Is nuclear power the only way to avoid geoengineering?

Apr 23, 2014

"I think one can argue that if we were to follow a strong nuclear energy pathway—as well as doing everything else that we can—then we can solve the climate problem without doing geoengineering." So says Tom Wigley, one of the world's foremost climate researchers, in the current issue of Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Refusing to take significant action on climate change now makes it more likely that geoengineering will eventually be needed to address the problem, Wigley explains in an exclusive Bulletin interview.

In the interview, Wigley, a scientist at the University of Adelaide, Australia and at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado, explains the two basic strategies to reduce : injecting aerosols such as sulfates into the stratosphere to block a portion of the sun's radiation and thereby cool the Earth, much as volcanic emissions do; and the large-scale removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The aerosol-injection approach is much more likely to be pursued at current stages of technological development.

To avoid the need for geoengineering, which could have enormous unforeseen consequences, the international community should pursue increased deployment of plants, which do not emit carbon dioxide, to address the , Wigley says. He contends that many of his colleagues in are generally supportive of nuclear engineering and less fearful of it than they are of geoengineering. But his pro-nuclear stance has already sparked a public backlash from scientists who oppose nuclear power, geoengineering, or both those methods of dealing with climate change.

"When I talk to people from any walk of life, I do talk about geoengineering," Wigley says. "But I mostly push nuclear. Because I think one can argue that if we were to follow a strong nuclear energy pathway—as well as doing everything else that we can—then we can solve the climate problem without doing geoengineering."

The American Association for the Advancement of Science, which named Wigley a fellow in 2003, cited "his major contributions to climate and carbon-cycle modeling and to climate data analysis." Together with British climate researcher Sarah Raper, he introduced the widely used climate model MAGICC (Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate Change) more than two decades ago and continues to contribute to its development.

In the same issue of the Bulletin, the Center for Investigative Reporting contributes the results of a year-long investigation that has exposed major problems in cleaning up nuclear waste on Treasure Island in San Francisco Bay, a former Navy base that is being turned over to civilian control. For decades before it was closed, the Treasure Island Naval Station housed nuclear war academies that used radium, plutonium, and cesium 137 in their training courses. The Navy knew for years that those materials were not always in safe hands. But it did not acknowledge that history publicly, and as a result, workers preparing for civilian redevelopment may have inadvertently spread radioactive material around the island, CIR found.

Tom Wigley: "Why nuclear power may be the only way to avoid geoengineering," an interview with Tom Wigley, is published in the latest issue of Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, along with "Treasure Island cleanup exposes Navy's mishandling of its nuclear past," by Matt Smith and Katharine Mieszkowski.

Explore further: Experts say nuclear power needed to slow warming

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Experts say nuclear power needed to slow warming

Nov 03, 2013

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 ...

Effects of sea spray geoengineering on global climate

Feb 14, 2012

Anthropogenic climate warming is leading to consideration of options for geoengineering to offset rising carbon dioxide levels. One potential technique involves injecting artificial sea spray into the atmosphere. The sea ...

Nuclear weapons' surprising contribution to climate science

Jul 13, 2012

Nuclear weapons testing may at first glance appear to have little connection with climate change research. But key Cold War research laboratories and the science used to track radioactivity and model nuclear bomb blasts have ...

Recommended for you

Engineering new vehicle powertrains

5 hours ago

Car engines – whether driven by gasoline, diesel, or electricity – waste an abundance of energy. Researchers are working on ways to stem this wastefulness. Ultramodern test facilities are helping them ...

First self-contained step dimming LED tube

Sep 30, 2014

Samsung Electronics today introduced the industry's first AC Direct step-dimming LED linear replacement for T8 and T12 fluorescent tubes at the National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA) Convention ...

Battery system will be able to light 2,500 homes

Sep 30, 2014

One of the largest, most environmentally-friendly, battery-based energy storage systems in the nation will be installed at the University of California, San Diego the campus announced today (Sept. 29).

User comments : 141

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2014
I have an even better idea - how about geoengineering WITH nukes?
http://en.wikiped...lowshare

Russia has enthusiastically pursued their own program:
http://en.wikiped..._Economy

"[Russia] was using its atomic energy for purposes of its own domestic economy; blowing up mountains, changing the course of rivers, irrigating deserts, charting new paths of life in regions untrodden by human foot. . . . "
Bob_Wallace
4.2 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2014
"were to follow a strong nuclear energy pathway—as well as doing everything else that we can—then we can solve the climate problem without doing geoengineering."

Tom is right. But his approach would mean electricity prices double or more what they would be with an all-renewables approach. And we'd have incredible amounts of radioactive wastes along with increased probabilities of nuclear disasters.

Wonder if we'll be smart or not....
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 23, 2014
. And we'd have incredible amounts of radioactive wastes along with increased probabilities of nuclear disasters.


France doesn't and hasn't. In fact nuclear is far safer than virtually every other power source (hydro included).

But his approach would mean electricity prices double or more what they would be with an all-renewables approach


Wind is about 1-2 million per megawatt to install...solar even more. Look at the current capacity the United States has installed. Then take that times three, then look at the costs for installation. Astronomical is far too weak a word....
Bob_Wallace
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 23, 2014
"In fact nuclear is far safer than virtually every other power source (hydro included)."

How many people have been killed by a sunshine leak from a solar panel?

Citigroup just did an analysis of the cost of electricity from the Vogtle reactors based on cost to date. They calculate 11c/kWh if there are no further cost/time overruns.

Wind has been selling for 4c/kWh in the US. Add back in the subsidy and that's 5.13c/kWh.

Solar has now reached ~6c/kWh selling price (without subsidies) in the US SW and will continue to fall.

A new study in (not so sunny) Germany (which doesn't have great onshore wind) finds wind and solar generation half the cost of nuclear.

http://renewecono...ar-95493

TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2014
How many people have been killed by a sunshine leak from a solar panel?
And how many people have been killed in civilian nuclear accidents?

"Chernobyl (Ukraine 1986) where the destruction of the reactor by steam explosion and fire killed 31 people and had significant health and environmental consequences... Apart from Chernobyl, no nuclear workers or members of the public have ever died as a result of exposure to radiation due to a commercial nuclear reactor incident."

-Well - what about green energy?

"In England, there were 163 wind turbine accidents that killed 14 people in 2011... Nuclear energy produced over 90 billion kWhrs in England with no deaths. In that same year, America produced about 800 billion kWhrs from nuclear with no deaths."

"... panels on roofs, solar is in fact, far more dangerous than many forms of power generation, three times more dangerous than wind power and more than 10 times more dangerous than nuclear power"
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 23, 2014
A new study in (not so sunny) Germany (which doesn't have great onshore wind) finds wind and solar generation half the cost of nuclear.

http://renewecono...ar-95493



I can pull numbers that show that the levelized costs for wind and nuclear are not that different. Plus with wind you're going to run out of rare earths before you get to capacity or destroy China by strip mining it to death. Wind is far more destructive to the environment than nuclear. As to solar, well you're going to run into a problem of where to build them in short order if you want to run any appreciable percentage of the grid off them.

Solar isn't that low either. It currently is the most expensive in levelized costs.

http://en.wikiped...stimates
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 23, 2014
BTW did you do the numbers on going totally wind and solar? No? I'll do it for you then.

An average of wind and solar power costs about 3.5 million per MW. The current capacity of the United states is 1168 GW which is 1,168,000 MW. Now then 3.5 million times 1,168,000 is $4,088,000,000,000 AND take that times three (because the average up time for wind and solar is about 1/3) and you get $12,264,000,000,000....
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 23, 2014
When the sun doesn't shine and the batteries are dead, how many will freeze in the winter?

