Educating the general public about pro nuclear energy?

[mfb]

1.) Yes that probably is very hard to quantify, considering the life expectancy increases that the human race has enjoyed due to the industrial revolution (made possible by coal)

Nuclear power was not available back then. We are discussing the situation today, not in 1800.

2.) Thats a different question than what was asked. The correct answer is that if we halved the amount of atmospheric CO2 that we have right now, all of the crops as we know them would stop growing.

How exactly is that relevant here? I answered a question that is relevant, because I though that is more interesting.

3.) Given that the water vapor has a lifetime of several days, but is released every day, How do we know that the water vapor is irrelevant as a greenhouse gas? Are there any potential benefits of the water vapor release? What negative aspects is the increase in water vapor capable of on local/global levels?

Water vapor is the largest contribution to the greenhouse effect, but the fraction of water vapor coming from humans is completely negligible. The fraction of atmospheric CO2 coming from humans is large - because CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a long time.

Lets say temperature decreased in a few thousand years, as we leave this interglacial period, and slowed the carbonate silicate cycle to the point at which plant life was receiving insufficient CO₂.

That won't happen for about a billion years. See all the history where plants survived many glacial cycles without problems.
And if you think this would be an issue and we should care about it, then we should stop burning fossil fuels immediately - to save them for later.

 

[Bandersnatch]

2.) Thats a different question than what was asked. The correct answer is that if we halved the amount of atmospheric CO2 that we have right now, all of the crops as we know them would stop growing.

We are not at risk of CO2 depletion, nor is human activity needed to maintain its natural levels, so what was this question even asked for? Was it an argument to the effect that CO2 is necessary for life, therefore we need more of it - in the same way as people affected by flooding need more life-giving water?

How do we know that the water vapor is irrelevant as a greenhouse gas?

Water vapour is a strong greenhouse gas, but it's irrelevant because, unlike CO2, it's also a condensing gas. If you put too much of it in the atmosphere, clouds form, followed by precipitation. Its concentration self-regulates.

 

[mheslep]

I agree that all the above is a valid objection to my point except for this:

running longer than the life expectancy of the plant for political reasons. Other disaster may have happened one way or another. Th

Which is baseless speculation, derivative of the fantasy that nuke plants are really just bombs trying to explode at the first blink. Unless the "other disaster" also happens at the same time as s 9.0 quake and 500 yr tsunami which prevents access to water and electrical utilities, and inhibits emergency crews for days, then there is no history of a disaster from these light water reactor designs, not that ever harmed anyone.

 

[russ_watters]

Is 1 drum of nuclear waste an equal unit to 1 million tons of CO₂?

I pulled those numbers out of the air, but google tells me the world emits about 5,000 million tons of CO2 per year from fossil fuel energy use (all uses) and generates 340 tons of high level waste per year. Not that we would store it in a bare 55 gallon drum, but if we did, each would weigh about 4 tons. So that's 1 barrel per 58 million tons of CO2. So I was conservative by an order of magnitude and a half. I consider that a pretty good swag.

If either byproduct caused catastrophe, which would be quicker to half-life? Which would make a geographical area uninhabitable for the longest period of time?

If global warming projections prove anywhere close to accurate, it would take [google] a thousand years for affected areas to becom inhabitable again. So about 10 times longer than from a really bad nuclear catastrophe.

Also, we should be thinking long term here. For nuclear waste, the half life is how long? How much of it will exist after 3,000 years of using nuclear reactors for energy?

Who cares? I'm not arrogant enough to believe that current civilization will still exist in 3,000 years and if whatever exists then doesn't have enough understanding of skull and crossbones sign to keep them out of a cave, they don't deserve any more assistance from us.

And that's even not really essential. All nuclear plants currently store their waste on site because the US government has violated its own law/promise to take it away. This has gone on for 50 years. So what? It wouldn't be a big deal to just build longer-term (larger capacity) storage on-site and leave it there for the forseeable future. That's what I expect will happen.

How many more failures will take place between X-amount of reactors for 3,000 years? How much of the land on Earth will be rendered unhospitibal to life? How will these failures affect people on a global scale?

