A2A

Renewable energy systems are systems whose source of energy is infinite , clean and free from carbon emission.

Today’s energy supply is largely responsible for the anthropogenic greenhouse effect, acid rain and other negative impacts on health and the environment. The current trend is clearly not sustainable, especially given the enormous demand for energy predicted for the future. Several energy sources, however, offer the opportunity to cover our energy demand sustainably, i.e. with almost no negative influence on health and nature. These are also called renewable energy systems.

Renewable energy sources are hydro, tides ,waves, hot rocks (geothermal) , wind, solar and biomass.

Renenwable energy systems convert this resources by converting useful energy from one form to another.

• Hydropower, Tides - Potential energy -Mechanical energy -Electrical energy
• Hydrogen , biomass - Chemical energy to thermal energy -Mechanical energy -Electrical energy
• Geothermal energy, Concentrated solar power - Thermal energy - Mechanical energy - Electrical energy
• Photovoltaics - Solar energy -Electrical energy.
• Wind - Kinetic energy - Mechanical energy -Electrical energy.

Heat engines convert thermal energy to mechanical energy with an efficiency of 60%. Electrical generators convert mechanical energy to Electrical energy with an efficiency of 90%.

An example of a renewable energy system is solar thermal heating system.

There are on going natural processes that can be harnessed to generate electricity. Electricity can easily be generated by spinning a wheel(properly designed). Natural motion such as wind, tides, and river flows can be used to spin a wheel. Natural sources of heat geo thermal, or solar radiation can be used to generate steam and therefore steam pressure which can be used to spin a wheel. Finally photovoltaic panels can generate electricity directly from sun light. Interestingly human and animal manual labor could likely be one of the most prolific sources of renewable energy (while simultaneously generating unskilled jobs) but is rarely addressed.

Some politician finds some form of energy that you would not normally buy, labels it ‘renewable’ and then forces you to buy it via taxation for the common good…. Usually from a political crony or someone who's paid them off. And that is how renewable energy works.

Technically speaking since energy can neither be created nor destroyed there's no such thing as renewable energy.

By Common definition however renewable energy is, in essence, Solar energy…. but since technically there is no energy that isn't solar, renewable energy systems are again simply ‘emotional’ or political pleas to buy energy that is typically more expensive than what you could get through other sources.

The term should largely be ignored in favor of strict engineering economic analysis.

Renewable energy is energy derived from naturally-occurring sources that can be constantly replenished such as solar, wind and hydroelectric power. This contrasts with energy sources like oil and coal, which rely on burning a material which must be found extracted and is not recreated. Renewable energy (sources) or RES capture their energy from existing flows of energy, from on-going natural processes, such as sunshine, wind, flowing water, biological processes, and geothermal heat flows. ... Examples of direct use are solar ovens, geothermal heating, and water- and windmills.

Disclaimer:

Click My Quora Profile. You will learn more about Solar Panel and Solar Energy material over there!

For me while it is the the most vital and ancient source of energy we have - the sun is also the most promising energy source. Our plants, forests, agriculture, weather and ocean health depend on it / and we often forget that our blessing of the era of cheap oil, gas and coal also are really just ancient captured sunlight.

However the sun also represents an awesome place for innovation that can move us from costly consumption habits to a sustainable basis. I have worked for over a decade with solar PV solutions in Latin America. Here dangerous (to health and safety), costly and inefficient candles and hand-crafted oil lamps can be replaced with reliable and low-cost solar lighting and small device charging solutions. In the global north we take for granted our energy (and where it comes from) so adjusting to alternate energy is more of a challenge - but not impossible.

I am presently moving my home to use more solar - to save money and to lower my impact on the environment. I started with a whole home electrical energy monitor -a $150 device that clamps on my grid service wires and shows me my use and the cost of my energy use - minute by minute. I can easily see my appliance uses - when my fridge and furnace cycle on and off - and also the daily patterns of sun heating that warms my home with passive sunlight (my furnace cycle drops to nearly zero). I can also appreciate more that energy intensive devices - like a microwave or small space heater draw a lot of energy.

Moving forward - having looked at how and how much energy I use I can now better plan for expanding my use of solar as an alternate energy source. I will be installing roof top solar to meet 95% of my reduced electrical needs - with a pay-back period of under 3 years. I will ‘dump energy’ to pre-heat my water during the best days and only use grid energy during our prolonged cloudy/snowy days of winter. (I live in snowy mid-central Ontario Canada). I also do not own a car and cycle as my main means of transport. Here sunlight also plays a role as I charge my 48 V e-bike from sunlight with a simple solar panel and boost charge controller.