"But what's clear from this video is that Germany's problems are the same as our problems, which is to say that their economic growth and their standards of living are being held hostage by an out-of-touch political class in thrall to a green, activist-driven ideology long past its sell-by date."
"every single German must now pay Euros 240 a year ("a total of 21.8 billion Euros for power which on the market had a value of only 2 billion. That's sick!") "
"wind and solar being hopelessly unreliable at providing baseload power - it has been having to use more filthy lignite-fired power instead."
http://www.breitb...n-energy
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2014
Tom is right. But his approach would mean electricity prices double or more what they would be with an all-renewables approach. And we'd have incredible amounts of radioactive wastes along with increased probabilities of nuclear disasters.

You have to consider where he comes from: Australia and now he's working in the US. Both countries have plenty of land to throw away (or so they think) and couldn't care less about ramifications on neighboring countries if their reactors (or waste disposal sites) go "oopsie".

That he's willing to gamble with invaluable land, water, air and foodstock resources for thousands of years to come with a shortsighted 30-50 year bridge technology is somewhat astonishing. Especially when alternatives that can last us forever and have none of the drawbacks are available.

The thing about "nuclear or geoengineering" is a false dichotomy if ever I saw one.
Burnerjack
4 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2014
The quest for energy is only one manifestation of the true problem: Human Population Growth.
Like an unchecked virus destroying the host through disease, Humans will continue to damage the environment and do so at an ever accelerating rate as long as the population continues to grow. Not that humans are inherently evil or destructive (debatable, I know...), its just that we and that which lay around us, are victims of our unbridled success.
How can there be wild, natural, untouched expanses if we must gobble up all before us for housing, food, fuel, transport, etc.?
Clean energy is very important, to be sure. That is but one facet of impact of unchecked human population growth brings to the Earth and those trying to share it with us.
aaron35
Apr 23, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
scalefreenetwork
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2014
This has surely got to be one of the dumbest articles EVER posted on Phys.org

Existing renewable energy technologies can easily address our current and future energy needs, with much less overall impact or risk than nuclear or geoengineering...so forcing us to choose the lesser of these two evils is ridiculous.
dvdrushton
5 / 5 (2) Apr 23, 2014
BTW did you do the numbers on going totally wind and solar? No? I'll do it for you then.


Why would we do that calculation? Did you also do the same calculation for converting to total nuclear? (this article is proposing nukes as the solution).
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2014
invaluable land, water, air and foodstock resources for thousands of years to come


-Again more fear mongering.

"November 2007 the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution calling for "recovery and sustainable development" of the areas affected by the Chernobyl accident. Commenting on the issue, UN Development Programme officials mentioned the plans to achieve "self-reliance" of the local population, [and] "agriculture revival"... There have been reports that wildlife has since flourished due to significant reduction of human impact."
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 23, 2014
couldn't care less about ramifications on neighboring countries
"Pollution from China's coal-burning power plants is pumping up winter storms over the northwest Pacific Ocean and changing North America's weather, a new study finds."

-among many many other things.
alternatives that can last us forever and have none of the drawbacks are available
There are NO alternatives which can replace fossil fuels worldwide besides nuclear.
aaron35
Apr 23, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Bob_Wallace
3.2 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2014
"There are NO alternatives which can replace fossil fuels worldwide besides nuclear."

Unfortunately for you science does not agree. Neither does the world which is why nuclear is dying away.
aaron35
Apr 23, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Bob_Wallace
2.7 / 5 (3) Apr 24, 2014
There's no materials shortages for an almost 100% renewable electricity solution.

We will need storage in order to time shift wind and solar to match demand. If nothing better appears we can use pump-up hydro storage. It's cheap, has a very high cycle life, and we have no shortage of places to install.

A recent study found thousands of usable sites in Europe where one or both of the needed reservoirs for closed-loop PuHS already exist.

http://www.hydrow...ind.html

Wind and solar might require more materials than coal or nuclear, but the electricity they produce is half the cost. And the materials used are recyclable.
Mr_Ed
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 24, 2014
Yes aaron, you got that right. There's no free lunch with any option.

There is one other issue, and that is concerning dispatchable electricity. Does your solar/wind raw resource cost include any energy storage method so that we can have electricity when we really need it? Otherwise we would still need to cover the discrepancy with an equivalent power generator using fossil fuels which will then become less efficient with constant startup and shutdown.

Solar/wind would be excellent if that secondary cost problem could be solved.

In the meantime:
- solar is really best for deferring the end of fossil fuel availability.
- nuclear is best for baseload ( more so if everybody goes to electric vehicles ).
- fossil is best to fill the gap.

Unless a miracle occurs, any other option leads to diminishing returns for the long term.
Mr_Ed
not rated yet Apr 24, 2014
Oh and Mr Wallace, pump-up hydro is an option, yes, but worldwide you'd have to pump up a lot water in only certain areas of the globe, which would then require long transmission lines to where you need the electricity. All of which then becomes very lossy. Which would require more panels, more windmills, more wires, more materials, etc, etc.
Again, diminishing returns.
aaron35
Apr 24, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Bob_Wallace
5 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2014
Mr Ed - perhaps you could point out some places in the world where PuHS is not feasible?
Bob_Wallace
5 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2014
Aaron, you probably won't be able to grasp this, but over the lifetime of a car present EVs are cheaper to purchase and operate than non-hybrid ICEVs.

It's pretty hard to see how EVs charged with wind and solar power make climate change worse. Climate scientists will tell you that burning less fossil fuel is a good thing.

And the Tesla S, the most successful EV built to date as well as the Toyota Rav4 EV, use no neodymium (not that scarcity is actually a problem anyway).
Lex Talonis
1 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2014
What a crock of shit article....

"To avoid the need for geoengineering, which could have enormous unforeseen consequences, the international community should pursue increased deployment of nuclear power plants, which do not emit carbon dioxide,"

Your right, the running reactors do not need chimberleys....

But the entire nuclear fuel cycle - makes almost as much CO2 as the coal burner power stations.

idiot.
dvdrushton
5 / 5 (3) Apr 24, 2014
@aaron35
But the proponents of renewables are very inventive in their ignorance of the hidden cost of ownership


Every source of energy we have available - has down sides. There is no free lunch from an environmental perspective. Taking all the hidden costs into consideration is very difficult - as the whole situation is so complex. Google oil pipe line spills and see how problematic that one factor can be. Here is a start for you http://en.wikiped...l_spills

I think that I am very much a realist. I drive a gas car, and heat my home with nat gas. We are a long way from freeing ourselves from fossils. On net - renewables are a much better bet as far as the environment is concerned - and will continue to get better as more and more of the system is converted over. I think we will be seeing a tipping point over the next few years - as renewable costs continue to tumble - and the effects of global warming get more and more clear.
ShotmanMaslo
3 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2014
One thing is certain, without massive deployment of nuclear humanity will be burning fossil fuels for another century or so. CO2 will go through the roof and peak oil will greatly endanger our energy future.

Renewables are fine but too little and too late.

Modern nuclear is safe enough, thats just a statistical fact.
hangman04
5 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2014
How many people have been killed by a sunshine leak from a solar panel?
And how many people have been killed in civilian nuclear accidents?

"Chernobyl (Ukraine 1986) where the destruction of the reactor by steam explosion and fire killed 31 people and had significant health and environmental consequences... Apart from Chernobyl, no nuclear workers or members of the public have ever died as a result of exposure to radiation due to a commercial nuclear reactor incident."

