Experts say nuclear power needed to slow warming

Nov 03, 2013 by Kevin Begos
In this Dec. 11, 2012, file photo, part of the containment vessel for a new nuclear reactor at the Plant Vogtle nuclear power plant is under construction in Augusta, Ga. Some of the world's top climate scientists say wind and solar energy will not be enough to head off extreme global warming, and they are asking environmentalists to support the development of safer nuclear power as one way to cut fossil fuel pollution. (AP Photo/John Bazemore, File)

Some of the world's top climate scientists say wind and solar energy won't be enough to head off extreme global warming, and they're asking environmentalists to support the development of safer nuclear power as one way to cut fossil fuel pollution.

Four scientists who have played a key role in alerting the public to the dangers of sent letters Sunday to leading environmental groups and politicians around the world. The letter, an advance copy of which was given to The Associated Press, urges a crucial discussion on the role of in fighting climate change.

Environmentalists agree that global warming is a threat to ecosystems and humans, but many oppose nuclear power and believe that new forms of renewable will be able to power the world within the next few decades.

That isn't realistic, the letter said.

"Those cannot scale up fast enough" to deliver the amount of cheap and reliable power the world needs, and "with the planet warming and rising faster than ever, we cannot afford to turn away from any technology" that has the potential to reduce greenhouse gases.

The letter signers are James Hansen, a former top NASA scientist; Ken Caldeira, of the Carnegie Institution; Kerry Emanuel, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Tom Wigley, of the University of Adelaide in Australia.

Hansen began publishing research on the threat of global warming more than 30 years ago, and his testimony before Congress in 1988 helped launch a mainstream discussion. Last February he was arrested in front of the White House at a climate protest that included the head of the Sierra Club and other activists. Caldeira was a contributor to reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Emanuel is known for his research on possible links between climate change and hurricanes, and Wigley has also been doing climate research for more than 30 years.

Emanuel said the signers aren't opposed to sources but want environmentalists to understand that "realistically, they cannot on their own solve the world's energy problems."

The vast majority of climate scientists say they're now virtually certain that pollution from fossil fuels has increased global temperatures over the last 60 years. They say emissions need to be sharply reduced to prevent more extreme damage in the future.

In 2011 worldwide carbon dioxide emissions jumped 3 percent, because of a large increase by China, the No. 1 carbon polluting country. The U.S. is No. 2 in carbon emissions.

Hansen, who's now at Columbia University, said it's not enough for to simply oppose and promote renewable energy.

"They're cheating themselves if they keep believing this fiction that all we need" is renewable energy such as wind and solar, Hansen told the AP.

The joint letter says, "The time has come for those who take the threat of seriously to embrace the development and deployment of safer nuclear power systems" as part of efforts to build a new global energy supply.

Stephen Ansolabehere, a Harvard professor who studies energy issues, said nuclear power is "very divisive" within the environmental movement. But he added that the letter could help educate the public about the difficult choices that climate change presents.

One major environmental advocacy organization, the Natural Resources Defense Council, warned that "nuclear power is no panacea for our climate woes."

Risk of catastrophe is only one drawback of nuclear power, NRDC President Frances Beinecke said in a statement. Waste storage and security of nuclear material are also important issues, she said.

"The better path is to clean up our power plants and invest in efficiency and renewable energy," Beinecke said.

The scientists acknowledge that there are risks to using nuclear power, but say those are far smaller than the risk posed by extreme climate change.

"We understand that today's nuclear plants are far from perfect."

Explore further: First of four Fukushima reactors cleared of nuclear fuel

More information: Full letter online: bit.ly/1fc6Dpu

4 /5 (34 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

CO2 emissions 'increased at slower rate in 2012'

Oct 31, 2013

The world's carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions increased at a slower rate in 2012—1.1 percent compared to a 2.9 percent annual increase over the past decade, a report said Thursday.

Researchers set out path for global warming reversal

Jul 10, 2013

Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) can reverse the global warming trend and push temperatures back below the global target of 2°C above pre-industrial levels, even if current policies fail and we initially ...

Investment to limit climate change is lagging

Oct 22, 2013

Spending on measures to limit global warming declined last year, and was deeply inadequate to avoid its worst effects, said a climate finance analysis released in Copenhagen Tuesday.

Recommended for you

The state of shale

Dec 19, 2014

University of Pittsburgh researchers have shared their findings from three studies related to shale gas in a recent special issue of the journal Energy Technology, edited by Götz Veser, the Nickolas A. DeCecco Professor of Che ...

Website shines light on renewable energy resources

Dec 18, 2014

A team from the University of Arizona and eight southwestern electric utility companies have built a pioneering web portal that provides insight into renewable energy sources and how they contribute to the ...

Better software cuts computer energy use

Dec 18, 2014

An EU research project is developing tools to help software engineers create energy-efficient code, which could reduce electricity consumption at data centres by up to 50% and improve battery life in smart ...

User comments : 411

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Eikka
2.9 / 5 (32) Nov 03, 2013
Good luck with that. Getting environmentalists to support nuclear power is like getting American conservatives to agree to gun control.

Bob_Wallace
2.2 / 5 (37) Nov 03, 2013
If one looks at the cost of new nuclear power and the amount of time it takes to build a reactor it's hard to get behind nuclear.

Why should we pay 2x, 3x more and wait 8x longer?

Just based on finances alone nuclear loses. Add in the safety and radioactive waste problems and nuclear loses double.

If we use renewables to replace fossil fuels then we get the job done far quicker for a lot less money. I really don't think these experts in climate science fully understand renewable energy/nuclear energy issue.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (38) Nov 03, 2013
Fukushima. Chernobyl.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (34) Nov 03, 2013
The far left does not want nuclear power precisely because it threatens to reduce co2 based energy, which would undermine the justification for social engineering.

If one looks at the cost of new nuclear power and the amount of time it takes to build a reactor it's hard to get behind nuclear.


That argument can't continue to be relevant decade after decade.
Porgie
1.7 / 5 (35) Nov 03, 2013
Noumenon, you are correct. I am one who thinks that there is no warming. The ice caps are expanding at both poles. Too much data used has been edited, redacted, or just plain falsified. Jobs and progress are not killing the planet. We need coal research, we have 900 years supply.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (34) Nov 03, 2013
If one looks at the cost of new nuclear power

How much of these costs are political harassment?
Harassment costs has kept a new oil refinery from being built in the US for over 30 years.
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (21) Nov 03, 2013
"Those energy sources cannot scale up fast enough"

I dunno. We went from zero to more than 20 percent from renewables in only 20 years in germany. Nuclear powerplants aren't built overnight (in fact: getting the same 20 percent from nuclear power as we did before required roughly twice as long to build and cost a LOT more)

Then there's the issue that only a handful of companies worldwide have the ability to build nuclear powerplants - whereas everyone and their uncle can build solar- / wind farms nowadays.

I doubt one could scale up nuclear power at the rate it would need to be to make any impact. Especially when we consider that we'd want reactor types that aren't even in production yet (which cuts down the number of companies that could build those to an even smaller number).

Given X amount of resources: Pouring that into renewables seems a lot more sensible/efficient at combatting climate change.
Cave_Man
1.6 / 5 (21) Nov 03, 2013
"We understand that today's nuclear plants are far from perfect."

At least they admit it, but I didn't read anything else in the article.

I just wanted to comment that in the near future we should be working to develop nano scale fusion power sources that run on something sequestered from the atmosphere. Use nano channels and magnetic confinement to produce a space where atoms would fuse at a high rate if injected at proper speed and direction. Develop energy collector hardware to absorb the energy from the tiny fusion events, basically tunable broad spectrum EM sensors. When mass manufactured in parallel we could realize unlimited energy built into everything.

I think popping a golf ball of lithium 6 in your space ship every few years would be sustainable. As long as you are just hanging out in the local system. Gosh I can't wait for personal space ships? Is anyone working on that? Or world hunger? lol.....
WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (23) Nov 03, 2013
Nuclear power is not so bad after all, people should be more conscious and better informed. There is the aneutronic nuclear fusion that is to be a clean and safe option to replace nuclear fission power plants, with which will be possible to produce carbon-free electric power in small land usage with no long-lived radioactive materials, no meltdowns and no enrichment of uranium and plutonium for nuclear weapon proliferation.
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (32) Nov 03, 2013
Fukushima. Chernobyl.

US Navy has been operating and living next to nuclear reactors for decades.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (25) Nov 03, 2013
whereas everyone and their uncle can build solar- / wind farms nowadays.

At what cost?
"David Cameron has pledged to "roll back" the green taxes next year. The Government has said that the levies, which fund renewable energy programmes and wind farms, contribute £112 to the average household bill. However, ministers have warned that the sum could rise to £194 by 2020. "
http://www.telegr...Six.html
dogbert
2.2 / 5 (27) Nov 03, 2013
Nothing wrong with nuclear power. It can be safely used.

The problem with nuclear power is our refusal to adequately handle nuclear waste. Of course, we refuse to adequately handle waste which is not nuclear, so it is highly unlikely that we will ever make rational decisions about nuclear waste.

We have lots of coal, natural gas and oil. No need to get bent out of shape trying to find energy sources. Unless, of course, you want to use energy for social redistribution.
Bob_Wallace
2.1 / 5 (24) Nov 03, 2013
Fukushima. Chernobyl.

US Navy has been operating and living next to nuclear reactors for decades.


So have the Russians. They toasted one....

Safety is not the controlling factor. Better we suffer more Fukushimas and Chernobyls than extreme climate change. But it's not a "nuclear or cook" choice. It's a renewable/nuclear/cook choice.

And renewables win in all categories. They are cheaper than nuclear or climate change. They are faster to install than nuclear. And they bring none of the dangers and waste disposal problems of nuclear.

Some people do love nuclear energy. But there's a more elegant solution. Why build great big, expensive plants which are only "one Homer" away from a meltdown?

Bob_Wallace
1.8 / 5 (19) Nov 03, 2013
If one looks at the cost of new nuclear power

How much of these costs are political harassment?
Harassment costs has kept a new oil refinery from being built in the US for over 30 years.


Two are being built right now in North Dakota. Dakota Prairie Refinery broke ground this spring. Trenton Diesel Refinery has been permitted.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (26) Nov 03, 2013
And renewables win in all categories. They are cheaper than nuclear or climate change. They are faster to install than nuclear.


Impossible.
qquax
2.1 / 5 (20) Nov 03, 2013
It always puzzled me why environmentalists would not embrace sub-critical designs that can be used to reduce the problematic amount of long lasting nuclear waste. To me it is paramount that we try to clean up this mess: http://wavewatchi...es-away/
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (25) Nov 03, 2013
"Imagine a single cubic meter of material—average continental crust—taken from anywhere in the world.

That cubic meter contains, on average, about two cubic centimeters of thorium and half a cubic centimeter of uranium, if each was in its metallic form.

If that thorium were converted to energy in a liquid-fluoride reactor, it would be equivalent to the energy in thirty cubic meters of the finest crude oil in the world. Truly this is a transformational technology that can turn average ores into a energy resource of this magnitude."
http://flibe-ener...e_id=874
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (25) Nov 03, 2013
"The fission of uranium-233 will produce approximately 35 different elements as fission products in varying quantities. These elements include xenon, neodymium, molybdenum, and zirconium."
"The radioactive isotopes of xenon decay quite quickly leaving only the stable isotopes of xenon behind. Stable xenon is used by NASA as propellent for ion engines and also by a variety of other industries, and could prove to be valuable.

Neodymium also stabilizes quickly and is the primary constituent of high-performance magnets. Removing neodymium from the salt could be done in connection with a larger strategy to remove all lanthanides, some of which have high neutron-absorption cross sections.

Other valuable fission products that take longer to stabilize include rhodium, ruthenium, and palladium. Rhodium and ruthenium will stabilize completely about a decade after removal from the reactor"
http://flibe-ener...ge_id=64
GuruShabu
1.3 / 5 (23) Nov 03, 2013
Experts my ass!
After the WW2 those experts promoted hundreds of nuclear plants to produce "clean and cheap" energy!
What a lie...
Now these bunch of entrepreneurs disguised on "environmentalists" are planting again this very wrong idea.
It is not only VERY dangerous (see Fukushima, Chernobyl) but it is VERY expensive! To the point as to be undoable.
Why those "experts" don't cite that an average size nuclear plant produces around 250kg of Plutonium/yr and plutonium has a half life of 25000yrs!
Where to store this for 1000s of thousands of yrs??? How to build containers to resist this time span? What country will accept to store it?
Have you read about Yucca Mountain Radioactive reservoir? (http://www.theliv...ty.html)
Eikka
2.4 / 5 (23) Nov 03, 2013
We went from zero to more than 20 percent from renewables in only 20 years in germany.


And that's the point where it stops being easy and starts costing a -lot- more money to integrate more renewables into the grid. And you didn't start from zero. You already had water power and biomass based energy production going on since forever.

(in fact: getting the same 20 percent from nuclear power as we did before required roughly twice as long to build and cost a LOT more)


Assuming that only Germany builds any, and you only build one facility at a time.

If you start a worldwide nuclear energy program, the prices will fall pretty rapidly as plants can be built in a conveyor-belt fashion. The biggest cost right now is that you need huge specialized production facilities to produce things like reactor vessel parts, and you maintain all this infrastructure to sell perhaps one powerplant per decade, so of course it costs billions.
Eikka
2.2 / 5 (21) Nov 03, 2013
the same 20 percent from nuclear power as we did before required roughly twice as long to build and cost a LOT more


Except around 1980-1985 Germany increased nuclear power production by 100 TWh/yr in roughly six years, as compared to the same increase in renewables between 2000-2012 so actually you did build them twice as fast.

And, you're not taking into account the operating life of the powerplants, which for nuclear power can reach 60 years. The up-front costs are not directly comparable, and the early shutdown of the plants just artifically inflates the price.

There's a curious fact that in Germany, due to opposition, nuclear powerplants were set a quota of how much energy they are allowed to produce before they have to be decommissioned, which was set to match an operating lifetime of 32 years. As about 90% of the cost of nuclear power is in the initial investment and capital costs, that effectively doubled the price of nuclear power in Germany.

Eikka
2.4 / 5 (22) Nov 03, 2013
For comparison, Loviisa 1 and 2, and Olkiluoto 1 and 2 in Finland were brought online between 1977-1982 and are set to close in 2030 or 2040 depending on the government's decision. In other words, about 50-60 years as compared to Germany's 32.

That factor alone makes nuclear power in Germany 40-70% more expensive than in Finland, if we assume that you build the same kind of plant at a similiar cost. Letting the reactors run just 10 years more will make a huge difference, which is exactly why the anti-nuclear movement in Germany lobbied for these restrictions - to make nuclear power too costly to operate.

So to the question of how much of the cost of nuclear power is political harassment; quite a lot.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (18) Nov 03, 2013
Fukushima and Chernobyl than extreme climate change
We will need to build nukes to provide the power to offset the effects of climate change; irrigation, desalination, air conditioning, construction megaprojects to protect coastal cities, etc.

Our energy production per capita will HAVE to double and triple to maintain our civilization. Nukes are at present the only option.
Bob_Wallace
1.7 / 5 (19) Nov 03, 2013
The claim that nukes are our only option is bogus. Nukes are an option.

We can do the job with renewables and storage.

It's a question of how quickly we want to replace fossil fuels, whether we want to spend more or less, whether we want to risk/suffer more nuclear accidents, and whether we want to leave huge amounts of radioactive waste for future generations.

Renewables are the fastest, the least expensive and the safest.
Humpty
1.8 / 5 (23) Nov 03, 2013
"Gotta use nukes to FIGHT climate change".....

Hmmmm No.

We need a total overhaul in terms of population growth, every efficient use of resources, cutting back on the greedy bank driven consumerist life style, and heavy investment in renewables.....

All this stupid rhetoric - "Gotta fight the war on drugs, gotta fight pollution, gotta fight.....

How about Embracing and loving GOOD HEALTH, - a healthy life and a healthy planet.

Nukes somehow - don't fit that picture - unless of course, you stand to make loads of profit from bullshitting and bribing everyone into signing up - so they make stacks of profit....

So the answer is, "NO - fuck off - not interested."
Eikka
1.9 / 5 (17) Nov 04, 2013
Renewables are the fastest, the least expensive and the safest.


Up to a point.

When you reach the scale where your peak production is higher than your demand, you hit diminishing returns. In order to make use of more intermittent renewables, you start to need storage and transmission technology that costs a lot of money, wastes a lot of energy, and mostly doesn't even exist yet.

And that's just electricity. There's 3-4x more energy being used to make chemical products and refine materials, transport stuff and heat homes and factories. How do you operate a blast furnace on wind power? How do you make cement with solar power? Can you make plastics out of wave energy?
Eikka
2.2 / 5 (18) Nov 04, 2013
The claim that nukes are our only option is bogus. Nukes are an option.


Nuclear reactors are best used at full power to maximize energy production over the lifetime of the facility. That has a great effect on the cost, and that's where nuclear power and intermittent renewables are alike.

The more nuclear power you have, the less room in your grid you have for randomly variable production like solar and wind, and vice versa, unless again you have massive storage facilities that can absorb and smooth the output.

That said, nuclear power alone can't be used for the entire demand for the same reason. It can be used for load following, but it instantly becomes much more expensive.
Osiris1
2 / 5 (20) Nov 04, 2013
Ultimately, we have a lost generation of propagandized fools who will not accept nuclear power, period. They are, they have, and they will try to hamstring, sabotage, delay, and litigate or otherwise obstruct this technology using any means possible, and the truth need not stand in their way of their brainwashed, single mindedness for which any means is justified to them in fulfilling their objectives. The only way to deal with the situation is a command economy, and that is politically achievable only after great tragedies convince a large majority that democracy has been abused, and has failed in its primary mission to protect its public from rapacious minorities hellbent on dogma. The initial impetus for change will come from China, which is now instituting a crash program for nuke construction.
No one that does not want his body skinned and processed for 'collagen' for western skin creams dare do what western saboteurs do, routinely creating economic havoc using this issue.
NikFromNYC
1.9 / 5 (22) Nov 04, 2013
"Doing the right things for the wrong reasons is typical of humanity. Precession — not conscious planning — provides a productive outcome for misguided political and military campaigns. Nature's long-term design intervenes to circumvent the shortsightedness of human individuals, corporations, and nations competing for a share of the economic pie. Fundamentally, political economists misassume an inadequacy of life support to exist on our planet. Humanity therefore competes militarily to see which political system... is fittest to survive. In slavish observance of this misassumption, humans devote their most costly efforts and resources to "killingry" — a vast arsenal of weapons skillfully designed to kill ever more people at ever-greater distances in ever-shorter periods of time while employing ever-fewer pounds of material, ergs of energy, and seconds of time per killing." - R. Buckminster Fuller
NikFromNYC
1.9 / 5 (23) Nov 04, 2013
"Can renewable energies provide all of society's energy needs in the foreseeable future? It is conceivable in a few places, such as New Zealand and Norway. But suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy." - James Hansen, 2011
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (20) Nov 04, 2013
Fukushima. Chernobyl.

US Navy has been operating and living next to nuclear reactors for decades.

Unfortunately there are companies like BP, Tepco, Enron, and Union Carbide out there. There is no guarantee individuals, companies, or gov'ts will do the "right" thing or will not make mistakes. China currently has 30 plants under construction, let's hope they haven't spread themselves too thin and don't make any mistakes. Or the Iranians or North Koreans. Before long Mugabe will have a program. The possible problems associated nuke tech are exponentially larger than the alternatives.
Bob_Wallace
1.1 / 5 (20) Nov 04, 2013
"Can renewable energies provide all of society's energy needs in the foreseeable future? It is conceivable in a few places, such as New Zealand and Norway. But suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy." - James Hansen, 2011


I find it hard to believe that Hansen made that dumb a statement. I suspected he wasn't very versed in renewables, but I would have thought he knew the basics.

To engage in large scale reactor construction would take a new generation of nuclear engineers and skilled trades people. The first thing we would have to do is to enlarge existing education programs (which would mean finding qualified instructors), turning out the degrees and giving them some practical experience. That would pretty much take a decade. It would take 20 years to bring a significant number of reactors on line.

blawo
1.6 / 5 (19) Nov 04, 2013
We went from zero to more than 20 percent from renewables in only 20 years in germany.


You are pretty fast in Germany when comes to implementing irrational ideologies.
Ducku
1.9 / 5 (20) Nov 04, 2013
Fukushima. Chernobyl.


Deaths due to Fukushima disaster: 0
Deaths due to the Chernobyl disaster: 31 - all rescue workers or plant operators

Death due to Coal plants/mining: About 60 / TWh produced - In 2010 world production was about 41000 TWH from coal meaning around 2.5 millon people died of coal power production in one year only.

Deaths due to Oil exploration/production/powerproduction: about 20 / TWh
Even biomass power production is extremely more dangerous than nuclear.

http://www.washin...hic.html

But somehow nuclear is much more scary than the others combined. The human mind is sometimes a strange organ.
antialias_physorg
3.5 / 5 (6) Nov 04, 2013
You are pretty fast in Germany when comes to implementing irrational ideologies.

Irrational? We are dependent on fuels from other countries (be it nuclear or fossil...gas from Russia, gasoline from the middle east). Those partners have shown to be not so stable in the long run. With China (and India) buying fuels at outrageous prices on the world market this can mean only one thing: Prices will go up, drastically.

Trying for domestic energy sources that are indefinitely sustainable isn't irrational (even leaving the climate issue aside).

Forecasts are between 33 and 42% of energy from renewable sources by 2030, and almost complete coverage of demand by 2050 (extreme calculations show that we could do it by 2030 - and even if we were to detach ourselves from the European grid. But that would be costly)

The interesting thing is: all this is happening without going deeper into debt (unlike when we went nuclear).

So what's not to like?
Benni
1.6 / 5 (16) Nov 04, 2013
It always puzzled me why environmentalists would not embrace sub-critical designs that can be used to reduce the problematic amount of long lasting nuclear waste.


It's because they have college degrees in sociology, political science, & journalism. The mathematically & science challenged among us feel the the need to be "relevant", so this is what they do. However I do thank them for their willingness to use all the energy my engineering profession continues to supply them with, I call it job security.

triplehelix
1.4 / 5 (16) Nov 04, 2013
If one looks at the cost of new nuclear power and the amount of time it takes to build a reactor it's hard to get behind nuclear.

Why should we pay 2x, 3x more and wait 8x longer?

Just based on finances alone nuclear loses. Add in the safety and radioactive waste problems and nuclear loses double.

If we use renewables to replace fossil fuels then we get the job done far quicker for a lot less money. I really don't think these experts in climate science fully understand renewable energy/nuclear energy issue.


Erm, UK alone our companies have risen our bills and have been given subsidaries into the dozens of billions of £ for windfarms. Nuclear plants cost mere millions, and put out a lot more energy. In terms of time vs energy output, waiting for a reactor may seem bad, but when you realise it can churn out more energy than 100,000 windfarms, which took decades to setup, you'll find it much better.
Eikka
1.9 / 5 (19) Nov 04, 2013
We need a total overhaul in terms of population growth, every efficient use of resources, cutting back on the greedy bank driven consumerist life style, and heavy investment in renewables.....


Let's call for what it is: social restructuring. You're calling for a top-down planned economy style solution to the problem, which as history has proven, is extremely prone to corruption and incompetence and typically ends up as a dictator-worshipping dystopia.

Especially in the developing world, you can't just go telling people to stop consuming and stop breeding, when they're not consuming enough to sustain a stable society in the first place.

You'll just become a horrible monster set to rule the entire world with an iron fist.

Irrational? We are dependent on fuels from other countries (be it nuclear or fossil...gas from Russia, gasoline from the middle east).


Irrational indeed, because that situation is only because you decline using shale gas and nuclear power.
triplehelix
1.2 / 5 (17) Nov 04, 2013
"Forecasts are between 33 and 42% of energy from renewable sources by 2030, and almost complete coverage of demand by 2050 (extreme calculations show that we could do it by 2030 - and even if we were to detach ourselves from the European grid. But that would be costly)"

HAHAHAHAHA! 33-42% of all energy in germany by 2030. Nice one.

I am sure if those windfarms and solar panels were running at maximum input/output, yes, you will get 33-42%. What happens when there is no wind? Worse yet, what happens when there is no wind at night? Not just that, but a good 30% of Germanys renewables are from Biomass, which is still making CO2. The only difference is it costs a lot lot more than coal, gas and oil.

Eikka
1.4 / 5 (14) Nov 04, 2013
The interesting thing is: all this is happening without going deeper into debt (unlike when we went nuclear).


Arguably that's because the EU and the whole common currency business is good business for Germany. You're raking in money from the other member states to build your infrastructure while the other countries in the south are still getting deeper and deeper into debt, and the countries in the north are complaining about the rising cost of membership and loss of jobs.

triplehelix
1.2 / 5 (19) Nov 04, 2013
"Gotta use nukes to FIGHT climate change".....

Hmmmm No.

We need a total overhaul in terms of population growth, every efficient use of resources, cutting back on the greedy bank driven consumerist life style, and heavy investment in renewables.....

All this stupid rhetoric - "Gotta fight the war on drugs, gotta fight pollution, gotta fight.....

How about Embracing and loving GOOD HEALTH, - a healthy life and a healthy planet.

Nukes somehow - don't fit that picture - unless of course, you stand to make loads of profit from bullshitting and bribing everyone into signing up - so they make stacks of profit....

So the answer is, "NO - fuck off - not interested."


I agree, we do need a rehaul in population growth. Considering you strongly believe this, how about you take the lead and never breed please. Once again, those who have these extremist left wing ideologies never want to follow their own ideals. Like Al Gore and his electricity sucking mansions located by the sea.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (11) Nov 04, 2013
complete coverage of demand by 2050
Without refs your figures have little credibility.

"In terms of quads, the low, medium and high scenarios imply a total 2035 consumption of 940, 1,500 and 2,310 quads, or an increase over the EIA 2035 projection of 170, 1,000 and 1,810 quads. These represent the equivalent of a doubling, a tripling and more than a quadrupling of global energy consumption in 2010... implies massive amounts of new energy.

"Decarbonizing the global economy to a degree consistent with low stabilization targets for atmospheric carbon dioxide implies replacing about 80% of current energy... A 2035 world which consumes energy at the level of 2010 Bulgaria implies more than a doubling of needed carbon-free energy. Germany and US equivalency implies almost a quadrupling and close to a sextupling, respectively."

-Your country will not remain a fat little island in a sea of energy-starved consumers. You will be inundated with refugees until equilibrium is reached.
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (7) Nov 04, 2013
you decline using shale gas and nuclear power.

Neither of which are sufficient to power us in any case. Shale gas is a finite source. Nuclear fuels would have to be purchased from other nations (which again means a dangerous dependency).
Nuclear power requires water for cooling and steam generation. We have laws that only allow rivers to be heated by X degrees (otherwise fish start to die and we'd be killing our domestic fisheries) - so you can't space them arbitrarily close.

Germany is small and densely populated/farmed. We can't afford to create any more ecological wastelands or off-limit zones. Nuclear reall ymakes no sense - not ecological, economical nor social or political (as it concentrates wealth in the hands of few which tends to affect political processes and social climate negatively)
kochevnik
1.8 / 5 (16) Nov 04, 2013
@triplehelix I am sure if those windfarms and solar panels were running at maximum input/output, yes, you will get 33-42%. What happens when there is no wind? Worse yet, what happens when there is no wind at night? Not just that, but a good 30% of Germanys renewables are from Biomass, which is still making CO2. The only difference is it costs a lot lot more than coal, gas and oil.