So it seems that old can be new - the same sun power that created our oil/gas/coal and sustains our oceans and vegetation can also help make modern living - less expensive and more sustainable. There are adjustments we can all make for brighter futures - for ourselves and future generations.

and in my view real change starts with each of us.

If we actually want to use alternative energy sources to meet all of our energy needs, wind and solar are NOT the way to get there. Wind and solar only generate to their rated capacity 30% of the time. 70% of the time they produce little, or no economically viable electrical power and we use natural gas to backup wind and solar with fast-acting gas turbines that are 20% efficient.

With wind and solar, we have the following costs:

1. The cost of site preparation for all of the generating equipment — wind turbines, solar panels, fast-acting gas turbines that are spread out for miles and miles
2. The cost of the equipment itself plus transportation to remote sites from the other side of the planet in many cases plus the cost of installation
3. The cost of the high-voltage power lines used to transmit the power generated at the remote sites to where the power is used
4. The cost of the electrical power lost in transmitting power from the wind and solar sources to the places where the power is consumed
5. The cost of the natural gas used to back up the wind and solar

Now, consider the alternative, natural gas turbines that are 60% efficient, that are located where the demand is and can replace all of the above which is only used just to say we are saving the planet when we are NOT saving the planet. Instead:

1. Back up for the wind and solar 70% of the time uses more than four times as much fuel as the 60% efficient gas turbines located near where the demand is. If you do the math, you might think it should only be twice as much. But what about all the power lost transmitting power from remote sites. We must generate it first in order to waste it!
2. Four times the fuel means four times the CO2 (carbon dioxide) emitted using wind and solar instead of natural gas. How is that saving the planet? (That’s Okay, I know, that whole man-made climate change thing is just a harmless hoax.) Could this be why people find that the more wind and solar they use, the more CO2 they produce?

If we really wanted to have a 100% renewable energy future, we certainly would NOT use wind or solar. We would use SMRs instead. That would be exactly like using the 60% efficient natural gas turbines without all the gas and CO2.

SMR Plants

The only alternative energy source that offers any significant environmental benefits seems to be SMRs. These are Small Modular Reactors, nuclear reactors that produce less than 300 megawatts of electricity per module. SMRs are produced in a factory to the same design and shipped to a prepared site by truck, just like gas turbines. They require much less space than natural gas for the same output; they can provide their own backup; and they can follow the load (vary the amount of power generated to meet everchanging demand) just like natural gas.

SMRs can eliminate any need for new facilities and reduce electrical infrastructure since they can be much better tailored to the power needs of an area and placed closer to wherever the power is needed thereby reducing costs as well:

1. They can replace coal, oil, and natural gas fired boilers in steam plants, reuse the generating and transmission equipment, and double or triple generating capacity in the same space by eliminating the fueling infrastructure
2. They can be added on to hydro plants to use the existing transmission equipment when the hydro power is not being generated or the plant has been shut down
3. They can be added on to large manufacturing plants to replace power from the grid and produce steam for manufacturing processes
4. They can be combined with waste-to-energy plants to minimize electrical infrastructure and eliminate garbage dumps and landfills
5. They can eliminate the need for most very costly, long-distance, high-voltage, transmission lines that are often the cause of forest fires and allow reforestation of the rights-of-way
6. They can power remote operations such as mines without the need for long-distance transmission lines
7. They could likely eliminate the need for major power grids with much of their transmission lines and their power outages due to disasters

SMRs greatly reduce the cost of nuclear energy by being manufactured in a manufacturing plant and transported to the installation site while the site is being prepared to receive it. Each SMR can be produced, installed and put into service in one to two years rather than 12 to 15 years for conventional nuclear plants. This way the cost is a fraction of conventional nuclear and payback starts in two or three years rather than twelve to fifteen years or never with conventional nuclear.

In my opinion, SMRs could cut the cost of energy by ten times compared to other renewables, provide all the electrical power we need today to feed the electrical grids and produce all the power needed to power a conversion to EVs.

If you’re going purely on net efficiency (i.e., the amount of electricity being produced) then nuclear energy would be the best. However, in terms of ethicality, nuclear energy is known to create byproducts of nuclear waste… so there’s that.

Also, another thing that needs to be taken into consideration when selecting the “best” alternative energy is relative to the geographical location of a country.