Omg u ignorant fool! do u know that after Chernobyl in Romania (in the 500 mile radius) cancer cases tripled in 5 years, and yes most were deadly or that many in the children born in that period suffered from different malformation and genetic diseases (all of a sudden) ? You forgot to count those deaths i presume? And we will see the real aftermath of Fukushima in the next 10-20 years.

Also it is not the problem that people get killed by wind / solar but what was the cause of death.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 24, 2014
Socialism is the reason for shortages of food and those like Ehrlich advocate for this population control to support a socialist state, not to 'save humans'.

"Understanding that the costs of an ever-increasing population would far exceed the country's capacity to provide adequate food, education, housing, and employment and could destabilise the regime, Iran's health ministry launched a nationwide campaign offering family planning assistance. Food coupons, paid maternity leave, and social welfare subsidies were withdrawn after a third child, and birth control classes were required before any couple could get married. "
http://www.breitb...ity-lens
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2014
"The wind industry saw its growth tumble by 92% last year, according to a new report from the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), and that's off of a very low base to begin with.

Big Wind blames the decline in output on uncertainty over the future of a federal wind industry tax credit — an absurdly generous subsidy of 2.3 cents per kilowatt hour produced.

This handout is what keeps those giant turbines twirling. These subsidies have been thrown at the renewable energy industry for more than a decade and always with the promise by AWEA that profitability is right around the corner. Sure it is."
"The wind industry has admitted that without the taxpayer handouts, its form of energy can't compete."
"
The fatal conceit of government planners is to believe they can see the future better than private entrepreneurs and investors."

http://news.inves...dies.htm
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 24, 2014
One thing is certain, without massive deployment of nuclear humanity will be burning fossil fuels for another century or so.

Again, false dichotomy. Some (mainly industrialized!) nations are already on their way to a full switchover mid-century. The countries where alternative means of generating energy are most suited haven't even started (anything close to the equator and/or plenty of coastline). At the cost of alternative power plants these nations will save a bundle if they forego nuclear.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2014
"There are NO alternatives which can replace fossil fuels worldwide besides nuclear."

Unfortunately for you science does not agree. Neither does the world which is why nuclear is dying away.
You enjoy making up hour own facts?

"Today there are some 435 nuclear power reactors operating in 31 countries plus Taiwan, with a combined capacity of over 370 GWe. In 2011 these provided 2518 billion kWh, about 13.5% of the world's electricity.

"Over 60 power reactors are currently being constructed in 13 countries plus Taiwan (see Table below), notably China, South Korea and Russia.

"World Energy Outlook 2011 New Policies scenario has a 60% increase in nuclear capacity to 2035...

"Numerous power reactors in USA, Belgium, Sweden and Germany, for example, have had their generating capacity increased... In the USA, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved more than 140 uprates totalling over 6500 MWe since 1977, a few of them "extended uprates" of up to 20%."
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2014
Omg u ignorant fool! do u know that after Chernobyl in Romania (in the 500 mile radius) cancer cases tripled in 5 years, and yes most were deadly or that many in the children born in that period suffered from different malformation and genetic diseases (all of a sudden) ?
OMG u do no that brainless propaganda is not a valid substitute for facts? Post some refs to bak up wut u say r stfu. K?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2014
Again, false dichotomy. Some (mainly industrialized!) nations are already on their way to a full switchover mid-century
Again, merely saying something does not make it so.

"Experts predict a 35% increase in demand for electricity by 2030. In practical terms, that means an equivalent increase in demand for coal and gas, at least for the next decade.

"Electricity generating plants now consume a sizeable portion world energy from all sources, including 70% of world's coal and nearly 40% of its natural gas. There is no immediate way to alter that situation. In the near term, renewable resources are unlikely to substantially change the mix of world energy supply.

"the use of coal has increased over the past few decades both in absolute terms and as a percentage of total primary energy supply.

Cont>
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2014
"...every fuel source is used to generate electricity; with coal and Natural gas comprising two-thirds (2/3) of E&H's energy portfolio. Nuclear, hydro and biomass are low mid-tier suppliers. The remaining fuels; geothermal, wind and solar are all renewable resources that comprise only a small fraction of E&H's energy supply."

-The facts tell us that renewables will never replace fossil fuels. Only nuclear has the potential to do this in the near term.
Also it is not the problem that people get killed by wind / solar but what was the cause of death
OMG are u saying there's a difference between dying from falling off a roof and dying from a plant explosion? U ignorant fool!
COCO
not rated yet Apr 24, 2014
all is lost - David Keith could save us all..........................
Bob_Wallace
not rated yet Apr 24, 2014
"The wind industry saw its growth tumble by 92% last year, according to a new report from the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), and that's off of a very low base to begin with.


Careful, grasshopper.

Do not mistake variability in a curve with a change in slope.
dvdrushton
5 / 5 (5) Apr 24, 2014
The facts tell us that renewables will never replace fossil fuels


Wow - what facts are you referring to? Every study I have seen says that hydro,wind, solar, tidal, wave, geothermal, algae, etc. contain orders of magnitude over our energy needs - and it is just a question of scaling up (which is totally possible). Time frame is an interesting question. As the price of renewables tumbles, and the effects of climate change become more obvious - I believe we will see the power of exponential growth. Beats waiting for the e-cat otto.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2014
Wow - what facts are you referring to? Every study I have seen says that hydro,wind, solar, tidal, wave, geothermal, algae, blahblah
Perhaps you should read more realistic studies.

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

"Prof Hansen, who's now at Columbia University, said it's not enough for environmentalists to simply oppose fossil fuels 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, Prof Hansen said.

"The joint letter says, "The time has come for those who take the threat of global warming seriously to embrace the development and deployment of safer nuclear power systems"

-Tom Wigley is signatory.
Bob_Wallace
3 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2014
""Those energy sources cannot scale up fast enough" to deliver the amount of cheap and reliable power the world needs"

Wind and solar scale up faster than nuclear. If wind and solar can't scale up fast enough then we are cooked. (Obviously they can.)

Take a look at China. They've been building nuclear since 1985, 30 years. They just started installing wind about 10 years ago. In that 10 years production of electricity (not nameplate) from wind has zoomed past production from nuclear.

In 2013 wind produced about 25% more electricity than did nuclear.

China is scaling up wind much faster than they are scaling up nuclear.
dvdrushton
5 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2014
@Otto
Perhaps you should read more realistic studies.


The problem is not the realism of the studies. I challenge you to find a credible source that backs up your claim that "renenewables will never replace fossil fuels"

Here is one study that is highly credible - and supports the notion that switching to a fully renewable energy world is more of a problem of political will, than a technical problem. There is plenty of energy in renewables - and as Bob points out - they can scale up just as well as nukes.

http://news.stanf...611.html

antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2014
Nuclear doesn't really scale well. There are only a handful of companies in the world that can build them and you can't just arbitrarily increase that number, since it requires some serious expertise.
Building windfarms, PV panels or solar thermal (and even wave generators) is comparatively low tech. The number of companies that can do that already far outstrips the nuclear companies.