A Chinese auto company is already making cars that serve as house batteries at night: http://qz.com/142...m-taxis/

And there is hydropumping, which already served 95% of storage needs. But that doesn't fit in with your mental masturbation and career path, no?
sirchick
3.3 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2013
I still don't know why the governments don't encourage us all to put solar panels on our roofs, every building in the land with them on their roof should supply alot of power! Wouldn't be enough to cover all power needs, but it would certainly make a big difference.
RealScience
3 / 5 (4) Nov 04, 2013
@sirchick - Governments do encourage that - for example, the FIT in Germany or the 30% tax credit in the U.S.
Bob_Wallace
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 04, 2013
"Forecasts are between 33 and 42% of energy from renewable sources by 2030...."

HAHAHAHAHA! 33-42% of all energy in germany by 2030. Nice one.

I am sure if those windfarms and solar panels were running at maximum input/output, yes, you will get 33-42%..... but a good 30% of Germanys renewables are from Biomass, which is still making CO2. The only difference is it costs a lot lot more than coal, gas and oil.



In 2012 Germany got 23% of its electricity from renewables. Getting above 33% over the next 17 years should be a piece of cake.

Germany is seeing hours now when they are getting more than 50% of their electricity from renewables.

Biomass CO2 is fairly insignificant. That is carbon which was already in the carbon cycle. It only impacts the atmosphere in that it returns plant carbon to atmospheric carbon a bit quicker. If it helps keep other carbon sequestered then that is a net gain for the planet.
Eikka
1.4 / 5 (13) Nov 05, 2013
you decline using shale gas and nuclear power.
Neither of which are sufficient to power us in any case. Shale gas is a finite source. Nuclear fuels would have to be purchased from other nations (which again means a dangerous dependency).


All those objections apply even more so to the current situation where you're importing gas from Russia.

In 2012 Germany got 23% of its electricity from renewables. Getting above 33% over the next 17 years should be a piece of cake.


You're making the fallacy of the heap.

The famous example is, if you take a cup of water and add one degrees of temperature - nothing remarkable happens. You add another, still nothing, an third and fourth, and so-on. Nothing. Therefore it should be just as easy to get past 100 degrees C.

Right?

Eikka
1.8 / 5 (17) Nov 05, 2013
Nuclear power requires water for cooling and steam generation. We have laws that only allow rivers to be heated by X degrees


The answer is to use cooling towers. They work by forced evaporation. Those are the vase shaped steaming structures that are the iconic image of nuclear power.

Nuclear reall ymakes no sense - not ecological, economical nor social or political (as it concentrates wealth in the hands of few which tends to affect political processes and social climate negatively)


Right, as if the renewables don't.

Do you think the poor can afford to buy solar panels, when they don't even own the homes they live in? Do you think people who own no land can erect their own windmills?

The EEG surcharges are taking money directly from those who are already poor and giving it to those who are already rich, and blatantly so because industry and business is let almost completely off the hook, making the working classes pay the energy used by the owning classes.

kochevnik
1.7 / 5 (15) Nov 05, 2013
@Eikka Do you think the poor can afford to buy solar panels, when they don't even own the homes they live in? Do you think people who own no land can erect their own windmills?
There are windmills all over Africa. $10 lamps use solar cells and recharge phones. Do you know a new millennium occurred?

All those objections apply even more so to the current situation where you're importing gas from Russia.
Russia is part of Europe
djr
3 / 5 (4) Nov 05, 2013
Getting a reliable figure on the cost of nuclear seems very elusive. Eikka has used a number on 1 cent per Kwh, but I see no justification for such a low number. This is an interesting article talking about Britain's experience. Wind and solar are clearly cheaper there - and will definitley be cheaper by 2023 - when the Hinkley reactor is due to come on line. http://cleantechn...t-graph/

I think one of the big issues with nukes is the time factor. Who knows what the price of solar and wind will be - 10 years from now?
Eikka
1.8 / 5 (15) Nov 05, 2013
There are windmills all over Africa. $10 lamps use solar cells and recharge phones. Do you know a new millennium occurred?


You know full well that's not relevant at all. You're not changing the world's energy production with $10 solar lamps and windmills bought by charity.

Russia is part of Europe


Not all of it, and none of it is part of the EU where Germany is.

Eikka has used a number on 1 cent per Kwh, but I see no justification for such a low number.


That was in reference to nuclear thermal energy, which is cheaper than nuclear electric energy because there is no conversion losses.

The electricity price for new reactors like the Areva SA EPR range between 19€/MWh which is the agreed selling price of the plant, to 40€/MWh which is what the plant in Olkiluoto is actually going to cost. The real price for other powerplants of the same type, given that Areva learns from their mistakes and doesn't repeat them, will be somewhere in between.
Bob_Wallace
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 05, 2013
Getting a reliable figure on the cost of nuclear seems very elusive.

I think one of the big issues with nukes is the time factor. Who knows what the price of solar and wind will be - 10 years from now?


We can look at the real world data available. Ontario, Canada and San Antonio, Texas asked for turnkey bids. No bid low, deliver high. The bids they got would have meant electricity in the range of 20 US cents/kWh. Turkey asked for a fixed selling price bid. The only bid they received was 20c/kWh. The UK is negotiating for a 35 year fixed price starting at 15c/kWh. With subsidies included it's 16c. And it will go up with inflation.

I ran LCOE numbers for Olkiluoto 3 using the overnight cost the Breakthrough Institute gave and added in modest financing costs. I came out at about 15c/kWh.

Anyone who suggests a price lower than 15c/kWh is speculating. There's no real world basis for those claims.

My speculation - 10 yrs from now wind and solar <4c/kWh.
Bob_Wallace
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 05, 2013
There are windmills all over Africa. $10 lamps use solar cells and recharge phones. Do you know a new millennium occurred?


You know full well that's not relevant at all. You're not changing the world's energy production with $10 solar lamps and windmills bought by charity.


Actually you are. Hundreds of millions of people are going to be installing micro-solar systems. They are going to learn that solar works and works well. They will learn that they don't need fossil fuel or large thermal plants of any type.

They are going to start with their small panel, two LED lights and cell phone charging and over time build it up to renewable grids. Villages and small towns will add wind turbines to help bridge the cloudy days.

They will create an enormous market for solar panels, LEDs, turbines and batteries. They will help drive prices lower and lower. The price of renewables will continue to fall.
Eikka
1.9 / 5 (14) Nov 05, 2013
Of course, the price of the new nuclear power depends on how long they're allowed to run.

The Olkiluoto 3 plant electricity price is projected over a lifetime of 45 years. If you force the plant to shut down earlier, the price will be higher.

That's one of the big variables with new nuclear energy, because governments and the people can decide on a whim to shut everything down like they did in Germany. For anyone to take the risk, the plants must recover their costs in less than a decade, which puts the up-front price ridiculously high.

That's why Finland can build one cheaply, but UK can't. There's no reason to believe that the Finns would suddenly freak out and shut down everything because nuclear power actually has popular support there. They're not even considering giving up on nuclear power.
Eikka
1.7 / 5 (15) Nov 05, 2013
I ran LCOE numbers for Olkiluoto 3 using the overnight cost the Breakthrough Institute gave and added in modest financing costs. I came out at about 15c/kWh.


Can you show us these calculations and the assumptions used?

They will create an enormous market for solar panels, LEDs, turbines and batteries.


All that depends on that they manage to grow an economy that can afford these things. So far the whole show has been running on donations.
Eikka
1.6 / 5 (13) Nov 05, 2013
I ran LCOE numbers for Olkiluoto 3 using the overnight cost the Breakthrough Institute gave and added in modest financing costs. I came out at about 15c/kWh.


Nevermind answering.

The Breakthrough Institute itself estimated the same price at 6.9 c/kWh: http://thebreakth...nuclear/

That estimate is for 20 years of operation at 80% duty cycle.

Finnish operated nuclear power stations have so far had the world's best duty cycles at 95% and over, and they themselves plan to run the new Olkiluoto 3 for at least 45 years. If you use that 45 year figure to correct the estimate, it gives you a cost of 3 c/kWh.

So your "modest financing costs" seem to have inflated the price to about 500%. That's a pretty bad financing deal if I've ever seen any.

Even if the BTI estimates were twice too optimistic and the actual cost was doubled, that would still put the final price at around 4-5 c/kWh.
Bob_Wallace
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 05, 2013


They will create an enormous market for solar panels, LEDs, turbines and batteries.


All that depends on that they manage to grow an economy that can afford these things. So far the whole show has been running on donations.


No, the whole show has not been running on donations. The micro-solar programs are largely financed with money from large institutions, bank loans. The people who get the systems pay for them on time, generally over a year's time.
Bob_Wallace
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 05, 2013
I ran LCOE numbers for Olkiluoto 3 using the overnight cost the Breakthrough Institute gave and added in modest financing costs. I came out at about 15c/kWh.


Can you show us these calculations and the assumptions used?



The Breakthrough Institute calculates from overnight prices. They do not include financing costs. And as long as this puppy has been dragging on some serious interest has accrued.

Here's where I ran my LCOE calcs -

http://www.nrel.g...coe.html

I used EIA heat rate, O&M, fuel costs, etc.

You can find median fixed and variable O&M here...

http://en.openei....ps/TCDB/

Google the rest.

And ask yourself. If O3 was really going to be generating electricity for 6.9c/kWh would the UK be willing to pay EDF 16c/kWh? Don't you smell something wrong there?
kochevnik
1.8 / 5 (13) Nov 06, 2013
Nuke plants are ideal terrorist targets
djr
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 06, 2013
Eikka: "You know full well that's not relevant at all. You're not changing the world's energy production with $10 solar lamps and windmills bought by charity."

Windmills bought by charity? Here is one example - of one country in Africa - that is investing massively in renewables.

http://www.renewa...projects

Your prejudice shows.
Humpty
1.4 / 5 (13) Nov 06, 2013
Me thinks use renewables and hydroelectrics as the storage mediums...
Eikka
1.4 / 5 (14) Nov 06, 2013
I used EIA heat rate, O&M, fuel costs, etc.
You can find median fixed and variable O&M here...


Would you list the exact values you used, please?

And ask yourself. If O3 was really going to be generating electricity for 6.9c/kWh would the UK be willing to pay EDF 16c/kWh?


Yes!

As I explained numerous times, the cost depends greatly on the amount of time you allow for recouping the investment. In the UK, nobody is willing to make any long term commitments to nuclear power. Projecting the UK cost over 45 years instead of 20 years removes the difference between the two prices.

It's not that they would want to pay that much, but the UK needs new generating capacity dearly because their old equipment are close to decommissioning and the renewables haven't caught up the slack. So, they're paying whatever it takes. It's a seller's market.

Don't you smell something wrong there?


Your propaganda.
Eikka
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 06, 2013
Windmills bought by charity? Here is one example - of one country in Africa - that is investing massively in renewables.


Yes. South Africa, which is a fairly developed nation. They're not particularily poor.

Your prejudice shows.


You're trying to misdirect the argument. In South Africa, it's not the poor who are investing in renewable energy, but the richest, and the richest are who collect the spoils from it.

Making a couple watt-hours with portable solar lamps and tiny windmills, storing the energy in lead acid batteries that can be afforded by individual families in rural areas of Arfica are largely ineffective, because their manufacture takes more energy than they produce in their lifetime. Remember that the ESOI of lead acid batteries is just 2, which means they consume half the energy they store.

That's why the real effort is in multi-megawatt windmills and large PV installations that are beyond the means of the poor - or even lower middle classes in the west
brt
2 / 5 (11) Nov 06, 2013
Solar power averages 15% efficiency for a new system that will last 30 years maximum. An advanced solar power plant in Arizona produces a maximum of 10 megawatts; that's the best technology in the best possible conditions. Nuclear averages 33% for a 30 year old reactor and will last 100 more years if so desired; and it produces an average of 2200 megawatts. The largest plant (also in arizona) produces 3700 megawatts. You pay an average of 25 cents per kWh for solar. You pay an average of 35 cents per kWh for nuclear.

You pay more for nuclear for 2 reasons. 1.) nuclear power has so many regulations that a nuclear engineer can't fart without a permit. 60% of these regulations politically motivated, similar to the arguments seen above...those people don't know what they are talking about, they just know "nuclear bad, solar good" just like some only know "nuclear good, solar bad". Morons basically. 2.) because they can. Solar and wind can't make up the difference.
djr
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 06, 2013
You're trying to misdirect the argument.

I am pointing out your prejudice. You dismissed what is going on in Africa - with a very prejudicial statement. There is a great deal of economic activity happening in Africa. Standard of living is rising. More and more people are getting access to power, and to other technologies such as cell phones. The bigger debate is about the benefits of nuclear vs. renewables. Efforts to bring technology to people are not innefective - as you assert. Enabling people to light their homes - replacing very unhealthy kerosene lamps and cookers is a good thing. It is all part of progress. The numbers on nuclear are very hard to pin down. We have to wait until plants are actually operational to try to get real world numbers. We already have the numbers for renewables - and they are looking better every year.
brt
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 06, 2013
But if cost per kilowatt hour is really a factor to consider...coal costs 2 cents per kWh, blowing everything else out of the water. We also sit on top of $2 trillion in coal reserves. So the argument over which is cheaper is now pointless because nothing compares to coal.

Nuclear costs more because it is cleaner and because it is the only thing that can come close to the amount of electricity that coal produces. You could literally cover the entire surface of the earth in renewable energy sources and not meet the CURRENT needs of 1/5 of the world. Given moore's law and the exponential growth in demand for power; it's just flat out ridiculous to say that solar and wind are the way to go. It's not an opinion, it's a statement of fact.
brt
1.6 / 5 (11) Nov 06, 2013
The bigger debate is about the benefits of nuclear vs. renewables. Efforts to bring technology to people are not innefective - as you assert. Enabling people to light their homes - replacing very unhealthy kerosene lamps and cookers is a good thing. It is all part of progress. The numbers on nuclear are very hard to pin down. We have to wait until plants are actually operational to try to get real world numbers. We already have the numbers for renewables - and they are looking better every year.


We do in fact have solid numbers for all forms of energy production. Germany, which does not use nuclear and is probably the most advanced as far as renewable energy sources are concerned, has the 2nd highest cost of electricity in the world at the moment. The US is 12 cents per kWh, Germany is 35 cents per kWh. Denmark, also big into renewables, is the highest at 41 cents per kWh.

Those numbers do not look good.
kochevnik
1.1 / 5 (15) Nov 06, 2013
Solar power averages 15% efficiency for a new system that will last 30 years maximum. An advanced solar power plant in Arizona produces a maximum of 10 megawatts; that's the best technology in the best possible conditions. Nuclear averages 33% for a 30 year old reactor and will last 100 more years if so desired;
What does 15% efficiency even mean? Is there some major expense in sunlight, comparable to uranium ore? Who cares if it's even 1%? If something is FREE what is the relevance of efficiency? When something is FREE, take as much as you want. Besides your silly numbers reflect 1980 technology. There is no real limit to many solar cells. Thirty year old cells are working fine. The technology is only that old so there is no actual data on aging, unlike your leaky terrorist target nuke plants
brt
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 06, 2013

What the fuck does that even mean? It there some major expense in sunlight, comparable to uranium ore? Who cares if it's even 1%? If something is FREE what is the relevance of efficiency? When something is FREE, take as much as you want. Besides your silly numbers reflect 1980 technology. There is no real limit to many solar cells. Thirty year old cells are working fine. The technology is only that old so there is no actual data on aging, unlike your leaky terrorist target nuke plants


Efficiency is how much of the energy coming into the system is converted to actual electricity (this is basic information). Efficiency is relevant because like I said, you trashy halfwit man-child, you could cover the entire surface of the earth with the current technology and not meet the energy needs of 20% of the world. If the efficiency were 40%, then you would be a moron to not use solar.
kochevnik
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 06, 2013
We do in fact have solid numbers for all forms of energy production. Germany, which does not use nuclear and is probably the most advanced as far as renewable energy sources are concerned, has the 2nd highest cost of electricity in the world at the moment.
When you factor in the cost of USA warfare at $1trillion/year, the real cost of Middle East oil could be US$300 a barrel or more. http://www.financ...69a2bd94

Those numbers do not look good.
Did you bake them yourself?
brt
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 06, 2013
If a country requires a certain amount of electricity in order to function, and you can't meet that need, then the country can't function. I'm sure you don't know this, but a lot of people will actually die without electricity. Hospitals, HVAC, emergency services, etc. On top of that, economies would collapse because business need electricity in order to conduct business.
brt
1.6 / 5 (13) Nov 06, 2013
We do in fact have solid numbers for all forms of energy production. Germany, which does not use nuclear and is probably the most advanced as far as renewable energy sources are concerned, has the 2nd highest cost of electricity in the world at the moment.
When you factor in the cost of USA warfare at $1trillion/year, the real cost of Middle East oil could be US$300 a barrel or more. http://www.financ...69a2bd94

Those numbers do not look good.
Did you bake them yourself?


If you're going to be a bitchy jerk-off just because you don't like to read the facts, then maybe you should piss off. China is 3 cents per kWh, the cheapest. We also aren't at war for oil you dumb cunt, we're at war for world dominance. Gas prices went from under $1 in 2002 to above $3 in 2005. By comparison, it went from 29 cents to 79 cents over a period of 30 years. If we wanted cheaper oil, we wouldn't be there. idiot.
kochevnik
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 06, 2013
Efficiency is how much of the energy coming into the system is converted to actual electricity (this is basic information). Efficiency is relevant because like I said, you trashy halfwit man-child, you could cover the entire surface of the earth with the current technology and not meet the energy needs of 20% of the world.
The energy hitting the Earth daily is 2 trillionths of the sun's output. Earth receives about 274 million gigawatt-years of solar energy = 8.2 million "quads" of Btu energy per year.
The entire human race currently uses about 400 quads of energy (in all forms) per year. Put another way, the solar energy hitting the earth exceeds the total energy consumed by humanity by a factor of over 20,000 times. So at 1% efficiency only 0.5% coverage would suit man's needs. Not the entire planet as you purport
If the efficiency were 40%, then you would be a moron to not use solar.
That is the efficiency of new cells. You're a moron by your own standard!
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (19) Nov 06, 2013
Are the costs of robustness rolled into solar and wind? If you are not willing to have a backup system sitting idle, like coal, NG, nuclear power generators (which are added costs for acquisition and maintenance) then other storage is required, which have recurring and non-recurring costs.
The only robust solar system I have heard of are solar power satellites that transfer energy to ground stations 24/7. There would need to be some redundancy here, too, spare satellites for example.
Otherwise nuclear is the only scalable, robust alternative.
Decentralizing power generation is quite feasible with the Toshiba or Hyperion sealed designs.
djr
3.3 / 5 (6) Nov 06, 2013
brt "We do in fact have solid numbers for all forms of energy production."

Really? So what is the cost of a Kwh of electricity generated from nuclear, vs. generated from a wind turbine? Comparing Germany to the U.S. does not give you a fair cost comparison. There are many factors involved in what a country charges for power. Germany has made a decision to be a pioneer in renewables - and yes they are paying a cost for that decision. That does not make it a bad decision. The costs are very fluid at this point. Here is an interesting look at the cost of nuclear vs renewables. http://cleantechn...t-graph/
djr
3.5 / 5 (6) Nov 06, 2013
Here is an interesting study on the integration of wind - and the 35% reduction in the cost of power that was brought about by integrating 30% wind onto the grid. It is a myth that we must back up renewables 100% with fossil fuels.

http://cleantechn...l-value/
brt
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 06, 2013

Really? So what is the cost of a Kwh of electricity generated from nuclear, vs. generated from a wind turbine? Comparing Germany to the U.S. does not give you a fair cost comparison. There are many factors involved in what a country charges for power. Germany has made a decision to be a pioneer in renewables - and yes they are paying a cost for that decision.


That depends on who you're getting your info from. A nuclear energy association website will say 75 cents per kWh; a wind turbine manufacturer in California will say 4 cents per kWh. A reliable estimate is 22 cents per kWh. The issue is that the big boys like Russia, USA, Europe, and Asia, need a certain amount of energy per hour. Wind turbines are not capable of producing the amount of energy per time period needed to function, nowhere even close. What it all comes down to is what the idiot above doesn't want to understand, efficiency. Given the energy put into a system, how much electricity can it produce?
brt
1.8 / 5 (14) Nov 06, 2013
I don't oppose Germany's decision, it's why they are the cleanest country in the world with the longest living population, but the facts are the facts when you are talking about the power consumption of the entire planet.

There are solar cells that are 44% efficient, but just like the first nuclear reactor ever built, it is not ready for production, it would equate to $300 Billion for a plant producing 200 MWh. Those highly specialized cells only work in a perfect lab setting. The time it would take to make a solar power plant using those 44% efficient cells would take 30 years given the current method of production. Wait five years and that cost will be cut in half and the technology will be far better.

A high school student can make a fusion reactor, but the efficiency (energy in vs electricity produced) is a fraction of 1%, so whoopty freaking doo; it's worthless. So you can pull numbers out of your ass like our friend kochstain above, but the facts are the facts.
brt
1.5 / 5 (11) Nov 06, 2013
It should also be noted that the biggest problem with making solar cells more efficient is the loss of energy in the form of heat. For those of us who are aware of our surroundings, the energy we receive from the sun is hot...That's the biggest problem in most forms of electricity production and all electronics really, how do we turn energy lost as heat into electricity?

by idiot above I don't mean you djr, sorry, that was confusing. I also should have said that Germany has the highest "life index".

With wind turbines, you are also restricted to the amount of energy you can put into the system. That blade is only going to turn so fast. With sources like nuclear and coal, you can really cram energy into the system. You can't do that with renewables; you have to wait for conditions to accommodate your needs. It's the same reason why car companies are pushing for hydrogen instead of solar powered cars; because life is busy and we don't have time to wait for our care to charge.
brt
1.5 / 5 (11) Nov 06, 2013
It is a myth that we must back up renewables 100% with fossil fuels.
/


correct. that's why we are backing it up with nuclear power.
Bob_Wallace
1.7 / 5 (15) Nov 06, 2013

Germany... has the 2nd highest cost of electricity in the world at the moment. The US is 12 cents per kWh, Germany is 35 cents per kWh. Denmark, also big into renewables, is the highest at 41 cents per kWh.

Those numbers do not look good.


Germany's high cost of retail electricity is due to taxes. The cost of industrial electricity in Germany is lower than the EU27 average.

Out of the 29 € cents / kWh German households pay for electricity

8.0 cent - Power Generation & Sales
6.5 cent - Grid Service Surcharge
5.3 cent - Renewable Energy Surcharge
0.7 cent - Other Surcharges

20.5 cents. 14.7 cents without the RE surcharge.

A little higher than the US average, not much. We pay our renewable subsidies with tax dollars in the US.

The Germans pay another 8.5 cents per kWh in taxes that have nothing to do with electricity.

Years before renewables came into play Europe decided to tax electricity and gasoline heavily in order to drive efficiency.
Bob_Wallace
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 06, 2013
That depends on who you're getting your info from. A nuclear energy association website will say 75 cents per kWh; a wind turbine manufacturer in California will say 4 cents per kWh. A reliable estimate is 22 cents per kWh.


Wouldn't it make most sense to see what electricity from wind farms is selling for? Not just one wind farm but an entire country's wind farms over a couple of years.

"The prices offered by wind projects to utility purchasers averaged $40/MWh for projects negotiating contracts 2011 and 2012, spurring demand for wind energy."

http://www1.eere....port.pdf

That's US government gathered numbers for the 'lower 48'. Wind farms average sales over a two year period = $0.04/kWh.

That includes some subsidies. The PTC is 2.3 cents for the first 10 years of farm operation, so add a bit more than an penny to the 4 cents to get a non-subsidized price of ~4.5 cents.
Bob_Wallace
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 06, 2013
Are the costs of robustness rolled into solar and wind? If you are not willing to have a backup system sitting idle, like coal, NG, nuclear power generators (which are added costs for acquisition and maintenance) then other storage is required, which have recurring and non-recurring costs.
The only robust solar system I have heard of are solar power satellites that transfer energy to ground stations 24/7. There would need to be some redundancy here, too, spare satellites for example.
Otherwise nuclear is the only scalable, robust alternative.
Decentralizing power generation is quite feasible with the Toshiba or Hyperion sealed designs.


Robust nuclear.

TMI, Chernobyl, Fukushima, Humboldt Bay, Davis-Bessie, San Onofre, Fort Calhoun, Brown's Ferry, Crystal River, ...

The list of failed nuclear reactors is quite long. Reactors can and do go offline without warning which is a major problem for grid managers. Nuclear reactors have to be backed up.
Bob_Wallace
1.7 / 5 (15) Nov 06, 2013
brt - the world has changed in the last few years. The price of electricity from solar panels and wind turbines has become quite affordable. The price of nuclear energy has remained high. Only three years ago solar power was more expensive than nuclear and now it is about half as much. Wind is cheaper still.

It will be much cheaper to power our future grid with renewable generation and compliment it with storage and load shifting than to build nuclear capacity. That's simple math.

It looked for a while as if nuclear energy was our best way to minimize climate change but we now have much better options. We can generate our electricity for about half as much using renewables, get rid of fossil fuels faster, and avoid the danger/radioactive waste problem.
djr
2.8 / 5 (6) Nov 06, 2013
brt "correct. that's why we are backing it up with nuclear power."

Again - it is a myth that renewables must be backed up 100%. You are just spreading propoganda.

Several countries are on track to supply 100% of their power from renewables. How could they achieve that if renewables had to be backed up 100% with fossil, or nuclear?

You might apprecieate this technical study on supplying 100% of Europe's power from renewables - by 2050.

http://www.pwc.co...city.pdf
beleg
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 06, 2013
Is there a prolifiration issue with renewables?
How do we stop the spread of wind, water and light. In the wrong hands.
djr
3.5 / 5 (6) Nov 06, 2013
brt "but the facts are the facts."

Then answer the question. If I build a nuclear power plant today - what will it produce a kWh of electricity for? Same question for a wind turbine, and a solar panel that is selling for around $1 per watt - and probably going to be half that in 10 years (which is about when your nuclear plant will come on line).
kochevnik
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 06, 2013
There are solar cells that are 44% efficient, but just like the first nuclear reactor ever built, it is not ready for production
Neither is the 2018 Toyota Corolla ready for production. Should everyone stop buying cars and only take airplanes?

Solar isn't ready because USA and UK have fucked priorities. USA spends $1trillion/yr starting wars and bribing puppet dictators which they call "foreign aid". UK bank loans 96% to the real estate ponzi scheme bubble that will explode in a new depression, with only 1.5% of loans going to manufacturing
goracle
1.5 / 5 (17) Nov 06, 2013
brt "correct. that's why we are backing it up with nuclear power."

Again - it is a myth that renewables must be backed up 100%. You are just spreading propoganda.

Several countries are on track to supply 100% of their power from renewables. How could they achieve that if renewables had to be backed up 100% with fossil, or nuclear?

You might apprecieate this technical study on supplying 100% of Europe's power from renewables - by 2050.

http://www.pwc.co...city.pdf

Clearly brt only reads or remembers the phys.org stories that he/she wants to. There is a story from the last two months of a concentrated solar thermal plant with storage producing electricity 6 hours after sunset.
brt
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 06, 2013
brt "but the facts are the facts."

Then answer the question. If I build a nuclear power plant today - what will it produce a kWh of electricity for? Same question for a wind turbine, and a solar panel that is selling for around $1 per watt - and probably going to be half that in 10 years (which is about when your nuclear plant will come on line).


I've already answered your question several times, so cut the bullshit.
brt
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 06, 2013
This comments section is the perfect example of why we can't have a rational conversation about nuclear power. There are so many brainwashed tools ready to spread whatever anti-nuclear propaganda is necessary in order to prevent the use of a viable and economical resource that they don't want to understand. I'm done with it; someone else can deal with these willfully ignorant assholes.
Bob_Wallace
1.8 / 5 (16) Nov 06, 2013
Interesting. A GBCW melt down.

