283 replies to this topic

[Dingo]

According to this report Fukushima has had at least one good outcome. It has jump started solar in Japan. It does say solar is more expensive than nuclear but doesn't make it clear whether they are factoring in the radiation spillage and plant shutdowns.

http://www.washingto...c027_story.html

[Besoeker]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 05 June 2013 - 03:31 AM, said:

Back to nukes.

If we want to shut down fossil fuelled power stations because we need utility scale alternatives.
Only hydro and nuclear come close to doing that.- at present.
They may not be perfect but the option would be a drastically changed life style. For everyone except maybe those in thirld world countries.

[Phil]

http://www.hydrogenc...-to-copenhagen/

And so it begins.  Check out the time lapse video.  It says 48 hours but it's really 12 hours plus 36 hours compression.  Unfortunately no cost data, I guess we'll have to wait for consumer availability to gauge viability.  Of course it's a commercial unit not home unit so we'll have to wait on that also.

Good Germany/Bad Germany :<)

http://reneweconomy....rgy-order-53357

http://reneweconomy....-solar-pv-57935

Note China's projected prices for PV, 11.8 cents/KW by 2015, 8.8 cents/KW by 2020.  In the US today they are in the 60-70 cent range with occasional sales below 50 cents retail.  Also note that Germany is an energy exporter to nuclear France and gets a substantial amount of energy from solar/wind despite being a highly industrial nation.  So much for requiring central power stations for industries.

As I've said, big oil could care less about solar, it's the utilities that are fighting back.  My provider is not as bad as some, they have a service charge plus energy charge so their infrastructure is covered but even they are trying to get hydro declared green so they don't have to meet future green targets with solar/wind/etc.

It's stories like these that lead me to believe nuclear is not long for this world.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Besoeker, on 05 June 2013 - 10:20 AM, said:

If we want to shut down fossil fuelled power stations because we need utility scale alternatives.
Only hydro and nuclear come close to doing that.- at present.
They may not be perfect but the option would be a drastically changed life style. For everyone except maybe those in thirld world countries.

When you quoted me as saying "back to nukes" it was taken out of context.
I meant that this thread had wandered off topic-
and that we should get back on topic.

[still learning]

Phil, on 05 June 2013 - 12:16 PM, said:

....Note China's projected prices for PV, 11.8 cents/KW by 2015, 8.8 cents/KW by 2020.  In the US today they are in the 60-70 cent range with occasional sales below 50 cents retail.....  

Quoting from one of the pages you linked to: "anticipates the cost of solar PV to fall to around 0.8 yuan per kilowatt hour (11.8c/kWh) by 2015 and to 0.6 yuan (8.8c/kWh) by 2020. At that point, it anticipates the cost of solar to be cheaper than the wholesale cost of coal."

11.8 cents per kWh, not per KW.  Electricity, energy, not PV panels.

Regarding French and German electricity transfers, found a couple of undated graphics that shows Germany importing way more from France than it exports to France.  A fairly recent Reuters article says that's changed though.  See http://www.reuters.c...AQECN20130122��

[eds]

Source: Reuters article

[Besoeker]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 05 June 2013 - 01:20 PM, said:

When you quoted me as saying "back to nukes" it was taken out of context.
I meant that this thread had wandered off topic-
and that we should get back on topic.

And I gave you my opinion on nuclear power.........don't quite see how that is out of context.
Is there some sub-text that I'm missing?

[Shortpoet-GTD]

An excellent program on Nova called Power Surge aired last night (it was a repeat)- that spoke about the world
wide effort to capture carbon and to bring better alternatives than fossil fuels to market.

It focuses on the optimists and change makers that are working hard to reduce our carbon emissions rather
than the doom and gloom we often hear.

One of the things mentioned on the program was nuclear. Nuclear plants are "made to order" and can
have flaws in design and construction because each one is different.
The Chinese are producing modules that can be assembled like Lego's, each one is the same as the last.
The design issues are worked out before production and construction is also minimal because they are
pre-assembled.

Well worth the time to view it; or bookmark it for later viewing.


It can be viewed here. (About 53 minutes long)
http://video.pbs.org/video/1873639434/

[Phil]

I stand corrected.  Actually I sit corrected :<)  Still, if China is claiming solar will be cheaper than wholesale coal by 2020 that bodes well for CO2 (assuming they are accurate).  Given this, it will be interesting how many coal plants they will build next year.

[still learning]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 06 June 2013 - 04:00 AM, said:

An excellent program on Nova called Power Surge.......One of the things mentioned on the program was nuclear. Nuclear plants are "made to order" and can have flaws in design and construction because each one is different.....

Pretty good video, in my opinion.