The number of years it takes to set up a nuclear powerpoplant is considerably longer compared to a wind farm. And you have to constantly monitor/manage risks. So it's not even a short term fix. At (incredibly optimistic) best nuclear would be a band aid for mid-term energy production and would be obsolete as soon as it contributed an appreciable amount of power. That's such a tiny niche that it's just not sensible to go for it - even if one were to turn a blind eye towards the risks and costs.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2014
If the same political enthusiasm for wind and solar were applied to nuclear power, there would be sealed, modular nuclear power plants powering small cities and large buildings.
The Bonneville nuclear power plant in AL would be generating power instead of being mothballed.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2014
What do you mean by political enthusiams? Do you mean subsidies? Because by that measure the political enthusiasm for nuclear is certainly much higher than for renewables.
Lex Talonis
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2014
The only reason why the nuclear industry exists is because Corporation USA - the global gangsters and thieves are robbing everyone of food, fuel, drugs and minerals...

And the US Dept of Energy - the American government head office for the nuclear industry - makes weapons from the depleted uranium, the tax payers pay for the lot, and they shoot up and poison the middle east, and the American oil companies and military suppliers move in to make a profit - from all the stolen oil, and all the soldiers get sick and full of cancer, the people of Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, have deformed children and the land is poisoned for ever.

Beyond Treason.

https://www.youtu...8nUDbVXU

DARPA is the American version of the Nazi concentration camps performing cruel experiments on the people they imprisoned.

Only using nuclear weapons in slow yield and low yield nuclear wars.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2014
What do you mean by political enthusiams? Do you mean subsidies? Because by that measure the political enthusiasm for nuclear is certainly much higher than for renewables.

Not subsidies.
The US Navy is enthusiastic regarding nuclear power.
The US govt has no courage supporting nuclear power and enables special interests to control policy.
Congress required a high level repository, NV was chosen, but BHO refuses to enforce the law, just one of hundreds he refuses to enforce.
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2014
"There is one source of carbon-­emission-free energy that is cheap, reliable, and proven to work on a large scale: nuclear power (see "Nuclear Options"). It often gets a bad rap because of perceived safety problems. In reality, it has become a sort of litmus test for societal rationality. People have a hard time estimating some kinds of risks. For example, they fret about the safety of flying but show little concern for driving, despite statistics showing that cars kill vastly more people than planes do."
"Similarly, incidents like Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima capture our attention but mislead us as to the risks. Statistics from the World Health Organization and other sources suggest that coal kills about 4,000 times as many people per unit of energy produced as nuclear power does."
http://www.techno...l-fears/
Rational AGWites would support nuclear power.
Modernmystic
not rated yet Apr 25, 2014
As far as scaling up France converted virtually it's entire grid to nuclear in a few decades....not a problem.

Look it up.
Modernmystic
not rated yet Apr 25, 2014
The facts tell us that renewables will never replace fossil fuels


Wow - what facts are you referring to? Every study I have seen says that hydro,wind, solar, tidal, wave, geothermal, algae, etc. contain orders of magnitude over our energy needs - and it is just a question of scaling up (which is totally possible). Time frame is an interesting question. As the price of renewables tumbles, and the effects of climate change become more obvious - I believe we will see the power of exponential growth. Beats waiting for the e-cat otto.


So where do we get the twelve trillion to install the capacity we need? And the price of wind isn't going to "tumble" forever when we start hitting the rare earths wall. Solar is going to require some kind of storage mechanism...do you know how toxic batteries are? Can you imagine how many will be in landfills a few years into them running a large portion of our grid?
dvdrushton
1 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2014
So where do we get the twelve trillion to install the capacity we need?


The same place we would get the money to install the nukes - if we decide it is necessary to suddenly switch to a low carbon energy system. Of course that is not my call is it? At the moment we are choosing to use renewables for new generating capacity (basically replacing old coal and nukes as they are taken off line - demand here in the U.S. has been pretty flat). http://www.greent...-january This article is proposing the switch be done to nukes. I am somewhat agnostic - as long as we go to low carbon. You know that power has to come from somewhere right? Where will the money come from to mine all that oil and gas? Oh that's right - we do have money when we need it? Why don't you try recycling some more old tired, debunked myths. Batteries are recylcable - oh you knew that right?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2014
we do have money when we need it?

No, 'we' don't.
TANSTAAFL
dvdrushton
1 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2014
@Modernmystic - your using the old argument about rare earths is very tiresome - it has been dismissed so often. Do some research on the issue of rare earths. Here is a quote from the British Geological Society

"The world will not run out of rare earth metals used in new technology, and those who think it will do not understand the difference between reserves and resources"

Here I will give you a start http://www.livemi...ces.html

Do you not know how to use google? Do you worry about not being able to buy a new Ipad, or cell phone?
Modernmystic
not rated yet Apr 25, 2014
Batteries are recylcable - oh you knew that right?


I've never seen a single economic study that talked about the levelized costs of solar that INCLUDED recycling batteries. They always say solar is "free"...guess we have some costs we need to include then.

Moreover there is no industrial scale operation on the entire planet that is currently recycling lithium batteries.

http://www.waste-...nge.html

The same place we would get the money to install the nukes


Well we'll just need three times as much money. To get to current capacity using only nukes we'd need 600 more plants at about 7 billion each. That's 4 trillion, not twelve. No fuel costs with breeder reactors either.

Glad to see someone who's at least agnostic on the nuke issue. I for one just want us off carbon ASAP. I think nuclear is the best political option to get deniers on the bandwagon.
Modernmystic
not rated yet Apr 25, 2014
@Modernmystic - your using the old argument about rare earths is very tiresome - it has been dismissed so often. Do some research on the issue of rare earths. Here is a quote from the British Geological Society

"The world will not run out of rare earth metals used in new technology, and those who think it will do not understand the difference between reserves and resources"

Here I will give you a start http://www.livemi...ces.html

Do you not know how to use google? Do you worry about not being able to buy a new Ipad, or cell phone?


First of all, I generally don't reply to such blatantly disrespectful and childish posts. However, I will set the record straight. I shouldn't have said "we'll run out" I should have said when the costs skyrocket because all the material that's easy to get at will be strip mined out of China leaving a toxic wasteland BIGGER than the one they already have.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2014
doesn't really scale well. There are only a handful of companies in the world that can build them and you can't just arbitrarily
-So let's measure this tainted guesswork against those of experts...

"...no serious technical obstacles exist that would hamper the expansion of nuclear energy in the U.S." -Alan Hanson, exec vp AREVA

-From last weeks physorg article - modularity and standardization makes scale-up easy:

"modular plants could be about as big as a couple of semi-trailers - easily fitting on the dimensions of coal plants they're ultimately intended to replace in the U.S. They would have factory-built parts that are slotted together like Lego blocks"

-Scale-up is cost effective:

"Increased nuclear capacity in some countries is resulting from the uprating of existing plants. This is a highly cost-effective way of bringing on new capacity. Numerous power reactors in USA, Belgium, Sweden and Germany, for example, have had their generating capacity increased." -some 30%+
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2014
Yeah I LOVE how the reactionary wing of the environmental movement complains that nukes are "unsafe" (which they aren't), non economic (which they aren't), and don't scale well (which they do), but WON'T allow the industry to build a SINGLE planet with new technology which might mollify their hysterical assumptions about nuclear.