What I've seen is people posting real world numbers for nuclear (16c/kWh), wind (4c/kWh) and solar (as low as 5c/kWh) and nuclear fans talking about how some yet to be proven reactor design will produce power at great rates.

BTW, for you thorium fans, according to the nuclear industry fuel costs for current reactors averages $0.0075 cents per kWh. Cutting fuel costs by 99% would still mean electricity costs above 15c/kWh.

I'm simply not seeing the route to competitive nuclear power in the real world.
djr
2.8 / 5 (6) Nov 06, 2013
"I've already answered your question several times, so cut the bullshit."

No you have not - here is a cut and paste from your previous response. Based on your response here - tell me what you stated is the cost of a Kwh from nuclear, from wind, and from solar.

"That depends on who you're getting your info from. A nuclear energy association website will say 75 cents per kWh; a wind turbine manufacturer in California will say 4 cents per kWh. A reliable estimate is 22 cents per kWh.

Interestingly - I am actually a supporter of nuclear - and believe that it will be a major player in our energy future. I am also very excited about renewables - and wish that people would have their facts straight. I believe that renewables are winning on a cost basis right now - and I am just in favor of an honest approach. Just look - Eikka says 2 cents a Kwh, and you say 22 cents. Which is it? Cont.
Bob_Wallace
2 / 5 (16) Nov 06, 2013
Windmills bought by charity? Here is one example - of one country in Africa - that is investing massively in renewables.


Yes. South Africa, which is a fairly developed nation. They're not particularily poor.


The 120 MW Ashegoda wind farm went into operation about a week ago in Ethiopia. I think that's Ethiopia's third wind farm.

There are a number of wind farms spread around the African continent. You can take a look here-
http://www.thewin...a_en.php

And a very large 300 MW farm is just now starting to be installed at Lake Turkana in Kenya.

In addition Africa is installing several geothermal plants. Overall Africa has moved beyond the era of rubbing two sticks together.

TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (11) Nov 06, 2013
Is there a prolifiration issue with renewables?
How do we stop the spread of wind, water and light. In the wrong hands.
Well lets see... Harnessing the wind enabled warships to sail around the globe. A fleet in your harbor could be compared to the delivery of a nuke.

The last mission in battlefield 4 involves flooding out russian bastards by blowing up a dam.
And then theres the idea that solar thermal arrays could be designed to target planes. And did you know...

"The November 1945 issue of Life magazine ran an article called "The German Space Mirror: Nazi Men of Science Seriously Planned to use a Man-Made Satellite as A Weapon For Conquest"... the Nazis tried to build a manned satellite with a giant solar mirror which would orbit at 22,236 miles above the Earth and used to direct a concentrated stream of solar power to any area on Earth.

-Not to mention the fearmongers here who claim that japanese orbital solar arrays are for frying cities with microwave beams.
RealScience
3.8 / 5 (5) Nov 06, 2013
PV solar and wind don't include storage (of course for moderate amounts of PV storage isn't needed because it matches the demand peak fairly well). Nuclear isn't dispatchable either, but it hums along 24/7 so it is predictable.

But a MIX of various power types does much better than trying to meet demand with any one type. NREL did a good study on reaching 80% renewables with current technology ("Exploration of High-Penetration Renewable Electricity Futures), and they ended up with quite a mix (including ~15% nuclear and/or coal).
Well worth reading.
djr
3 / 5 (4) Nov 06, 2013
cont. So brt - why not - instead of getting your knickers in a twist - try to have a good discussion about real world costs, and issues. Fukishima is an issue - we have to recognize the risks. Real world costs are important - but very fluid - and hard to pin down. Too many subsidies, and special programs confusing things. We can calculate the cost of power from a wind turbine, and from a solar panel. Nuclear is much harder. And what about the cost of handling the waste? Why can't we all pull together - and power our children's future. I feel your frustration brt. Look at the shit people like Ryggy have to plaster on this board - 'renewables have to be backed up 100%' So some of us who are interested in honest facts - push back against the political agenda morons like Ryggy. Your responses put you in the "political agenda' box for me. If I am wrong - just chill - and stick with the facts (the ones you could not give me).
djr
2 / 5 (4) Nov 06, 2013
a
Bob_Wallace
1.8 / 5 (16) Nov 06, 2013
PV solar and wind don't include storage (of course for moderate amounts of PV storage isn't needed because it matches the demand peak fairly well). Nuclear isn't dispatchable either, but it hums along 24/7 so it is predictable.


That's true. But a grid with a large percentage of nuclear is also going to require storage, dispatchable generation or load-shifting.

Reactors can't be easily turned on and off which means that we would need storage to shift output from low demand to high demand hours. Back when the US was building reactors we built 21 GW of pump-up hydro and CAES in order to incorporate nuclear on the grid. Japan built even more.

The difference between peak and offpeak demand in the US can be as high as 3x. Since solar so nicely matches peak demand it could be that a high percentage nuclear grid would require more storage than a high percentage wind/solar grid.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (17) Nov 07, 2013
Experts say nuclear power needed to slow warming
Warming...?

http://www.woodfo....7/trend

What warming are they trying to slow?

Sanescience
1.7 / 5 (14) Nov 07, 2013
So many half informed. You who would rate this post so that it would fall below the visibility threshold of others who might read it share some part in perpetuating ignorance and the unnecessary gigatons of CO2 released into the atmosphere. With one hand promote the experts who warn of AGW, with the other condemn the same experts when they discuss nuclear power options.

Yes I have posted this information before and I am kind of tired pushing this angle, but now and then someone tunes in and gets back to me after doing research into the issue.

The Carter administration wanted to build a nuclear reactor designed for *power* production. We had a reactor design from the 50's to not just produce but *accumulate* isotopes of uranium and heavier elements for research and building weapons.

So they build and operated an IFR reactor. Not a hypothetical exercise. A real reactor. Read PBS interview with Dr. Charles Till.

http://tinyurl.com/6rdgw

antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 07, 2013
It will be much cheaper to power our future grid with renewable generation and compliment it with storage and load shifting than to build nuclear capacity

Incorporating storage is also a safer approach as the grid doesn't collapse if a number of power producers suffers an outage (accident, natural disaster, attack on the IT infrastructure, ... )
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (8) Nov 07, 2013
the list of failed reactors is quite long
-What list would that be bob? Your list is only 1% of the nukes worldwide, and on it i can see only 3 that coukd be considered 'failed'. And TMI didnt release any appreciable radiation, which leaves 2.

Meanwhile coal plants routinely spew tons of radioactive material into the environment. I woud consider that a much more significant 'failure' yes?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (8) Nov 07, 2013
Reactors cant be easily turned on and off
-You mean many current reactors dont you? And they only need to be throttled to match load.

"Another departure is that some PWR types will be designed for load-following.  While most French reactors today are operated in that mode to some extent, the EPR design has better capabilities.  It will be able to maintain its output at 25% and then ramp up to full output at a rate of 2.5% of rated power per minute up to 60% output and at 5% of rated output per minute up to full rated power.  This means that potentially the unit can change its output from 25% to 100% in less than 30 minutes..."

-More reason to replace them with newer designs to better interface with solar and wind. Gas turbine and hydro are load-following - coal is not.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (16) Nov 07, 2013
Reactors can't be easily turned on and off

So?
Don't use the power.
New Virginia class submarines have reactors built in, won't be refueled, and will power the sub for 30 years. They won't be using 100% of the power available for 100% of the time and they won't be turning the reactor 'off'.
Sealed nuclear reactors can be built in to the lower levels of city buildings powering the building during the day and switching the load at night to power housing.
Small scale nuclear batteries will make grids more robust.
brt
1 / 5 (6) Nov 07, 2013
the list of failed reactors is quite long
-What list would that be bob? Your list is only 1% of the nukes worldwide, and on it i can see only 3 that coukd be considered 'failed'. And TMI didnt release any appreciable radiation, which leaves 2.

Meanwhile coal plants routinely spew tons of radioactive material into the environment. I woud consider that a much more significant 'failure' yes?


Do you think half of these people have the ability to think long term? I don't. The best comparison is medical overdose. Is it worse to overdoes slightly, yet frequently by taking 5 Tylenol for a headache on a weekly basis; or is it worse to take 100 pills and end up in the ICU two times during your life? The continuous, small overdoses are actually significantly worse for you.
brt
1 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2013
And what about the cost of handling the waste? .


This is another issue that gets overlooked in renewables. But if I mention a damn word of it, then you stereotype me into some stupid political category because you're a black and white moron. There are grey areas my friend.

The waste from nuclear comes from the spent fuel, which can now be used thanks to new technology. For the older reactors, don't use the fuel and you won't get waste. For newer reactors, use the waste as fuel.

The waste from renewables comes from building them. The environmental impact from building an electric car is something like 200 times more harmful to the environment than just using gas for the life of the car. Think about what goes into building a lithium ion battery that can power a car. The same goes for solar and wind.

The problem you have is that YOU can't separate science from politics. That's why I'm frustrated with your bullshit. I'm talking science and your talking politics.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (17) Nov 07, 2013
"The researchers, from the University's Faculty of Engineering, have shown that mixing plutonium-contaminated waste with blast furnace slag and turning it into glass reduces its volume by 85-95 per cent. It also effectively locks in the radioactive plutonium, creating a stable end product."
""The overall volume of plutonium contaminated wastes from operations and decommissioning in the UK could be upwards of 31,000 m3, enough to fill the clock tower of Big Ben seven times over," says lead researcher, Professor Neil Hyatt.

"Our process would reduce this waste volume to fit neatly within the confines of just one Big Ben tower.""
http://www.sheffi...1.324913
If the wast issue is resolved, then the watermelon enviros will lose a bargaining chip to stop nuclear energy.
brt
1 / 5 (6) Nov 07, 2013
cont...
As far as grid storage is concerned. Sure, great idea. How are you going to do it? With non-theoretical, non-laboratory, real world equipment? "They have a battery that can hold enough electricity to power a house for 3 days". That's great, but if it's state of the art, there's only 1 in the world in a research lab in area 51, then that doesn't do a fucking thing to solve the problem, does it?! That's a bullshit solution that you think works because I'm willing to say that 'such technology does exist'. I'm dealing in facts and you are dealing in points scored by political style arguments in the comments section of a science website. So for me, you don't have the slightest goddamn clue what you're talking about, but that won't stop you from pretending that you're Stephen fucking Hawking in the middle of a lecture on black holes. To me, it is a pointless act and not worth the frustration of trying to have a logical conversation with people that don't care about the truth.
Bob_Wallace
1 / 5 (12) Nov 07, 2013
the list of failed reactors is quite long
-What list would that be bob? Your list is only 1% of the nukes worldwide, and on it i can see only 3 that coukd be considered 'failed'. And TMI didnt release any appreciable radiation, which leaves 2.

Meanwhile coal plants routinely spew tons of radioactive material into the environment. I woud consider that a much more significant 'failure' yes?


Do we need to devise levels of failure?

Level one. Reactors that have melted down: TMI, Fukusima, ...

Level two. Reactors which have been closed prior to 40 years service: Rancho Seco, Humboldt Bay, ....

Level three. Reactors which have unexpectedly shut down leaving the grid short supplied: US and French reactors shut down during heat waves, VA reactors shut down by an earthquake, NY reactor shut down by Sandy flooding.

It's not a nuclear or coal choice. We have a third, much better choice - renewable energy.
Bob_Wallace
1 / 5 (12) Nov 07, 2013
If you'd like a more complete list of reactors which have been permanently closed you can work one up from this page...

http://en.wikiped...reactors

I don't have a list of unplanned disruptions which are not terminal. They range from a panic stop to a gradual restart over a few days like happened to the two North Anna reactors in Virginia when struck by an earthquake to prolonged outages like Brown's Ferry when a fire was started in the reactor by an engineer looking for leaks with a candle.
brt
1 / 5 (2) Nov 07, 2013
That's great Bob. Just plug your ears and keep saying it over and over.

Let's state some other established and obvious facts while we're at it... We shouldn't rape women, we can just take them out to dinner and charm them on the dance floor. We don't have to kill people while robbing them, we can just set up some sort of economic system in which money is exchanged for goods and services.

Do you think weather can't damage renewables? You need to cut it with the straw man arguments as well my bullshitting friend.

So you would like us to keep outdated reactors open? You want the 1950's method of nuclear power to be the only method? You don't want us to recycle our nuclear waste? You don't want old reactors to be shut down to make way for new reactors that are safer? That's idiotic Bob.
Bob_Wallace
1 / 5 (12) Nov 07, 2013
Reactors cant be easily turned on and off
-You mean many current reactors dont you? And they only need to be throttled to match load.


Load following makes the produced electricity more expensive. Load following results in few MWh of electricity.

The high cost of nuclear electricity comes from the capex, finex and fixed operating costs. Not from variable operating costs. The 16c/kWh price of the purposed UK/French/Chinese Hinkley reactor is based on the assumption that the reactor will operate at full output for 90% of the year.

Annual costs are totaled and divided by the expected output. That establishes the cost of electricity.

If the reactor follows daily demand patterns, cycling down to 50% for half of the 24 hour cycle the output will drop by 25%. That would turn 16c/kWh into 21c/kWh for all electricity produced.
Bob_Wallace
1 / 5 (11) Nov 07, 2013
That's great Bob. Just plug your ears and keep saying it over and over.

Do you think weather can't damage renewables? You need to cut it with the straw man arguments as well my bullshitting friend.
So you would like us to keep outdated reactors open? You ... only method? You don't want us to recycle our nuclear waste? You don't want old reactors to be shut down to make way for new reactors that are safer? That's idiotic Bob.


Clearly weather can damage renewables. But since they are significantly cheaper than nuclear we can replace them at a lower cost. And we don't get stuck with the very expensive cost of site cleanup that we have when a reactor melts down.

It makes no sense to build new nuclear. I think we should continue to use those reactors which are carefully inspected and found to be safe. Close coal first, NG next, and close existing reactors before they become dangerous.

Do you need to get nasty to make your case?
Bob_Wallace
1.1 / 5 (12) Nov 07, 2013
"The researchers, from the University's Faculty of Engineering, have shown that mixing plutonium-contaminated waste with blast furnace slag and turning it into glass reduces its volume by 85-95 per cent. It also effectively locks in the radioactive plutonium, creating a stable end product."
""The overall volume of plutonium contaminated wastes from operations and decommissioning in the UK could be upwards of 31,000 m3, enough to fill the clock tower of Big Ben seven times over," says lead researcher, Professor Neil Hyatt.

"Our process would reduce this waste volume to fit neatly within the confines of just one Big Ben tower.""
http://www.sheffi...1.324913
If the wast issue is resolved, then the watermelon enviros will lose a bargaining chip to stop nuclear energy.


It doesn't deal with the millions of tons of radioactive non-fuel waste. Or the highly contaminated reactor sites.

Modernmystic
1 / 5 (12) Nov 07, 2013
Fukushima. Chernobyl.


http://en.wikiped...qiao_Dam

Catch up...

It doesn't deal with the millions of tons of radioactive non-fuel waste. Or the highly contaminated reactor sites.


It's called reprocessing. I suggest a Google search and some reading to be abreast of the subject being discussed.

As to reactor sites, which ones?
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 07, 2013
You know though, it really does occur to me that trying to convince people who view the environment as an entity with arbitrary value (read a religion) that nuclear power is a good policy is like trying to convince conservatives that AGW is real. It's all about fear and ignorance. Some people are afraid of nuclear power...period. It doesn't have to be rational, you can show them graphs and statistics all day long, it won't help. They would rather have solar and wind and the benefits of nuclear over these technologies is taken personally somehow.

So it's just better to change the conversation...I don't know to what, but unless you address their fears directly it isn't going to change. They don't even SEE the need to change the conversation, again just like AGW deniers.
Bob_Wallace
1.6 / 5 (13) Nov 07, 2013
You are correct. Many are afraid of nuclear power.

Some of that fear is deserved. Nuclear reactors can and have melted down, causing major damage and deaths.

Some of the fear is overblown.

Regardless, the fear is there and those making decisions about what capacity to build have to take it into account. People who don't want a reactor built near them will resist and that further drives up the cost of an already too expensive technology.

Bob_Wallace
1 / 5 (10) Nov 07, 2013
Fukushima. Chernobyl.


http://en.wikiped...qiao_Dam

Catch up...

It doesn't deal with the millions of tons of radioactive non-fuel waste. Or the highly contaminated reactor sites.


It's called reprocessing. I suggest a Google search and some reading to be abreast of the subject being discussed.

As to reactor sites, which ones?


RE: reprocessing. I would suggest you read this paper on breeder reactors. At least get through the overview.

http://fissilemat...rr08.pdf

Reactor sites. We could start with the obvious - Chernobyl and Fukushima. And then go on to the many other closed reactors which we are letting rot in place.

Oh, might we want to bring Hanford into the discussion? Been keeping up with its flume of radioactive liquids making its way to the local aquifer?

RE: Banqiao Dam. Yep. People shouldn't live below dams in the danger zone. Your point is?

Modernmystic
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 07, 2013
RE: reprocessing. I would suggest you read this paper on breeder reactors. At least get through the overview.


Indeed, but I was wondering if you'd read any of the latest research on third and fourth generation reactors and the fuel cycle. This stuff is outdated and based on principles\designs we came up with in the 1950s and 60s. It's very "strawmanish"...

Reactor sites. We could start with the obvious - Chernobyl and Fukushima. And then go on to the many other closed reactors which we are letting rot in place.


Again, I have to ask do you place an arbitrarily high value on the environment? If you do then there is no further purpose in discussion. NO means of energy production is without issues and I believe we should have energy. If we can't agree on that then we won't agree on anything else...

RE: Banqiao Dam. Yep. People shouldn't live below dams in the danger zone. Your point is?


Actually there were a few more links that didn't show up on edit (cont).
Modernmystic
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 07, 2013
Here's one of the links if more are needed I can provide them, however a search on your own will give you a litany of how deaths attributed to nuclear power are DWARFED by coal, oil, gas, and in some cases even "renewables" though I forget which ones at the moment.

http://climate.na...news/903

My point is that there isn't a SINGLE form of power generation without problems, risks and dangers. Nuclear is blown WAAAAY out of proportion to hysterical and histrionic levels. My point wasn't about where people should live in relation to dams.
Modernmystic
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 07, 2013
The thing you who are against nuclear power have to ask yourselves honestly is WHY do you oppose it. Do some soul searching and be HONEST. Is it about your feelings or something else. Quite frankly I don't want to convince you the sky is blue, we'll talk about it all day and at the end of the day you'll still insist it's green if there is some reason you're afraid to admit it's blue.

You're entitled to your feelings and opinions, but NOT your own facts. The FACT is that nuclear power causes FAR fewer deaths than almost any other source out there, AND it works, is practical, and has come a looooong way since the 1950s. Those are the facts, and nothing changes them.
Bob_Wallace
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 07, 2013
Indeed, but I was wondering if you'd read any of the latest research on third and fourth generation reactors...


Third+ and fourth gen reactors are hypotheses. We do not know if they will work or what they will cost. I've seen nothing that suggests future reactor designs would generate competitively priced electricity. Only that meltdown dangers could be reduced.

Again, I have to ask do you place an arbitrarily high value on the environment? If you do then there is no further purpose in discussion....


I don't know what " an arbitrarily high value on the environment" might be. We have only one planet and a present climate that serves us fairly well. I suppose there's nothing more valuable.

The issue is how we best transition off fossil fuels. The answer for me is to use the least expensive, fastest to install, and safest technologies.

All technologies come with some level of risk. Nuclear is simply the most risky. And expensive. And slow to install.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (13) Nov 07, 2013
I suppose there's nothing more valuable.


There is. People are more valuable. I'll tell you why too.

People are the only entities we know about who are even capable of holding values...so no people, no values, no valuABLES. Simple as that. It's like having a restaurant without food. The axiom of values are human beings. That doesn't mean human beings have an arbitrarily high value, it means that it's completely non-nonsensical to discuss values outside the context of including human beings.

Now VERY religious people put an arbitrarily high value on their religious beliefs. It doesn't make for very good outcomes in my opinion, moreover it's quite impossible to have a rational discussion with someone who actually believes something is more valuable than anything else. So I'm asking myself how productive this conversation will be. I'm not likely to convince you of anything if your values are so over weighted....
djr
4.5 / 5 (2) Nov 07, 2013
brt "because you're a black and white moron."

And you can't read - and are too blinded by your own self importance. I am a supporter of nuclear power. But unlike you - I am interested in facts - and what is best for our world.

Now - on the issue of facts. You stated - "The environmental impact from building an electric car is something like 200 times more harmful to the environment than just using gas for the life of the car."

I think that is wrong - and that you don't know what a fact is. Please provide support for your assertion that an electric car is 200 times more harmful to the environment - or are you better at calling people names - than you are at supporting your assertions?
Bob_Wallace
1.1 / 5 (10) Nov 07, 2013
I suppose there's nothing more valuable.


There is. People are more valuable. .


The reason we don't want to trash this, our only planet, is for people. Is that not clear to you?
Bob_Wallace
1 / 5 (10) Nov 07, 2013
The thing you who are against nuclear power have to ask yourselves honestly is WHY do you oppose it.... The FACT is that nuclear power causes FAR fewer deaths than almost any other source out there


Honestly, I'd be all for nuclear energy if we had no better options. I look at the cost, time to install, and safety facts and the facts convince me that it's time to leave the nuclear dream behind.

As for deaths, clearly coal is the worst by far.

To compare deaths across other technologies we have to define what we're talking about, fuel-caused or other.

We know that there are some deaths at wind and solar installations from falls and construction accidents. We know that there are some deaths at nuclear plants due to falls, steam escapes and during construction. We have no numbers for comparing non-fuel caused deaths.

We know that people have been killed by radiation at nuclear sites. We know of no one killed by wind or sunshine at wind and solar farms.
Bob_Wallace
1 / 5 (10) Nov 07, 2013
Here's a list radiation caused fatalities. Note that some are not due to nuclear energy but to radiotherapy accidents.

My quick count (do your own) says something above 150 deaths due to nuclear energy and about 5,000 cancer deaths/deaths yet to happen from Chernobyl and Fukushima.

http://en.wikiped...ath_toll
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 07, 2013
Heres robert stone, environmentalist, on piers morgan, for opinions which you greenies can use to update your posturings. Kennedy is a solar power exec so of course he is biased. And hes a kennedy.
https://www.youtu...lyg#t=74
My quick count (do your own) says something above 150 deaths due to nuclear energy
From your link

"There have been no deaths directly attributed to radiation from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster"

-Leaving chernobyl as the only commercial plant accident resulting in deaths.

In comparison:
-Hoover dam - 112 construction deaths
-35 fatalities associated with wind turbines in the United States from 1970 through 2010
-death of over 40 people due to the collapse of an under-construction chimney at a power plant in Chhattisgarh
-pollution created by burning coal is causing 18,200 premature deaths and costing up to €43 billion each year in Europe (not to mention coal mine accidents)
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 07, 2013
The reason we don't want to trash this, our only planet, is for people. Is that not clear to you?
From the stone/morgan interview; the only way to provide adequate power for 9 billion people is nuclear. Nuclear is very safe and will be very cheap once plants can be manufactured and standardized. We dont want to trash large portions of the population by denying them sufficient energy. Is that not clear to you?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 07, 2013
Level one. Reactors that have melted down: TMI, Fukusima, ...
"List of hydroelectric power station failures" -At the top of the list:
"Banqiao Dam, China - 26,000 dead from direct flooding, 145,000 dead from subsequent famine and epidemics, 11 million homeless. Caused loss of generation, dam failed by overtopping"
NO COMPARISON
Level two. Reactors which have been closed prior to 40 years service: Rancho Seco, Humboldt Bay, ....
"Sherco power plant repairs may take 16 months, cost $200 million... turbine blades were turned into "shrapnel" and one spinning metal part the size of a five-gallon bucket got hurled through the control room..."
ONLY ONE OF MANY
Level three. Reactors which have unexpectedly shut down leaving the grid short supplied
"List of thermal power station failures" -wiki
THIS HAPPENS FREQUENTLY

-Conventional hydro and fossil fuel plants fail, are closed prematurely, and experience downtime due to accident. And these tend to be worse than nuclear.
djr
4.7 / 5 (3) Nov 07, 2013
Otto: "Hoover dam - 112 construction deaths
-35 fatalities associated with wind turbines in the United States from 1970 through 2010"

Come on Otto - you know better than that. The Hoover dam was built in a different era - when safety regs were so much different. There have been no nukes built in that time period - so of course there have been no construction accidents. I support the inclusion of nukes in our energy mix - although recognizing the potential for another disaster. No one can guaruntee that there will not be another Fukushima - so who gets to make that call? But you know better than to use baloney statistics like you just did.

How's that e-cat thingy working out? You said we would know definitively by April. Did you buy one yet?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 07, 2013
So how long do you think it will take me to find a contemporary one for you? 15 sec

"Sayano–Shushenskaya Dam, Russia - 2009 Sayano-Shushenskaya hydro accident, 6 GW power generation loss, 75 fatalities, due to turbine failure
No one can guaruntee that there will not be another Fukushima
No one can guarantee that one of these wont happen... soon...

"CHARLESTON, W.Va. — The U.S. coal industry had its deadliest year in nearly two decades in 2010, with much of the death toll stemming from a single explosion... As of Thursday, 48 miners had died in the nation's 1,500 coal mines over the past 12 months"

ps hoover dam is still operating. This makes it contemporary.
How's that e-cat thingy working out? You said we would know definitively by April. Did you buy one yet?
I already answered that one. The independent report came out months ago. Did you miss it? Next is the long-term operation report, due 'Surely Within 2014′ (Maybe first half)' - rossi
Bob_Wallace
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 07, 2013
Otto, we all agree that people get killed in construction projects. We really don't have any data that tells us whether one type of construction is more dangerous than another, but we might be able to make some guesses.

I've reviewed all the wind industry deaths and many of them were in the industry's early years. Some were things like worker's tethers getting caught in spinning gears. That seems to no longer be happening as better safety regs have been put into place. The same with rooftop solar. New safety regulations have greatly decreased workplace injuries and deaths.

I suspect a new nuclear build would be safer than those plants built a few decades ago. We've improved workplace safety significantly over time.

The safety issue with nuclear is not people getting killed during construction. It's about the fuel itself. Radiation, quite simply, is dangerous. Containment domes, emergency cooling systems, security guards, etc.

That's obvious to you is it not?
Bob_Wallace
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 07, 2013
"From the stone/morgan interview; the only way to provide adequate power for 9 billion people is nuclear."

One person on a television program. A rather lightweight television program as well. That's hardly convincing evidence.

We've got a pile of scientific studies which show very clearly that we could power the world several times over with renewable energy.

We know that renewable energy is greatly cheaper than nuclear energy and brings none of the hazards of nuclear energy into our lives.

djr
5 / 5 (1) Nov 07, 2013
ps hoover dam is still operating. This makes it contemporary.

But it was built in 1931 - so obviously using construction fatalaties - compared to fatalaties for wind turbine construction makes you pretty silly. I am not wanting to argue about the fact that there are injuries in any major industry - and that Nuclear is a relatively safe industry. Again - no one can guaruntee that Fukishima will not happen again. That is a pretty hefty risk - but all choices come with risk. You just don't gain any credibility by using silly numbers.

Yeah I saw some articles about Rossi's new report. Here is a pretty good review. I guess you have bought another year before you have to buy another year - before Rossi is finally exposed (or maybe it will just drag on for ever).

http://motls.blog...ion.html
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 07, 2013
Radiation is dangerous
You did not acknowledge the banqaio dam failure. 26k initial dead, a few hundred thousand thereafter. NO nuclear disaster short of war could ever wreak such damage.