That's too broad. Let's try this: if we increase the world's nuclear capacity by a factor of a thousand, how many (how frequent) Chernobyl failures should we expect? None. Fukushimas? None. Others we haven't anticipated? Tough to say because we haven't anticipated them yet, but past experience even with a modest assumption of improving safety would suggest to me perhaps one a decade. So that could potentially leave 10 areas uninhabitable at a time if they average 100 years to re-populate.

What about nuclear has activated their amygdala? Do they even fully understand the root cause for their fear? Is there something rational that I have missed? Is my perspective omniscient?

It is difficult to know what is really going on inside other peoples' heads, but it appears to me that the resistance to nuclear power in the USA has evolved out of political opposition to nuclear weapons. During the '60s and '70s the two issues were linked and after a while the myths became strong enough that they began to stand on their own.

 

[RogueOne]

I pulled those numbers out of the air, but google tells me the world emits about 5,000 million tons of CO2 per year from fossil fuel energy use (all uses) and generates 340 tons of high level waste per year. Not that we would store it in a bare 55 gallon drum, but if we did, each would weigh about 4 tons. So that's 1 barrel per 58 million tons of CO2. So I was conservative by an order of magnitude and a half. I consider that a pretty good swag.

1.) If global warming projections prove anywhere close to accurate, it would take [google] a thousand years for affected areas to becom inhabitable again. So about 10 times longer than from a really bad nuclear catastrophe.

2.) Who cares? I'm not arrogant enough to believe that current civilization will still exist in 3,000 years and if whatever exists then doesn't have enough understanding of skull and crossbones sign to keep them out of a cave, they don't deserve any more assistance from us.

And that's even not really essential. All nuclear plants currently store their waste on site because the US government has violated its own law/promise to take it away. This has gone on for 50 years. So what? It wouldn't be a big deal to just build longer-term (larger capacity) storage on-site and leave it there for the forseeable future. That's what I expect will happen.

That's too broad. Let's try this: if we increase the world's nuclear capacity by a factor of a thousand, how many (how frequent) Chernobyl failures should we expect? None. Fukushimas? None. Others we haven't anticipated? Tough to say because we haven't anticipated them yet, but past experience even with a modest assumption of improving safety would suggest to me perhaps one a decade. So that could potentially leave 10 areas uninhabitable at a time if they average 100 years to re-populate.
It is difficult to know what is really going on inside other peoples' heads, but it appears to me that the resistance to nuclear power in the USA has evolved out of political opposition to nuclear weapons. During the '60s and '70s the two issues were linked and after a while the myths became strong enough that they began to stand on their own.

1.) Thats a whole different topic, but how predictive have those models been historically?

2.) Its not arrogant to make decisions with regard to the possibility of human civilization existing 3,000 years from now. Assuming that human cilivization will not exist in 3,000 years is arrogant. Making decisions based on that assumption is absurd. We'll still technically be in this very same interglacial period at that time.

 

[RogueOne]

We are not at risk of CO2 depletion, nor is human activity needed to maintain its natural levels, so what was this question even asked for? Was it an argument to the effect that CO2 is necessary for life, therefore we need more of it - in the same way as people affected by flooding need more life-giving water?.

That is a great analogy, almost. Thank you! Its important that the natural cycles are capable of subsorbing our contributions to them. However, too much CO₂ will not flood and kill a field of crops. It won't overwhelm a dam (causing it to break and/or allow flooding). It was not an argument to say that we need more CO₂. It was pointing out that we are closer to having CO₂ deficiency than we are to having any negative effects of CO₂ surplus that we know of with as much certainty as the negative effects of CO₂ deficiency.

Water vapour is a strong greenhouse gas, but it's irrelevant because, unlike CO2, it's also a condensing gas. If you put too much of it in the atmosphere, clouds form, followed by precipitation. Its concentration self-regulates.

Sounds like quite a life-giving event. More clouds and more rain water? I'm sure that could not possibly ever be anything other than benign, right? Should we go ahead and assume that the risk is negligible when we expand the scale of nuclear energy?

