You make a couple of errors. Not your fault, these are common errors.
"No one is presently responsible for the grid as a whole."
And this is a very good thing. Because interties are not good things, generally speaking. When too many utilities are connected, you can create a system with cascading failures. Problems in one utility propagate. It's not just greed or jealousy here - there are legitimate concerns over connecting widely separated grids to each other. And the problem is not theoretical - we have lost power over the entire eastern seaboard because of sagging power lines in Ohio.
"A lot of the grid is old. Very very old."
That's a lie wind and solar developers say. The gird has been updated, over and over, in the last 100 years. The parts that weren't updated weren't updated because they are working just fine and were not a priority. Wind and solar want to "update" the grid, because the grid as designed doesn't work for them. They pretend this upgrade is necessary because the grid is "old". Nope. It is only necessary because they want the grid to do things it wasn't intended to do, and they don't want to pay for this, or let you know that wind and solar, by themselves, are driving these additional costs.
If I buy an EV, I might make the case that my house wiring is "old" and outdated, because the only way to charge my EV is with a 120V extension cord. Reality is - the house wasn't designed for an EV, and absent an EV everything would work just fine. The 220V charging station I need to add is a cost that should be assigned to the EV, not the house.
Most of your proposed solutions are just fine. The NEPA reform especially.
Using nuclear power means pricing it appropriately to handle ALL of its complexities -- not only the initial design, site planning, construction, inspection, and eventual operation. It also needs to price in on-going security, substantial variation in dealing with heat waste (especially in an era of significant climate change), and adequate handling of nuclear waste.
NEPA & NIMBY constraints need adjustment -- but there needs to be some equitable process of review and a process of eminent domain with fair compensation. People challenging ought not STOP projects' outcomes, but may be able to propose an alternative to deliver benefits without as many consequences (or get paid to move away from the project).
Excellent article. In the late 1990’s, I attended a Wave Energy Conference in Cork, Ireland, and presented a Proclamation from the Governor urging Wave Energy Converter companies to come to Hawaii to test their devices, since Hawaii’s wave climate is among the best in the world. Two companies have, but first one failed and second one is still testing their devices. With a few exceptions, commercial WEC’s aren’t operating around the world. Extremely powerful energy source, and governments need to invest the research money to make this source available.
It will. NEVER. Work. Wave energy cannot be extracted economically, not ever. I could give you a long list of reasons, as well as several hundred failed projects worldwide. But here are a few:
1) Waves are just as intermittent as wind and solar.
2) The devices need to capture a reasonable fraction of the wave energy in irregular waves, in a wide range of sea states. This means that the generators will either not generate electricity during certain sea conditions, or it will generate electricity in all conditions but at high costs.
3) The sea is notoriously unfriendly to electrical devices. Hence, most designs are grossly overbuilt.
4) O&M costs are massive. Marine life growth is relentless.
Unlikely. Not that you listened to him, but that he's able to refute anything regarding wave energy.
I CAN extract energy from all sorts of energy sources, including waves. For example, I might get it into my head that Planet fitness exercise bikes could generate a lot of free electricity. And I might calculate out that if I linked every single planet fitness exercise bike to the grid, I might be able to power 50,000 homes. Of course, the practical reality is absurd. I'd never get enough energy back out of the system to make it worth the effort.
We've TRIED to make wave power work. Many times. Many ways. Many places. Over a century. There are dozens of failed projects stretching back over a century. They work in the lab, and for a little while...then something "unpredictable" happens. Marine life, storms, saltwater seepage, etc. etc. - something always goes wrong in the chaotic environment of the ocean. 10 years goes by, and someone comes along with another great wave energy idea to test. This has been going on for a over a century now.
If you ignore the history, then it all sounds great - new and exciting. If you look at the history of failure...?
Most people stop thinking at the "will this work?" stage. Start by defining what the word "work" means. Is that producing any energy at all? Then yes, wave energy "works". Is that producing reliable clean energy at some sort of reasonable cost? If that is the definition, then no, it doesn't work.
I promise I'll check out the blog, but I'm not very hopeful.
By the way - I worked seven years for a utility, and my job was finding ways to reduce their carbon emissions. That included evaluating an ocean current project. brilliant idea, absolutely impractical because of all sorts of things nobody ever thought of.
You make a couple of errors. Not your fault, these are common errors.