Dams disrupt riverine ecologies. They silt up and prevent fish migration. Coal mining alone causes far more damage than nukes ever will, either during extraction or in waste control. There is no comparison in fatalities, ecological devastation, and long term health. They are a persistant threat.
http://www.rfa.or...450.html

If you posted those studies I didnt see them. Did they include the projected quadrupling of energy needs by 2050 which I posted? Most of us would not be satisfied living on the energy budget of your typical bulgarian.

Bob_Wallace
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 07, 2013
Of course dams can be dangerous. You OK now?

Nuclear energy brings a unique danger into our lives. One that we do not need. We have safer, cheaper, faster to implement alternatives.

We're just going around in circles now. The nuclear fans are unwilling to acknowledge that nuclear is too expensive to consider and unable to produce any proof that nuclear can produce affordable electricity.

The world's decisions on what to install will be made largely on a cost basis. A few reactors will be built by people too dense to understand current costs. Over the 5 - 15 years it takes to bring them on line the cost of renewables and storage will almost certainly continue to drop making the cost different even greater and the foolish of those new reactors very obvious to all.

The folks building the new Vogtle reactors in Georgia seem to be figuring it out. Recently one of them stated that with hindsight they should not have built new nuclear.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 07, 2013
unique
Unique? Does dying from lung cancer associated with coal burning radioactivity make one special as well? There is a much higher possibility of that.
one that we dont need
Well according to the experts who wrote tge articlae and at least one guy (expert) on a tv show, youre wrong. I suspect you are in a minority because the facts just arent there. Where are those studies you mentioned?
pretty silly
Sorry but safety standards vary greatly around the world. OSHA was enacted in 1971. How many workers die today building gas turbine plants in africa for lack of similar standards? How many have died building coal plants in china?

You reference fukushima and chernobyl, both in foreign countries. How many died building reactors in the soviet union? We must know for fair comparison. How many fall off of bamboo scaffolding in indonesia, building refineries?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 07, 2013
current costs
Robert stone the expert explained that to you. International standardization and modular production line manufacturing will cause prices to plummet and dependability to rise, just as within the manufactured home industry.
a few reactors
Over 60 are under construction at the moment. Look it up. Something else you didnt now.
djr
5 / 5 (2) Nov 07, 2013
I agree with your perspective Bob. In fairness - there are about 60 reactors under construction around the world. We should get a better read on the cost of power from newer generation plants. I agree with you that cost will be the determining factor - and my money is on renewables. Will advanced reactor designs keep nuclear in the mix? I hope so. I agree with you - that renewables are looking like the safe money - oil and gas is starting to push back - which is a good sign - they are shitting their pants.
djr
not rated yet Nov 07, 2013
.
Bob_Wallace
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 07, 2013
... standardization and modular production line manufacturing will cause prices to plummet and dependability to rise, just as within the manufactured home industry. -Over 60 are under construction at the moment. Look it up. Something else you didnt now.


To suggest that modularization and standardization could drop the cost of nuclear electricity 3x is putting a lot of faith in something that hasn't happened to date. The Vogtle site is using AP1000 reactors which are both modular and a standardized design. They certainly won't be cost competitive with wind, solar and natural gas.

I posted a list of all reactors in the world up higher - the operating, closed and under construction. I am familiar with the numbers. I also "now" that the number currently being built will not give us a net increase in capacity. They won't make up for the ones closed and closing.

And be cautious with that "being built" list. Some are simply planned and some plans have been shelved.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 07, 2013
modularization and standardization could drop the cost of nuclear electricity

The US Navy has been doing so for decades.
Bob_Wallace
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 08, 2013
Whatever the Navy has been doing has not brought affordable nuclear to public use.

If a company was able to generate electricity for less than 16c/kWh they would now be in discussion with the UK rather than EDF and their Chinese partners. Let's remember, the UK sought out the best price available.

And previously Ontario CA, San Antonio TX and Turkey also sought out the best price available. In those three cases not a single company stepped up and offered to build reactors at affordable prices.

GuruShabu
2 / 5 (17) Nov 08, 2013
On April 26, 1986, the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant's reactor No. 4 blew up after a cooling capability test, and the resulting nuclear fire lasted 10 days, spewing 400 times as much radiation as the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. To date, it's the world's worst nuclear accident. The 2011 Fukushima meltdown, of course, is still playing out -- but actually, so is Chernobyl.
Nearly 28 years after the disaster, Reactor No. 4 simmers under its "sarcophagus," a concrete and metal cover hastily built after the accident. It's now cracked, rusted and leaking radiation. A partial roof collapse last February sent reverberations of fear throughout the world. As well it should have. With 200 tons of lava-like radioactive material still below the reactor, and the "New Safe Confinement" aimed at containing and protecting it not scheduled for completion till 2015 (already 15 years overdue) this story of nuclear disaster is in its early chapters.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2013
You did not acknowledge the banqaio dam failure

I think you're missing a very critical distinction here.

a) Disasters that can be cleaned up, remain local and are OVER at some point of time. These require a singular expenditure of resources to REMOVE their effects on humanity.
b) disasters that are NOT local, CANNOT be cleaned up and whose effects will only accumulate over time as similar disasters happen - leading to ever more resources needed to mitigate their impact on our lives (cocaine effect).

Type a) disasters can be acceptable (depending on gain vs. risk magnitude and risk probability).
Type b) are not acceptable (no matter the gain, risk magnitude or the risk probability - as no matter how small the risks are, eventually the compound resources needed for mitigating the effects will exceed what you have at your disposal.)
kochevnik
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 08, 2013
"There have been no deaths directly attributed to radiation from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster"
The dead may disagree
Modernmystic
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 08, 2013
The reason we don't want to trash this, our only planet, is for people. Is that not clear to you?


It's not clear to me at all for several reasons. First, we are rapidly approaching a point in our technology where we absolutely do not need the environment of Earth to live. Secondly, many times when I have these discussions with people they seem to think the Environment is an end in itself and has ultimate value apart from human beings and regardless of their circumstance. I wasn't clear on where you stood on that so how could I be clear in your meaning?

Honestly, I'd be all for nuclear energy if we had no better options. I look at the cost, time to install, and safety facts and the facts convince me that it's time to leave the nuclear dream behind.


So how will you address problems of scale? Land use? What about when we run out of places to put things and the energy demands of our civilization continue to rise? (cont)
Modernmystic
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 08, 2013
(cont) also the insanely high costs of nuclear plants are directly tied to regulation. This is not necessary regulation, this is OVER regulation demanded by a public who is thinking with their fears and not critical thinking. This is the same problem nuclear power in general has. Like so many other things that involve human beings "the problem isn't the problem".

How can you power solar system crossing spacecraft practically using solar power? How will you power underwater craft? What reason is there to use huge solar panels for future space construction when you can build a small reactor and have far better power output? Have you looked at energy densities? Do you know how important they are and why for a developing civilization? If you address all of these questions adequately I have about twenty more...
Modernmystic
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 08, 2013
All that said I DO believe solar (not really wind but to each his own) has a place as an adjunct, and a niche power supply. Not a really important one, but it definitely has a place. It will NEVER power a highly advanced civilization to the stars though. OR at least no one has ever been even close to demonstrating to me exactly HOW that works or what it looks like.
beleg
1 / 5 (2) Nov 08, 2013
The United States will spend at least $179 billion over the nine fiscal years of 2010-2018 on its nuclear arsenal. - Center for Nonproliferation Studies.

http://www.nti.or...verview/

Civilian use has it's counterpart unless it's renewable.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 08, 2013
I think you're missing a very critical distinction here... disasters that are NOT local, CANNOT be cleaned up
What is particularly disturbing about your post aa is that you seem to regard the temporary loss of land use as more significant than the deaths of nearly a half a million people. Was this subconscious or only an indication of the thoughtlessness of much of your postings?

Lets compare the relative ruination of real estate between chernobyl:and Banqiao.

Chernobyl Exclusion Zone - 2,600 km2; cesium's "ecological half-life" - between 180 and 320 years

Banqiao - 10 km wide wave swept over 825 km2... of countryside and countless communities devastated... 60 dams downstream destroyed along with irrigation systems... restoration only begun late 1980s; 1000s of tubewells dug to replace pumping stations"

-So chernobyl is a smaller area with a longer, but not unlimited, exclusion time. But banqiao has far fewer inhabitants left to reoccupy, doesnt it? A wash.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 08, 2013
whose effects will only accumulate over time as similar disasters happen - leading to ever more resources needed to mitigate their impact on our lives
"China has 87,000 reservoirs across the country; most of which were built in the 1950s-1970s using low construction standards. Most of these reservoirs are in serious disrepair, posing challenges to the prevention and control of flood-triggered geological disasters in areas with a population of 130 million or more..."
Type b) are not acceptable (no matter the gain, risk magnitude or the risk probability - as no matter how small the risks are, eventually the compound resources needed for mitigating the effects will exceed what you have at your disposal.)
-And so per your classification of disaster potentials, chinas vast dam-building program clearly fits into your Type b) category. Meaning that even for that single country it is AT LEAST an order of magnitude worse than the potential for similar nuclear-related ruination.
Bob_Wallace
1.9 / 5 (14) Nov 08, 2013
So how will you address problems of scale? Land use? What about when we run out of places to put things and the energy demands of our civilization continue to rise? (cont)


There are no problems of scale or land use. Were we to use only solar for 100% of our projected energy needs in 2050 we would need to use less than 1% of global land area.

http://www.the9bi...by-2050/

Here's a graphic for 2030. There's also a similar graphic for 100% with offshore wind on the web.

http://landartgen...ives/127

Take a look at house that have solar panels on their roofs. Most systems are designed to produce 100% of the electricity used by that house in a year. The arrays seldom cover one slope.

Wind turbines have a fairly small land use. About a quarter acre per turbine. The US could generate 100% w/wind and the amount of land used would be less than four Disney Worlds.
Bob_Wallace
1.6 / 5 (13) Nov 08, 2013
All that said I DO believe solar (not really wind but to each his own) has a place as an adjunct, and a niche power supply. Not a really important one, but it definitely has a place. It will NEVER power a highly advanced civilization to the stars though. OR at least no one has ever been even close to demonstrating to me exactly HOW that works or what it looks like.


There's a large number of studies which show that it is entirely feasible to power our lives mainly with wind and solar. Storage would be needed. Other renewables make the job easier.

You could start with this paper that lays out the basic solution. I can give you a list of several others that are more recent and use real world data in their analysis.

http://www.scient...-by-2030

"To the stars" - no one has suggested we could do interplanetary travel using renewable energy. That's irrelevant to this discussion.

Bob_Wallace
1.9 / 5 (14) Nov 08, 2013
(cont) also the insanely high costs of nuclear plants are directly tied to regulation. This is not necessary regulation, this is OVER regulation demanded by a public who is thinking with their fears and not critical thinking. This is the same problem nuclear power in general has. Like so many other things that involve human beings "the problem isn't the problem".


Looks to me as if Fukushima was under regulated. How did that work out?

Which safety regulations do you think we should remove in order to make nuclear energy less expensive?

(Regulation paperwork in the US was significantly streamlined a few years back. There's pretty much nothing left to cut there except to eliminate government oversight of reactors.)
holoman
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 08, 2013

ARE THEY CRAZY ! WE HAVE OVER 1,000 NUCLEAR WASTE SITES ALREADY THAT

US GOVT. CANNOT HANDLE, YUCCA IS CLOSED AND NOBODY WANTES NUCLEAR WASTE !
kochevnik
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 08, 2013
It will NEVER power a highly advanced civilization to the stars though.
Aren't stars solar-powered?
US GOVT. CANNOT HANDLE, YUCCA IS CLOSED AND NOBODY WANTES NUCLEAR WASTE !
Ryggie's libertarian utopia, Somalia, is currently accepting waste of all classes including nuclear waste. Not inviting radiation into your house and body is socialism!
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (16) Nov 08, 2013
Nuclear waste can be reprocessed for fuel.
Fukushima was under regulated.

No, it was a typical Fascist business arrangement with the state controlling businesses.

Of course the other issue is don't build that type of nuclear power plant in the path of a tsunami.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (18) Nov 08, 2013
"He believes a thorium turbine about the size of an air conditioning unit could more provide cheap power for whole restaurants, hotels, office buildings, even small towns in areas of the world without electricity. At some point, thorium could power individual homes."
""The radiation that we develop off of one of these things can be shielded by a single sheet off of aluminum foil," Stevens said." "You will get more radiation from one of those dental X-rays than this.""
http://mashable.c...rything/
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (18) Nov 08, 2013
"More large corporations have decided that the electric power grid is unreliable and are planning to unplug from it and generate their own electricity."
"Walmart, Safeway, Google, Bank of America and Coca-Cola, are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on systems to generate their own electricity. "
"The generation of electricity by private corporations has grown to such a level that it's beginning to cause utility executives to worry, Journal reporters Rebecca Smith and Cassandra Sweet noted. They wrote: "The growing number of companies that are at least partially energy self-sufficient is sending a shudder through the utility industry, threatening its revenues and growth prospects.""
{Of course all utilities are monopolies protected by the state.}
http://www.offthe...er-grid/
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (18) Nov 08, 2013
"my stomach tightens when someone like Van Jones asserts that "no body wants a nuclear plant in their backyard." Perhaps it is because I have lived for several months at a time — 11 times — with a nuclear propulsion plant sealed up in the same 425 foot long steel tube that I occasionally called "home". Maybe is because I have lived in or visited a number of towns that already have a nuclear plant in their figurative backyard.

I also just returned from a meeting in another town — Idaho Falls, ID — where nearly every resident would vote to host a new nuclear power plant. The state's Lieutenant Governor spoke at that meeting and essentially told the assembled audience full of vendors, suppliers, academics, and operators to "come to Idaho" and build."
http://theenergyc...eighbors
Bob_Wallace
1.8 / 5 (14) Nov 08, 2013
"More large corporations have decided that the electric power grid is unreliable and are planning to unplug from it and generate their own electricity."

http://www.offthegridnews


I'm very skeptical about that report. Yes, some companies have decided that solar saves them a lot of money and are installing panels. Walmart is now the largest solar electricity producer in the US. Going totally off grid, unlikely.

Yes, utilities are worrying about end-user solar. The old business model for utilities no longer works. Due to efficiency demand is dropping. End-user solar is also dropping demand. It looks like we will have cheaper storage before long which will allow end-users to save and use their own electricity.

Utilities are probably going to suffer large amounts of stranded assets. We've seen one nuclear reactor closed this year because it couldn't compete on the open market. A couple dozen more are in trouble. Coal plants are going to be closed. Mines are ..OFC.
Bob_Wallace
1.6 / 5 (13) Nov 08, 2013
"my stomach tightens when someone like Van Jones asserts that "no body wants a nuclear plant in their backyard." Perhaps it is because I have lived for several months at a time


I lived downwind of a POS reactor - Rancho Seco. We were told that 20 minutes after we heard the siren start we should be at least 20 minutes further away, and to keep going. The military may run a tight ship and keep quality high. That is not the case with civilian nuclear.

It's also not true of the Russian Navy. They melted one of theirs.

Bob_Wallace
1.6 / 5 (13) Nov 08, 2013
Nuclear waste can be reprocessed for fuel.
Fukushima was under regulated.

No, it was a typical Fascist business arrangement with the state controlling businesses.

Of course the other issue is don't build that type of nuclear power plant in the path of a tsunami.


TEPCO is an independent corporation. Not a state run utility.

Both TEPCO and the Japanese government were aware that they were building/permitting reactors in and area previously covered by water during a tsunami. They built in a dangerous location with full knowledge of the risk they were taking.

Nuclear energy is too dangerous to be left in the hands of humans. Too many of us are Homers or greedy bastards.

kochevnik
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 09, 2013
I also just returned from a meeting in another town — Idaho Falls, ID — where nearly every resident would vote to host a new nuclear power plant. The state's Lieutenant Governor spoke at that meeting and essentially told the assembled audience full of vendors, suppliers, academics, and operators to "come to Idaho" and build."
http://theenergyc...eighbors
Idaho falls depends on the income from INEL labs to allow it's existence. That is a government institution. You don't like the government ryggie? They are all masonic mormons who get their job through the bishop so descent = unemployment and being outcast from their family and community. Pick another group of penis-suckers

INEL is famous for directly injecting 30,000 curries of strontium 90 radiation into the water supply. That's enough radiation to kill 30,000,000 people
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (17) Nov 09, 2013
It's also not true of the Russian Navy. They melted one of theirs.

Socialists don't care about human life.
TEPCO is an independent corporation.

It's called Fascism. Socialists attack businesses, but ignore how much control the govt has over them. Why don't socialists what to examine the failures of the govt in these matters?
Bob_Wallace
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 09, 2013
Japan is a democracy.

To say that socialists don't care about human life is simply silly. If we look at the most "socialist" countries in Europe we find the most concern for others. The strongest safety nets. The best education and health systems. An attitude that we're all in this together and it is in each of our best interests to look out for others. After all, there's always a chance that something will happen to each of us and we'll need those safety nets.

If you want to find a country which cares the least for its citizens look for a place run by a strongman government. Or one which has no government at all. Kind of a libertarian paradise.

But what does all this have to do with the hazards of nuclear energy?

Rick150
1.3 / 5 (16) Nov 09, 2013
What warming? Arctic has more ice than in 1971, Antarctic was cooler by -23 last winter, Alaska had one of the coldest winters on record. Chile lost about 250,000 Alpaca's due to the severe winter. Linking everything to climate change is a dead duck and those that continue to regurgitate it are starting to look like fools.
Bob_Wallace
1.8 / 5 (15) Nov 09, 2013
Sorry, Rick. You're measuring in only two dimensions. Ice comes in three.

At the end of the 1979 melt season there was 17,000 km3. At the end of the 2013 melt season we were down to 5,000 km3. That's up from the three previous years but well within the normal range of variability. You can take a look here -

http://tinyurl.com/l8fznfw

The winter of 2012 was a cool one. One cooler winter does not global cooling. We would need a much larger number of data points to establish a trend.

You might want to read up on how the jet stream has changed and how that gives us some very different weather patterns.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (20) Nov 09, 2013
socialists don't care about human life is simply silly.

Socialists support and promote murdering babies, mercy killings, death panels,...
a place run by a strongman government.

This is socialism, too.
Japan is a democracy.

So? Socialist states hold elections.
"In a more market-oriented country, of course, bankruptcy is exactly where Tepco would be headed. "
"Politicians understand that were Tepco to collapse, the government would be entirely on the hook for any compensation payouts for political, if not technically legal, reasons. "
http://online.wsj...02504630
Socialism is as socialism does.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (19) Nov 09, 2013
"Europe's top energy companies warned that European Union policies favoring renewable energy production over fossil fuels could lead to blackouts across the continent. In Germany, lawmakers are wrestling with ways to scale back green-energy subsidies in order to lower prices for consumers — which are now among the highest in Europe. The German publication Der Spiegel even remarked that electricity had become a "luxury good" in the country."
"In the U.K., politicians and environmentalists have been successful in delaying hydraulic fracturing operations from developing the country's rich shale formations. The Brits are now paying the price of dithering and face skyrocketing gas prices. It's become so expensive to heat homes during the winter time it's estimated that more than 24,000 people will die from the cold this winter."

Read more: http://dailycalle...kCr7rFvC
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (19) Nov 09, 2013
"The Obama administration has also been issuing only about half the number of the drilling permits as the Clinton administration did, and Obama has issued a third less than the Bush administration. All in the name of environmental conservation.

While the administration has slowed its drilling leases, it has fast-tracked leases for more costly and less reliable renewable energy. Recently, the administration suffered embarrassment when no one bid on a lease offer to build solar panels on federal lands in Colorado."

Read more: http://dailycalle...kCrizZRC
Bob_Wallace
2 / 5 (16) Nov 09, 2013
"The Obama administration has also been issuing only about half the number of the drilling permits as the Clinton administration did, and Obama has issued a third less than the Bush administration. All in the name of environmental conservation.



And yet US oil and natural gas production is at record heights. Go figure.

Now, what the heck does that or your socialism stuff have to do with nuclear energy being too expensive to consider?
Bob_Wallace
2 / 5 (16) Nov 09, 2013
"Europe's top energy companies warned ... lead to blackouts.... In Germany, lawmakers are wrestling ... to lower prices for consumers — which are now among the highest in Europe.


But, in fact, renewables are making the grid more reliable in Germany.

"On Monday, Germany's Network Agency announced that the German grid only had a downtime of 15.31 minutes, even lower than the already impressive 17.44 minutes of downtime during the period from 2006 the 2010.

Not only did the country avoid a major blackout during the winter, but its availability actually increased over the average going back to 2006, when reporting began."

http://www.renewa...7/56183/

And the wholesale price of electricity has been dropping in Germany, thanks to renewables on their grid. Germany industrial wind prices have been dropping since 2009 and are lower than the EU27 average.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (20) Nov 09, 2013
The Regulatory State (socialism) under BHO is intentionally killing coal with regulations. It is intentionally killing nuclear power with regulation.
The Fascist (socialist) BHO state showers plundered taxpayers wealth on favored industries and political cronies to keep the socialists in power.
It is impossible for socialists regimes to centrally plan anything because they cannot determine values.
As noted, businesses, even those who are crony capitalists, understand the value of stable, low cost power and don't trust govt regulators to keep a stable grid and low cost energy.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (20) Nov 09, 2013
"German households face steeply rising electricity bills, companies threaten to move abroad, engineers raise the specter of blackouts. A reform of Germany's green energy revolution must top the new government's agenda."
"since the EEG law was implemented in 2000, German electricity retail prices have risen from then 14 eurocents per kilowatt-hour to almost 29 cents today, according to data released by the Association of Energy and Water Industries (BDEW)."
"Much of the increase is the result of a surcharge on electricity bills paid by private households and businesses to finance state subsidies for renewable energies. "
http://www.dw.de/...17066849
Bob_Wallace
2 / 5 (16) Nov 09, 2013
German industrial electricity prices -

http://epp.eurost...ten00114

Retail customers in Germany pay 8.0 euro cents for power generation, 6.5c for grid service and 5.3c for the renewable energy surcharge. The rest of their 29c/kWh price is non-utility taxes. Money we'd pay in income and other taxes.

The 19.8c (26 US cents) is not much higher that the cost of electricity in NY State. US utility bills usually include additional fees which would reduce the difference.

Germans pay their renewable subsidies as part of their electricity bills. We pay our with tax dollars. Additionally, while they profit from lower electricity costs German industry does not contribute to the renewable subsidy fund.

ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (20) Nov 09, 2013
"In addition, the costs of massive infrastructure updates, which are needed to accommodate the vast amounts of green energy, are also footed by consumers through their electricity bills. This includes expanding the power grid as well as creating storage systems for solar and wind power."
http://www.dw.de/...17066849
"Pushing green energy legislation and establishing mandatory quotas for green energy have simply not been the competition and job growth miracles they were intended to be. Though Germany has actually an oversupply of power, consumers pay higher prices than ever."
"Germany's renewable energy producers enjoy a guaranteed minimum price for their energy. So they can successfully produce and sell it at a guaranteed price, regardless of what customers want." {aka socialism}
http://www.forbes...debacle/
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (20) Nov 09, 2013
"Many farmers and municipalities are producing green energy no one actually needs, but are entitled to sell it. In the end consumers have to pay for it. These policies caused a doubling of energy prices for German consumers over ten years."
"Consumers buying energy from legacy utility companies, such as coal or nuclear power producers, subsidize those who demand more expensive energy such as wind or solar power. Working-class families subsidize urban yuppies by paying for part of their energy bill. Green energy producers don't even need to worry whether anyone wants their energy, as legislation entitles them to feed in their energy into the grid."
http://www.forbes...debacle/
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (20) Nov 09, 2013
"top executives of companies that provide half of Europe's electricity production capacity on Friday called on politicians to end "distorting" subsidies for wind and solar power, saying the incentives have led to whopping bills for households and businesses and could cause continent-wide blackouts."
"Under the subsidy mechanisms, wind and solar power producers benefit from priority access to the grid and enjoy guaranteed prices. In France, for instance, even as wholesale prices hover around €40 ($54) a megawatt hour, windmill electricity goes at a minimum of €83 a megawatt hour, regardless of demand. The difference is charged to customers."
"Over the past four years, 51 gigawatts of gas-fired capacities have been idled across Europe, Mr. Mestrallet said. "
"Some fear that Europe is now ill-equipped to weather a cold spell. "
http://online.wsj...10803694
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (20) Nov 09, 2013
"wind turbines killed at least 600,000 -- and possibly as many as 900,000 -- bats in the United States in 2012, researchers say."
"Bats, which play an important role in the ecosystem as insect-eaters, are killed at wind turbines not only by collisions with moving turbine blades but also by the trauma resulting from sudden changes in air pressure that occur near a fast-moving blade, the study said.

Study author Mark Hayes of the University of Colorado notes that 600,000 is a conservative estimate -- the true number could be 50 percent higher than that -- and some areas of the country might experience much higher bat fatality rates at wind energy facilities than others."
http://www.breitb...-in-2012
Bats are ugly so 'liberals' don't care.
Bob_Wallace
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 09, 2013
You certainly do get your information from interesting places. Forbes. Breitburt. Fox Business, er, WSJ.

Yes, transitioning from fossil fuels to renewables will cost. Transitioning to nuclear would cost more. And continuing to burn fossil fuels would be the most expensive of all.

Large penetration of wind and solar (<40%) will require storage. Nuclear requires storage at even lower penetration.

Yes, renewable are more expensive in France than is power from nuclear reactors built years ago and now paid off. Someone driving a paid off car spends less per month for commuting than someone with a car payment.

Yes, bat kills is a problem that will have to be addressed. Some is happening by learning bat migration patterns and turning off turbines during those 1-2 week periods. Also stopping turbines when wind speeds are low greatly cuts bat kills. At low wind speeds insects can fly, bats feed, and not much electricity is being generated.

kochevnik
2.3 / 5 (12) Nov 10, 2013
Bob ryggie is an idiot who cannot rebut or answer a straight question, but instead copies a few keywords into his libertarian search engine and dredges up useless articles and libertarian propaganda or ideological manifestos. He then pulls one or two sockpuppets stuck to his penis and downvotes anyone with a coherent post. Answering his posts is an exercise in entropy: As futile as stopping the heat death of the universe
djr
4 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2013


Totally agree with kochevnik on the Ryggy issue. Nothing to do but ignore it - or get sucked into the black hole.

Back on topic - the whole field is very fluid - and the numbers definitely support Bob's assertion that renewables are winning on the price front. This is a very interesting article - comparing nuclear with PV. REALLY interesting - in damp foggy England - with only 2.84 hours of sunshine a day - PV is kicking nuclear's arse (smile) on price (11 cents vs 15 cents). So - when we get the soft cost issue worked out here in the southern U.S. - nothing is going to be able to touch it (here in Oklahoma we have 5.5 hours a day avg, and in some areas it goes as high as 7).

http://cleantechn...er-watt/
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (16) Nov 10, 2013
transitioning from fossil fuels to renewables will cost.

What centrally planned project like the forced conversion to renewable have ever succeeded?
The minor attempt in California in 2000 to re-regulate (it was NOT deregulation) the power grid led to massive brown-outs.
What will be the costs? There are the direct costs which have been noted and what is not known are the costs that will not be known. The lost innovation, the deaths from high energy costs, ....
Centrally planned socialist systems fail because they cannot respond rapidly to changes and the people suffer.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (16) Nov 10, 2013
the whole field is very fluid

Yes.
What are ALL the real costs associated with every source of energy?
dj claims to want to be an objective scientist but quotes from a biased web site.
"If they have to pay a few cents more to protect the world's damaged environment they will regard it as a small price to pay. "
Read more at http://cleantechn...78Xf7.99
How many Brits will die this winter to save the world's environment? Socialists don't really care about the life of a human being.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (17) Nov 10, 2013
"What are the actual costs to produce energy – not the fixed price, not the financing, not the tax breaks and subsidies, or the mandates, not all of the artificial add-ons that we demand in order to make someone rich or to fit into our economic model. These other costs are what go into calculating levelized costs, lossely defined as a break-even point for investors, utilities and consumers. "
"but the results are: 4.1 ¢/kWhr for coal, 5.2 ¢/kWhr for natural gas, 3.5 ¢/kWhr for nuclear, 4.3 ¢/kWhr for wind, 7.7 ¢/kWhr for solar, and 3.3 ¢/kWhr for hydro.