 

[russ_watters]

1.) Thats a whole different topic, but how predictive have those models been historically?

Dificult to say because the more critical predictions are without precedent.

2.) Its not arrogant to make decisions with regard to the possibility of human civilization existing 3,000 years from now. Assuming that human cilivization will not exist in 3,000 years is arrogant. Making decisions based on that assumption is absurd. We'll still technically be in this very same interglacial period at that time.

You're missing my point. Current standards require assuming the collapse of civilization and require protection of what's left of the world and maybe humanity for the next million years. But my opinion is that planning that long term is absurd regardless of which assumption is made because:
1. If our civilization still exists in its current or more advanced form, we'll be smart enough to avoid going into a cave if a sign says not to.
2. If our civilization doesn't exist in its current form, anyone who can't understand needing to stay out of a cave for their own safety does not deserve our help.

It has been my perception, though I cannot be sure, that the standards were written for the purpose of sabbotaging nuclear power.

 

[russ_watters]

That is a great analogy, almost. Thank you! Its important that the natural cycles are capable of subsorbing our contributions to them. However, too much CO₂ will not flood and kill a field of crops. It won't overwhelm a dam (causing it to break and/or allow flooding). It was not an argument to say that we need more CO₂. It was pointing out that we are closer to having CO₂ deficiency than we are to having any negative effects of CO₂ surplus that we know of with as much certainty as the negative effects of CO₂ deficiency.

That's total nonsense and I need to warn you here to stay within the bounds of known science moving forward. You say you are pro-nuclear, so I'm having a hard time telling if you are just playing devil's advocate, but if you are please be advised that while devil's advocate is fine, crackpot's advocate is not allowed.

Sounds like quite a life-giving event. More clouds and more rain water? I'm sure that could not possibly ever be anything other than benign, right? Should we go ahead and assume that the risk is negligible when we expand the scale of nuclear energy?

Can't tell if sarcastic, but the simple answer is no, we should not "assume the risk is negligible", we should understand that the risk is totally nonexistent.

 

[mfb]

However, too much CO2 will not flood and kill a field of crops. It won't overwhelm a dam (causing it to break and/or allow flooding).

It will increase precipitation in some regions, which can increase the risk of breaking dams.
In most regions in reduces precipitation, increasing the risk of droughts.

It was pointing out that we are closer to having CO2 deficiency than we are to having any negative effects of CO₂ surplus that we know of with as much certainty as the negative effects of CO₂ deficiency.

There is absolutely no risk of a lack of CO₂. We do have some negative effects of the increasing CO2 levels today, and it is predicted to get much worse.

No prediction is 100% accurate, but dismissing predictions altogether because they have some percent uncertainty how much warmer it will get is not the right approach.

 

[RogueOne]

That's total nonsense and I need to warn you here to stay within the bounds of known science moving forward. You say you are pro-nuclear, so I'm having a hard time telling if you are just playing devil's advocate, but if you are please be advised that while devil's advocate is fine, crackpot's advocate is not allowed.

Can't tell if sarcastic, but the simple answer is no, we should not "assume the risk is negligible", we should understand that the risk is totally nonexistent.

I was pointing out the fact that your analogy wasn't totally equivocable. I am filling the role of the devil's advocate right now. I understand that our likelihood of CO₂ deficiency is negligible. However, I am pointing out that should the change of CO₂ have happened an equal amount in the opposite direction from the mean, we would be dangerously close to 150ppm. The vast majority of plant life dies at around 150ppm. We are nearing 400ppm, which is up from approximately 270ppm.

And yes, I am pro nuclear. I don't like the idea of nuclear warfare, but nuclear energy has incredible constructive potential for civilization. I think that the caution by the uneducated people is actually the correct position for them to take. I think they should be more passive about it, but it is good that people are not blindly jumping on board with something as powerful and important as this. We're in an adjustment period right now. The economy needs to adjust and accommodate this without too much immediate frictional unemployment or newly-found issues etc etc. Nuclear is in its infancy, relative to what it will someday be.

