''Nuclear Power is the best alternative to Fossil Fuels''

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Also,


EIA - International Energy Outlook 2008-What Will It Take To Stabilize Carbon Dioxide Concentrations?

So you see, it doesn't mask anything. It actually addresses non-hydro renewable energy growth.

If anything, the low base that wind and solar start from should do the opposite of "masking" its growth, as it should be easy for them to have a high percentage growth. According to your arguments, this should show up favourably in the graph for a projection to 2030, but it doesn't. This is because overall, wind expansion is limited (as we've seen), and the report clearly shows that it is. Its not just the graph that shows this, but the discussion goes into the raw numbers for 2007.

The only way wind or solar could over come this would be to have a huge expansion in manufacturing capacity, which isn't on the horizon.

That quoted discussion is not reflecting a decade of the approx 30% growth for solar and wind. The chart masks the growth that's even occurred for solar and wind, let alone any forward projections. Even then they are only saying in the order of 7.4% average growth to get 20% share by 2030 when solar and wind are growing at 30% plus and higher in the USA. That is a big gap in growth estimates and historically of recent years they have been underestimating renewables growth.

The large scale of the graph to fit fossils, would mask the growth in the low base energies like solar and wind if they were separated trend lines. As they are mixed with renewables, particularly hydro their growth is masked even more. The last 10 years of growth for wind and solar contradict such limitations of growth.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Which is hardly a reflection of global energy trends, and therefore not significent. Infact wind energy rates of growth will easily mask such increases, let alone hydroelectric.

Also, just because they are projected to grow at a specific rate until 2012, does not mean that that growth will continue until 2030. There needs to be evidence that it will for it to be a credible claim.

US energy trends are significant on a global scale and are likely to influence global trends. Wind energy base is still significantly lower than hydro which is the 300 pound renewable energy gorilla that distorts the picture when mixed with lower base renewables on a trend line. There is no convincing evidence put forward if any at all, to suggest solar and wind energy wont continue to growth at their high rates.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

US energy trends are significant on a global scale and are likely to influence global trends. Wind energy base is still significantly lower than hydro which is the 300 pound renewable energy gorilla that distorts the picture when mixed with lower base renewables on a trend line. There is no convincing evidence put forward if any at all, to suggest solar and wind energy wont continue to growth at their high rates.

Its really quite simple. The report has clearly given a growth rate for wind energy as "2.5-percent average increase in the IEO2008 reference case.".

For that to be maintained (or any rate of growth), there would have to be a continued increase in manufacturing capacity. As there is a lack of evidence that that will occur, one must look to current manufacturing capacity and any planned expansions, and extrapolate from that growths to 2030. I've already shown that wind turbine manufacturing is struggling to produced what is asked of it, so how can you say that growth will actually increase? Solar capacity is even smaller than wind, and even the most optomistic projections cannot impact on the overall renewable contribution for the coming years.

Wind and solar have been accounted for in the projections, and discussed.

The authors seem to have anticipated the question of wind/solar's expansion and addressed, as I've shown. Its just a shame you don't want to recognise that.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

As indicated, your chart does not distinguish or reflect recent high growth trends for solar or wind and your chart is not current. Also due to the scale of the bases for conventional energy, the chart further masks the significance of lower base trends of solar and wind energy.

The curves are based on numerical data. That numerical data shows exactly what the curves do - that the gap between conventional thermal and the aggregate of ALL renewables was continuing to increase at the time of the last complete data I could find. If solar and wind appear to be swamped it's well.....because they are swamped. For 2005 thermal grew by more than 25 times that of all renewables combined. In 2002 is was "just" a factor of 17. But, my offer still stands. Provide data for 2006 and 2007 and I will include it.

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Based on current growth rates of 30% upwards for wind and solar persisting annually over the next decade a significantly different picture seems likely to emerge, than what your chart would indicate.

Over the thast decade renewable electrical generation grew, on average, by less that 8% per year. Over the last 25 years it grew by an average of 11% per year. That is a reduction in growth rate. Maybe, in the last two complete years, that trend has dramatically reversed and has jumped from 8% to 30%. Provide the actual numbers and I will include them.

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Your chart gives the impression that renewable energy ( Presumably titled on the chart "The rest" ) won't have any chance of making inroads of great significance into the energy pie going forward. Deliberately or otherwise, to that extent, your chart appears deceptive. I am merely commenting on your chart. I suspect you could have presented your chart differently or not at all given the arguably misleading impression it creates.