These costs are for the entire life-span of the units, after running them to death. These costs are separate from investments, taxation, subsidies, loan structure, and other costs that are associated more with pricing and financing than with what the actual costs are to produce that energy."
http://www.forbes...bsidies/
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (16) Nov 10, 2013
"Gas-fired generators are running at utilisation rates that are too low to meet their fixed costs as grids favour subsidized renewable power. About 60 per cent or 130,000 megawatts of Europe's gas-generation capacity is at risk of closing by 2016, it said, citing IHS Inc. (IHS) estimates."
""These plants -- that are indispensable to ensure security of supply during peak hours -- are being replaced by volatile and non-schedulable renewable energy installations that are heavily subsidized," according to the report, produced with Exane BNP Paribas, law firm CMS Bureau Francis Lefebvre Lyon SELAS and think tank VaasaETT. "
http://www.powere...ini.html
Bob_Wallace
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 10, 2013
Thanks for the feedback on ryggesongn. I was wondering whether to respond to someone copying stuff from anti-science sites to a scientific site discussion board.

TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2013
"wind turbines killed at least 600,000 -- and possibly as many as 900,000 -- bats in the United States in 2012, researchers say
-which is low compared to other artificial methods.

"[there is a] long history of bat fatalities due to collisions with communication towers, power lines, fences, lighthouses and tall buildings"

-But not many statistics. However, wind turbines kill

"roughly twice as many bats as birds."

-So if the ratio is even roughly comparable,

"Collisions with buildings kill 97 to 976 million birds annually; collisions with high-tension lines kill at least 130 million birds, perhaps more than 1 billion; collisions with communications towers kill between 4 and 5 million based on "conservative estimates," but could be as high as 50 million; cars may kill 80 million birds per year; and collisions with wind turbines killed an estimated 20,000 to 37,000 birds per year ..."

-Bat deaths by turbines is INSIGNIFICANT, as are bird deaths by turbines.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2013
Plus as we know,the birthrate for a given species tends to fluctuate in conjunction with changes in predation, climate, food supply, etc. Bat repro rates would probably adjust, but of course scientists would have to study this.

Here are some interesting facts:

"taken together, fossil-fueled facilities are about 17 times more dangerous to birds [and I assume BATS as well] on a per GWh basis than wind and nuclear power stations. In absolute terms, wind turbines may have killed about 7000 birds in 2006 but fossil-fueled stations killed 14.5 million and nuclear power plants 327,000"

-And as we also know, power is not optional. So it is either/or. Either we build more wind farms and nukes or more furry and feathery creatures will DIE. Its your choice (no its not.)
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 10, 2013
Forbes is anti-science?
Anti-science is considered any article that does not support the current politically correct version of science?
Bob_Wallace
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 10, 2013
Bat deaths are a problem. We should not overlook that. Bats are under a lot of pressure. Millions are dying each year from white nose disease.

Work is underway to better understand how to minimize bat deaths from wind turbines.

It will likely be impossible to totally eliminate bat and bird deaths from wind turbines, but per GWh of production turbines are much less damaging than coal and nuclear produced electricity. And we are reducing bird deaths from turbines.

In 2009 there were 12.5 bird kills per MW installed wind capacity.

In 2012 there were 9.5 bird kills per MW installed wind capacity.

That's a 24% decrease. A very major improvement in bird safety. And we aren't done yet.

http://www.abcbir...dex.html
kochevnik
1 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2013
Bats harbor pandemic viri like SARS and a new bat virus in China can infect people. Also animals adapt to human structures and are already growing in numbers from their nadir. Birds have already learned to avoid automobiles in six generations. It would be stupid to eliminate man's best hope for sustainability due to some short-term stressor. Nature imposes such stressors always and stressors usually improve diversity and robustness
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 10, 2013
"Many bats, and almost all in the United States, thrive on an insect diet. A single bat can eat up to 1,200 mosquito-sized insects every hour, and each bat usually eats 6,000 to 8,000 insects each night.Their appetite for mosquitoes certainly makes a backyard more comfortable. Bats are opportunistic, and their lack of discretion benefits everyone. Some of their favorite prey include crop-destroying moths, cucumber beetles, flies and gnats. Natural insect control is their specialty."
"Several characteristics of bats cause them to be vulnerable. First, they are slow at reproducing. Most give birth to only one pup a year, which means they cannot quickly rebuild their populations. Second, most bats roost in large colonies. Bats living in temperate climate zones hibernate in caves or mines during the winter."

Read more: http://www.mother...kHcP03rx
Bats can be sacrificed to the windmill gods?
Bob_Wallace
1.3 / 5 (11) Nov 10, 2013
Bats harbor pandemic viri like SARS and a new bat virus in China can infect people. Also animals adapt to human structures and are already growing in numbers from their nadir. Birds have already learned to avoid automobiles in six generations. It would be stupid to eliminate man's best hope for sustainability due to some short-term stressor. Nature imposes such stressors always and stressors usually improve diversity and robustness


Collisions with vehicles kill 380 million birds each year. (663x wind)

http://www.abcbir...dex.html

I wonder what the fatality rate was six generations back.
--

The only avoidance data I know of is that waterfowl are apparently shifting their flight patterns around offshore wind farms. I don't think there's enough data to prove that one way or another to date.

ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 10, 2013
Environmentalists try to stop all sorts of projects they don't like claiming the project will kill some endangered living thing or that the living thing the new project will kill is vital for the environment.
But they don't care how many living things die for wind power or any of their favorite projects.
djr
5 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2013
See how it works Bob? Ryggy will tie up the thread for years - all with bullshit. Look at this question.

Forbes is anti-science?

Of course the answer is - NO FOOL - but - WUWT, Breitbart, Daily Standard, Daily Mail, etc. etc. etc. are - and Ryggy constanty cuts and pastes from these sites.

Take a look at this Ryggy quote "How many Brits will die this winter to save the world's environment?"

But of course - Ryggy cares nought for the Chinese that are dying from coal pollution. Here is a neat statistic - " It was found that 750,000 Chinese die prematurely each year, primarily because of air pollution in large cities." From - http://www.source...and_coal

So Ryggy loves people when it suits him, and cares nought for them when it conflicts with his agenda. If you are ready to spend your whole weekend in a pointless pissing match - give it a try Bob.
djr
5 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2013
Siemens is going to be manufacturing wind turbines for a $1.9 billion - gigawatt scale wind program in Iowa. Looks like the installed cost is less than $2 a watt. MidAmerica customers pay 8.4 cents a Kwh. The plant will be up and running in less than 2 years. What is not to like about, cheap, renewable, quick to install, wind turbines?

http://www.renewa...n-energy

How long would it take to bring a GW of Nuclear on line?
Bob_Wallace
1.3 / 5 (11) Nov 10, 2013
A 1 GW wind farm would require 500 2 MW turbines, 333 3 MW turbines, or 133 MW turbines.

No generating technology yields a 100% capacity factor. In 2011 CF for coal was 57.56%, petroleum 5.99%, natural gas 24.24%, nuclear 84.30%, and hydro 46.62%.

Nuclear CF was high because nuclear is the least dispatchable. Takes days to turn it on and off. Coal can be shut down/restarted in a few hours, NG is minutes to hours, hydro in seconds. Petroleum has a low CF because it is mostly standby emergency capacity.

Since electricity from paid off nuclear plants is fairly cheap and reactors are so slow to start and stop we generally leave them on and use other generation to fill in.

New wind farms are returning CF numbers in the 40s with some hitting 50%.

I assume you know the difference between CF and hours of production?

Bob_Wallace
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 10, 2013
The turbines on wind farms use less than 2% of the area, so the "48,000 to 64,000 acres of land" number is meaningless.

In 2010, the US used 4,143 TWh (terawatt hours) of electricity. (11,300,000 MWh per day.)

It would take 375,415 3 MW turbines with an average CF of 43% to produce 4,143 TWh of electricity.

The footprint of a wind turbine is typically around 0.25 acres. This includes the tower foundation, roads, transmission and support structures. 375,415 turbines would require 93,854 acres or 147 square miles.

147 square miles is:

3.13 Disney Worlds.
6.5 Manhattan Islands.
39% of Los Angeles.
12% of Rhode Island.
0.7% of San Bernardino County, CA.
0.02% of Alaska.
0.004% of all US land area.

BTW, we are now testing 7.5 MW turbines. Land area doesn't increase much with increases in turbine size so we could cut land use in half if needed.

Of course no one suggests a 100% wind-fed grid. A mix of renewables minimizes storage needs.

Bob_Wallace
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 10, 2013
Wind turbine syndrome has been thoroughly examined and found to be a false claim. There is nothing medically happening and no physical basis for wind turbine noise damage to humans. The noise levels produced, of all frequencies, is no greater and generally less than typical traffic noise experienced by city dwellers. And that is only if one is quite close.

It is quite possible that a small group of people are worrying themselves sick over nothing. A self-created psychological malady best treated by ceasing to listening to idiots and chilling out.

Bob_Wallace
1 / 5 (9) Nov 10, 2013
How long would it take to bring a GW of Nuclear on line?


Best time in China is about four years. Six to seven years is more the norm. Considerably longer in the West.

Olkiluoto 3 is looking like 11 to 13 years. Vogtle 3 just started construction in the spring and is already more than a year behind schedule.

Wind and solar farms have huge construction time advantages. Under 2 years for wind farms, sometimes less than 1 year. Solar farms are often built in well less than a year. Large projects can be brought on line in sections. That means that revenue can start flowing well before the project is complete. Quick builds means much less accumulated interest. And financing costs drive the cost of coal and nuclear very high since it takes so many years for construction.
Bob_Wallace
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 10, 2013
See how it works Bob? Ryggy will tie up the thread for years - all with bullshit. If you are ready to spend your whole weekend in a pointless pissing match - give it a try Bob.


No, now that I've been alerted I'll make use of the name tags at the top of each comment and not bother reading his stuff. He who shall be ignored, to twist a phrase.

That "Brit's dying" stuff comes off a POS article that Forbes published. They blamed it on the cost of wind, not pointing out that people in the UK (IIRC) heat mostly with gas, not electricity and the price of NG has been rising rapidly.

I used to read Forbes for investment information. After Malcolm died and Steve took over the mag took a turn into la-la land, ran to the far right and started publishing crap. There's no way I would trust it for financial information any longer. The same goes for the WSJ after Murdoch bought it. If an owner/editor will lie about science then you can't trust them to not lie about investments.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (14) Nov 10, 2013
8,000 to 64,000 acres of land (75 to 100 square miles).

How much copper wire is needed to connect all these windmills? Copper is quite expensive and burying the wire is not free.
POS article

"Last weekend, the head of the United Kingdom's second-largest energy supplier announced that the nation had barely 48 hours' worth of stored natural gas left to keep the population warm. "Our generating capacity has fallen so low that we can expect power cuts to begin at any time."

Why? Because instead of developing its vast natural gas resources to fuel gas-fired generators, Britain has been building wind turbines, which provide almost no electricity during frigid weather."
http://washington.../2525669
"National Grid admitted reserves of electricity could fall to wafer thin levels because a wave of coal-fired power plants have closed"
http://www.mirror...r-winter
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 10, 2013
"British Gas told cash-strapped customers to use less energy today as the supplier unveiled a "devastating" 9.2 per cent gas and electricity price hike that will push bills to record levels. "
"Chris Weston, British Gas managing director, said the cost of Government green subsidies and environmental programmes such as 'Eco' - free loft and cavity wall insulation - were to blame for almost half of the increase."
http://www.telegr...120.html
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 10, 2013
Bloomberg is a 'liberal':
""More than 50 percent of the bill European consumers are paying today has nothing to do with power generation and networks, and that's because of political decisions," said Iberdrola's Ignacio Galan. "That has already created a lot of distortions."

Energy bills rose 17 percent in four years for domestic consumers and 21 percent for industrial consumers, the utilities said today in the brochure. "
http://www.bloomb...say.html
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 10, 2013
"Wind and solar are most sensitive to prices of construction materials. As an example, a MW of installed capacity for wind requires 460 metric tons of steel and 870 m3 of concrete compared to the 98 metric tons of steel and 160 m3 of concrete for coal, and the even lower 40 metric tons of steel and 90 m3 of concrete for nuclear. Natural gas is the lowest of all, requiring a little over 3 metric tons of steel and 27 m3 of concrete per MW, the reason gas plants are the cheapest and easiest to build."
http://www.forbes...-wind/2/
RealScience
not rated yet Nov 10, 2013
How much copper wire is needed to connect all these windmills? Copper is quite expensive and burying the wire is not free.


Copper???
Aluminum is used for such transmission (and I am sure that this cost is in the Forbes figures on cost that you provided, which show wind as quite competitive on raw cost).
kochevnik
1 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2013
Birds adapting to civilization and automobiles:

http://rsbl.royal...20130417
Bob_Wallace
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 10, 2013
How much copper wire is needed to connect all these windmills? Copper is quite expensive and burying the wire is not free.


Copper???
Aluminum is used for such transmission (and I am sure that this cost is in the Forbes figures on cost that you provided, which show wind as quite competitive on raw cost).


Whatever the cost of concrete and transmission wire and how much is used, wind is now selling in the US for 4 cents per kWh. That's competitive with new CCNG and much cheaper than new coal or nuclear.

With the rising price of NG wind will soon be our cheapest new capacity source. And solar is likely only short years from grabbing second place from NG. Solar in the sunny SW is almost tied with NG right now.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Nov 11, 2013
wind is now selling in the US for 4 cents per kWh.

How much is the subsidy?
"the Obama administration is so fixated on wind power that it recently gave a California-based wind company an exemption from prosecution if a turbine kills a California condor, one of the rarest birds in the world, with only around 400 alive today. "
"Consider that many wind companies do not have to make bird kill data public. The federal government has resisted releasing data under the absurd claim that doing so would divulge industry trade secrets. Furthermore, the industry has little incentive to publicize negative information about its bird kills, especially since the federal government has clearly indicated the industry has a free pass to kill birds."
"the president is giving wind firms a guaranteed buyer that is not known for hunting for the best prices – the federal government."
""Between fiscal years 2007 and 2010, annual wind subsidies grew from $476 million to nearly $5 billion.""
WSJ
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Nov 11, 2013
"Wind power has two advantages. Green energy laws in many states require utilities to buy wind energy under long-term contracts as part of their clean-energy goals and take that power even when they don't need it. Wind farms also receive a federal tax credit of $22 for every megawatt-hour generated.

Thus, even when there is no demand for the power they produce, operators keep turbines spinning, sending their surplus to the grid because the tax credit assures them a profit. "
"Meanwhile, nuclear and coal plants must continue running even as this "negative pricing" dynamic forces them to pay grid operators to take the power they produce. "
"Prices for markets served by Exelon's Clinton and Quad Cities reactors trade below zero between 8 percent and 14 percent of off-peak hours, said Joseph Dominguez, Exelon's senior vice-president for governmental and regulatory affairs and public policy. "
http://www.bloomb...-prices-
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Nov 11, 2013
"On windy days we have so much power that wind parks are asked to shut down, yet they get paid for the power they don't even deliver. And when the wind really blows, we 'sell' surplus power to neighboring countries at negative prices. And when the wind stops blowing and when there is no sun, we have to get our power from foreign countries. In the end we pay with the loss of high-paying industrial jobs because the high price of power is making us uncompetitive. "
"So the utilities are planning to close ten thousand Megawatts of fossil fuel plant capacity which are needed in the night and winter, when the sun is not shining, or when the wind is not blowing. Accordingly, the plan is to provide a capacity subsidy for the gas and coal plants. They would be paid for not producing when they are standing by." The lesson in all of this, he said, is "if you destroy the market by a subsidy, you then need another subsidy to keep the systems from breaking apart.""
Oh what a tangled web they weave.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 11, 2013
""The Administration is clearly hand-picking which migratory bird mortality cases to pursue with an obvious preference to go after oil and gas producers," said Vitter. "For example, while three oil and gas companies faced criminal charges for killing birds, a wind energy company in California has reportedly been given a free pass to kill endangered condors and a Minnesota wind company has applied for permits to kill up to fifteen bald eagles. We obviously don't want to see indiscriminate killing of birds from any sort of energy production, yet the Administration's ridiculous inconsistencies begs questioning and clarity - clarity on why wind energy producers are let off the hook.""
http://www.epw.se...580a4672
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 11, 2013
" The CRS study concluded that crude oil development on federal lands dropped 7 percentage points between fiscal 2007-2012, even though total output rose by about 1.1 million barrels per day.

For natural gas, overall U.S. production increased 20 percent between fiscal 2008-2012 despite falling by one-third on federal lands.

Additionally, the report noted that in 2011 it took on average 307 days to get a drilling permit on federal lands. That was a 41 percent increase compared with 2006, it said. "
http://thehill.co...al-lands
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 11, 2013
"The EPA's New Source Performance Standard (NSPS), a proposed regulation for controlling carbon dioxide emissions, effectively bans coal from America's power portfolio. These ARBITRARY standards will deal a walloping blow to an industry that contributes nearly $100 billion to the U.S. economy, supports millions of jobs and generates 40 percent of the nation's electricity. "
"The EPA has chosen to stymie clean coal technology by setting emissions levels well below what is knowingly feasible for even the newest innovations in coal power plants, leaving many energy experts scratching their heads about the merits of such a policy. Even EPA's former air chief, Jeff Holmstead recently commented, "It's odd that [the EPA thinks] it's a good idea to ban new coal-fired power plants.""
" According to a recent Department of Energy (DOE) study, a coal plant built today with advanced coal technology emits on average 90 percent fewer pollutants than a plant that it replaces from the 1970s. "
Hill
djr
5 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2013
Ryggy's Forbes article seems to agree with your assessment Bob - it puts the raw cost of Wind power at 4.3 cents per Kwh. - and this from a bias article that is clearly doing everything it can to discredit wind.

Another interesting thought. This article recognizes that the major cost of wind is in the construction of the turbine - and gives the turbines a life expectancy of 20 years. What if - after the life of the initial turbine - we are able to rebuild the turbine head (perhaps blades too) - and get ourselves another 20 years - at significantly reduced cost (no new concrete base, tower, roads, wiring). Forbes puts the operational cost of a wind turbine at 1 cent per Kwh.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (9) Nov 11, 2013
Bob,


Looks to me as if Fukushima was under regulated. How did that work out?


How do you regulate against tidal waves? Are you saying natural disasters can be prevented by paperwork? I'm all ears...

Which safety regulations do you think we should remove in order to make nuclear energy less expensive?


The ones that won't even let you try to build a newer generation reactor. It's virtually impossible in this country. Once we can actually build them, THEN we can talk about specifics.

There's a large number of studies which show that it is entirely feasible to power our lives mainly with wind and solar. Storage would be needed. Other renewables make the job easier.


All those studies are fine, but there's one huge problem. What if their projections for our energy needs are off? They usually are especially from sites with an agenda :) What about 2100...3100? You do realize those graphs of projected energy needs are exponential right?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 11, 2013
he raw cost of Wind power at 4.3 cents per Kwh.

Really?
What about the other costs like waiving environmental regulations, not being fined for killing endangered birds, for forcing customers to buy your product ...?
When the govt grants a monopoly to wind and/ or solar, how do you measure the total costs?
"During former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar's time in the Obama administration he constantly touted his spearheading of commercial-scale solar projects on federal land.

He told The Denver Post's Mark Jaffe in 2011 that the locations chosen were the "sweet spots."

Well, it turns out those spots weren't so sweet after all. When an auction was held yesterday for the solar industry to bid on the federal plots in Colorado, a grand total of zero – yes, zero – bids were placed."
http://coloradope...rojects/
Why no bids?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 11, 2013
"In comments filed with the state Department of Energy Resources, National Grid and Northeast Utilities said they support the development of solar power but fear the administration's proposed plan would hike ratepayer costs dramatically at a time when cheaper renewable alternatives to solar are readily available. National Grid is predicting the cost of the state's renewable energy subsidies, which are borne by ratepayers, could hit $1 billion by 2020, with half the money going to solar."

"Ron Gerwatowski, senior vice president at National Grid, the parent of Massachusetts Electric, said solar is the most expensive renewable energy option available at more than 40 cents a kilowatt hour. By contrast, he said, onshore wind projects have recently been priced at a fixed price of 10 cents per kilowatt hour for the next 15 years. He also said the Massachusetts solar program is far more expensive than similar programs in Rhode Island and New York. "
http://www.common...zine.org
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 11, 2013
"Britain isn't known for an abundance of sunshine, but Hanergy's solar panels are designed to generate electricity from ultraviolet rays rather than sunlight. The panels do need generous government subsidies in order to be financially attractive for consumers. Solar-panel buyers in Britain can take advantage of a program requiring utilities to pay so-called feed-in and export tariffs to customers who generate their own electricity from solar and wind power. Those payments should enable customers to recoup their investment within seven years, according to Ikea."
http://www.busine...required
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (9) Nov 11, 2013
"To the stars" - no one has suggested we could do interplanetary travel using renewable energy. That's irrelevant to this discussion.


Perfectly relevant. How are we going to test the reactors? On the 60 billion dollar mission with lives hanging in the balance?

There are no problems of scale or land use. Were we to use only solar for 100% of our projected energy needs in 2050 we would need to use less than 1% of global land area.


There are problems of scale, this power source is NOT infinitely scalable. Nuclear virtually is (certainly MUCH better than solar or wind). It's partially what I was talking about in reference to energy density. Oh and which 1% (if that's even reasonable) are you going to use? That's a LOT of land.

Wind turbines have a fairly small land use. About a quarter acre per turbine. The US could generate 100% w/wind and the amount of land used would be less than four Disney Worlds.


And what climate impacts with all that energy removal?
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (9) Nov 11, 2013
http://www.forbes...yce.html

Nuclear is safer than any other PRACTICAL source of energy out there. No one has demonstrated otherwise here. Until they can I bow out of talking to people's fears. That's about you and I can't help you with that. The sky continues to be blue...
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Nov 11, 2013
"We find that at moderate wind shares (~20%) integration costs can be in the same range as generation costs of wind power and conventional plants. Integration costs further increase with growing wind shares. We conclude that integration costs can become an economic barrier to deploying variable renewable sources at high shares."
http://www.google...3RbQVEWA
Which means that the cost of wind increases after 20% of share.
But who cares how much it costs if the govt can force customers to pay cronies for wind power.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (9) Nov 11, 2013
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (9) Nov 11, 2013
Bob_Wallace
1 / 5 (9) Nov 11, 2013
Bob, how do you regulate against tidal waves? ... I'm all ears...


You build at a higher level, above the height of the previous tsunami wave. Or you build your seawall higher.

They knew.

Which safety regulations do you think we should remove...?


The ones that won't even let you try to build a newer generation reactor. It's virtually impossible in this country.


You're fine with making reactors more dangerous. OK.

We're building four new reactors in the US right now.

There's a large number of studies which show that it is entirely feasible to power our lives mainly with wind and solar.


All those studies are fine, but there's one huge problem. What if their projections for our energy needs are off? What about 2100...3100?


Population growth is slowing and levels are expected to decline.

If we need more energy it would be much harder to find sites for reactors than rooftops for solar panels.
Bob_Wallace
1 / 5 (9) Nov 11, 2013
There are problems of scale, this power source is NOT infinitely scalable. Nuclear virtually is (certainly MUCH better than solar or wind). It's partially what I was talking about in reference to energy density. Oh and which 1% (if that's even reasonable) are you going to use? That's a LOT of land.


Nuclear is not infinitely scalable. Reactors need sites with cooling water. We're unlikely to line our coasts with reactors and nuclear inland has become risky due to droughts and heat waves.
--

Wind turbines have a fairly small land use. About a quarter acre per turbine. The US could generate 100% w/wind and the amount of land used would be less than four Disney Worlds.

And what climate impacts with all that energy removal?


Roughly none. Some localized temperature and humidity changes in the immediate area of the turbine. The energy that turbines extract from the wind will be turned into heat as the wind otherwise runs into trees, buildings and the earth.
Bob_Wallace
1 / 5 (9) Nov 11, 2013
"Nuclear is safer than any other PRACTICAL source of energy out there. No one has demonstrated otherwise here. Until they can I bow out of talking to people's fears. That's about you and I can't help you with that. The sky continues to be blue...."


I assume you must be trying to say that wind, solar, geothermal, hydro and biomass/gas are not practical. The real world tells you otherwise. We are using these technologies to power our grids right now. Germany is getting about 25% of its electricity from renewables. The US is getting about 14%. Those percentages will rise.

Denmark is, at times, getting 100% of its electricity from wind.

Nuclear is not safe. With a lot of effort nuclear can be made somewhat safe. We have to use containment domes, emergency backup systems, armed guards and all sorts of other measures to keep the number of TMI, Chernobyl, Fukushima events to a minimum. And we have a lot of close calls in which we get dangerously close to melting reactors.
Bob_Wallace
1 / 5 (9) Nov 11, 2013
BTW, I don't open links posted without some explanation of what is in them and some indication that it's worth my time to open them.

I certainly don't open unexplained links to right-wing publications and crackpot sites.

YMMV
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (9) Nov 11, 2013
You build at a higher level, above the height of the previous tsunami wave. Or you build your seawall higher.


Well, my point was more how are you going to foresee all instances like this? You're not.

They knew.


No they didn't.

You're fine with making reactors more dangerous. OK.


No I'm not, and moreover they're comparatively the safest practical energy producers on the planet ATM.

We're building four new reactors in the US right now.


Three actually. We should be building hundreds.

Population growth is slowing and levels are expected to decline.


Do we use more electricity now than we did in the 1960s? It's not about population, it's about technology. As you can do more the power requirements increase irrespective of population. Non sequitur.

If we need more energy it would be much harder to find sites for reactors than rooftops for solar panels.


That was my point. Thanks for making it again.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Nov 11, 2013
One problem with so many on this site is the lack of comprehension for systems engineering, systems thinking and emergent systems. They think they know ALL the variables and that they can use force to make their visions of utopia come true.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (9) Nov 11, 2013
Nuclear is not infinitely scalable.


I said virtually. Read my post again.

Reactors need sites with cooling water.


The ones that cool with water do.

We're unlikely to line our coasts with reactors and nuclear inland has become risky due to droughts and heat waves.


Non sequitur. Not all designs need this.

Wind turbines have a fairly small land use. About a quarter acre per turbine. The US could generate 100% w/wind and the amount of land used would be less than four Disney Worlds.


I'll walk you through this. How much does your average turbine put out? How much does it cost? How may tons of rare earths in all that? Let's start there.

Roughly none.


Can I see a study on wind power generating 100% power for even conservative power estimates in 2050 saying that?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 11, 2013
Experts:
"Dr. Ken Caldeira, Senior Scientist, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution

Dr. Kerry Emanuel, Atmospheric Scientist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dr. James Hansen, Climate Scientist, Columbia University Earth Institute

Dr. Tom Wigley, Climate Scientist, University of Adelaide and the National Center for Atmospheric Research"
https://plus.goog...Csiv1xYr
When these experts agreed with AGWite watermelons, they were experts. Now, they are heretics.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (9) Nov 11, 2013
I assume you must be trying to say that wind, solar, geothermal, hydro and biomass/gas are not practical.


I'm not saying it, they aren't.

The real world tells you otherwise. We are using these technologies to power our grids right now. Germany is getting about 25% of its electricity from renewables. The US is getting about 14%. Those percentages will rise.


