks that have to be managed and we already have tools for doing that. But with an abundant energy source providing a good standard of living, the average human being will be much safer and better off than they otherwise would be. Avoiding nuclear energy in developed countries will not necessarily reduce nuclear holocaust risk. Hungry and desperate people are far more likely to engage in dangerous actions than safe contented people with full bellies and are more easily enslaved by egotistical dictators – just look at North Korea. The German butchery of Eastern Europe in WW2 was as much about securing new living space, industrial resources and the energy source provided by Romanian oil fields, as it was about ruthless political ideology. That was the enabling agent, but as a rule desperate people are more likely to do ruthless and barbaric things.

I want a solution that will allow my Grandchildren to eat, live in warm homes and enjoy some of the luxuries that I grew up with, in an environment that is at least no worse than the one I enjoyed. The analysis that I have carried out leads me to believe that that is an attainable goal if nuclear energy can fill the gap left by declining fossil fuels. It doesn’t look like renewable energy can pull the same trick – it just doesn’t have the whole system EROI when storage is factored in. If I thought over wise, I would be advocating it. So let’s get on with something that actually has a chance of working.

Davy on Mon, 11th Dec 2017 10:35 am

“Who would have thought, Davy the Plutonium Guy.lol”

It is going to take all of the above “porky the flying pig” to keep the lights on. When the lights go off ooops. My position is we are going to struggle over the next decade suing everything we have to keep the lights on.

I am installing 6 of the new high-performance module Hanwah Q.PEAK-G4.1 300watt panels (engineered in Germany) at the cabin/barn area. I am going with AGM batteries but plan on upgrading in a year or two to Iron Edison LiFePO4-180Ah-24v. I will then move my AGM batteries to my barn system where my batteries are reaching their useful life. As you can see porky, I am far from being Plutonium Davy. Porky, you do realize that we are not just going to walk away from NUK either. The contribution is too large and the cleanup too great.

The Energy Transition: Too Little, Too Late

Leave a Reply Cancel reply