People fear the unknown. From an evolutionary psychology perspective, that is natural and generally good in some sense. However, they will figure it out much like they figured out electricity. Imagine the horror of telling somebody that you wanted to string electrical wiring through their house that is made entirely of flammable materials??

 

[jim hardy]

I don't fear another doubling of CO2.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25600219

The inhalation toxicity of submarine contaminants is of concern to ensure the health of men and women aboard submarines during operational deployments. Due to a lack of adequate prior studies, potential general, neurobehavioral, reproductive and developmental toxicity was evaluated in male and female rats exposed to mixtures of three critical submarine atmospheric components: carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO2; levels elevated above ambient), and oxygen (O2; levels decreased below ambient). In a 14-day, 23 h/day, whole-body inhalation study of exposure to clean air (0.4 ppm CO, 0.1% CO2 and 20.6% O2), low-dose, mid-dose and high-dose gas mixtures (high dose of 88.4 ppm CO, 2.5% CO2 and 15.0% O2), no adverse effects on survival, body weight or histopathology were observed

That's 25,000 PPM.

Are there any potential benefits of the water vapor release?

Willis Eschenbach's "Thermostat Hypothesis" makes a case that it's a significant stabilizer of climate.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/14/the-thermostat-hypothesis/

 

[RogueOne]

I don't fear another doubling of CO2.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25600219

That's 25,000 PPM.

Willis Eschenbach's "Thermostat Hypothesis" makes a case that it's a significant stabilizer of climate.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/14/the-thermostat-hypothesis/

Thank you for the objective reply. Those are useful peices of the picture!

 

[russ_watters]

It will increase precipitation in some regions, which can increase the risk of breaking dams.

I'll take that a step further to say that if we don't quibble about the difference between a dam and a levee, too much CO2 will flood and kill crops.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

One of the students we mentor was at a scholarship interview at a top 30 university when the subject of nuclear power was brought up in a large group discussion. All of the students were very well educated high school seniors with ACT scores of 35 or 36.

The student we mentor has a keen scientific mind, and was the only one to vocalize support for nuclear power. He supported his reasoning with a number of well researched and articulated facts. It went over like a turd in a punch bowl, along with every other view on a science or technology issue that can be framed as "conservative."

Top colleges claim to want diversity, but that's not the kind they want. Education is no longer about facts and knowledge and debate. It's about falling in line and agreeing with the consensus view. Some amount of disagreement is allowed, but only within acceptable parameters. Support for nuclear power is not within the acceptable parameters.

 

[HAYAO]

Which is baseless speculation, derivative of the fantasy that nuke plants are really just bombs trying to explode at the first blink. Unless the "other disaster" also happens at the same time as s 9.0 quake and 500 yr tsunami which prevents access to water and electrical utilities, and inhibits emergency crews for days, then there is no history of a disaster from these light water reactor designs, not that ever harmed anyone.

EDIT: I actually realized that the original post you are replying to had some bad wording that caused some misunderstanding. When I said "other disasters", I was talking about "other" possible power plant failures. See, this is what happens when English is not my mother tongue. Sorry about that.Just a note: Fukushima incident did kill a few people. One by possible acute radiation syndrome, and few others by heatstroke working in terrible conditions inside the hot reactors.

 

[russ_watters]

One of the students we mentor was at a scholarship interview at a top 30 university when the subject of nuclear power was brought up in a large group discussion. All of the students were very well educated high school seniors with ACT scores of 35 or 36.

The student we mentor has a keen scientific mind, and was the only one to vocalize support for nuclear power. He supported his reasoning with a number of well researched and articulated facts. It went over like a turd in a punch bowl, along with every other view on a science or technology issue that can be framed as "conservative."...

Interview? Hopefully that didn't affect his chances, but unfortunately in today's climate giving a good answer doesn't fly; you do need to know/give the "right" answer. Whether it be a for a scholarship interview or Miss America pagent.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Interview? Hopefully that didn't affect his chances, but unfortunately in today's climate giving a good answer doesn't fly; you do need to know/give the "right" answer. Whether it be a for a scholarship interview or Miss America pagent.

All the students at the interview who gave "conservative" answers to ANY question received the lower of the two possible scholarship outcomes.