"No one is presently responsible for the grid as a whole."
And this is a very good thing. Because interties are not good things, generally speaking. When too many utilities are connected, you can create a system with cascading failures. Problems in one utility propagate. It's not just greed or jealousy here - there are legitimate concerns over connecting widely separated grids to each other. And the problem is not theoretical - we have lost power over the entire eastern seaboard because of sagging power lines in Ohio.
"A lot of the grid is old. Very very old."
That's a lie wind and solar developers say. The gird has been updated, over and over, in the last 100 years. The parts that weren't updated weren't updated because they are working just fine and were not a priority. Wind and solar want to "update" the grid, because the grid as designed doesn't work for them. They pretend this upgrade is necessary because the grid is "old". Nope. It is only necessary because they want the grid to do things it wasn't intended to do, and they don't want to pay for this, or let you know that wind and solar, by themselves, are driving these additional costs.
If I buy an EV, I might make the case that my house wiring is "old" and outdated, because the only way to charge my EV is with a 120V extension cord. Reality is - the house wasn't designed for an EV, and absent an EV everything would work just fine. The 220V charging station I need to add is a cost that should be assigned to the EV, not the house.
Most of your proposed solutions are just fine. The NEPA reform especially.
Using nuclear power means pricing it appropriately to handle ALL of its complexities -- not only the initial design, site planning, construction, inspection, and eventual operation. It also needs to price in on-going security, substantial variation in dealing with heat waste (especially in an era of significant climate change), and adequate handling of nuclear waste.
NEPA & NIMBY constraints need adjustment -- but there needs to be some equitable process of review and a process of eminent domain with fair compensation. People challenging ought not STOP projects' outcomes, but may be able to propose an alternative to deliver benefits without as many consequences (or get paid to move away from the project).
Excellent article. In the late 1990’s, I attended a Wave Energy Conference in Cork, Ireland, and presented a Proclamation from the Governor urging Wave Energy Converter companies to come to Hawaii to test their devices, since Hawaii’s wave climate is among the best in the world. Two companies have, but first one failed and second one is still testing their devices. With a few exceptions, commercial WEC’s aren’t operating around the world. Extremely powerful energy source, and governments need to invest the research money to make this source available.
It will. NEVER. Work. Wave energy cannot be extracted economically, not ever. I could give you a long list of reasons, as well as several hundred failed projects worldwide. But here are a few:
1) Waves are just as intermittent as wind and solar.
2) The devices need to capture a reasonable fraction of the wave energy in irregular waves, in a wide range of sea states. This means that the generators will either not generate electricity during certain sea conditions, or it will generate electricity in all conditions but at high costs.
3) The sea is notoriously unfriendly to electrical devices. Hence, most designs are grossly overbuilt.
4) O&M costs are massive. Marine life growth is relentless.
Listen to Dr. Tom Denniss discuss Wave Energy on Dave Thielen’s Blog: Liberal and Loving it. He ably refutes your claims.
Unlikely. Not that you listened to him, but that he's able to refute anything regarding wave energy.
I CAN extract energy from all sorts of energy sources, including waves. For example, I might get it into my head that Planet fitness exercise bikes could generate a lot of free electricity. And I might calculate out that if I linked every single planet fitness exercise bike to the grid, I might be able to power 50,000 homes. Of course, the practical reality is absurd. I'd never get enough energy back out of the system to make it worth the effort.
We've TRIED to make wave power work. Many times. Many ways. Many places. Over a century. There are dozens of failed projects stretching back over a century. They work in the lab, and for a little while...then something "unpredictable" happens. Marine life, storms, saltwater seepage, etc. etc. - something always goes wrong in the chaotic environment of the ocean. 10 years goes by, and someone comes along with another great wave energy idea to test. This has been going on for a over a century now.
If you ignore the history, then it all sounds great - new and exciting. If you look at the history of failure...?
Most people stop thinking at the "will this work?" stage. Start by defining what the word "work" means. Is that producing any energy at all? Then yes, wave energy "works". Is that producing reliable clean energy at some sort of reasonable cost? If that is the definition, then no, it doesn't work.
I promise I'll check out the blog, but I'm not very hopeful.
By the way - I worked seven years for a utility, and my job was finding ways to reduce their carbon emissions. That included evaluating an ocean current project. brilliant idea, absolutely impractical because of all sorts of things nobody ever thought of.