Have your cake or eat it...
kochevnik
5 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2014
Omg u ignorant fool! do u know that after Chernobyl in Romania (in the 500 mile radius) cancer cases tripled in 5 years, and yes most were deadly or that many in the children born in that period suffered from different malformation and genetic diseases (all of a sudden) ?
OMG u do no that brainless propaganda is not a valid substitute for facts? Post some refs to bak up wut u say r stfu. K?
Ghost only counts direct deaths. Statistical deaths like Love Canal or Hiroshima are too abstract for him
Yeah I LOVE how the reactionary wing of the environmental movement complains that nukes are "unsafe" (which they aren't)
Then you won't mind that Russia builds more missiles after your NATO/US debacle in the Ukraine
Modernmystic
not rated yet Apr 25, 2014
Then you won't mind that Russia builds more missiles after your NATO/US debacle in the Ukraine


You do understand I was talking about reactors and not missiles....I hope....
Modernmystic
not rated yet Apr 25, 2014
Omg u ignorant fool! do u know that after Chernobyl in Romania (in the 500 mile radius) cancer cases tripled in 5 years, and yes most were deadly or that many in the children born in that period suffered from different malformation and genetic diseases (all of a sudden) ?


4000 indirect deaths...according to the WHO.

Here try this one for renewable "safety"...

http://en.wikiped...sualties

antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2014
-From last weeks physorg article - modularity and standardization makes scale-up easy:

"modular plants could be about as big as a couple of semi-trailers - easily fitting on the

That's all conjecture. This stuff hasn't even been prototyped. Do you know how long the cycle is to develop something like this from prototype to roll-out? A decade, at least. The first PROTOTYPES are set for 2022. So we're talking about mid 2030's until the first market ready units are out. By the time this is avaliable in bulk the changeover is long done.

http://www.world-...eactors/
A 2011 report for US DOE by University of Chicago Energy Policy Institute ... points out that detailed engineering data for most small reactor designs are only 10 to 20 percent complete, only limited cost data are available, and no US factory has advanced beyond the planning stages.
Modernmystic
not rated yet Apr 25, 2014
That's all conjecture. This stuff hasn't even been prototyped.


GREAT! So when and where do we get to test it to find out! :)

We have gen IV reactors that are ready to build right now. Where would you like them to prove concept?
ryggesogn2
not rated yet Apr 25, 2014
Love Canal

Love Canal had nothing to do with nuclear energy, but much to do with electrical energy and the greed of the local govt to acquire canal to build houses and a new school.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2014
Yeah I LOVE how the reactionary wing of the environmental movement complains that nukes are "unsafe" (which they aren't), non economic (which they aren't), and don't scale well (which they do), but WON'T allow the industry to build a SINGLE planet with new technology which might mollify their hysterical assumptions about nuclear.

Have your cake or eat it...

That's why the enviro-communists must control the propaganda and keep ginning up fear as they are doing with AGW.
dvdrushton
5 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2014
First of all, I generally don't reply to such blatantly disrespectful and childish posts.


I would be happy if you did not reply. However - in my view - when you try peddling the old echo chamber nonsense that has been plied here over and over again - has been debunked with respectful responses - and is then trotted out once again - my response is to be disrespectful - I think it calls for it. At some point we have to be willing to demand reason - and not to have to constantly respond to nonsense.

Yes - your post was wrong - and I demonstrated that it was wrong. Your argument about the cost of rare earths is also wrong. We are exploring motors, and magnets that do not need rare earths. If the cost of some rare earths go up - we will either develop new mines and bring the cost down - or develop motors that don't need rare earths (as Toyota is currently doing). cont.
dvdrushton
not rated yet Apr 25, 2014
cont. Modernmystic - you talk about the cost of nukes being 3 times the cost of wind or solar. Actually the important metric is the cost of the electricity generated by the source. Those numbers are very hard to pin down - as there is so much change going on in the energy world. However - again - if you use google - you can find plenty of information comparing the costs of the different sources - and you will find that wind and solar are no more expensive than current nukes. Here is an interesting article http://renewecono...ar-95493

so the installed cost is not the point - the cost of the power is the point. As I say - I am agnostic - I hope we see next gen nukes - and get to really see the costs. I believe they will be higher than wind and solar - but happy to be wrong - no one knows until we get there. cont.
Modernmystic
not rated yet Apr 25, 2014
my response is to be disrespectful - I think it calls for it


Then I have nothing further to say to you or no more energy to spend on you. If you haven't grown up enough to be respectful to someone you disagree with then how could anyone trust you to be intellectually honest, much less competent?

Good luck (no sarcasm intended)!
dvdrushton
not rated yet Apr 25, 2014
cont.

Last comment - you accuse environmentalists of " but WON'T allow the industry to build a SINGLE planet with new technology "

I am sorry - who is stopping China from developing what ever technology they deem necessary to deal with their pollution/energy problems? I understand they are working of Thorium. I don't believe that green peace has influence over the Chinese government.
dvdrushton
not rated yet Apr 25, 2014
Then I have nothing further to say to you


Awesome - I will continue to take a few minutes to push back when I see comments from people who seem only interested in spreading disinformation (we have a rare earth crisis that will increase the cost of wind, nukes are more expensive that renewables - etc) - and not willing to take a few minutes to check google. You not responding will lessen the tendency to get into pointless back and forths - so probably a net gain.
Modernmystic
not rated yet Apr 25, 2014
For general consumption on rare earths and their associated problems.

http://e360.yale....ks/2614/

http://en.wikiped...l_impact

http://www.techno...-crisis/

dvdrushton
not rated yet Apr 25, 2014
In a discussion about the merits of wind/solar vs. Nukes - modernmystic uses the argument that the batteries that are needed to back up wind/solar will be filling up our land fills. Modern's actual words "Can you imagine how many will be in landfills a few years into them running a large portion of our grid?"

Later modernmystic states that no industrial scale recycling of lithium batteries is currently happening. Mystic then quotes an article that says this - "Projects are currently underway in Europe, the United States and Japan to develop effective and feasible recycling technologies with a complete life cycle analysis of recycling."

Who is pushing an agenda?
Modernmystic
not rated yet Apr 25, 2014
Modernmystic
not rated yet Apr 25, 2014
Having SUCH trouble using Google, but I did manage to find some more :)

http://www.instit...inerals/

http://www.scienc...6390067X

http://www.chemis...nts.html

Modernmystic
not rated yet Apr 25, 2014
There is SO little about this issue out there, but I'm here to be sure that we don't get misinformed on this board.

http://www.pbs.or...a_12-14/

http://cen.acs.or...ing+News

http://www.ntn.or...inal.pdf
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2014
conjecture. This stuff hasn't even been prototyped. Do you know how long the cycle is to develop something like this from prototype to roll-out? A decade, at least
Hey thanks for your opinion. But as usual it is not useful as it is not fact-based.

"This paper focuses on advanced designs in the small category, i.e. those now being built for the first time or still on the drawing board"
http://www.world-...eactors/

"A 2009 assessment by the IAEA under its Innovative Nuclear Power Reactors & Fuel Cycle (INPRO) program concluded that there could be 96 small modular reactors (SMRs) in operation around the world by 2030 in its 'high' case"

"The most advanced SMR project is in China [under construction]"

"very small fast reactors of under 50 MWe. Some are conceived for areas away from transmission grids and with small loads; others are designed to operate in clusters in competition with large units"
Bob_Wallace
not rated yet Apr 25, 2014
"Actually the important metric is the cost of the electricity generated by the source. Those numbers are very hard to pin down - as there is so much change going on in the energy world."

We have some recent numbers from the US. A recent Citigroup analysis finds that electricity from the new Vogtle reactors will cost 11c/kWh. If there are no further cost/timeline overruns.

And that electricity from reactors built later on would almost certainly cost more as Vogtle is benefiting from currently very low interest rates.

Wind-electricity has been selling for an average of 4c/kWh since 2010. That price includes 1.15c/kWh PTC subsidy, so 5.15c. It also includes land cost, transmission and owners profits which are not part of LCOE calculations.