Towing the liberal party line seems necessary to receive the higher scholarship (a difference of about $5k per year). We appraise the students we mentor about these likely outcomes in our preparation work beforehand. But at some point, these "invincible" high school seniors have the confidence to be intellectually honest and express their fact-based, firmly held views even when they know it might cost them money. Hanging out with us for long enough gives them the confidence to that being scientifically correct is a better bet in the long run than being politically correct.

It is hard to convince invincible 18 year olds that it's not intellectually dishonest to just stay silent some times. We coach them that nuclear power is a third rail topic and that there is nothing to be gained by talking about it in high stakes interviews. Ever eager to show how smart they are, it is a hard temptation to resist.

 

[RogueOne]

All the students at the interview who gave "conservative" answers to ANY question received the lower of the two possible scholarship outcomes.

Towing the liberal party line seems necessary to receive the higher scholarship (a difference of about $5k per year). We appraise the students we mentor about these likely outcomes in our preparation work beforehand. But at some point, these "invincible" high school seniors have the confidence to be intellectually honest and express their fact-based, firmly held views even when they know it might cost them money. Hanging out with us for long enough gives them the confidence to that being scientifically correct is a better bet in the long run than being politically correct.

It is hard to convince invincible 18 year olds that it's not intellectually dishonest to just stay silent some times. We coach them that nuclear power is a third rail topic and that there is nothing to be gained by talking about it in high stakes interviews. Ever eager to show how smart they are, it is a hard temptation to resist.

It is a shame that our universities have become so intolerant of viewpoints other than liberal. There is a stubborn refusal to consider anything other than the narrative, or anybody who is good at speaking about the actual subject. That difference in scholarship is just the first different outcome that they will have in college if they don't hide their views. That theme repeats itself consistently. It seems as though being anything other than a doctrinaire democrat on a university campus will subject you to a journey of a thousand cuts. This syndrome has heightened in recent years. So one challenge in educating the general public about nuclear would be to figure out when/where your viewpoint will not be resisted with vitriol. As sad as it is, where are you allowed to even talk about a subject like this? Where is your information on _______ energy even allowed to be vocalized?

If you want to educate the public about nuclear, ironically, it might actually be easier than educating university students at a campus.

 

[russ_watters]

All the students at the interview who gave "conservative" answers to ANY question received the lower of the two possible scholarship outcomes.

Not shocked, but sorry to hear. You can tell him there is always a place for "his kind" in engineering!

But at some point, these "invincible" high school seniors have the confidence to be intellectually honest and express their fact-based, firmly held views even when they know it might cost them money. Hanging out with us for long enough gives them the confidence to that being scientifically correct is a better bet in the long run than being politically correct.

I wouldn't advocate intellectual dishonesty (well...maybe in the Miss America pagent), but rather to artfully dodge or spin the bad question into something better. It depends on the wording, but if they ask: "What technology we hang our energy future on, solar or nuclear?"

...you can always answer with splitting the difference and pointing out that it is a flawed question:
"It isn't an either-or; both have a role to play."

Or if you want to be safer:
"Solar definitely has more growth potential."

It's as true as it is meaningless, but if the audience just wants a sentence with the word "solar" in it, that should suffice.

Still, playing politics is a necessary evil in life that at some point they will have to get used to. You can't go into a job interview with company X and tell them you are only there because you were turned down for a job with company Y, which is a far better company, even if that's objectively true.

 

[mheslep]

Just a note: Fukushima incident did kill a few people. One by possible acute radiation syndrome,..

Not so, not from radiation.

UNSCEAR Report, released 2013

...
3. Health implications
38. No radiation-related deaths or acute diseases have been observed among the workers and general public exposed to radiation from the accident.

http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2013/14-06336_Report_2013_Annex_A_Ebook_website.pdf

I'm being pedantic here in following up on an erroneous single claim of radiation poisoning, because there was an avoidable jump in mortality among the old and ill caused by the reaction to the accident, i.e the transfer trauma via the mass evacuation. The mortality increase from those evacuated due to radiation concerns was similar to the increased mortality among "evacuees from tsunami- and earthquake-affected prefectures." Evacuation from, e.g., hospitals for which structures were seriously damaged by the quake/tsunami was likely unavoidable. Evacuation due to fear of radiation was avoidable. Every false claim about radiation deaths adds to the risk that poor choices will be repeated.