You can predict the future now? Subsidizing this stuff and calling it practical and economical is quite frankly hysterical. Comparing Denmark to the US is even more hysterical.

Nuclear is not safe.


It is safe, it's the safest non renewable power source. You're entitled to an opinion but not your own facts.

Modernmystic
1 / 5 (9) Nov 11, 2013
BTW, I don't open links posted without some explanation of what is in them and some indication that it's worth my time to open them.


This might come as a shock, but this aint all about you :)

I certainly don't open unexplained links to right-wing publications and crackpot sites.


Well as long as they're left wing crackpot sites you'll use them I noticed. I had a few government sites in there too. I guess it all depends on your perspective :)

Bob_Wallace
1 / 5 (9) Nov 11, 2013
"(d)espite Japan's history of tsunamis, the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, Japan's nuclear regulator, did not apply those standards. It failed to review studies of tsunami risks performed by the plant's owner, Tokyo Electric Power, known as Tepco. It also failed to ensure the development of tsunami-modeling tools compliant with international standards.

Tepco was also negligent. It knew of geological evidence that the region surrounding the plant had been periodically flooded about once every thousand years. In 2008, it performed computer simulations suggesting that a repeat of the devastating earthquake of 869 would lead to a tsunami that would inundate the plant. Yet it did not adequately follow up on either of these leads. "

http://www.nytime...tml?_r=0
Bob_Wallace
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 11, 2013
We are currently building two new reactors at the Vogtle site in Georgia. And two reactors northwest of Columbia, SC. That said, even 3 is more than your claim of none.

The amount of electricity used per person is dropping in the US and in much of the rest of the developed world. And it will continue to drop as we become even more efficient.

We can cool reactors with dry cooling towers. It adds to the expense and makes them harder to site (noisier and a bigger eyesore).

Let's jump the amount of material stuff and go right to the meaningful metric. Cost of electricity produced. Wind and solar (best price) are now around 5 cents per kWh. New nuclear, our most recent price, is 16 cents.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (9) Nov 11, 2013
A little math;

A 2.5–3 MW wind turbine can produce around 6 million kWh in a year (assuming it's got a "good spot"). The US CURRENTLY consumes 25,776 tWh. That means you'll need 4,294,333 wind turbines with an average cost of 3.5 million (just initial cost mind you).

How much money is that? :)
Bob_Wallace
1 / 5 (9) Nov 11, 2013
I can't show you a 100% wind grid study. That would make no sense.

I can show you a 99.9% wind/solar grid study. The study is not suggesting that it would be practical to power our grids on only wind and solar, they are just showing that it could be done.

In the study they did not include geothermal, hydro, biomass/gas or tidal generation. They did not utilize load-shifting. They did not engage in power trading with adjacent grids. Including those other sources and solutions would make the price much cheaper.

They also used costs for wind and solar which are already badly out of date, both are significantly cheaper now.

With all that, they demonstrated that we could power a major US grid with wind and solar for about what we pay for our electricity (all-in accounting) today.

https://docs.goog...EPo/edit

Bob_Wallace
1 / 5 (9) Nov 11, 2013
A little math;

A 2.5–3 MW wind turbine can produce around 6 million kWh in a year (assuming it's got a "good spot"). The US CURRENTLY consumes 25,776 tWh. That means you'll need 4,294,333,333 wind turbines with an average cost of 3.5 million (just initial cost mind you).

How much money is that? :)


In 2010, the US used 4,143 TWh (terawatt hours) of electricity. (11,300,000 MWh per day.)

It would take 375,415 3 MW turbines with an average CF of 43% to produce 4,143 TWh of electricity.

How much is 4,413 TWh wind-produced electricity at 4c/kWh?

How much is 4,413 TWh reactor-produced electricity at 16c/kWh?
Bob_Wallace
1 / 5 (9) Nov 11, 2013
Nuclear is not safe.


It is safe, it's the safest non renewable power source. You're entitled to an opinion but not your own facts.


Please describe to me how wind turbines and solar panels bring more danger into our lives than do nuclear reactors.

Just list the facts....
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (9) Nov 11, 2013
In 2010 the US used 25,776 tWh

http://en.wikiped...d_States

Please describe to me how wind turbines and solar panels bring more danger into our lives than do nuclear reactors.


I never said they did. Please show me where you saw me say that.

The math on that BTW comes out to 15,030,165,500,000 dollars.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Nov 11, 2013
How much is 4,413 TWh wind-produced electricity at 4c/kWh?

How much is 4,413 TWh reactor-produced electricity at 16c/kWh?


What is the cost of having an idling gas/coal/nuclear generation capacity when the wind stops blowing?
Bob_Wallace
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 11, 2013
I stated that nuclear was not safe.

You replied "It is safe, it's the safest non renewable power source. You're entitled to an opinion but not your own facts."

I now realize that I misread your post. You said that nuclear is a non-renewable power source.

Now, is nuclear more or less safe than natural gas? You don't need to answer that. I'm not interested in that issue.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (9) Nov 11, 2013
How much is 4,413 TWh wind-produced electricity at 4c/kWh?

How much is 4,413 TWh reactor-produced electricity at 16c/kWh?


What is the cost of having an idling gas/coal/nuclear generation capacity when the wind stops blowing?


Good point! I guess I'd have to about double that figure to insure no black outs or brown outs on a consistent basis?

I'm not interested in that issue.


As I suspected and now I'm a little disappointed I spent all this time discussing it.

You're not interested because you want renewables period. You're not even interested in a broad discussion of energy production and policy.

I should have known, but I always get sucked in.
RealScience
2 / 5 (4) Nov 11, 2013
@mystic - I hate to interrupt a serious discussion, but 25 tWh is the TOTAL U.S. energy use, including the waste heat from nuclear and fossil-fuel power plants.

A more appropriate figure for wind is the total electricity use for the U.S., which is ~4.5 tWh per year.
Bob_Wallace
1 / 5 (9) Nov 11, 2013
Whatever the cost of building wind turbines, the cost of electricity produced is somewhere between 3x and 4x the cost of electricity from a new nuclear reactors.

Overnight costs are only one part of a LCOE calculation. Financing and operating costs must be included. Wind farms are mostly overnight costs. They build quickly which minimizes finex and their operating costs are low. Second only to solar.

Teasing out one part of the cost package and trying to make a point is not meaningful. It's the total cost and value to the grid that are important.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 11, 2013
"The Kochs are by no means perfect and have benefited from big government on occasion by their own admission, but they generally call for a shrinking state. This believe it or not is not in any industrialist's best interest. Big government and big business are good friends.

It is far scarier when a super rich guys advocate for bigger government. They (think Soros, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates) can sell themselves as advocates of the greater good through larger government, while at the same time expanding their wealth. It's the "I'm doing good so I deserve to get rich even if the taxpayers have to pay for it" mentality. Al Gore comes to mind. So does Tom Steyer."
http://www.agains...himself/
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 11, 2013
You're not interested because you want renewables period.

AGWism is a religion.
djr
not rated yet Nov 12, 2013
"AGWism is a religion."

Don't you just hate religion? Me too.....
djr
not rated yet Nov 12, 2013
Here is a neat quote aimed at the Ryggy's of the world -

"it's not hard to find people on the internet complaining that wind is not suited for providing grid stabilisation, it makes about as much sense as complaining that steel wool is not good for polishing your car. It's not supposed to be!"

Taken from yet another article supporting your assessment of wind as being a cheap and viable option Bob. Here we are talking 4.1 cents - vs 5.6 cents for fossil fuels. I am sure the starving old people in England whose lives will be saved by the development of this cheap power will be very happy.

From - http://cleantechn...t-price/
Bob_Wallace
1 / 5 (9) Nov 12, 2013
At the base of everything is belief.

One either believes that the universe follows the laws of physics or one doesn't.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 12, 2013
The true believers believe wind can be all and do all REPLACING fossil and nuclear.
And they know it costs too much and therefore must use the state to force consumers to pay political cronies to build more windmills and force consumers to buy that power.
And when the wind stops blowing, the true believers say too bad, you use too much power in the first place.
djr
5 / 5 (1) Nov 12, 2013
"The true believers believe wind can be all and do all REPLACING fossil and nuclear."

Interesting. I have never met anyone who says that. A lot of very smart engineers believe that IN TIME (important emphasis), renewables WILL replace fossil fuels as our primary energy source. This will be a complex combination of wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, wave, biofuels, CHP, (many believe nuclear), and of course storage.

Now there are some ludites on the other side who hate on renewables. Who believe that although fossil fuels have received massive government support for hundreds of years - that they are going to oppose renewables, and any government support of progress.

History of course is in the process of leaving said ludites in the same dustbin as the flat earthers, and the religionists. Progress just has a funny way of doing it's own thing - losers are just losers.
djr
not rated yet Nov 12, 2013
It is so informative - how many on this kind of forum rail against the government support of renewables, but ignore the support given over the years to the fossil fuel industry. Here is an interesting report -

http://www.odi.or...8668.pdf

An interesting quote "Subsidies to fossil fuels are also making it difficult to compete with artificially low energy prices, therefore discouraging private investors from putting money into clean energy technologies."

From http://cleantechn...hnica%29

Poor poor fossil fuel industry.....
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 12, 2013
" the ethanol era has proven far more damaging to the environment than politicians promised and much worse than the government admits today.'
" Five million acres of land set aside for conservation - more than Yellowstone, Everglades and Yosemite National Parks combined - have vanished on Obama's watch.

Landowners filled in wetlands. They plowed into pristine prairies, releasing carbon dioxide that had been locked in the soil."
"the president's push to reduce greenhouse gases and curtail global warming, his administration has allowed so-called green energy to do not-so-green things."
"When Congress passed the ethanol mandate, it required the EPA to thoroughly study the effects on water and air pollution."
"But the administration never actually conducted the required air and water studies"
"Every year, the EPA predicts millions of gallons of clean fuel will be made from agricultural waste. Every year, the government is wrong."
http://apnews.myw...TG2.html
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 12, 2013
massive government support for hundreds of years -

Oil was first discovered in PA ~1850s
"Increasingly after 1911 there was active governmental intervention
in the petroleum industry, and the industry itself, as well as
the State, must bear a fundamental responsibility for that interventionism.
Historically a substantial amount of petroleum regulation
and legislation was supported, in whole or in part, by the industry
in an attempt to further its own short-run business objectives. Unable
to achieve "monopoly" power in a free market, various industry
representatives and trade associations sought to transform the
free petroleum market into a regulated and controlled market."
"THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY:
A Historical Study in Power
D. T. Armentano"
2013-1911 = 102 years does not equal 'hundreds of years'.
The oil industry did quite well before any govt 'help'.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 12, 2013
"But it was during the depression of the l930s, and particularly
with respect to the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933, that
all measure of pretense concerning "free enterprise" was abandoned
by oil businessmen.52 Under the act's separate oil-code section,
which was actually written by the American Petroleum Institute,
the production of crude oil was to be coordinated by law with demand
(as determined by the state and its political clients). State proration
laws were to receive federal support. Interstate and foreign
shipments of oil were restricted to quotas determined by Secretary
of the Interior Ickes and a Petroleum Administrative Board. The
Reserve Act of 1932 had already imposed import duties on crude
and even higher duties on refined products, mostly at the urging of
the IPAA. By the end of 1933, in sum, government and business interests
had succeeded in cartelizing petroleum production."
The socialist years of FDR.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 12, 2013
"The political-economy message of this study should be apparent.
Monopoly power in petroleum has not been a product of the free
market; it has resulted solely from political interventionism. Furthermore,
that power has not increased industrial concentration
(Exxon's share of refining was 9.5 percent in 1920 and 9.5 percent
in 1977), nor has it brought the companies exorbitant profits (the
earnings of the major oil companies are entirely consistent with
competition). The subsidization and regulation that promised ex
ante short-run gains has generated, and continues to generate, ex
post welfare losses for the society as a whole."
"THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY:
A Historical Study in Power
D. T. Armentano"
A free market benefited the oil industry and the consumer until 1911. What evidence does the AGWite socialist have to support govt subsidies will benefit consumers and the 'green' industry?
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (8) Nov 12, 2013
@mystic - I hate to interrupt a serious discussion, but 25 tWh is the TOTAL U.S. energy use, including the waste heat from nuclear and fossil-fuel power plants.

A more appropriate figure for wind is the total electricity use for the U.S., which is ~4.5 tWh per year.


So wind energy has no waste heat? It's 100% efficient?
Bob_Wallace
1 / 5 (9) Nov 12, 2013
Total energy use includes things like fuel for transportation. Electricity is only part of that number.

Someone (you?) used the number for total energy in place of the number for annual electricity use.

Modernmystic
1 / 5 (9) Nov 12, 2013
Total energy use includes things like fuel for transportation. Electricity is only part of that number.


Um...we won't be using fuel for transportation if we're using all wind power will we? Isn't that kind of the point you all are trying to make? Or are fossil fuels OK for that stuff?

I assume CO2 emissions are just as bad from cars and trucks and trains as they are from coal fired plants. We'd want them all to be wind charged or solar charged or hydro charged...the point is charged. Moreover I don't concede the point that that is what the number refers to unless someone can point me to a credible site that breaks it down by terrawatt hour.

My point was to illuminate the community to just how stupendously expensive it would be to convert to wind power to run a modern advanced industrial economy in 2010...to say nothing of 2100...
Bob_Wallace
1 / 5 (9) Nov 12, 2013
The point I made in my previous post was that you used an incorrect number. Nothing more.

You seemed to not have grasped that fact when it was first pointed out.

Now, on to a different topic. No, it will not be a good idea to keep using fossil fuels for transportation. We need to move to either EVs or FCEVs fueled with renewable fuel.

If you want a credible source for US energy use then just check the latest DOE/EIA energy report. The 2011 report was published September 2012. The 2012 report is likely held up by the Republican government stoppage.

http://www.eia.go...ious.cfm

You can get non-finalized numbers from their monthly reports.

Bob_Wallace
1 / 5 (9) Nov 12, 2013
My point was to illuminate the community to just how stupendously expensive it would be to convert to wind power to run a modern advanced industrial economy in 2010...to say nothing of 2100...


Let's start by acknowledging that all individual generation "plants" wear out and have to be replaced at some point. The US coal and nuclear fleets are aging and will have to be replaced over the next few decades.

The issue will be what to use as the replacement. Wind, solar, geothermal at well under 10c/kWh or coal and nuclear at well over 10c/kWh.

It is money we will spend. Do we buy the most expensive or the most affordable generation for ourselves?
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 12, 2013
Wind, solar, geothermal at well under 10c/kWh or coal and nuclear at well over 10c/kWh.

But wind and solar are not predictable.
How do you account for that in the total cost?
How many fossil fuel/nuclear plants per wind/solar will be required to produce stable power 24/7/365?
And does the wind/solar included the govt mandated forced buying program?
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (9) Nov 12, 2013
The point I made in my previous post was that you used an incorrect number. Nothing more.

You seemed to not have grasped that fact when it was first pointed out.


Well that was the issue I was pointing out. I don't believe it is an incorrect number. Unless you can point out where we might be using something other than electricity if we're running all our power needs off wind. They might include things like ox carts in those figures (seriously no sarcasm intended).

That's one of the problems with excluding fossil fuels from your view of policy, or rather ANYTHING that isn't renewable. It's all electricity, or am I missing something?
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (9) Nov 12, 2013
The issue will be what to use as the replacement. Wind, solar, geothermal at well under 10c/kWh or coal and nuclear at well over 10c/kWh.


It all depends on who you ask. I don't accept those numbers. Why not use these?

http://www.world-...r-Power/
Bob_Wallace
1 / 5 (9) Nov 12, 2013
Well that was the issue I was pointing out. I don't believe it is an incorrect number. Unless you can point out where we might be using something other than electricity if we're running all our power needs off wind. They might include things like ox carts in those figures (seriously no sarcasm intended).

That's one of the problems with excluding fossil fuels from your view of policy, or rather ANYTHING that isn't renewable. It's all electricity, or am I missing something?


The number was incorrectly used because the discussion was about current electricity consumption, not about current energy consumption. Electricity/energy - different words.

Now, do you want to discuss getting (almost) all of our energy (energy, not electricity) from wind?

I won't go there. Going 100% wind makes no sense.

If you want to discuss getting (almost) all of our energy (energy, not electricity) from renewable sources I can do that.
Bob_Wallace
1 / 5 (9) Nov 12, 2013
... what to use as the replacement. Wind, etc. at well under 10c/kWh or coal/nuclear at well over 10c/kWh.


It all depends on who you ask. I don't accept those numbers. Why not use these?

http://www.world-...r-Power/


Because they are incorrect if we use current US prices. Let's look at a couple from the "Actual Cost of Electricity (US cents/kWh) table down the page a ways....

Onshore wind - 5c to 23c/kWh. During 2011 and 2012 the average PPA for wind in the US was 4c/kWh. Can't average 5-24 and end up anywhere close to 4c.

http://www1.eere....port.pdf

PV solar - 12c - 62c/kWh. During this last year there have been multiple solar PPAs signed for less than 10c/kWh. As low as 5c and with no inflation adjustment built in.

http://renewecono...ts-75962

The most current price we have for nuclear is 16c.

ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 12, 2013
Is the wind price unsubsidized, meaning the govt is not forcing anyone to buy the power, and does the cost include the backup needed when the wind stops blowing?
djr
not rated yet Nov 12, 2013
Ryggy says "2013-1911 = 102 years does not equal 'hundreds of years'."

But Ryggy is trying to participate in a discussion about energy - when he does not even understand that coal is also a fossil fuel. Here is a link for anyone who wants to research how governments have been supporting fossil fuels (and I am not against that) for hundreds of years - http://cen.acs.or...ies.html

A quote for Ryggy - "which includes federal and state aid. Coal, Pfund notes, benefits from a host of centuries-old programs that signal a rich history of aid, which is intertwined with the development of the nation."

I guess it is no big deal that we have someone on the comments section - who demonstrates such a fundamental lack of understanding of the issues at hand - but wants to spam the internet with such uninformed garbage. It is informative in terms of understanding how much work we have to do.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 12, 2013
governments have been supporting fossil fuels

For hundreds of years that was the best fuel available to make steam. Dung, wood didn't have the energy density.
BTW, did any govt force anyone to buy coal for fuel?
djr
not rated yet Nov 12, 2013
"Is the wind price unsubsidized,"

Why would we insist on removing subsidies for wind - while leaving subsidies on the established energy industries? Here is an interesting quote - ""The federal government should get rid of permanent energy subsidies for all energy sources, including fossil fuels, nuclear, solar, wind, biofuels. This would force everyone to innovate, compete and win -- or lose -- on their own merits.

"

From - http://www.greent...newables
djr
not rated yet Nov 12, 2013
"For hundreds of years that was the best fuel available to make steam."

Wow - who just missed the point (yet again)? You claimed that fossil fuels had not been receiving government support for hundreds of years. You were wrong. You can't follow a very simple discussion.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (9) Nov 12, 2013
The number was incorrectly used because the discussion was about current electricity consumption, not about current energy consumption. Electricity/energy - different words.


In this case they really aren't. Let me try to explain again. We'll have to do all transport as electricity. All heating etc. If you would, tell me specifically what should be excluded from that number assuming we're going all renewables.

If you want to discuss getting (almost) all of our energy (energy, not electricity) from renewable sources I can do that.


The two are virtually synonymous if you're talking about renewables. In that economy energy is electricity and electricity is energy. Tell me where I'm missing a piece.

The most current price we have for nuclear is 16c.


According to who? Do they have the same agenda you do? Why should I believe left wing crackpots over right wing ones?
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (9) Nov 12, 2013
If I'm reading this universitiy study correctly Nuclear is roughly 8-10 cents/kwh. About half what you say it is.

http://www.bebr.u...2012.pdf

In the estimates you're putting forward for wind power, are they straight costs or do they take into account you'll need to multiply those figures by 1.6 because wind is idle more than half the time?

In any case I'm baffled what you have against nuclear. It is safer than any non-renewable other than hydro, and it is AGW friendly. What exactly is it?
Bob_Wallace
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 12, 2013
If I'm reading this universitiy study correctly Nuclear is roughly 8-10 cents/kwh. About half what you say it is.

http://www.bebr.u...2012.pdf


The UK government in the final stage of contracting for a new reactor at Hinkley Point. They seem to have reached an agreement with French and Chinese companies to provide electricity for 16 cents/kWh.

I really don't care what someone has calculated the price might be when I'm able to at actual, real world prices.

Since 2009 we have had four open bid opportunities for new reactors. The ones in Ontario Canada and San Antonio TX were for completed (turnkey) reactors. No more bid low, deliver high. Both lowest bids would have meant electricity for around 20c/kWh.

There was an open bidding in Turkey for delivered electricity. The lowest bid was 21c/kWh.

Now the UK at 16c/kWh.

I'll take those four real world numbers over someone's guess.
Bob_Wallace
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 12, 2013
Here's a good diagram of today's energy situation in the US.

http://www.eia.go...gram.cfm

I believe that as time progresses the US, and the rest of the world, will use less petroleum, natural gas, coal and nuclear and replace them with renewable energy.

Now is your issue whether or not this is feasible?
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (11) Nov 12, 2013
Those "real world" estimates don't mean much, because people pay more for or less for power from country to country due to tax schemes, regulation, and a host of other reasons YOU ALREADY KNOW :)

Go fish.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Nov 12, 2013
Define 'subsidy'.
I define a subsidy as the state interferes in the market forcing people to pay more for a product they should.
Forcing ethanol to be purchased from the US is subsidy. Forcing consumers to pay higher prices for 'green' energy is a subsidy.
Accelerating depreciation of capital is not a subsidy.
Bob_Wallace
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 12, 2013
Those "real world" estimates don't mean much, because people pay more for or less for power from country to country due to tax schemes, regulation, and a host of other reasons YOU ALREADY KNOW :)

Go fish.


Sorry, Charlie.

The four real world prices I gave you are for wholesale electricity cost. All expressed in US dollars. No subsidies or taxes are involved.

Those are the best prices the nuclear industry was able to deliver in open bidding.

To claim that it is possible to deliver nuclear electricity for less means that one would have to be willing to believe that there are companies who could produce electricity for less, but for some unknown reason, decided to not bid for the business. Companies that did not want to earn money.

Taking that stance puts one in tinfoil hat country.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Nov 12, 2013
In this case they really aren't. Let me try to explain again. We'll have to do all transport as electricity. All heating etc. If you would, tell me specifically what should be excluded from that number assuming we're going all renewables
Did somebody mention this already?

"The basic element of the infrastructure for hydrogen economy is a network of superconducting pipelines carrying simultaneously liquid hydrogen and loss-free electricity."

-Although quenches would be notable events

"a loud bang as the energy in the magnetic field is converted to heat, and rapid boil-off of the cryogenic fluid."

-Although it couldnt be too much worse than this
http://www.youtub...ibjFOToM

-Or maybe it could
http://www.youtub...IHQvTOzs
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 12, 2013
"Massachusetts' utilities National Grid, Northeast Utilities and Unitil have negotiated power purchase agreements (PPAs) for 565 megawatts of electricity capacity from existing and proposed wind farms in New Hampshire and Maine that would provide electricity at wholesale rates of approximately 8 cents per kilowatt-hour. "
"A 2012 study completed by the American Tradition Institute estimates the cost of onshore wind electricity to be between 15 and 19 cents per kilowatt-hour. According to the report, wind's principal benefit is to supply energy rather than capacity, which means that part of the cost of wind has to include the expense of maintaining and operating other generation to offset the intermittent nature of onshore wind farms"
http://www.ctmirr...nd-power
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 12, 2013
"Ignoring how competitive markets operate-and pretending that wind energy is exempt from the basic rules of economics-will not change the fact that windpower is an expensive, unpredictable resource that cannot compete without enormous public hand-outs. If the PTC were permitted to expired today, the wind industry might be forced to increase its efficiencies and lower project costs, but the effect on electricity prices at large would likely go unnoticed. "
http://www.windac...VHXffnKg
djr
not rated yet Nov 12, 2013
So Ryggy's link shows that in Massachusetts - wind is being sold at a wholesale price of 8 cents per Kwh. But then Ryggy cites a study that shows that wind costs between 15 and 19 cents. So Ryggy can't even do basic math and figure out when someone is telling a whopper. Once again Ryggy gets a big fat F for innability to understands the basics of the subject at hand.

What every you try to prove Ryggy - the facts are that wind is a cheap viable energy source - and the proof of the pudding is in what is really happening in the real world - of which you are oblivious.
Bob_Wallace
1 / 5 (9) Nov 12, 2013
"Wind energy prices have been falling since 2009, and now rival previous lows. Lower wind turbine prices and installed project costs, along with improved capacity factors, are enabling aggressive wind power pricing. After topping out at nearly $70/MWh in 2009, the average levelized long-term price from wind power sales agreements signed in 2011/2012 – many of which were for projects built in 2012 – fell to around $40/MWh nationwide."

http://newscenter...ime-low/

$40/MWh = 4 cents per kWh.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (10) Nov 13, 2013
Sorry, Charlie.

The four real world prices I gave you are for wholesale electricity cost. All expressed in US dollars. No subsidies or taxes are involved.


Where's your source again for those numbers? Who crunched them?

I'll also ask again if those wind numbers take into account the fact that you have to install more than double the capacity of a traditional power plant because more than half the time they aren't producing anything other than ugly views on landscapes.
djr
not rated yet Nov 13, 2013
Modernmystic: "I'll also ask again if those wind numbers take into account the fact that you have to install more than double the capacity of a traditional power plant because more than half the time they aren't producing anything other than ugly views on landscapes."

This issue has been dealt with so many times on this board. The numbers Bob is giving you is real world ppa (power purchase agreements). In other words - this is how much the wind farm owner is selling the electricity at to the utility. It is a real world number - nobody did a study and crunched a number - which is what you and Ryggy keep referencing. The production tax credit adds a couple of cents to each Kwh. Fossil fuels also have government supports that are keeping them artificially low too (see several of my posts above on that topic).

Renewables do not have to be backed up 100%. Currently we can integrate wind up to about 30%. In the future that number will increase. No one is suggesting 100% wind.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (10) Nov 13, 2013
This issue has been dealt with so many times on this board. The numbers Bob is giving you is real world ppa (power purchase agreements). In other words - this is how much the wind farm owner is selling the electricity at to the utility.


So when you buy something at the store you actually believe it reflects only the labor, energy, and raw materials that went into the product? Economics is not that simple. If you want an honest comparison you have to take into account probably 20 to 30 other factors. Prices are what the market will bear, they absolutely do not reflect an accurate picture of everything that went behind that good or service by the time it gets to market.

Even more true if the government is subsidizing hither and tither all over the economic landscape (which ours is), and fixing prices. That's a LOT of relative factors to untangle.

Modernmystic
1 / 5 (10) Nov 13, 2013
Renewables do not have to be backed up 100%. Currently we can integrate wind up to about 30%. In the future that number will increase. No one is suggesting 100% wind.


Neither was I. I wasn't suggesting anything at all. I was STATING that in order to have the SAME capacity as a traditional power plant you have to install more than half the "sticker" capacity in wind turbines. That's a fact, and that's all I was saying.

Then I was ASKING if that huge factor had been taken into account when calculating wind prices for X capacity/generation you get out of wind.

You know the reason we HAVE economists is to crunch numbers and look for "hidden" costs and relationships and not just look at a shelf price and say "huh well that's how much that costs"...you must know that...
Bob_Wallace
1 / 5 (10) Nov 13, 2013
"I was STATING that in order to have the SAME capacity as a traditional power plant you have to install more than half the "sticker" capacity in wind turbines."

If you have a wind farm returning a 40% CF and a nuclear plant returning an 80% CF then, yes, to get equal outputs the wind farm would need to have 2x the nameplate capacity.