Really?
Were you deceived or misled?

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

The curves are based on numerical data. That numerical data shows exactly what the curves do - that the gap between conventional thermal and the aggregate of ALL renewables was continuing to increase at the time of the last complete data I could find. If solar and wind appear to be swamped it's well.....because they are swamped. For 2005 thermal grew by more than 25 times that of all renewables combined. In 2002 is was "just" a factor of 17. But, my offer still stands. Provide data for 2006 and 2007 and I will include it.

Over the thast decade renewable electrical generation grew, on average, by less that 8% per year. Over the last 25 years it grew by an average of 11% per year. That is a reduction in growth rate. Maybe, in the last two complete years, that trend has dramatically reversed and has jumped from 8% to 30%. Provide the actual numbers and I will include them.

Really?

Were you deceived or misled?

The actual generation might be around those averages, however the capacity is growing exponentially at much higher rates, so those averages could be expected to increase if the trend of recent years continues. No evidence to suggest strong growth rates for wind and solar wont continue.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Its really quite simple. The report has clearly given a growth rate for wind energy as "2.5-percent average increase in the IEO2008 reference case.".

For that to be maintained (or any rate of growth), there would have to be a continued increase in manufacturing capacity. As there is a lack of evidence that that will occur, one must look to current manufacturing capacity and any planned expansions, and extrapolate from that growths to 2030. I've already shown that wind turbine manufacturing is struggling to produced what is asked of it, so how can you say that growth will actually increase? Solar capacity is even smaller than wind, and even the most optomistic projections cannot impact on the overall renewable contribution for the coming years.

Wind and solar have been accounted for in the projections, and discussed.

The authors seem to have anticipated the question of wind/solar's expansion and addressed, as I've shown. Its just a shame you don't want to recognise that.

Wind wont be growing at 2.5%. I have little doubt that the report like many in time will be shown to be overly conservative. Productive capacity issues can be addressed over time and will be, given political will to see solar and wind increase their stake. That seems likely.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Wind wont be growing at 2.5%. I have little doubt that the report like many in time will be shown to be overly conservative. Productive capacity issues can be addressed over time and will be, given political will to see solar and wind increase their stake. That seems likely.

Evidence please.

That would involve the building of new manufacturing capacity, the skills gap being filled (an issue that even the aerospace sector would struggle to fill), and fossil fuel capacity not keeping up with such expansion.

Political will is not enough.

The report looks at not just what is currently being built, but what is being planned. We have all seen here new renewable projects being announced, but many have yet to be built. The report takes these into account.

It also takes into account what fossil fuel plants are planned, and are being built, so for you to state that wind and solar will outpace fossil plants in terms of rate of expansion, new facilities would have to be built that are not even on the drawing board or being announced, and at a much greater rate than they currently are. And that fossil fuel plants do not keep up with that.

There is a distinct lack of evidence for your assertion.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Evidence please.

That would involve the building of new manufacturing capacity, the skills gap being filled (an issue that even the aerospace sector would struggle to fill), and fossil fuel capacity not keeping up with such expansion.

Political will is not enough.

The report looks at not just what is currently being built, but what is being planned. We have all seen here new renewable projects being announced, but many have yet to be built. The report takes these into account.

It also takes into account what fossil fuel plants are planned, and are being built, so for you to state that wind and solar will outpace fossil plants in terms of rate of expansion, new facilities would have to be built that are not even on the drawing board or being announced, and at a much greater rate than they currently are. And that fossil fuel plants do not keep up with that.

There is a distinct lack of evidence for your assertion.

The evidence that wind and solar expansion of greater rates relative to the expansion rates of fossils and nuclear is clear and such evidence and in fact proof has been demonstrated over the last decade. The installed bases for wind and solar are much smaller, but the rates of expansion are significantly greater. There is a distinct lack of proof in your presented evidence and I expect in time it will be shown to have understated the growth rates of wind and solar, as has occurred in the past.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

The actual generation might be around those averages, however the capacity is growing exponentially at much higher rates, so those averages could be expected to increase if the trend of recent years continues.

Fine.
Provide 2006 and 2007 figures for generation.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Fine.
Provide 2006 and 2007 figures for generation.

Provide 2006 and 2007 figures for generation with your own chart to make it more relevant to the current context at least.