 

[HAYAO]

Not so, not from radiation.

UNSCEAR Report, released 2013

http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2013/14-06336_Report_2013_Annex_A_Ebook_website.pdf

I'm being pedantic here in following up on an erroneous single claim of radiation poisoning, because there was an avoidable jump in mortality among the old and ill caused by the reaction to the accident, i.e the transfer trauma via the mass evacuation. The mortality increase from those evacuated due to radiation concerns was similar to the increased mortality among "evacuees from tsunami- and earthquake-affected prefectures." Evacuation from, e.g., hospitals for which structures were seriously damaged by the quake/tsunami was likely unavoidable. Evacuation due to fear of radiation was avoidable. Every false claim about radiation deaths adds to the risk that poor choices will be repeated.

Hence the reason why I said precisely "possible" acute radiation syndrome. BTW, I made a mistake because it wasn't acute radiation syndrome but acute leukemia. Due to the sensitive matter at hand, they decided to pay compensation anyway although a this being related to the power plant is unlikely. I believe it's quite unlikely that it is related since radiation don't cause leukemia that fast. BTW, this happened in 2015 so your reference is a bit old.

 

[nikkkom]

Coal is not your main competition.
Solar power reports for 2016 are out.

Total installed generation worldwide: 302 GW
Installed in 2016: 75 GW (13 GW in US)
Fraction of total worldwide electricity production: 1.8% (in US: 1.3%)
Best performing modules are based on mono-crystalline silicon with ~23% efficiency

 

[RogueOne]

Coal is not your main competition.
Solar power reports for 2016 are out.

Total installed generation worldwide: 302 GW
Installed in 2016: 75 GW (13 GW in US)
Fraction of total worldwide electricity production: 1.8% (in US: 1.3%)
Best performing modules are based on mono-crystalline silicon with ~23% efficiency

Installs appear to be high in 2016. How were solar panel sales in 2016? Are these companies expanding and selling more? That market, historically, has been propped up by subsidies. I sense a potential for abrupt correction in that market.

 

[nikkkom]

Federal tax credit of 30%, expired December 31, 2016.
This caused a surge in installations to be finished (or "finished" as far as paperwork is concerned) by that date.

 

[russ_watters]

Coal is not your main competition.
Solar power reports for 2016 are out.

Total installed generation worldwide: 302 GW
Installed in 2016: 75 GW (13 GW in US)
Fraction of total worldwide electricity production: 1.8% (in US: 1.3%)
Best performing modules are based on mono-crystalline silicon with ~23% efficiency

Why do you think those facts support your thesis? They appear to me to be unconnected.

 

[nikkkom]

Most of the new generation in the US in 2016 is solar PV.
Close second is natural gas.
Next place is wind generation.
Nuclear added 1.1 GW (Watts Bar 2).
Coal seems to have added approximately nothing.

 

[mfb]

Most of the new generation in the US in 2016 is solar PV.

And it is still a tiny fraction of the overall electricity production. If we scale the 1.8% to what was installed in 2016, we get 0.45% (this is not exactly true as the generation per installed kW depends on the location where it is installed). If the solar cells last 30 years and the world keeps installing 75 GW per year and just replacing everything else, we would get a long-term contribution of 10-13% solar power, achieved by 2047.

The rate of new photovoltaic installations has to increase massively if they are supposed to replace coal or nuclear power. The storage problem will increase with more solar power.

 

[nikkkom]

And it is still a tiny fraction of the overall electricity production. If we scale the 1.8% to what was installed in 2016, we get 0.45% (this is not exactly true as the generation per installed kW depends on the location where it is installed). If the solar cells last 30 years and the world keeps installing 75 GW per year and just replacing everything else, we would get a long-term contribution of 10-13% solar power, achieved by 2047.