Some of my favorite alternative energy sources are wind, solar, and hydroelectric.

When I was able to visit Bali in Indonesia and Laguna in the Philippines, I saw how these energy sources were being collected and stored. Both these countries are in Southeast Asia–both have a generally tropical climate and are surrounded by bodies of water. This sets up both of them as perfect harvesters of wind, solar, and hydroelectric alternative energy sources!

It is hot in both of these countries, so the ROI for investing in solar panels is generally faster than it would be if you’d put those panels in the UK. It’s also possible to not be connected to the main electric grid whatsoever in these countries as well!

For wind, I saw windmills when driving along with different provinces near Laguna in the Philippines. The strength of the breezes that often originate from bodies of water propel tens to hundreds of mills that generate a considerable chunk of the Philippines’ capital region.

Hydroelectric energy comes from mechanical wheels installed at the base of waterfalls. The pressure turns these wheels and generates electricity. In the Philippines, I saw the beautiful Pagsanjan Falls–a gorgeous and essential landmark in Laguna that generates heaps of electricity as per the locals.

Another bit that I think is often overlooked with alternative energy is the storage process. I once worked briefly for a short-term project in the US where we toured around manufacturing companies. We went to a company called AST that provided gas storage solutions–it was pretty amazing to see the immense potential (hah) of alternative energy sources. Once our technology for harnessing these sources is fully developed, I’m pretty sure we can bid farewell to fossil fuels altogether.

(Photo from Google)

Within the known universe, energy has no source. It can only be converted from one kind to another. For instance, a gas vehicle transform chemical energy into heat by burning carbon an hydrogen rich fossil fuels with the oxygen of the air, then transform a fraction of this heat into motion and the rest is released into the air through the gas exhaust. Then, air and brake friction also transform the motion energy into heat of the atmosphere. In the end, the hot heat of the air close to the vehicle gets spread out into a uniform warm atmosphere around the earth witch ultimately radiates mildly warm infrared through space.

So the question is rather what is the best kind of energy tank that the human society can use for its good and thrive.

And given that, by definition, energy quantize the amount of change made to a system (change of velocity, change of chemical/atomic structure, change of shape, change of temperature etc…), it’s impossible to answer this question without questioning morality : what is it good to change for ? and what is bad about changing something ?

After years wondering, I feel the best theoretical source of energy is the one which alows oneself to live a happy life with the least amount physical energy. For instance, right know, winter time here, I wear long sleeved underwear under my pants and 3 layers upper body instead of rising the heating system at home. And if I really need to warm up after getting outside, I warm some water for both a tea and a bottle I get with me in a blanket while getting lost on Quora. And I just won’t go to events/whatever if it is too far for me willing to ride my bike, or is not close to public transit. Just f**k of.

The only purely clean energy is the one which does not get used.

And I don’t mean to say we shouldn’t use any other form of energy than the one we get by eating, transformed through our muscles into useful stuff to our society. I am far from perfect and don’t imply to follow me.

Just that any form of energy we use, it is by definition to bring change. And any change can be seen as good or evil. Whatever the kind of waste, be it radioactive elements(nuclear fission AND fusion), CO2 and particles (any fossil hydrocarbon fuel), toxic chemical in rivers (photo-electricity solar panel, and others too), massive use of land (damps, wind, solar, biomass) etc…

Irrespective of these, using energy changes the world, for the better or worse. To avoid the worse, avoid as much as possible to use any.

A meaningless as a generalization, that only gains meaning by context. What the term does not mean is clean, or necessary renewable. Often there is an underlying assumption that it is somehow better, but this is not necessary true.

For example biofuels replacing fossil fuels, can be worse in many cases, even switching from oil or gas to wood burning can have a negative impact on neighbourhood air quality. Indeed switching fro burning dung, to burning kerosine in the developing world would save lives due to cleaner air.

The paradox is clear: wood as an alternative is worse than gas even though the former is renewable, kerosine, a non renewable fossil fuel is the better alternative than the renewable organic that it displaces.

Other examples abound - context is everything

To be clear, the electricity grid is one of the most miraculous and underrated engineering marvels of today.

You're talking about a system that every minute of every day turns past and present sunlight into the safe, clean, odorless, quiet fuel of pretty much all of modern technology. Thousands of generators spin perfectly in sync across thousands of miles in order to keep things humming along at exactly 50 or 60 Hz, depending on where you are. You turn your lights on and off, factories ramp up and down, and yet (almost) never is too little or too much energy delivered.