Solar-electricity is now selling as low as 5c/kWh in the SW. That installed price in the NE would mean non-subsidized solar at about 8c/kWh and a national median of about 7c/kWh.

The cost of W/S will almost certainly drop over time.
Bob_Wallace
not rated yet Apr 25, 2014
More on the important metric from further east...

Wind and solar generation half the cost of nuclear in Germany.

"New-build wind and solar energy systems can generate electricity for up to 50 per cent cheaper than new nuclear power plants, a German study has found.

The research, commissioned by German think tank Agora Energiewende, compares feed-in tariffs for new nuclear in the UK with FiTs for renewables in Germany, and finds that nuclear and carbon capture and storage (CSS) – a technology not yet available in Europe – are both more expensive than wind and solar as energy strategies for preventing climate change.

Released this week, the study also investigates the costs of "complete power systems" using natural gas power as flexible peak load back-up – something nuclear power plants need to achieve a generation capacity that makes them economically viable, and solar and wind farms need to make up for weather-affected intermittency."

(cont.)
Bob_Wallace
not rated yet Apr 25, 2014
(Germany nuclear/wind/solar comparison cont.)

http://renewecono...ar-95493

And do remember that Germany has rather poor solar resources and not great onshore wind resources. Northern Europe would be considered an area where nuclear would have meaningful advantages due to low W/S resources.
Modernmystic
not rated yet Apr 25, 2014
There are several very reliable sources on this page of levelized costs and real costs with many associated variables on this page. On most of them wind is at parity with nuclear and solar is twice as much as either....
http://en.wikiped...stimates
Bob_Wallace
3 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2014
We've long known that the EIA does a terrible job of predicting future prices. (BTW, their 2019 predictions are out now. And just as flawed as in the past.)

Look at the 8.66c/kWh the EIA is prediction for 2018 in your link. The NREL has reported the average selling price for wind since 2010 has been 4c/kWh. 5.13c/kWh with the subsidy added back in.

Look on down the page. The OpenEI database reports a 6c/kWh median LCOE for onshore wind. More than 25% lower than the EIA predictions.

That database also claims the minimum for solar PV to be 15c. It's being sold commonly under 10c and in some cases 5c. ~6c without subsidies. Reported by the NREL.

Looking further down you linked page, the California numbers are for 2007. The big price drop for Solar PV showed up in 2010.

That page is out of date and some of its sources are not trustworthy.

I know you badly want to see nuclear get built, but try to be objective and not a dishonest cheerleader.

Modernmystic
not rated yet Apr 25, 2014
That page is out of date and some of its sources are not trustworthy.

I know you badly want to see nuclear get built, but try to be objective and not a dishonest cheerleader.



Actually the sources are government agencies and include subsidies and other costs often "overlooked" on websites like "reneweconomy", which to be quite honest looks like a hack site with an agenda...but that's just me. Be honest though would you trust a website dedicated to nuclear energy about their estimates of nuclear energy? I think not.

No, I'm sorry Bob, but my sources are neutral, unbiased, and not out of date. Provide us with a neutral source (a government agency preferably) that backs up your source and I'll think it's worthy of further research.
Modernmystic
not rated yet Apr 25, 2014
Here's a link to the US Energy Information Administration of a 2014 study...can't get more up to date that that for you Bob...

http://www.eia.go...tion.cfm
Modernmystic
not rated yet Apr 25, 2014
Here's another from the UK from the Department of Energy and Climate change. It's 2012 numbers, but I wouldn't call it out of date...

https://www.gov.u...osts.pdf
Bob_Wallace
5 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2014
"Provide us with a neutral source (a government agency preferably) that backs up your source and I'll think it's worthy of further research."

Solar PPAs as low as 5c/kWh (plus subsidy)

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

"Utility-Scale Solar 2012: An Empirical Analysis of Project Cost, Performance, and Pricing Trends in the United States"

http://emp.lbl.go...-ppt.pdf

Wind contracts in 2011 and 2012 average 4c/kWh (plus subsidy).

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

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

Citi puts nuclear's LCOE at 11 cents/kWh.

Citigroup in a paper that has probably not been released for general consumption. These studies are usually sold to interested parties for some thousands of dollars.

On this site you can see figures and quotes from the Citigroup report.

http://www.greent...as-begun
Bob_Wallace
5 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2014
Here's a link to the US Energy Information Administration of a 2014 study...can't get more up to date that that for you Bob...

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


Yes, I told you about it. And that it is flawed.

"(BTW, their 2019 predictions are out now. And just as flawed as in the past.)"

Double check the LBNL numbers. Compare their real world numbers to the EIA predictions. Be objective.

You will find that prices are already lower than what the EIA is predicting for wind and solar.

And if you know anything at all about energy production you'll know that the cost of wind and solar will almost certainly continue to drop in price.

Bob_Wallace
5 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2014
Here's another from the UK from the Department of Energy and Climate change. It's 2012 numbers, but I wouldn't call it out of date...

https://www.gov.u...osts.pdf


I don't track UK numbers closely enough to be able to say much about that set of numbers.

I do note that they project the cost of nuclear at 13c/kWh. Consistent with the Hinkley Point bit (but doesn't include subsidies).

I also know that the UK does not have excellent solar resources, so one would expect costs to be higher than in the US. At the same time the UK has pretty low residential rooftop prices ($2/W or less) and has installed utility solar for $1.59/W.

But for some reason they haven't done as well with their wind industry in getting prices down. For example, offshore wind is considerably higher than offshore in Germany. And their onshore wind industry seems to be inefficient as well.
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2014
Yes, I told you about it. And that it is flawed.


Is that the same as a denier saying the IPCC is flawed Bob? Sorry, you'll have to do better than your opinion.

Now I looked through those two government studies (didn't bother with the others) and I saw no direct comparisons, and nothing about subsidies in either study. So, if they're not taking those into consideration I can dismiss them out of hand.

You said you don't like the EIA report. What problem do have with the UK one?

And if you know anything at all about energy production you'll know that the cost of wind and solar will almost certainly continue to drop in price.


I know no such thing, actually with the shortage of rare earths the price of wind is going to hit a big wall.
Bob_Wallace
5 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2014
Over the last few posts I have carefully explained to you how the EIA numbers are incorrect.

At your request I gave you the sources for both wind and solar numbers which demonstrate the numbers are incorrect.

I added the subsidies back in for you.

I have not relied on my opinion, but used publicly accessible facts.

You are free to dismiss anything you like. That, you commonly do. And that's why you continue to post erroneous information and worthless opinions.

You are behaving exactly like a climate change denier. You cherry-pick data you like and dismiss what does not support your personal belief system.

You'll post stuff like " with the shortage of rare earths the price of wind is going to hit a big wall" when, in fact, there is no shortage of REMs (other than a temporary refining problem at worst) and wind turbines are being built without REMs.

When one ignores reality they become the village idiot.
dvdrushton
5 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2014
Modernmystic argues - " with the shortage of rare earths the price of wind is going to hit a big wall."