Would you try imagining that world would not keep installing 75 GW per year, but would install more? That is the trend in the past.

 

[russ_watters]

Most of the new generation in the US in 2016 is solar PV.
Close second is natural gas.
Next place is wind generation.
Nuclear added 1.1 GW (Watts Bar 2).
Coal seems to have added approximately nothing.

...ok, but your thesis was:

Coal is not your main competition.
Solar...

So, a couple of things:
1. Looking back a decade and further in the USA, it has been true since the dawn of nuclear power that coal and nuclear were the biggest baseload components of electrical generation, and they were essentially an either-or choice.
2. Looking back 10 years and forward for probably the next 10-20, the situation is different, with coal and natural gas fighting each other for production.

To the point, though: "competition" and "new generation capacity" don't appear to me to be synonomous (even if we set aside the disingenous nature of comparing something with a capacity factor of 20% to something else at 90%!). To me, competition is based on how much each produces because that's how each can actually impact the other (swinging prices by supply and demand). And as mfb said, at least for the US, solar power is still just a minor blip. If you look at graphs of production, you can see how the large sources trade generation back and forth -- but solar doesn't even appear on such graphs because it is too small to see at all.

The facts and claims you provided seem to switch back and forth between capacity and generation, USA and world. And they don't seem to have much to do with each other.

Would you try imagining that world would not keep installing 75 GW per year, but would install more? That is the trend in the past.

One of the signs of irrelevancy is having massive fractional increases in capacity resulting in still not having enough generation to show up on a graph comparing sources by output. It can have massive percentage increases because the actual capacity and output increases are still pretty small. As the actual capacity and output numbers get high enough for solar to become relevant, then the percentage increases will drop. It's already starting to happen, 2016 adds (maybe) notwithstanding.

Another measure of relevance: Solar presents problems for integration into the grid because of its limited availability that depends on mother nature's whims instead of an automatic throttle. Fortunately for solar, though, it is still such a small fraction of our power production that such issues are not relevant yet.

 

[mheslep]

Coal is not your main competition.

Politically, perhaps, as reflected by some of claims in this thread, including that post.

Globally in 2015 108 GW of new coal came online, and 77 GW in 2016 as China slowed. As of January 2017, the combination of all new coal plants either under construction or planned (i.e announced, permitted or pre-permitted) was 842 GW (1597 plants). The statistics indicate about third of these are under-construction, and its typical that many of the plants now in planning will be eventually cancelled. Unsurprisingly China still has the highest total though its slowed, but coal in the next highest half dozen countries (by new coal rank) is expanding rapidly: India, Turkey, Indonesia, Vietnam, Japan, Egypt, Bangladesh. Of course most of these countries don't have renewable portfolio mandates or tax subsidies for intermittent power. No new traditional coal plants are currently under construction in the United States. Multiple sources listedhttp://endcoal.org/global-coal-plant-tracker/methodology/, and aggregated http://endcoal.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Jan-2017-Proposed-by-country-MW.pdf, and http://endcoal.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Jan-2017-Proposed-by-country-units.pdf.

Solar power reports for 2016 are out.

Total installed generation worldwide: 302 GW
Installed in 2016: 75 GW (13 GW in US)
Fraction of total worldwide electricity production: 1.8% (in US: 1.3%)
Best performing modules are based on mono-crystalline silicon with ~23% efficiency

Assuming an annual average solar PV capacity factor of 16%, global solar generation from the cumulative installed solar base was 1.2 TWh/day when available, where as the new coal installed in the single year 2015 would have generated 1.3 TWh/day (assuming 50% capacity factor).

The evolution of solar power in some countries now has a history. Solar is rapidly installed for awhile up to high single digit share of power when subsidized, ~7% Germany 2016, and then slows to a trickle, as it becomes apparent that though some fossil fuel plants throttle back a bit, few of them close as a result, an expensive proposition (Germany 49 GW of coal in 2002, 49 GW of coal in 2017, and German natural gas capacity increased 47% over the same period). Germany even has a new large (1.1 GW) coal plant under construction at Datteln. German CO2 emissions are increasing the last few years.