So you can imagine that there is a great deal of depth that could go into an answer about how the whole thing works, and crafting that answer well would require a number of different specialists. There are certainly parts that I don't claim to understand. But I'll try and go over the basics, at least.

Physics

Solar cells and edge cases aside, electricity is produced by spinning coils of wire surrounded by magnets. You can get the force to turn those coils from a variety of places, but most of it comes from burning something to heat water into steam and then pushing that steam through a turbine. A turbine is just a device that turns temperature and pressure into mechanical force.

Once you've got your mechanical power twisting a big metal shaft, you'll want to put coils of wire on the end and surround it with magnets. As the coils turn, the direction of the magnetic field in relation to the coils changes, and this causes current to flow through the coils. Voilà, electricity.

Voltage. Voltage is a potential, like holding a bowling ball over the ground. The ball isn't moving, nothing is "happening", but the size of the ball and the height that you hold it at tells you how much you could do.

Current is the action itself, electrons flowing through a wire. How much current flows in a given system depends on the voltage, but current shows things actually happening. Current times voltage is power.

In most of the grid in most places in the world, we use AC, or alternating current. This means that as those wires are spinning, the magnetic field is pulling current in one direction and then the other. If you were to hold a rubber band between two fingers and then pull it up and down, that would be analogous to what the generator is doing. "Neutral" is the rubber band in the middle. In your outlet at home, if you live in the States, the electricity moves from neutral (0 volts) to 169 volts, back to zero, to -169 volts, back to zero, etc. This happens 60 times per second.

It's worth noting that in order for the generator to keep spinning at 60 Hz, the force exerted by the turbine has to be matched exactly by the force exerted by the magnet, otherwise it would speed up or slow down. This might seem trivial, but it's important to remember that when demand for electricity changes, this is manifesting as a mechanical change in force in the generator.

Transmission

So you've created electricity, now you want to get it places. The limiting factor here is heat. The more current you push down a wire, the more it heats up. But, most people don't care about current, they care about power. You can deliver the same amount of power with less current by increasing the voltage, which is what you have to do in order to move electricity long distances, otherwise you'll lose too much of it as heat.

The downside is that high voltage can be dangerous. Remember, voltage is potential. At high voltages, the electricity really "wants" to flow somewhere, like a rubber band stretched to its limits. As voltage keeps going up, it gets harder and harder to make sure that "somewhere" is only where we want it to be.

Transformers are the devices that change the voltage. Voltage goes up to move long distances, and then comes back down for distribution, to prevent high voltage lines from hanging out around houses and businesses.

The Network

The grid is not a bunch of transmission lines that all go from one point to another. It's a network. Your electricity can be coming from a bunch of different places at any given time. This has costs and benefits. On the one hand, it increases resiliency. If one generator goes down, it allows others to step in and take over. However, if they can't provide enough power (and the protection systems fail), they will start to slow down and trip out, and soon you have rolling blackouts. The engineering that goes into managing the network and making sure all points play nicely together is truly remarkable.

Markets/Balancing

Demand for electricity changes on every time scale. As the years go by, we tend to want more and more to power all the new tech. Throughout the year, heating and air conditioning come off and on and change how much electricity is needed from one month to the next. More electricity is used during weekdays when businesses are operating than on the weekend. Demand spikes in the mornings when people wake up and start using things, and then goes down at night. And finally, every time an electrical device is turned on or off, that is demand changing from one millisecond to the next.

On all of these time scales, there needs to be an incentive in place for generators to follow demand. In the States at least, we usually have markets in place to take care of determine the size (price) of that incentive. Basic economics: as demand increases, so will price until supply comes in to match. We have the capacity markets to incentivise the construction of new plants to meet future demand. The LMP markets pay for production on most of the middle time scales. The market that pays for balancing on the fast time scales is called the frequency regulation market.

--

Well I hope that's enough to be useful. From here I would branch into more specific topics, which I'll list below in case you want to do more research.

-transmission physics, coronal effects, line sag
-demand response, peak shaving
-primary and secondary response
-generator governors
-grid inertia, synthetic inertia
-high-voltage direct current
-power factor, active and reactive power
-synchronous and asynchronous generation
-duck curve
-grid scale storage
-active network management
-microgrids

How effective is nuclear energy as an alternative energy source?