But that means essentially nothing. CF goes into the LCOE formula. Lower CF makes price higher. When we see reports of 4c wind and 16c nuclear CF has already played it's role.

Here's a LCOE calculator. Put some different CF numbers in and watch the price change.

http://www.nrel.g...coe.html

As for hidden costs, true, they are separate from the selling price. Direct subsidies are generally acknowledged. 1c of the 16c for Hinkley nuclear is subsidy and I try to state the wind/solar ~1.5c subsidy when I post.

What we don't see are the hidden costs for nuclear. Liability coverage, etc.

Bob_Wallace
1 / 5 (10) Nov 13, 2013
Sorry, Charlie.

The four real world prices I gave you are for wholesale electricity cost. All expressed in US dollars. No subsidies or taxes are involved.


Where's your source again for those numbers? Who crunched them?

I'll also ask again if those wind numbers take into account the fact that you have to install more than double the capacity of a traditional power plant because more than half the time they aren't producing anything other than ugly views on landscapes.


Please list the specific numbers you wish documented.

I have given the links to 4c wind and 5c solar multiple times. If you need I'll post them again. Or there other numbers you question?
Bob_Wallace
1 / 5 (10) Nov 13, 2013
This issue has been dealt with so many times on this board. The numbers Bob is giving you is real world ppa (power purchase agreements). In other words - this is how much the wind farm owner is selling the electricity at to the utility.


So when you buy something at the store you actually believe it reflects only the labor, energy, and raw materials that went into the product? Economics is not that simple. If you want an honest comparison you have to take into account probably 20 to 30 other factors. Prices are what the market will bear, they absolutely do not reflect an accurate picture of everything that went behind that good or service by the time it gets to market.



True. Right now taxpayers in Japan are faced with a $100 billion and growing cost of cleaning up Fukushima. That was a hidden cost.

It's a hidden cost every US taxpayer faces - accepting liability beyond what the nuclear industry is required to cover. (The first $12 billion.)
djr
not rated yet Nov 13, 2013
"Then I was ASKING if that huge factor had been taken into account when calculating wind prices for X capacity/generation you get out of wind."

The answer to that is no. If you were planning to get 100% of your power from wind - then the answer would be yes. Again - currently we are able to integrate about 30% wind on to the grid. The numbers Bob gives are actual purchase costs.

Whatever your source for power - you cannot match supply perfectly to demand - as demand is not flat. You can overbuild your baseload, or fill in with peakers. So the question is simply how much excess do you have to build - in order to be able meet maximum demand. We are learning how to integrate sources like wind and solar using load shift, transmission, storage, etc. Renewables are going to push the cost of power down, and are better for the environment - that is just reality.
djr
not rated yet Nov 13, 2013
"So when you buy something at the store you actually believe it reflects only the labor, energy, and raw materials that went into the product?"

No - I think that the cost I pay at the store - is the actual cost of that item. Why do you need to make it so complex? If I pay $1 for an item - then the cost of that item is $1. PPa's are the actual cost the wind farm owner is charging - it is as simple as that.

ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 13, 2013
Why do you need to make it so complex? If I pay $1 for an item - then the cost of that item is $1.

It is complex when the govt forces people to buy products at less than a free market value.
Right now taxpayers in Japan are faced with a $100 billion and growing cost of cleaning up Fukushima.

If TEPCO was a private company, why are taxpayers forced to pay?
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (10) Nov 13, 2013
True. Right now taxpayers in Japan are faced with a $100 billion and growing cost of cleaning up Fukushima.


Nope. 20 million so far, and the estimates for full decommissioning are nowhere near 100 billion.

http://en.wikiped..._cleanup

Whatever your source for power - you cannot match supply perfectly to demand - as demand is not flat.


True, but it's MUCH easier to do with traditional power plants than wind or solar. Hydro isn't really a problem. That's a simple fact that isn't going to change. So wind and solar will never be CLOSE in efficiency terms as a traditional power plant. You're going to have a lot more infrastructure sitting idle and that has a huge cost.

djr
1 / 5 (1) Nov 13, 2013
Modernmystic - please answer this question directly. Ryggy will never answer this question - that is because he is stupid - constantly advertises his stupidity - but wants to spam the internet with his ill informed opinion anyways.

You stated - "Nope. 20 million so far, and the estimates for full decommissioning are nowhere near 100 billion."

That is factually incorrect - and is a very simple fact to research. Here is one article for you.

http://www.reuter...20131112

A quote - "That $80 billion excludes the cost of decommissioning Fukushima's six reactors, a process expected to take decades."

Here is the question - 'If your level of understanding of the topic is THAT poor - why don't you just read the comments of folks like Bob - who clearly have a good understanding of the subject matter - instead of spamming the internet with your ill informed opinion?
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (10) Nov 13, 2013
That is factually incorrect - and is a very simple fact to research. Here is one article for you.


No it isn't factually incorrect, and I already provided a link to my research and I'll do it again.

http://en.wikiped..._cleanup

Some quotes:

"Cleanup costs have been 1.7 billion yen (20 million$ US),"

"Decommissioning the plant is evaluated to cost tens of billions of dollars and last 40 years"

..who clearly have a good understanding of the subject matter - instead of spamming the internet with your ill informed opinion?


It isn't that poor. Does the fact that your source disagrees with mine mean YOUR understanding is poor? No. It means we have two sources that don't agree. I like mine, you like yours. Now kindly get the hell off your high horse :)

(on edit) actually YOUR source is saying Bob is wrong too, because 30 billion is nowhere near 100. So you're informed, but can't comprehend what you're reading?
Bob_Wallace
1 / 5 (10) Nov 13, 2013
10/30/2013

"Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has promised that the government will take primary responsibility for containing contaminated water at Fukushima, saying the situation is under control.

The clean-up process is expected to take at least 30 years and cost more than $100 billion.
....
The government effectively nationalised Tepco last year with a taxpayer-funded rescue."

http://www.reuter...20131030

That is a statement from the Japanese government. The new owners.

11/07/13

" The cost of the clean-up and compensation after Japan's Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster may double to $125 billion, the plant's operator warned Wednesday.

Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) said decontamination of irradiated areas and compensating those whose jobs or home lives have been affected would cost much more than the five trillion yen it estimated in April."

http://www.google...stednews (Can't fit total link - OFC)
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (9) Nov 13, 2013
http://fukushima..../cleanup

"Decommissioning the four reactors is estimated to cost at least 1.15 trillion yen [$15 billion (USD)]"

We can do this all day....
Bob_Wallace
1 / 5 (10) Nov 13, 2013
"True, but it's MUCH easier to do with traditional power plants than wind or solar."

The chore of matching demand to supply is the same with renewables and traditional generation. Utilities report the effort to be roughly the same. Except dealing with unexpected large thermal plant outages are much more difficult.

"Hydro isn't really a problem."

Hydro, except for run of the river, is largely dispatchable. It serves as a fill in for both renewables and thermal plants.

"So wind and solar will never be CLOSE in efficiency terms as a traditional power plant. You're going to have a lot more infrastructure sitting idle and that has a huge cost."

A solar panel sitting idle 75% of the time and burning $0 in fuel at all times produces cheaper electricity than a nuclear reactor.

A wind turbine sitting idle 15% of the time and burning $0 in fuel at all times produces cheaper electricity than a coal plant.

Efficiency, like CF, is built into the selling price.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (10) Nov 13, 2013
A solar panel sitting idle 75% of the time and burning $0 in fuel at all times produces cheaper electricity than a nuclear reactor.

A wind turbine sitting idle 15% of the time and burning $0 in fuel at all times produces cheaper electricity than a coal plant.


The chore of matching demand to supply is the same with renewables and traditional generation.


Of course it is, we weren't talking about that. Good GOD man. We're talking about the fact that the sun doesn't shine all the time and the wind doesn't blow all the time. Electricity flows the EXACT same way no matter how it's generated.

Well if you ignore obvious things opportunity loss for land use for other projects, maintenance, replacement ect etc etc.....

Bob_Wallace
1 / 5 (10) Nov 13, 2013
http://fukushima.ans.org/report/cleanup

"Decommissioning the four reactors is estimated to cost at least 1.15 trillion yen [$15 billion (USD)]"

We can do this all day....


We could, but I see nothing to be gained.

TEPCO and the Japanese government gave lowball estimates early on in the process. If you go back in time and use one of those estimates you'll be able to claim lower costs.

Non-TEPCO/government sources have set costs much higher. As high as $250 billion.

Over time TEPCO and the Japanese government have admitted higher and higher cost estimates. I see no sense in using some number less than $100/125 billion that was given months ago when we have numbers which are less than two weeks old.

I suspect that TEPCO and the Japanese government are still lowballing, but that remains to be seen.

My opinion is that one uses "best numbers available" or stands to delude themselves.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (8) Nov 13, 2013
fix...

A solar panel sitting idle 75% of the time and burning $0 in fuel at all times produces cheaper electricity than a nuclear reactor.

A wind turbine sitting idle 15% of the time and burning $0 in fuel at all times produces cheaper electricity than a coal plant.


Well if you ignore obvious things opportunity loss for land use for other projects, maintenance, replacement ect etc etc.....

The chore of matching demand to supply is the same with renewables and traditional generation.


Of course it is, we weren't talking about that. Good GOD man. We're talking about the fact that the sun doesn't shine all the time and the wind doesn't blow all the time. Electricity flows the EXACT same way no matter how it's generated.

ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 13, 2013
BW asserted Japan was not a socialist state so why did they so quickly take respectability for TEPCO and why should Japan's taxpayers foot the bill if the failure was entirely the fault of a private enterprise?
A solar panel sitting idle 75% of the time and burning $0 in fuel at all times produces cheaper electricity than a nuclear reactor.

A wind turbine sitting idle 15% of the time and burning $0 in fuel at all times produces cheaper electricity than a coal plant.


There are costs for sitting idle: interest on capital, maintenance, deterioration due to weather and UV damage, entropy,...
djr
not rated yet Nov 13, 2013
Modernmystic " I like mine, you like yours. Now kindly get the hell off your high horse :)"

So you are no different than Ryggy. You are not interested in facts - just very skilled at digging up sources that allow you to show the world how ignorant you are. Just because you can find a source - does not make it a fact. The fact is that cleaning up Fukushima is going to cost hundreds of billions of dollars. From your own wiki article. "Decommissioning the plant is evaluated to cost tens of billions of dollars and last 40 years.[3" and more importantly - "Cleanup costs have been 1.7 billion yen (20 million$ US), but will not be fully known until the cleanup is completed "

All I am trying to say is that folks like you and Ryggy poison this kind of site. I guess just best to ignore you - and hope you are in the minority.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 13, 2013
but will not be fully known until the cleanup is completed "

But it is a fact will cost hundreds of billions? Likely paid out to other crony businesses of the state.

No comment about how Japan is a socialist state and TEPCO was like any other crony business controlled by the state?
Bob_Wallace
1 / 5 (10) Nov 14, 2013


Of course it is, we weren't talking about that. Good GOD man. We're talking about the fact that the sun doesn't shine all the time and the wind doesn't blow all the time. Electricity flows the EXACT same way no matter how it's generated.



I have no idea what you're shouting about.

Matching supply to load is a chore that grids do 24/365 year after year. If you've got supply you can't quickly turn on and off then you have to work with that. You can't turn on the Sun or start the wind blowing when you want. You can't push a button and turn a reactor off or turn one one quickly.

In both cases you need some combination of storage, dispatchable generation and load-shifting.

It's simply a question of which is cheapest, safest and fastest to install.

Since we have a fair amount of storage, dispatchable generation and some load-shifting already and wind/solar are the cheapest, safest and fastest to install that's what we're doing.

The question is very
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 14, 2013
" Having demanded policies to make energy more expensive, whether cap and trade or carbon taxes, greens now complain that nuclear energy is too expensive. Having spent decades advocating heavy subsidies for renewable energy, greens claim that we should turn away from nuclear energy because it requires subsidies. And having spent the last decade describing global warming as the greatest market failure in human history, greens tell us that, in fact, we should trust the market to decide what kind of energy system we should have. "
"Brune, Bryk, and Jones all claimed that we don't need nuclear because renewables are cheaper and solar costs have come down dramatically in recent years. But solar still reliably costs twice as much as nuclear according to the US Energy Information Agency, without accounting for the huge indirect costs rooftop solar shifts onto other ratepayers."
http://thebreakth...eltdown/
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 14, 2013
"After the world's leading climate scientists called on environmentalists to support nuclear power two weeks ago, mainstream green groups went on CNN to declare atomic energy too expensive. The goal was to distance mainstream environmentalists from shrill antinuclear activists like Helen Caldicott (above left). But after decades of calling for higher energy prices through cap and trade or carbon pricing — as well as subsidies for expensive renewable energy — to prevent climate catastrophe, the economic arguments against the atom made by the NRDC's Ralph Cavanagh (above right) only further exposed the hypocrisy and delusion of the antinuclear environmentalism. "
http://thebreakth...eltdown/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Nov 14, 2013
"Communism advocates the abolition of private property; socialism advocates government ownership of the means of production. Fascism leaves that property in private hands–then shackles those hands, every economic decision being directed by the state. Property rights are non-existent under fascism."
"Today's political-economic system is not capitalism–not pure, consistent, uncontrolled, laissez-faire capitalism. Today in America we live in the Entitlement State and the Regulatory State."
http://www.forbes...statism/
Yep, the EPA is arm of a Fascist state.
djr
not rated yet Nov 14, 2013
Ryggy questions "But it is a fact will cost hundreds of billions?"

Simple point really - just because a final cost cannot be known until the job is done - one can know the scale of the cost - and based on what has been spent to date, and what is left to be done - it CAN be known what the scale of the costs are. Hundreds of Billions are going to be spent. Shame Ryggy is too stupid to understand a basic idea - but keeps right on spamming.

Here is some reading - http://www.smartp...ma/33974

" Independent estimates put the total economic cost of the disaster at $250-$500 billion. Tepco has said it will need $137 billion to cover costs related to Fukushima. And if Chernobyl is any indication, the costs will likely continue for decades to come."
djr
not rated yet Nov 14, 2013
No comment about how Japan is a socialist state and TEPCO was like any other crony business controlled by the state?

TEPCO is a private company - according to Ryggy - operating in the glorious free market utopian economic system. Problem is they were trying to save costs in order to be competitive. So they tore down a natural sea wall that would have protected the plant - in order to save construction costs. They also ignored a report that predicted exactly what happened in the Tsunami - again to save the cost of defending the back up gennys from the flooding. ALL cost saving issues. http://www.washin...ami.html
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (9) Nov 14, 2013
So you are no different than Ryggy. You are not interested in facts - just very skilled at digging up sources that allow you to show the world how ignorant you are.


Funny, I had the same impression of you and Bob. It's all a matter of worldview and perspective. See upthread Bob said he's not interested in hearing about how safe nuclear is vs other forms of power...just renewables. That's called having an agenda, he (and I'm guessing you too) aren't REALLY interested in facts or discussion...just proselytizing.

Just because you can find a source - does not make it a fact.


Cuts both ways.

The fact is that cleaning up Fukushima is going to cost hundreds of billions of dollars.


We have sources that say it will and sources that say it won't. Believe what you want.

I guess just best to ignore you - and hope you are in the minority.


It's a lot easier to do that than confront difficulties or fears you have. It's common amongst conservative mindsets too...
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (9) Nov 14, 2013
I have no idea what you're shouting about.


Exasperation?

Matching supply to load is a chore that grids do 24/365 year after year. If you've got supply you can't quickly turn on and off then you have to work with that.


And currently the only way to "work with that" with wind is to overbuild your capacity to ludicrous levels. And yes you can push a button, start a reactor and get reliable, consistent generation for a loooooong time without having to shut down. Typically 18 to 24 months at a time.

In both cases you need some combination of storage, dispatchable generation and load-shifting.


You don't need storage for conventional plants really it's negligible if even present. How can you load shift if you're not generating power consistently?

Since we have a fair amount of storage,


We do?

djr
not rated yet Nov 14, 2013
"We have sources that say it will and sources that say it won't. Believe what you want."

That is why we have this thing called consensus science. You can find sites that stipulate that the earth is only 10,000 years old - http://www.answer...ng-world

So - if you want to go on a science site - and have an argument that the earth is 10,000 years old (or some other such bollocks) - have at it. Show the world how stupid you are. Show the world how you are no different that Ryggy.

Being that the price tag for Fukushima clean up is already at $80 billion (verifiable), and independent estimates are talking $250 - 5000 billion - don't you agree that it is pretty stupid to find a site that says $20 million - and to argue that you 'like' that information - more than you are interested in truth. But therein lies the problem - science has a fairly well defined path - but arguing with dodos is a waste of time.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (10) Nov 14, 2013
Being that the price tag for Fukushima clean up is already at $80 billion (verifiable),


Show me you verifiable source that Japan has spent 80 billion to clean up Fukishima or you're either a liar or intellectually dishonest. Holding 80 billion in reserve or as an ESTIMATE is one thing. Saying that's how much it's going to cost or has cost is another entirely.

If you're going to go on a science site and post it's important to be clear with your language and what you say is or isn't a fact, otherwise people might think your not worthy of listening to.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 14, 2013
Consensus does not equal fact. dj claimed as fact something that has not yet occurred.
TEPCO is a private company

I never claimed that or that TEPCO operates in a free market. I said the opposite which is why the Japanese govt (taxpayers) must pay. Japan is a Fascist state: "Fascism leaves that property in private hands–then shackles those hands, every economic decision being directed by the state."
djr
1 / 5 (1) Nov 14, 2013
"you're either a liar or intellectually dishonest"

I am not a liar or intellectually dishonest. I am interested in truth and progress. Here are some sources for you. Please show me your sources to support your claim that cleaning up Fukushima will only cost $20 million. I don't think you are a liar - I think you are an idiot - one who cannot think critically. One who does not know how to evaluate information. One who loves to poison a great web site - and like Ryggy and Freethinking - you are proud of your own ignorance.

http://www.reuter...20131112

http://nuclear-ne...billion/

http://newsonjapa...9987.php

http://www.bloomb...ost.html

http://www.nuc.be...12-11-07

I could go on all day.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 14, 2013
"Some animal rights activists are wondering just how many birds green energy may unintentionally kill as more and more birds turn up dead at solar energy facilities throughout California. "
http://www.breitb...re-birds
When will wind and solar have to meet the same strict standards as everyone else?
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (9) Nov 14, 2013

I could go on all day.


Doing what? Showing how much the Japanese government borrowed? Their estimates? I asked for how much they SPENT. Which is what you SAID. Which was incorrect. Reading comprehension isn't one of your strengths is it.

Here's my source for the third time on the 20 million, so if it's a lie then they're lying not me, I'm just pointing you to a source.

http://en.wikiped..._cleanup

Third paragraph...read it slowly...
Bob_Wallace
1 / 5 (9) Nov 14, 2013
We don't know what the final cost for the Fukusima disaster will be. If only $20 million has been spent to date I would be greatly surprised. I suspect it's more likely that there is no publicly released accounting.

That is will end up costing a large amount of money is without question. The Japanese prime minister started with a $13 billion estimate and now the major parties have raised that to $100 billion and more. Here's a statement that suggest to me that recent comments from TEPCO and the PM of $100 and $125 billion might only be the cleanup cost and not include decommissioning.

"This new borrowing initiative will put the total costs set aside for Fukushima at $80 billion. This excludes the cost of shutting down the actual reactor units, which is projected to take several decades and cost the government around $150 billion. "

http://rt.com/new...pay-596/

That's $230 billion.

But here's the real issue. (continued in the next comment). OOC

djr
not rated yet Nov 14, 2013
"Doing what? Showing how much the Japanese government borrowed?"

No - showing what an idiot you are. Here is your original statement - that I used as a point to show how you don't know what you are talking about - but insist on spamming the internet with stupid shit.

"Nope. 20 million so far, and the estimates for full decommissioning are nowhere near 100 billion."

I provided a ton of credible links to support the FACT that the cost of clean up is in the hundreds of billions of dollars. I could have provided many many more. Square this quote with your statement above -

"The expensive ice wall will be a drop in the bucket compared to what Japanese taxpayers have already spent. To date the cost of cleaning up the Fukushima nuclear disaster is US$112 billion."

From - http://www.mining...l-14167/

I am done...
Bob_Wallace
1 / 5 (9) Nov 14, 2013
The important point is that nuclear reactors can, and have, melted down and created huge costs.

That is not possible with a wind or solar farm.

The difference in cost/risk must be part of our decision process of which generation technology to install going forward.
Bob_Wallace
1 / 5 (9) Nov 14, 2013
US $112 billion spent to date sounds to high to me. Especially considering that TEPCO and the PM are just now making estimates in that range.

I emailed the author of that paper to get a link or clarification. I'll post back if I hear from him.

I am now very interested in the possibility that we have a "double set of books" running. One for clean up and one for decommissioning. By talking about only one source of expenses and acting like its the entire picture TEPCO and the PM could be downplaying the total hurt.

I'm pretty sure they're running a "froggie in the pan" game and turning up the heat gradually.
RealScience
1 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2013
@mystic - according to the source you linked, $21 m is just what the local government had spent as of December 2011.

It does not include any money spent by TEPCO, by the Japanese government, or any money spent since 2011.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (9) Nov 14, 2013
I provided a ton of credible links to support the FACT that the cost of clean up is in the hundreds of billions of dollars.


Here's what you don't seem to understand. We don't know how much the cost of clean up is because AFAIK it's nowhere near complete. Am I mistaken on that one? So if we don't know what the cost is we can't say it's a FACT that it cost this much to clean it up. Do you have a time machine? Can you predict the future? Play the lotto then and quit ranting on the internet....

The important point is that nuclear reactors can, and have, melted down and created huge costs.


Agreed.

That is not possible with a wind or solar farm.


Agreed. Now can we agree this article was about NUCLEAR POWER? When you care to consider it as an option and have an honest discussion about it lemme know.

It does not include any money spent by TEPCO, by the Japanese government, or any money spent since 2011.


I don't doubt that. And?
djr
5 / 5 (1) Nov 14, 2013
Am I mistaken on that one?

For the hundredth time - yes. We cannot give a specific number - but we can know that it is in the hundreds of billions of dollars. This makes your statement not only wrong - but ridiculously wrong. I am just trying to make a bigger point. You poison this site when you spam it with your self importance - when you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Ask a question. Wonder about something. But don't fuck up a really great web site with your political ideology. I am a supporter of nuclear. I believe nuclear has a great future in our world energy supply. I disagree with Bob to some degree. That is fine - but at least Bob knows what he is talking about. What Bob and I do agree on is that renewables are an exciting, cost competitive, and viable source of energy. Our energy future is exciting - and full of competition and innovation. Facts are facts - stop substituting your political ideology for facts - you become Ryggy.
Bob_Wallace
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 14, 2013
" Now can we agree this article was about NUCLEAR POWER? When you care to consider it as an option and have an honest discussion about it lemme know."

I have considered nuclear as an option for several years. I used to be an advocate.

A few years ago I felt that we should accept the risk of meltdowns and the problem of long term radioactive waste as necessary to stem climate change.

As the price of wind and solar fell and storage technology research began to produce it became clear to me that we no longer needed to include nuclear in our future grid mix.

We can avoid the costs of nuclear, avoid the dangers of nuclear and get fossil fuels off our grids much faster with renewables and storage.

Nuclear has been extremely well considered by me.

Now the question I have is how can someone who understands the cost, risk and length of nuclear as well as the lower cost, low risk and speed of installation for renewables continue to advocate for nuclear?
djr
5 / 5 (1) Nov 14, 2013
"Now the question I have is how can someone who understands the cost, risk and length of nuclear as well as the lower cost, low risk and speed of installation for renewables continue to advocate for nuclear?"

None of us can predict the future with certainty. What will power our energy in the future? I am in support of pursuing all options aggressively. The cost curves on wind and solar tell me at this point that they will become the option of choice for 2 reasons - 1. cost 2. distributed vs centralized generation. I see members of the Tea Party are supporting wind and solar. I think they see the benefits of distribution, and competition. One area we are just beginning to explore is cultivating desert regions. http://www.youtub...rPnVUME4 I think that we could power huge desalination plants with fusion reactors - and pump the water inland. I think we can do it safely - but at what cost? I support keeping our options open - that is all. I also like OTEC.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 14, 2013
think that we could power huge desalination plants with fusion reactors - and pump the water inland.

But you will be destroying the desert!
lower cost, low risk and speed of installation for renewables

What ARE the costs when you factor in the storage requirements and you must deal with being fined for killing birds and bats and impacting the environment?
No one has presented the real costs of 100% renewables.
The important point is that nuclear reactors can, and have, melted down and created huge costs.

New designs that can't meltdown have been put in regulatory limbo by anti-nuke zealots since 1979.
djr
5 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2013
"But you will be destroying the desert!"

Just as we destroy natural habitat when we convert prarie (for example) to farm land. I support allowing ecologists to guide us in our progress - but think that we understand that we cannot support 10 or 12 billion people without making changes.

Ryggy is so concerned about the birds being killed by the solar power plants - but does not give a thought for the thousands of Chinese people who are dying of respiratory disease due to the burning of coal. Wonder what that says about Ryggy's value system. Maybe Ryggy is an environmentalist after all....

Bob_Wallace
1 / 5 (9) Nov 14, 2013
Bird kills per MWh of electricity produced are higher for coal (a lot higher) and nuclear than wind.

Bird kills per MWh of electricity produced by wind turbines is on the decline.

The number of birds killed by solar plants is a non-issue. It's just one of the most recent weapons anti-renewable energy people are attempting to use in their support of coal and nuclear.

We will use only a tiny portion of the desert for electricity generation. Allowing extreme climate change would destroy most of the flora and fauna which currently live in those regions.
djr
not rated yet Nov 14, 2013
"New designs that can't meltdown have been put in regulatory limbo by anti-nuke zealots since 1979."

Reference please???? My understanding is that one of the advantages of LFTR's is that they shut down passively in the eventuality of a power failure - and that these plants are being developed in China, S. Korea etc. I don't understand all the politics of Uranium vs Thorium - but the pro Thorium folks are claiming that the decisions are political - based on the desire to obtain plutonium for weapons systems.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 14, 2013
"During the 1970s, the antinuclear movement made a collective decision to use "the waste issue" as a weapon to help force the eventual shutdown of the industry. Though the strategy has not succeeded in forcing any plants in the US to shut down, it has prevented a number of plants from being built. "
" Jimmy Carter put the used fuel recycling industry out of business and declared that the US would try to convince the world to forgo recycling by setting an example in the United States. The only real difference was that the inventory had increased in size by 1,000 to 2,000 tons per year for 35 years."
http://atomicinsi...ipation/
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 14, 2013
"If as a country, we continue to say 'no' to nuclear energy as a way of addressing climate change, we better damn well be sure we know why we are saying 'no'," he added.

Key takeaways include nuclear power requiring a capital cost of between $3.5 billion and $4.8 billion for a 690 megawatt equivalent plant compared to $8.1 billion for a 1,460MWe equivalent combined renewable energy plant as well as requiring 2 square kilometres of exclusive land compared to 18.1 square kilometres for the renewable option.

The highly competitive costs takes into insurance, waste management and decommissioning costs."
http://www.proact...597.html
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 14, 2013
"President Obama should task John Richardson with a mission similar to the one that President Dwight Eisenhower gave Hyman G. Rickover. Richardson is the current leader of Naval Reactors (NR), the organization that Rickover built. If directed, NR could begin a new assignment to show others how to manufacture complete nuclear fission power systems starting tomorrow. They could accept the assignment with the confidence that comes from accomplishing that task repeatedly for more than 50 years. The effort would be a nearly sure success and provide an emission-free energy option that would disrupt the current version of the Great Game."
http://atomicinsi...how-way/
djr
not rated yet Nov 14, 2013
But Ryggy's claim was that "New designs that can't meltdown have been put in regulatory limbo by anti-nuke zealots since 1979"

I asked for some support for this claim of anti nuke zealots blocking the deployment of 'new designs' - and of course the goal posts move.