Mystic already tried to argue that we were running out of HREE's - on this very thread. This article is a quick read on HREE's - and I think demonstrates well who is trying to push and agenda - and argue against reality. https://www.theau...hortages

Here is a quote that cuts to the chase "You suggest that there could be a shortage of HREEs until 2016, when a couple of different mines come online. You also forecast that the price per kilogram (kg) of nearly all the rare earths will be heading lower until then, with one exception: dysprosium."
dvdrushton
5 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2014
Very relevant article here - cut to the chase (regarding solar) : "The price reflects the benefit of the federal investment tax credit, but even without the credit the price would be 7 to 7.5 cents/kWh — still competitive with the utility's cost estimates for power from natural gas (7 cents), and well below the cost of coal (10 cents) and nuclear (13 cents) power."

http://www.smartp...E4eb29b5
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2014
...or we'll just build motors/generators without rare earths, which seems quite doable without having much in the way of efficiency losses:
http://www.infine...034.html
Burnerjack
5 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2014
Interesting debate by many here. Many good points indeed. One alternative not discussed (or I just overlooked it...) is geothermal power. Seems like an expensive capital expenditure, but seems ubiquitous. Amazes me that this is not the main energy provider in the Hawaiian Islands.
Any quality comments on this?
Bob_Wallace
5 / 5 (1) Apr 27, 2014
Geothermal is cheaper than new coal and new nuclear, but it isn't all that cheap. Wind, solar, and natural gas are getting most of the action.

Some geothermal is happening in Hawaii but there's significant cultural opposition. It's doing better in Indonesia and parts of Africa.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Apr 27, 2014
Amazes me that this is not the main energy provider in the Hawaiian Islands.
Any quality comments on this?

A couple of places it works (Iceland), but a couple of places it has casued earthquakes (Basel prototype powerplant - which has subsequently shut down, Salton Sea Geothermal Fields, etc.)
Sitting on top of a semi-active volcano (like Hawaii) is NOT where you want to risk doing something that might cause earthquakes.

Currently it's not predictable where such effects will occur so siting such a powerplant is decidely (economically) risky.
Bob_Wallace
not rated yet Apr 27, 2014
Drilling holes in the ground frequently causes small tremors. We've observed that for over 100 years while drilling for oil. We're seeing small tremors with natural gas fracking.

All of this stuff is small potatoes. The sort of tremors that California and western Nevada get by the bucketful every week.

http://www.data.s...centeqs/

Basel was a terrible place to install geothermal. It's an active quake zone and the city has never been "earthquake hardened" as have, for example, California buildings.

Geologists have drilled into semi-active volcanoes (in Hawaii). Lava flows out for a short while, hardens, and seals the hole. It probably isn't a good idea to drill into something like the Yellowstone Caldera.

Just sayin'....

Modernmystic
not rated yet Apr 28, 2014
Over the last few posts I have carefully explained to you how the EIA numbers are incorrect.


No they aren't they are direct comparisons done by the federal government. They take into account many things that your examples didn't.

At your request I gave you the sources for both wind and solar numbers which demonstrate the numbers are incorrect.


They did no such thing, actually according to your own logic they're comparing apples and oranges since you don't have a problem with the methodology of one set of numbers and not the other. How can you make a comparison between what you call "garbage" and "gold"?

I added the subsidies back in for you.


How kind, but I don't accept your adding it back in. It needs to be included in the methodology and the study itself otherwise you can play with the numbers however you like. I trust the government (at least this far), not you.

cont
Modernmystic
not rated yet Apr 28, 2014
I have not relied on my opinion, but used publicly accessible facts.


Quite the contrary. You've taken publicly accessible facts and added your opinions and numbers to make them jibe with your worldview.

You are free to dismiss anything you like. That, you commonly do. And that's why you continue to post erroneous information and worthless opinions.


Well I'm sorry but we all dismiss anything we like, and we commonly do. You dismiss many arguments that you don't' agree with, but that doesn't make them false. Try again.

You are behaving exactly like a climate change denier. You cherry-pick data you like and dismiss what does not support your personal belief system.


Pot meet kettle. I'm pulling for sources by various governments that do DIRECT comparisons using the same methods for all. It's actually you who are cherry picking and manipulating data without giving your methods.

cont
Modernmystic
not rated yet Apr 28, 2014

You'll post stuff like " with the shortage of rare earths the price of wind is going to hit a big wall" when, in fact, there is no shortage of REMs (other than a temporary refining problem at worst) and wind turbines are being built without REMs.


And they are less efficient, and hence effect the price of the electricity they generate. That's pretty basic Bob.


When one ignores reality they become the village idiot.


I know this stuff is very threatening to you, but it's no reason to get personal or disrespectful.
Bob_Wallace
not rated yet Apr 28, 2014
mystic -

1) The EIA is predicting costs for wind and solar in that are significantly higher that current prices.

2) Wind and solar prices are on a downward trend.

3) There is no argument made for rising wind and solar prices made by anyone.

4) To predict higher prices five years from current prices defies logic.

5) If you can't understand that then you are beyond hope.
Modernmystic
not rated yet Apr 28, 2014
It seems to me that we're having disagreements over methods of calculating price.

If this is the case then let us find a method we both agree on and crunch our own numbers by the same rules and see what we get. Either that or we can have nuclear and whatever power source you want to compare with it in the SAME study using the SAME methodology that we both agree is a credible source.

Sound good?
Modernmystic
not rated yet Apr 28, 2014
The EIA is predicting costs for wind and solar in that are significantly higher that current prices.


What makes you think they're wrong? How? By what means? Show me your math please.

3) There is no argument made for rising wind and solar prices made by anyone.


That's an opinion, no one knows the future.

2) Wind and solar prices are on a downward trend.


At the moment I'd say that's a solid fact.

4) To predict higher prices five years from current prices defies logic.


Again, an opinion. Do you know the methodology they used to arrive at that conclusion? If not then you're speculating at best.

5) If you can't understand that then you are beyond hope.


My god, is it JUST too much to ask to keep this a non personal discussion???

Also the EIA aside we have the UK study which comes up with similar numbers in 2012....
Bob_Wallace
not rated yet Apr 28, 2014
"If this is the case then let us find a method we both agree on and crunch our own numbers by the same rules and see what we get."

Can we agree that current prices reported by a major national lab are likely to be valid and therefore usable?

Can we agree that a LCOE calculated by the research wing of a major investment bank is likely to be valid and therefore usable?

Can we agree that price trends which have been underway and which no one makes an argument for reversing are likely to be valid?
Bob_Wallace
not rated yet Apr 28, 2014
"Again, an opinion. Do you know the methodology (the EIA) used to arrive at that conclusion? If not then you're speculating at best."

Actually I do know. They were explained to me in by the Assistant Administrator for Energy Analysis, US EIA. That followed a letter some of us sent to the Secretary of Energy asking for an explanation of why the numbers were flawed.

The letter is an excellent example of bureaucratic tap-dancing but does admit the numbers are flawed.
Modernmystic
not rated yet Apr 28, 2014
"Again, an opinion. Do you know the methodology (the EIA) used to arrive at that conclusion? If not then you're speculating at best."

Actually I do know. They were explained to me in by the Assistant Administrator for Energy Analysis, US EIA. That followed a letter some of us sent to the Secretary of Energy asking for an explanation of why the numbers were flawed.

The letter is an excellent example of bureaucratic tap-dancing but does admit the numbers are flawed.


I'd have to see the letter, or some other online "confession".

Also there's still the UK study, and also several others on the same page that give roughly the same numbers. When I searched I put in "levelized costs for energy production"...not "how much cheaper nuclear is that other power" (paraphrasing). I got the Wikipedia article and the EIA study.

cont
Modernmystic
not rated yet Apr 28, 2014
Can we agree that current prices reported by a major national lab are likely to be valid and therefore usable?


No, but we could take a government source that averages various power production across the country.

Can we agree that a LCOE calculated by the research wing of a major investment bank is likely to be valid and therefore usable?


Nope, banks have agendas (well so does virtually everyone, but banks more so). We could take the LCOE from a government source or perhaps another independent entity. Who that would be I couldn't say.