The world faces the new challenge of drastically reducing emissions of greenhouse gases while simultaneously expanding energy access and economic opportunity to billions of people. Without the contribution of nuclear the cost of achieving deep decarbonization targets increases significantly.

For years, the proponents of wind and solar energy have promised a green future with affordable electricity, a new energy infrastructure with little environmental impact on the land, and deep cuts in carbon emissions. But despite the rapid growth of renewable energy, that future has yet to materialize. Instead, many of the places that are furthest along in transitioning to wind and solar energy are today facing a crisis of power shortages, sky-high electricity prices, and flat or even rising carbon emissions.

Decarbonization policies should create a level playing field that allows all low-carbon generation technologies to compete on their merits. Investors in nuclear innovation must see the possibility of earning a profit based on selling their products at full value, which should include factors such as the value of offset CO2 emissions that are external to the market. Policies that prevent a role for nuclear energy discourage investment in nuclear technology. This will raise the cost of decarbonization and slow progress toward climate change mitigation goals. Incorporating CO2 emissions costs into the price of electricity can more equitably recognize the value to all climate-friendly energy technologies. Nuclear generators, both existing plants and the new builds, would be among the beneficiaries of a level, competitive playing field.

But the consensus remains that the pathway to as much as 80 percent renewable energy, predominantly from ever cheaper wind and solar, is viable, well understood, and likely. The conceit, mostly unspoken, is that once the world gets there, we’ll figure out the rest. Among purveyors of this new electricity math, “baseload power,” meaning large, centralized power stations that produce electricity day and night, is a thing of the past. Instead, wind and solar energy - arrayed across vast landscapes, connected by enormous networks of not yet built long-distance power lines, and backed up by yet-to-be-invented technologies capable of storing immense amounts of excess electricity for days, weeks, or even months until it is needed would produce most electrical power most of the time.

Alternatively, environmentalists and policymakers might move beyond their singular obsession with so called renewable energy, which would open up the other possibility that will almost certainly be less costly, more reliable, and more effective at cutting emissions: in other words nuclear.

Because here the final rub: as much as new nuclear costs, it will pale in comparison to the money that will have to be spent on VRE and its support to keep us at a G20 standard of living.

1. Capturing the Power of Moving Mass: Wind, Water, and Waves

The sun plays a key role even in seemingly unrelated renewable energy sources. Its heat creates pressure differences in the atmosphere and oceans, resulting in powerful forces like wind and ocean currents. We can use this moving mass to our advantage!

• Wind Turbines: Imagine a giant windmill. As the wind spins the blades of a turbine, a shaft connected to a generator rotates, producing electricity.
• Flowing Water Turbines: Similar principles apply to flowing water. Turbines placed in rivers or oceans can capture the kinetic energy of moving water and convert it into electricity.
• Wave Energy Devices: Even ocean waves hold untapped power. Wave energy devices are being developed to harness the energy of waves and convert it into electricity.

2. Transforming Heat into Electricity: Solar and Geothermal Power

Another method involves thermal energy, or heat. By increasing the intensity of molecular vibration in fluids (a form of kinetic energy), we can generate electricity. Here are two ways we achieve this:

• Solar Thermal Energy: Solar parabolic trough systems use rows of curved mirrors to concentrate sunlight onto a tube filled with oil. This superheated oil then creates steam to drive an electric generator.
• Geothermal Energy: Deep within the Earth lies a natural source of heat. Geothermal power plants utilize naturally occurring hot water and steam from vents in the Earth to generate electricity.

3. Utilizing the Force of Gravity: Tidal Barrage Dams

Gravity, the invisible force that keeps us grounded, also plays a role in renewable energy production. The gravitational pull between the Earth, the moon, and the sun creates ocean tides. Tidal barrage dams capitalize on this phenomenon.

Imagine a dam built across an estuary or bay. As high tide water flows into the designated area, and later recedes back to the sea during low tide, it passes through turbines housed within the dam, generating electricity in the process.

4. Converting Potential Energy into Electricity: Hydroelectric Dams

Potential energy, the energy an object possesses due to its position, can also be harnessed for electricity generation. A common example is a hydroelectric dam.

• Water held at a height in a reservoir behind the dam possesses potential energy.
• As this water is released and flows downwards, its potential energy converts to kinetic energy.
• This kinetic energy of flowing water then spins turbines in the dam, generating electricity.