That "made to order" aspect of US nuclear powerplants is a cause of today's decision to keep southern California's San Onofre site shut down permanently.
See: http://www.latimes.c...story?track=rss
During a fairly recent overhaul of the plant they replaced the "steam generator" (a sort of heat exchanger) of each reactor with a more efficient design, could get a little more electricity from the same reactor.  An unproven design though.  Didn't last, sprung a leak.  Wouldn't have happened with standardized design.

[Dingo]

Here they show a comparative ramp up of nuclear and wind-solar over an eleven year period, in terms of energy output per person. It doesn't look very good for solar but Germany may not be the optimum place to draw the comparison from.
http://thebreakthrou...nucgraph(1).png

[eds]

No Solar Way Around it

Source:  Breakthrough

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Nuclear plants costing us money, even after they're shut down.
Article

[Phil]

The fact is there is a lot of nuclear opposition across all political lines.  That means the decade ramp up on a nuclear plant will not go away.  Rabid opposition trumps 30% cost advantage every time! :<)

It was interesting to see the EIA data, from what I saw a couple of years ago they showed solar as being cheaper.  I wonder what changed.  From what I read at the EIA, they did not include nuclear decommissioning costs.  It's also unclear whether nuclear included underwriting costs  which I think are borne by the federal government.

Another fact is solar on roof tops is the only technology that can reduce your electric bill, (excluding micro wind/micro hydro of course), all utility solutions raise it, including utility scale solar.  

Doing the install yourself can halve costs.  The system I installed cost $1.64/watt after federal incentive, that same system today would be $1.59/watt WITHOUT the federal incentive! ($1.11 with)  That means it would still be a good deal without the 30% credit.  That's why long term I think it's distributed solar that will be the norm.

Wind and solar got off to a late start in the US but both are growing by leaps and bounds.  It will be interesting to see where we are by the end of the decade if costs continue to fall.  It will also be interesting to see if nuclear opposition will change by then, personally I don't think so.  I'm even willing to live with the CO2 from natural gas plants over more nuclear.

[still learning]

Phil, on 09 June 2013 - 09:40 AM, said:

..... I'm even willing to live with the CO2 from natural gas plants over more nuclear.

Seems to me like that has to be the view of anyone who is completely unwilling to consider adding new nuclear electric powerplants.
Maybe someday renewables with some kind of energy storage can do the whole job of providing a first-world electricity supply, but no time soon.

[Phil]

I confess, I'm guilty. I am completely unwilling to consider adding new nukes.  By the time wind and solar are built out and we still don't have a viable backup, I guess I could reconsider if I still have a pulse by then. :<)

All we have is our opinions of course. Time defines reality, not opinions.  I've changed my mind on numerous occasions, it could happen again.  The thread is titled Nuclear as a religion sort of, I guess I'm a member of no nukes as a religion sort of.  

Once hydrogen hits the market with any volume we can gauge that reality.  By then actual grid batteries will have been deployed in some volume as well.  As far as I can tell those two seem to be the front runners of green backup.  I've read about compressed air pumped into the ground but don't know how applicable that is as a mass market solution.

At any rate, it is China, India, etc. that will determine the worlds fate in my opinion.

[Besoeker]

still learning, on 09 June 2013 - 04:56 PM, said:

Seems to me like that has to be the view of anyone who is completely unwilling to consider adding new nuclear electric powerplants.
Maybe someday renewables with some kind of energy storage can do the whole job of providing a first-world electricity supply, but no time soon.

I agree. Reality. Storage is certainly a limiting factor. Hydroelectric works at utility scale because of storage - all that water behind the dam is potential energy.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

See also-
http://www.altenergy...r-all-that-bad/

[Dingo]

Presumably most folks here are familiar with the initials  EROEI or EROI for short - Energy Return On Energy Investment, the higher the number the better. That has got to be a critical consideration in our energy choices. Hydro, the best, is mostly played out. One can see in this chart why coal and oil are hard to eliminate. Natural gas interestingly is merely rated as equal to nuclear, something I wouldn't have expected. Nuclear is slightly higher than pvs and biomass is like forget it, they are bordering on 1. As for nuclear vs. natural gas, for me it is a slam dunk, nuclear obviously is better. Natural gas keeps getting trolled as some sort of serious global warming alternative to oil and coal when the studies keep showing otherwise. With the added methane leakage it may be even worse. As for pvs, even with a slightly worse EROI than nuclear I would prefer them generally but unfortunately in the near term they simply scale up poorly as I showed in my last chart. A little note, perhaps population growth will drown us, no matter what we do, but I guess that is the elephant in the room that can't be discussed except maybe off on its own lonely thread.

EROI - USA

[eds]

EROI-USA chart date of 27 August 2011
Does NOT take into consideration, ROI of rising Utility rates.

Attached Files

•  ROI_Chart.png   79.15K   0 downloads