SSDD
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 14, 2013
I first heard of the pebble bed reactor in 1984.
Given the regulatory environment noted above, no new designs, of any sort, were going to be approved by the state.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 14, 2013
"A Tepco bankruptcy would also require clarifying the future shape of Japan's electricity sector, now controlled by 10 regional monopolies, but set to be liberalized under a law the government aims to pass this year."
""We must avoid a situation in which Tepco fails, so ultimately the government will have to step in and take on the burden," said Koichi Hagiuda, an LDP lawmaker close to Abe.



Splitting off the Fukushima project without forcing the Japanese mega-banks that hold its bonds and have extended loans to take a hit, however, would be politically touchy.



"No one will accept putting a huge chunk of money into Tepco just so bondholders and pensioners get a soft-landing," said Jun Okumura, a former industry ministry official and now a senior adviser for Eurasia Group."
http://www.thenew...-to-fail

ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 14, 2013
1986:
"PIUS has never been built in anything larger than a laboratory-scale model, and may never be. A 1980 referendum in Sweden prohibitted any new construction of nuclear reactors, effectively ending any atomic research and development."
http://articles.p...tem-pius
djr
not rated yet Nov 14, 2013
"Given the regulatory environment noted above"

But no reference to the mythical anti nuclear zealots are of course absent.

SSDD
Bob_Wallace
1 / 5 (9) Nov 14, 2013
Gentlemen (ladies?), it's been fun but I'm now spending time opening a long thread that seems to have run its course. I'll leave you to your pleasures.
djr
not rated yet Nov 14, 2013
Good night Bob - well it is in my part of the world...
djr
not rated yet Nov 15, 2013
I know this is just one piece of a very complex issue - but it is certainly an important piece. The Canadians are proposing to put a nuclear waste containment site near the U.S. border. Guess who is having a shit fit? It definitely gives you pause for thought - if we will no contemplate a depository NEAR our border. http://oilprice.c...der.html
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 15, 2013
But no reference to the mythical anti nuclear zealots are of course absent.


Who pushed the 1980 referendum in Sweden to ban construction of any nuclear reactor?
Same for the USA.
Zealots like Greenpeace and the dozens of other 'watermelon' groups oppose things like telescope on Mt. Graham in AZ claiming it will endanger a red squirrel that was introduced decades earlier to hunt.
The federal govt is violating the law by not putting nuclear waste in Yucca Mtn. NV, thanks to anti-nuke zealots.
djr
not rated yet Nov 15, 2013
Zealots like Greenpeace

Yep Ryygy - Greenpeace runs the U.S. Government. We can't do anything without the approval of Greenpeace. Now look at the article I referenced above - you will see that it is the citizenry of the U.S.A. that is having a shit fit - cuz Canada wants to build a nuclear depository. Nuclear is very reasonably opposed by very mainstream groups - who are appropriately concerned about Chernobyl, Fukushima, etc. happening in their neighborhood. It is not zealots - it is reasoned people like Bob, and Antialias. You are the zealot.

How's about them anti wind zealots - like the Kennedy's and the Bush's up in Kenny Bunkport? 'You can't build a wind turbine there, it will spoil my view.' The aristocracy of the world are a lot more effective at getting their way than poor little Greenpeace. Those guys end up in a Russian jail.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (8) Nov 15, 2013
I have considered nuclear as an option for several years. I used to be an advocate.


OK, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. However, given your (seeming) lack of general knowledge of how safe it actually is (you seemed to think it was quite dangerous compared to other traditional sources ) that statement stretches credulity. It made you sound like every other hysteric that doesn't look at overall numbers and just single incidents.

As the price of wind and solar fell and storage technology research began to produce it became clear to me that we no longer needed to include nuclear in our future grid mix.


Which storage technology? Batteries, or this http://en.wikiped...ctricity or...what?

(cont)
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (8) Nov 15, 2013
Now the question I have is how can someone who understands the cost, risk and length of nuclear as well as the lower cost, low risk and speed of installation for renewables continue to advocate for nuclear?


Because I'm totally unconvinced of speed of installiation, scalability, cost, land use, efficiency, and probably about three or four other things I can't really think about this early in the morning.

The things renewables have going for them AFAICS is their decentralized nature (good niche tech), their safety (excluding hydro), they are more clean, but if we simply reprocessed spent fuel they nuclear "waste" really isn't waste (thank you Mr. Peanut). Solar is excellent for space industry (but not travel) even at the current horrible efficiencies.

In short they have a role, but not a central one. You have a long way to go to convince a lot of people that you can practically power and advanced modern industrial economy with these technologies.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 15, 2013
Nuclear is very reasonably opposed by very mainstream groups

And being supported by scientists.
NOW dj doesn't care what the scientific experts say.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (8) Nov 15, 2013
Nuclear is very reasonably opposed by very mainstream groups - who are appropriately concerned about Chernobyl, Fukushima, etc. happening in their neighborhood. It is not zealots - it is reasoned people like Bob, and Antialias. You are the zealot.


No it's not REASONABLY opposed by most people. It's emotionally opposed by a lot of people who happen to be reasonable on most other issues.

And yes Greenpeace are zealots. They take the environment entirely out of context and proportion. They see NOTHING else. The environment has an arbitrarily high value in their unbalanced and unhealthy world view in exactly the same way that religion does for members of radical Islamic groups. They are very difficult to reason with or even have a simple discussion with because everything is about the environment...EVERYTHING.

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." Churchill

djr
not rated yet Nov 15, 2013
NOW dj doesn't care what the scientific experts say.

I support the use of nuclear - and believe it has rich future as a part of the world's energy mix. Idiot Ryggy does not bother to read what others say - only interested in spamming the internet with his own ignorant opinions, and copy and pastes from bias media sites. I have stipulated my support of nuclear many times - I disagree with Bob and Anti on this issue - but I definitely respect their position - it is very reasonable.
djr
1 / 5 (1) Nov 15, 2013
"They are very difficult to reason with or even have a simple discussion with "

You and Ryggy and Free etc. are not difficult to reason with - you are impossible to reason with. You are here to promote a political agenda - and don't listen to anything any one else says. You guys fit that definition of a fanatic to a T.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 15, 2013
I support the use of nuclear

Since when?
I disagree with Bob and Anti on this issue

So you say, now.
djr
5 / 5 (1) Nov 15, 2013
Since when?

I have always supported the use of nuclear. Read back through this thread and you will see that. Your problem Ryggy is you can only think in black and white. You know - your all liberals are such and such thinking. So when someone with more nuanced positions comes along - that does not fit your simplistic way of thinking - you can't deal with it.
RealScience
not rated yet Nov 15, 2013
I support the use of nuclear

Since when?


@Ryggesogn2 - djr has indeed said that before in this very thread. For instance he previously posted:

I am actually a supporter of nuclear - and believe that it will be a major player in our energy future.

I am a supporter of nuclear power.

Will advanced reactor designs keep nuclear in the mix? I hope so.

I am a supporter of nuclear. I believe nuclear has a great future in our world energy supply.


The first posts date back to Nov. 6th, the day djr started posting on this thread.

And regarding:
I disagree with Bob and Anti on this issue

So you say, now.


He's said that before in this thread, too:
I disagree with Bob to some degree.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 15, 2013
I am actually a supporter of nuclear - and believe that it will be a major player in our energy future. I am also very excited about renewables - and wish that people would have their facts straight. I believe that renewables are winning on a cost basis right now - and I am just in favor of an honest approach.


Yes, an honest approach that accounts for all the costs for wind and solar when the wind stops blowing and the sun don't shine would be welcome.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (8) Nov 15, 2013
You are here to promote a political agenda


LOL, so not only are you a prophet you can read minds too?

Pray tell, exactly what political agenda am I promoting? What are my political beliefs?

Where do I stand on gay marriage?
Where do I stand on school prayer?
Where do I stand on Universal Health Care?
Where do I stand on gun control?
Where do I stand on term limits?

Let me know as soon as you can so I know how to vote in the next election...oh wait...do I even vote?
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (8) Nov 15, 2013
Also, in case you missed it djr you've been doing a hell of a lot of politicking here too sunshine :)

djr
4 / 5 (1) Nov 15, 2013
"Pray tell, exactly what political agenda am I promoting?"

Perhaps I am wrong on this on Msytic - that is not a problem for me.

Based on your positions on a number of threads - I see you as anti renewable energy. I see you as a right wing conservative - who frequents sites such as whatsupwiththat - and then comes over to Physorg - and tries to argue against what you see as left wing social agenda - pushing renewable energy, and what are seen as liberal, progressive, socialistic policies.

I am perhaps wrong, and have lumped you in with Ryggy, Free, Shootist, etc. Feel free to correct me.

What I have seen on this thread is a religious zeal in your opposition to renewables - to the point of saying stupid shit (ie. the cleanup cost for Fukushima is only $20 mill), and then doubling down on your idiocy - and stubbornly refusing to be a legitimate member of an honest discussion.

Apologies if my political inference was incorrect.

ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 15, 2013
dj resorted to 'liberal' form on another thread calling me racist for disagreeing with BHO.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 15, 2013
"Germany has just opened its first coal-fired power plant in eight years, reports Bloomberg, as the country grapples with renewable energy subsidies that are driving up electricity costs.

The German energy company Steag says its 725-megawatt coal plant in the western part of the country will begin commercial operations later this year, after "optimization works and testing" have been completed. This will be the first hard-coal-fired plant to come online in the country since 2005."
"This is just the beginning of coal's German comeback, as ten new hard-coal plants are scheduled to come online in the next two years, according to Germany's electrical grid regulator. This will boost the country's coal capacity by 33 percent, according to analysts.
"Germany has also been struggling with skyrocketing energy costs due to government support of renewable energy."

Read more: http://dailycalle...klO2T12g
djr
2.5 / 5 (2) Nov 15, 2013
"dj resorted to 'liberal' form on another thread calling me racist for disagreeing with BHO."

Do you really want to start that shit over again Ryggy?

All I will say at this point is that racism is not a liberal or a conservative issue. If you say something racist - it does not matter where your politics are. Accusing you of being a racist was nothing to do with my politics, or your politics, it was to do with the racist things you said. If you want to start that pissing match over again - I am at work tonight - so have time during breaks to waste a few minutes. It is really probably not very productive.

ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 15, 2013
All I will say at this point is that racism is not a liberal or a conservative issue.

Why do 'liberals' so quickly call those who disagree with them racist?

"During an interview with the BBC Friday, she not only said that President Obama is treated with disrespect because he's black, but also that entire generations of racists are going to have to die for racism to end"

Read more: http://newsbuster...klZgV8gF
Including Oprah.
BHO is not respected because he has done nothing to earn respect, except among racist 'liberals' who believed they could get a black socialist elected president much easier. All the socialists need to is cry 'racist' if you disagreed with BHO's socialism.
His state senate career was not distinguished. He won a US senate seat by leaking sealed court records of his opponent.
And now, we are seeing the results of electing a president with zero leadership abilities.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (13) Nov 15, 2013
Any black or Hispanic who who escapes the 'liberal' plantation is viscous attacked by racist 'liberals'.
Anyone who supports MLK's position of judging people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin is called racist by 'liberals'.
djr
1.7 / 5 (3) Nov 15, 2013
Why do 'liberals' so quickly call those who disagree with them racist?

I dont know - you will have to ask one. I called you a racists because you are a racist - simple as that.....
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (15) Nov 16, 2013
"Energy markets are riddled with government intrusions, from mandates and grants of monopoly privilege to special tax breaks and environmental and land use regulations. All energy sources are both subsidized and penalized. The point to remember is that when given comparative estimates regarding energy subsidies alone, we are being told an incomplete story.

From the perspective of economics—and the free society—the important question is how are coercive policies distorting supply and demand relative to a free market that reflects actual scarcities, production costs, and consumer preferences?

On this count, a third, new standard of comparison is called for, one that promises to widen, not reduce, the subsidy advantage for politically driven energies."

- See more at: http://www.master...6J7.dpuf
kochevnik
1.9 / 5 (12) Nov 16, 2013
Note ryggie voting himself up and others down with his sockpuppets. Pathetic even for a neurotic conservative
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 16, 2013
koch, what makes you think I care about any votes?
Projecting?
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2013
Based on your positions on a number of threads - I see you as anti renewable energy.


I'm not anti renewable. I've said as much in this thread. I think solar and wind are excellent niche technologies. I'm not even against having it as a centerpiece of our energy policy. I just don't believe that can work at all. I could be convinced otherwise, but so far no one has presented a convincing argument

cont.
Modernmystic
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2013
I see you as a right wing conservative -


I'm not, but if I were does that mean I'm not worth listening to? Would that mean that those who are shouldn't listen to left wing liberals? That kind of thinking is a HUGE problem in this country right now...much bigger than energy policy.

who frequents sites such as whatsupwiththat


Wow, really? I'd never even heard of the site before this thread. I pulled a lot of sources and didn't vet them on purpose because i saw other people using obviously and blatantly biased sites in their responses. It was very calculated.

(cont)
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2013
and tries to argue against what you see as left wing social agenda - pushing renewable energy, and what are seen as liberal, progressive, socialistic policies.


I don't think renewables are any of those things. I think people who push them for the sake of pushing them are pushing a liberal, progressive, and socialistic policy, and so do a lot of other intelligent people. It makes it very difficult to separate the politics from the policy sometimes and think about it JUST in terms of the merits of the technology. However despite that, I have and I do.

to the point of saying stupid shit (ie. the cleanup cost for Fukushima is only $20 mill),


First of all I NEVER said that. I said that's what they've spent SO FAR. Secondly stating that doesn't say ANYTHING about my stance on renewables. That's a huge non-sequitur.

One can find a piece of information from a legitimate site (Wikipedia) and post it without having an agenda just because you disagree with it.

ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (13) Nov 17, 2013
"In the celebrated 1980 television series COSMOS, eminent science educator Carl Sagan used some of these facts to thoroughly dismantle Velikovsky's claims. However, he reserved his most damning criticism not for Velikovsky, but for a small sect of the scientific community.

"The worst aspect of the Velikovsky Affair was not that many of his ideas are in gross contradiction to the facts. Rather, the worst aspect is that some scientists attempted to suppress Velikovsky's ideas."

"There are many hypotheses in science which are wrong. That's perfectly alright: it's the aperture to finding out what's right," he further explained, before concluding, "The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science.""
http://www.realcl...azy.html
Yet many here who claim to support science prefer suppression.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2013
and then doubling down on your idiocy - and stubbornly refusing to be a legitimate member of an honest discussion.


Oh the irony. You've been putting words in my mouth and agendas in my head the entire thread. I know it's hard NOT to do that in the current political climate, I really do. But try harder.

Apologies if my political inference was incorrect.


It was and I heartily accept. Remember though that apologizing for something means you're going to fervently try not to do it again ;)
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 20, 2013
"SolarCity officials, including fellow Obama donor and Musk's cousin Lyndon Rive, acknowledged in the IPO document the continuing need for government support, as alternative-energy companies strive to become competitive with coal, oil and other conventional-energy sources.

"Our business currently depends on the availability of rebates, tax credits and other financial incentives," they wrote. "The expiration, elimination or reduction of these rebates, credits and incentives would adversely impact our business.""
http://www.foxnew...+Text%29
kochevnik
1.6 / 5 (10) Nov 20, 2013
Solar and wind are already cheaper than coal. Ryggie prefers fossil fuels and fossilized information http://www.rawsto...Story%29
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Nov 20, 2013
Solar and wind are already cheaper than coal. Ryggie prefers fossil fuels and fossilized information http://www.rawsto...Story%29

Food is free if I have taxpayer funded food stamps.
djr
5 / 5 (2) Nov 20, 2013
Mystic "It was and I heartily accept. Remember though that apologizing for something means you're going to fervently try not to do it again ;)"

Totally Mystic - I am learning little at a time about the comments sections on boards like Physorg. There are some genuine participants - who are interested in learning - and there are folks like you and Ryggy - who are not legitimately interested in facts - just in starting pissing matches. I have a tendency to get pulled into the pissing matches (complex reasons) - and am having to learn to resist getting pulled into time wasting with idiots. I have you clearly in the same column with Ryggy and Free - so will try my utmost to overlook your idiocy in the future.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 20, 2013
There are some genuine participants - who are interested in learning -

Who are they?

This is the thanks I get for all the research I post so everyone can learn something new?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Nov 20, 2013
Solar and wind are already cheaper than coal. Ryggie prefers fossil fuels and fossilized information http://www.rawsto...Story%29

The source is the NRDC, a watermelon group, green on the outside, red inside. What do socialists know about prices and costs?
RealScience
not rated yet Nov 20, 2013
There are some genuine participants - who are interested in learning -

Who are they?

This is the thanks I get for all the research I post so everyone can learn something new?


I am one of those who is here to learn, so thank you for the posts that have links.

I followed many of the links, and usually found graphs where the starting date was set to 1997 or 1998 to show little to no warming, while adjusting it to 1980 or 1960 showed a very different looking trend. However cherry picking data is a fault of both sides in most debates, and I was happy to have handy links to graphs with actual data.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (6) Nov 20, 2013
Totally Mystic - I am learning little at a time about the comments sections on boards like Physorg. There are some genuine participants - who are interested in learning - and there are folks like you and Ryggy - who are not legitimately interested in facts - just in starting pissing matches.


You're interested in learning? What have you learned? You are interested in facts? Which facts are you interested in?

It is my observation that you are afraid. That it is indeed you that is not interested in facts, or at least those that challenge you. You are so heavily invested in a particular view of the world your ego CAN'T allow you to be wrong about it. You have totally identified yourself with your beliefs. That is unfortunate.

I have you clearly in the same column with Ryggy and Free


You must be really hard on yourself if you feel the need to judge others and put them in boxes and categories. I hope you'll be easier on others and yourself as time passes. Best luck :)

RealScience
not rated yet Nov 20, 2013
@Mystic - And while on the subject of thanking people for good information, thank you for the Forbes link with real cost data on various power sources. Wind came out well, and while solar is still expensive it is only 2x the best cost and is dropping fast. That leaves only storage as a big challenge for wind (and for solar after the demand peak is met).

Regarding Fukushima, however, the article you linked for the ~$20M cost for cleanup actually supports the opposite of that low figure. Buried down near the bottom of the article is an explanation of what the $20M is:
Mid December 2011 the local authorities in Fukushima had spent already around 1.7 billion yen (21 million$) on the costs of decontamination-works in the cities of Fukushima and Date and the village of Kawauchi. The total clean-up costs were estimated around 420 billion yen
.
So even back then the total costs were estimate at over 200 times the $21M figure...

Modernmystic
1 / 5 (6) Nov 20, 2013
Wind came out well, and while solar is still expensive it is only 2x the best cost and is dropping fast. That leaves only storage as a big challenge for wind (and for solar after the demand peak is met).


You'll have to "re-point" me to that one :) I haven't seen anything from a credible source that puts wind or solar on parity with traditional power. I'd appreciate your assistance.

Regarding Fukushima, however, the article you linked for the ~$20M cost for cleanup actually supports the opposite of that low figure. Buried down near the bottom of the article is an explanation of what the $20M is:
So even back then the total costs were estimate at over 200 times the $21M figure...


Again I pointed out that's how much they spent so far. It's how much they spent at the time of the article. It's how much had been spent at that point. It was how much they'd spent, not total estimates. It was how much the government had spent to that point.... (cont)
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (6) Nov 20, 2013
(cont)..

So even back then the total costs were estimate at over 200 times the $21M figure...


And now that we've finally established ( I hope) that that is the figure that they'd spent up to that point and nothing more...200 times more than 20 million dollars is 4 billion. Which is, again nowhere near hundreds of billions. I understand they might have changed their minds recently, or they may have upped the estimate, but without powers of prediction we won't know for sure what the exact final cost will be. Will we? I might be missing something.

Sorry for the bad edit above...
RealScience
not rated yet Nov 20, 2013
@Mystic - no worries about the editing.

In addition to being a 2011 figure, the $20M was just the local government, and not TEPCO or the national government (but that was buried pretty far down in the document).

As for the cost so far (November 2013), the government of Japan has already spent ~$30B (and is in the process of borrowing another $30B specifically for Fukushima). As far as I can tell all other parties have now spent ~$20B.

The most recent figures I have seen for the total cost start at $100B, and estimates range up to $500B. $500B sounds high, but if ~$50B has been spent by the start of emptying the spent-fuel pools and before even starting to deal with what is left of the cores, I'd be surprised if the total comes in at less than $200B, and there's no way it will come in at less than $100B.

I agree that only time will tell what the total ends up being, but it's already pretty certain that it will be a 9-digit number of dollars.
RealScience
not rated yet Nov 20, 2013
@Mystic - my mistake, the Forbes real cost (unsubsidized) numbers were from R2:

but the results are: 4.1 ¢/kWhr for coal, 5.2 ¢/kWhr for natural gas, 3.5 ¢/kWhr for nuclear, 4.3 ¢/kWhr for wind, 7.7 ¢/kWhr for solar, and 3.3 ¢/kWhr for hydro.


kochevnik
1 / 5 (4) Nov 20, 2013
Solar and wind are already cheaper than coal. Ryggie prefers fossil fuels and fossilized information http://www.rawsto...Story%29

The source is the NRDC, a watermelon group, green on the outside, red inside. What do socialists know about prices and costs?
Much more than you, apparently
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2013
"New energy production is one of the best ways to grow the economy and create new jobs to put people back to work. One needs to look no further for proof than to states like North Dakota that have flourishing economies and some of the lowest unemployment rates in the country due to energy production. Because of this energy boom, the U.S. is now projected to be the world leader in oil production by 2015, surpassing Saudi Arabia.

The catch is that this increased energy production is happening on private and state lands—places that aren't as restricted by onerous federal regulations and policies. Federal lands are being left behind."
"the Obama Administration is actively and purposely keeping these resources off-limits.

Leasing and permitting delays, regulatory hurdles, and ever-changing rules are a few of the reasons why energy production on federal lands is in decline."
http://www.breitb...al-on-Fe
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) Nov 21, 2013
As for the cost so far (November 2013), the government of Japan has already spent ~$30B (and is in the process of borrowing another $30B specifically for Fukushima). As far as I can tell all other parties have now spent ~$20B.


Thanks! I was asking up-thread if anyone had more recent real expenditures for the incident. I too was quite sure we were well above 20 million at this point as well, but the ONLY source I could find was the 20 million one. If I could trouble you where did you find those numbers? I looked all over, and couldn't find it myself. Always looking for another good online resource.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2013
Solar and wind are already cheaper than coal. Ryggie prefers fossil fuels and fossilized information http://www.rawsto...Story%29

The source is the NRDC, a watermelon group, green on the outside, red inside. What do socialists know about prices and costs?
Much more than you, apparently


This is what I find very interesting. It all depends on your perspective. This website (raw story) is blatantly slanted. It's quite plain. Just like Fox News is slanted MSNBC is slanted, and even CNN is slanted. Wikipedia is slanted too, but for the most part it's easier to get through the editorializing there and they do tend to stick to more objective facts in general...
RealScience
5 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2013
@Mystic - I got the more recent figure via Google, by limiting the hits returned to articles within the last month. There was still a lot of fluff to wade through, but the following proved useful:
http://www.bloomb...aid.html
http://rt.com/new...urn-665/
http://www.psr.or...ima.html
http://thebulleti...-updates
http://in.reuters...20131112

The figures are divided into decontamination, decommissioning, relocation, etc. and I never found them all in one place. Tepco's own estimate is now $137B.

(There were also a few estimates as high as $10 trillion - I hope that someone mistook Yen for dollars...).
goracle
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2013
There are some genuine participants - who are interested in learning -

Who are they?

This is the thanks I get for all the research I post so everyone can learn something new?

'Research', Ryggies euphemism for cherry-picked data and political spam.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2013
cherry-picked data

A counter to what physorg cherry picks.
Have yet to see any articles on physorg about the collapse of Obamacare.
goracle
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2013
dj resorted to 'liberal' form on another thread calling me racist for disagreeing with BHO.

So you spam this thread with your unsupported claim? In this context, you made a blatant personal attack.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2013
@Mystic - I got the more recent figure via Google, by limiting the hits returned to articles within the last month. There was still a lot of fluff to wade through, but the following proved useful:
http://www.bloomb...aid.html

The figures are divided into decontamination, decommissioning, relocation, etc. and I never found them all in one place. Tepco's own estimate is now $137B.

(There were also a few estimates as high as $10 trillion - I hope that someone mistook Yen for dollars...).


Thanks again RS :) I thought my powers of "google" were strong. I need to learn more apparently :P
RealScience
not rated yet Nov 21, 2013
@Mystic - It was not an easy search. There is usually a good answer in the top three hits, and in this case I had to scroll through pages of results to piece together something that still isn't definitive.

It looks to me like it will be at least two years before the estimates converge on something that is even within a factor of two of the final cost.
VendicarE
5 / 5 (2) Nov 21, 2013
"Have yet to see any articles on physorg about the collapse of Obamacare." - RyggTard

You are living in a Faux News fantasy bubble, Bubble Boy.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 22, 2013
"The world already is spending about $1-billion a day on renewables — a projected $359-billion for 2013. But just $100-billion per year invested worldwide in R&D would be hundreds of times more effective. This is the conclusion of a panel of economists, including three Nobel laureates, working with the Copenhagen Consensus Center, a think-tank that publicizes the best ways for governments and philanthropists to spend aid and development money."
http://fullcommen...warming/
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 22, 2013
"Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (BGU) researchers have developed an innovative process to convert carbon dioxide and hydrogen into a renewable alternative for crude oil, which could transform fuels used in gas and diesel-powered vehicles and jets."
http://www.oilgas...999.html
This will make the watermelons' heads explode.
Use CO2 and hydrogen to make crude oil. And the Jews are doing it!
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 22, 2013
"Greenpeace protesters couldn't survive without oil.

How would they power the engines on their inflatable protest boats?

Where would they get the tents and anoraks for their Balcombe-style antifracking camps if not from that hated fossil fuel?

The problem with the campaign that Greenpeace is conducting against Arctic drilling is that it is economically illiterate.
"
"With five million households in Britain already in fuel poverty thanks to the Government's green energy taxes some of usare doing that already: about 25,000 elderly people die each winter from excessive cold.

That's what's so truly offensive about Greenpeace's campaigning.

They pose as our cuddly, caring friends – the "good" people who only want to make our world a better place – but what they're really into is spreading fear and lies to scare and emotionally blackmail us into giving them money to finance their campaigning to destroy Western industrial civilisation.
http://www.expres...ent/444"
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 22, 2013
"The price of electricity hit a record for the month of October, according to data released Wednesday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That made October the eleventh straight month when the average price of electricity hit or matched the record level for that month. - See more at: http://www.cnsnew...YR.dpuf"
kochevnik
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 23, 2013
Ryggie ""The price of electricity hit a record for the month of October"

Sure, because China is dumping the US dollar and buying oil directly in yuan. Soon a single bitcoin will be big enough to bribe US government officials to chase your libertarian spine all over the world just as they do Snowden now. My bitcons will go beyond $10,000 USD and the world will carve up the USA like a Thanksgiving turkey, they way they did to the superior Indian civilization before them

But you will always have Iraq. Maybe a Somalian will take pity on you and marry you to their 200kg cousin on a pirate boat
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2013
The west is letting Iran build nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons.
BHO promises HE won't allow Iran to build nuclear weapons.
BHO promised US citizens they could keep their doctors, their health plans, and promised higher employment, the most transparent administration, ....
BHO, like all 'liberals' lie.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2013
"A similar deal with the regime in North Korea in 1993 ended with that regime going fully nuclear in 2006."
http://www.breitb...ent-Iran

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.