5. Harnessing the Power of Sunlight Directly: Solar Photovoltaic Cells

Electromagnetic radiation, which includes sunlight, can be transformed directly into electricity. Solar photovoltaic (PV) technology is a prime example. Solar panels contain materials that convert sunlight directly into electricity through a process called the photovoltaic effect.

6. Extracting Electricity from Chemical Bonds: Fuel Cells

Chemical bonds hold energy within the structure of molecules. When these bonds are broken, electrical or thermal energy is released. Fuel cells, which generate electricity using hydrogen as a fuel, are an example of this concept.

Clean energy works by producing power without having negative environmental impacts, such as the release of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. A lot of clean energy is also renewable, including wind power, some hydro resources and solar powered energy generation. Solar panels and windmills dominate the clean energy scene and are actually doing much more harm to the environment than we might think. Green energy is not the solution to climate change, and it never was. It does not have the strength to ever completely replace fossil fuels, but nuclear energy does.

Disclaimer:

Click My Quora Account. You will learn about Solar Panel and Solar Energy topic over there!

Q: What are the different types of alternative energy sources?

A: Good question! We do not hear the term “alternative energy” so much these days, because sources once considered “alternative” are now big business. It was in hindsight always more a political term than a practical one.

Notably, solar energy and wind generated electricity were once “alternative” so in some contexts they would be included. Which is a confusing! Both are now mainstream.

It is easier to say what is NOT alternative energy. Fossil fuel is not alternative energy.

But I’ll try to list as many others as I can that are or might be “alternative”.

All forms of solar energy are candidates. There was little use made of it (the main exceptions being greenhouses and traditional food drying) until solar hot water began to take off in the 1960s. But solar PV arrays, ranging from small rooftop arrays to large “farms”, are now big business.

Wind turbines are another candidate. Small wind generators have long been used on small sailing vessels. And more generally, wind energy propelled most of the largest ships of the day until very recently, and still propels many other watercraft. It was also used in traditional windmills for many purposes but most notable for grinding grain and pumping water. But large wind turbine generators are new, and if big business can ever be called “alternative” (and they are no bigger than the largest solar PV farms) then they are.

Biomass is “alternative”. Like wind, as an energy source it has a long history. As wood, it was the original artificial energy source. But new technology, and new investments in old technology, make it mainly “alternative” currently. Synthetic biofuels such as biodiesel are “alternative”.

Hydrogen is an alternative secondary energy source. There is much interest in using it to replace electricity for the distribution of energy.

Hydropower is an interesting one. In the 1960s it was the prototypical “renewable” source, but was already too mainstream to be called “alternative”. In previous centuries, along with wind, it was used to power some of the first mechanised factories, using waterwheels . Some small hydro installations, either for electricity or water pumping, might be considered “alternative”.

Tidal power is “alternative” but still experimental, as is wave power.

Even muscle power can be considered “alternative” in one context. In many parts of the world there has been renewed interest in bicycles as an alternative to motor transport. But in others manually hauled rickshaws have been replaced by motorised ones, and the bicycle is also being replaced by motor transport. Naval vessels were once powered by galley slaves, but as with rickshaws that is the traditional rather than an “alternative” energy source. Animal power such as horses and bullocks is still in use but not “alternative”.

And it’s even harder to decide whether geothermal is “alternative”.

In conclusion, about the only things that are never considered “alternative” these days are fossil fuel (coal, oil and natural gas) and nuclear. And even oil heating was once “alternative” in a sense in North America, replacing coal, but it wasn’t called that. Similarly, nuclear whether fission or fusion has probably never been termed “alternative”.

Why not look at actual results

Other people would try to point out stuff like LCOE cost per megawatt hour. But there is reason to doubt the values for nuclear power and renewables

1. the values all do not include “add ons”.
2. Some specially the often Quoted Lazard report have dubiously large values for nuclear power

One

The intermittent sources of energy require huge amounts of add ons, exponentially increasing the higher the percentage they are in a grid. Add ons include storage, long distance transmission lines, backup power sources like nat gas for california and coal for germany, overbuilding, constraint payments, etc etc

Two

The older lazard reports have a small end note which pretty much admit that they only used a single nuclear plant design to calculate the LCOE, assuming ALL nuclear plants all over the world have the same price and hence LCOE

Up till 2017[1], lazard specified how they calculated the LCOE for their nuclear statistic.

“Low and high end depicts an illustrative nuclear plant using the AP1000 design.”

Newer reports curiously neglect to say where they get their numbers for nuclear.

So its possible thatv LAzard’s LCOE numbers are inaccurate, at best only accurate for the USA with the AP 1000 design only.

In other words, their entire LCOE calculation basically is just the Vogtle AP1000 cost. Not the aggregate average of all global nuclear plants under construction. Not the aggregate average of all completed plants in the last 5 years. Not even the aggregate average of all AP1000 plants built. Just 2 nuclear reactors currently under construction in the USA. In subsequent papers, this footnote was removed, but the numbers varied very little, leading one to assume that they didn't really change the methodology.

So of course the LCOE, and hence capital costs are several times that of Korea, Russia and China. Because they never looked at them in the first place. Not the EPR and AP1000 actually completed and running in China now, not the VVER-1200 plants built in Belarus, and not the APR1400 built in UAE. The choice of nuclear plant was, as they said, illustrative. Intended only to illustrate the narrative that nuclear power is expensive.

1. The planet will fry if we don’t employ them. This will be, to a large degree, our fault.
1. Yes, it will take decades to centuries.
2. Yes, factors beyond human control will influence this.
3. Yes, we can take practical steps to ameliorate this.
4. a) and b) will not be of much consolation when changing weather patterns, rising temperatures, and newly enabled disease vectors cause an array of droughts, plagues and migrations that Moses would be proud of.
2. Most “alternative energy” sources are clean, quiet, safe, aesthetically attractive, and involve very limited tail risk. For starters.
1. They are also immune to Middle Eastern politics.
3. Risk hedging. This, by itself, is sufficient justification to pursue alternative strategies.

With current technology no. An example for a single family:

Current monthly average electrical usage: 877 kWh
Daily power usage: 29 kWh
Solar Panels required: 23 350 watt panels
Cost just to produce power for current usage: $50,000
25 year life span

Battery Backup requirement: 14 kWh, cost around $20,000
10 year life span

Now lets add electric cars:

Current average commute: 40 miles
Assumption: Vehicles(2) are Tesla 3’s, 272 miles on 170 kWh
Every 6 days vehicle will need a full charge, staggered every 3 days one vehicle is charged
Monthly usage climbs to: 2577 kWh
Daily power usage: 90 kWh
Solar Panels required: 86 350 watt panels
Cost: north of $100,000
Battery Back up: minimum of 190 kWh
Cost north of $100,000

This is what is cost to be energy independent. To be truly off grid though this system needs to be grown by 40–60%.

Until solar panel efficiency reach 80–90% and battery cost comes way down solar is not ready for prime time.

Such a broad question gets a broad answer. There are three basic ways of harnessing nuclear energy:

Nuclear Fission: nuclear fission is a nuclear reaction in which the nucleus of an atom splits into smaller parts. In cases where the released particles are neutrons, some of these can be reused (as it were) to make other nuclei split, maintaining the reaction, or can be used to heat some transfer medium which can then be used to generate electricity.

Radioactive decay: While this is also technically fission as well, it is also a natural process occurring in some isotopes. The particles released by this process can be used in so-called atomic batteries, by exploiting their charge or using the heat of decay in a device like a RTG. Some types can also be used to create light by exciting phosphors in self-illuminating devices.

Nuclear Fusion: Nuclear fusion is a reaction in which two or more atomic nuclei come close enough to form one or more different atomic nuclei and subatomic particles. It is the source of the Sun’s energy (which we all use in some way) and can be created artificially although the only applied device currently using this in a thermonuclear weapon.

There are reasons why we need to explore sources of energy;

1. Environmental Concerns; The use of fuels, which currently dominates our energy sector leads to the release of greenhouse gases. Contributes to climate change. In contrast alternative sources, like solar, wind and hydroelectric power are options that help reduce carbon emissions.

2. Resource Depletion; Fossil fuels are resources that are becoming increasingly challenging and costly to extract. To ensure a long term solution we must turn towards energy sources.

3. Energy Security; Dependence on an energy source imported fossil fuels can pose risks to our security. Diversification through the use of energy enhances our energy security.

In order to make alternative energy accessible for everyone here are some steps that need to be taken;

1. Infrastructure Investment; Governments and private sectors should actively invest in building and upgrading infrastructure for generating and distributing energy effectively.

2. Subsidies and Incentives; Providing incentives such as tax breaks and subsidies will encourage individuals and businesses to adopt energy sources.

3.. Awareness; It is important to raise awareness about the advantages of using energy options while also educating people about energy efficient practices.

4.. Development; Investing in research aimed at improving the efficiency and affordability of technologies is crucial for adoption.

5. Accessibility; Ensuring that remote or underserved areas have access to solutions like, off grid solar installations is an important aspect of achieving widespread implementation.

6. Supporting Policies; We should introduce policies that require or encourage the adoption of energy sources, in sectors, such as transportation and electricity production.

7. Global Collaboration; Lets cooperation to facilitate the development and exchange of renewable energy technologies for the mutual benefit of all countries.

By following these actions we can make alternative energy sources readily available and widely adopted thereby reducing our reliance, on fuels and minimizing environmental consequences.

My hydrogen producing solar panels. They cost $2.5 million per km2 and produce 26,000 tonnes per year of hydrogen from 234 mm of rainfall.

White Paper to Mok- FINAL-1

To get in production requires a credit worthy buyer to sign a 25 year off-take contract for at least $52 million per year for a commodity like electrical energy under market rates - for electricity that’s at $0.06 per kWh for a 100 MW hydrogen fuelled power plant. Nominally this requires the output of 2.7 square kilometers of panels feeding a 100 MW gas fired power plant converted to hydrogen. In addition the buyers pay $3 per watt ($300 million minimum) for custom installation. This fee will be used to acquire the generator or upgrades and to monetise the order. It is also purchases shares in the project company formed to fulfil the off-take contract depending on the amount of hardware needed for the upgrade.

To monetise the order a portion of the funds will also be used to sponsor an IPO on NASDAQ or similar exchange for the project company.

Companies that wish to convert existing generators can be credited for assets contributed to the project and that will result in shares in the project company.

I can also work with groups of buyers that total 100 MW minimum for the group. The deal is the same $3 per watt along with a 25 year hydrogen fuel supply from my solar panels.

Other projects of similar stature can be explored as well. Hydrogen used to reduce iron ore without carbon. Hydrogen used by an airline or trucking company using vehicles converted to burn hydrogen. An auto manufacturer who has a line of hydrogen vehicles.

Hydrogen used to make ammonia without pollution or to convert coal into petrol or methane for direct sale to increase value and reduce environmental foot print of coal mining.

Hybrid projects - the conversion of a coal plant to produce electricity and a parallel plant to convert stranded coal into petrol is also considered.

In the end, the world’s production of fossil fuels can be replaced with the production of hydrogen made from my solar panels. The cost of energy will decline over this period and the amount of energy will rise.

No other technology offers this. It is the most valuable energy technology in the world.

Solar is pretty great. It’s not the cheapest, and it doesn’t work everywhere. But it’s sunny in more places than it’s windy, and the sun will be with us for a long, long time.

Just my personal take on it.

Alternative energy is something of a persuasion term in energy debates. You divide power sources into “good” and “evil” with those that are practical to expand widely defined as evil and the impractical ones as good.

If you are a little more open minded, there are a lot of nuclear fission alternatives to fossil fuels that are uncommon.

Processing sea water for uranium fuel for current power plants is uncommon.

I went to a alternative energy meeting and an attendee suggested in all seriousness that solar cells be turned to the moon at night. Nobody asked to see his “moon tan” lines. Ya always gotta run the numbers.

Solar and wind power are the most common forms of renewable electricity. I have a list of over 30 configurations for each, all of which vary in their cost and efficiency but leave no doubt as to the impact of human ingenuity. What’s often left out is all the other varieties of generating power that are not as intermittent or have such small capacities as wind or solar. There are over 400 configurations and they include:

Anaerobic Digestion, using manure, human waste or waste food

Biomass to Energy, Corn or Sugarcane Biofuels

Biomass to Energy, Oil Crops to Biodiesel

Biomass to Energy, Cellulosic Biofuels

Biomass to Energy, Wood Chip to Thermal

Biomass to Energy, Biomass Briquettes

Efficiency, Use of Low Electrical Demand Appliances, LED, HVAC etc

Efficiency, Combined Heat & Power (CHP)

Efficiency, Demand Response

Geothermal, Injection and Production wells

Geothermal Local Loop

Hydroelectric Dams

Hydroelectric Run of the River

Ocean Wave

Ocean Tides

Ocean Thermal (OTEC)

Ocean Current

Ocean Chemical

Storage, Mechanical

Storage, Chemical

Transmission, Low Energy Loss

Transmission, Through the Air

Waste to Energy, Use of MSW

Waste to Energy, Use of Cellulose

Waste to Energy, Use of Waste Thermal Energy