Can we agree that price trends which have been underway and which no one makes an argument for reversing are likely to be valid?


Yes, but people have already made those arguments, so I'm not sure what you'd hope to accomplish with this one. Moreover it's not necessary to compare prices.
Bob_Wallace
not rated yet Apr 28, 2014
I gave you the average price of wind PPAs for 2011 and 2012 from the BLNL. I gave you the BLNL numbers for recent solar PPAs written in the US SW. There is now a signed PPA in Austin Texas for below 5 c.

Wind is across the country.

Solar is "best location". If you can do math you can create a national median LCOE based on the same installation costs but adjusted for CF.

Sorry, I'll take investment bank calculations as they are preparing those numbers for investors. Mislead investors and you lose customers.

In other words, you are looking for a way to dismiss numbers you don't like. So I'd say that there is about zero chance we can find common ground.
--

The EIA letter is in pdf form and too long to post here. Furthermore, I'm not sure about the ethics of publicly posting.
Modernmystic
not rated yet Apr 28, 2014
In other words, you are looking for a way to dismiss numbers you don't like. So I'd say that there is about zero chance we can find common ground.


Well if I am so are you. What problem could you have with government studies? That cuts both ways Bob.

The EIA letter is in pdf form and too long to post here. Furthermore, I'm not sure about the ethics of publicly posting.


Then, quite simply, those numbers stand.

As do the numbers from;
OpenEI Database
UK estimates
French estimates
German Renewable Energy Sources Act-EEG

I gave you the average price of wind PPAs for 2011 and 2012 from the BLNL.


Yes and those numbers do not give a direct comparison, nor did they even bother to include subsidies in their study (a very VERY basic hidden cost modifier). We've been over this.

Now give me neutral government data with clear methodology and we can proceed from there.

Modernmystic
not rated yet Apr 28, 2014
Here's the main problem and the conversation we're not having here.

Deniers, by and large, are pro nuclear. They are NOT pro wind and solar.

Anyone who is really concerned about AGW only has to compromise and we can end virtually all CO2 emissions in this country in a few decades.

It's up to you, how important is solar and wind power to you really?

Here's an interesting article I came across

http://www.huffin...783.html
Bob_Wallace
not rated yet Apr 28, 2014
The main problem here is that I'm looking at what the actual costs/prices are and you're looking for estimates that serve your needs/beliefs/desires.

If nuclear were cheaper then I'd say that we probably accept the risk of further disasters and hope that the people who follow us can figure out how to deal with the radioactive waste we are going to leave them.

But, clearly, nuclear isn't cheaper. It's also slower to bring on line.

I know you don't want to hear that. And that you probably aren't able to hear it. But facts are facts.

Modernmystic
not rated yet Apr 29, 2014
The main problem here is that I'm looking at what the actual costs/prices are and you're looking for estimates that serve your needs/beliefs/desires.


Bob, I'm not the one who took a study that looked at only one source of power, that I had to doctor by adding in something very basic like subsidies after the fact and then compared it to a study that by my own admission was using bad numbers in the first place.

I used a straightforward direct comparison study (actually multiple studies) which show that solar is twice as expensive as nuclear and that nuclear is at parity with onshore wind (still cheaper than offshore). I used perfectly reliable sources, and they were very recent. None of which has been demonstrated to be flawed.

Now, which one of us is trying to defend a psychological position?

antialias_physorg
not rated yet Apr 29, 2014
If nuclear were cheaper then I'd say that we probably accept the risk of further disasters and hope that the people who follow us can figure out how to deal with the radioactive waste we are going to leave them.

I dunno. Even then I wouldn't favor nuclear, as any technology without a clear plan B available (i.e. how to clean it up into a state before the technology was used) should be avoided.
Otherwise we run the risk of maneouvering ourselves, as a species, into a dead end.
At the extreme end that's the attitude that says: We'll release a virulent plague with the expectation that we'll figure out how to cure it before it kills us all.

Saving a few cents is not worth jeopardizing human survival.
Modernmystic
not rated yet Apr 29, 2014
If nuclear were cheaper then I'd say that we probably accept the risk of further disasters and hope that the people who follow us can figure out how to deal with the radioactive waste we are going to leave them.


Well, it's far cheaper than solar...which has been demonstrated here by multiple studies from multiple governments. I'd call that a consensus. It's at parity with wind for generation, but much cheaper to install and with no need to overbuild and waste land with sprawling farms.

The Japanese and French have "figured out" the waste problem. If it wasn't for Jimmy Carter signing an executive order BANNING the recycling of nuclear waste in 1977 we wouldn't have a "problem" with it either. Also the costs for reprocessing the waste are included in the studies I cited.

But, clearly, nuclear isn't cheaper. It's also slower to bring on line.


Actually it's been demonstrated quite clearly that it is, and the French switched over in two decades.

Modernmystic
not rated yet Apr 29, 2014
I know you don't want to hear that. And that you probably aren't able to hear it. But facts are facts.


Which is what I've been working with, it's you who's unable to hear.

Modernmystic
not rated yet Apr 29, 2014
Saving a few cents is not worth jeopardizing human survival.


That's rich. You won't consider nuclear power, but you'd let the planet continue to bake to death holding out for people to agree with you about cap and trade, wind power, solar power, or any other pet policy when (at least in America I can't speak to the political situation elsewhere) you could virtually do away with CO2 emissions by compromising and going nuclear.

I'm still waiting for how human survival is jeopardized by nuclear power, when it's track record is better than hydro.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Apr 29, 2014
Currently it's not predictable where such effects will occur so siting such a powerplant is decidely (economically) risky
More opinions w/o substantiation.

"largest group of geothermal power plants in the world is located at The Geysers, a geothermal field in California."

-one of the most earthquake-prone areas in the state. Also:

"Salton Sea, near the cities of Niland and Calipatria, California"

-In fact most geothermal facilities are located in highly active earthquake locations because this is where the heat is.

"Geothermal regions with adequate heat flow to fuel power plants are found in rift zones, subduction zones and mantle plumes."
Even then I wouldn't favor nuclear
You wouldn't favor nuclear because
1) it's icky
2) it's scary
3) it represents all you detest about centralized power, big business, and big govt (specifically the US)
Saving a few cents is not worth jeopardizing human survival
The viable options are ALL more ruinous to the environment.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Apr 29, 2014
clearly, nuclear isn't cheaper. .. And that you probably aren't able to hear it. But facts are facts.
And saying it with authority still doesn't make it true. Clearly you are wrong.

"Nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation, except where there is direct access to low-cost fossil fuels.

"Fuel costs are one area of steadily increasing efficiency and cost reduction. For instance, in Spain the nuclear electricity cost was reduced by 29% over 1995-2001.

Per this chart
Actual Costs of Electricity
http://www.world-...r-Power/

-and depending on the region, nuclear is often the cheapest alternative. And:

"At 5% discount rate comparative costs are as shown above. Nuclear is comfortably cheaper than coal and gas in all countries."
It's also slower to bring on line
And clearly you're again wrong.

"there could be 96 small modular reactors (SMRs) in operation around the world by 2030."
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Apr 29, 2014
you could virtually do away with CO2 emissions by compromising and going nuclear.

As I said before: 'Nuclear or CO2' is a false dichotomy.
If nuclear were the only option to go CO2 free - fine. But it isn't...and by no measure you care to name is it better than any of the alternatives.

I'm still waiting for how human survival is jeopardized by nuclear power

With each accident more and more land becomes effectively off limits. If we go for floating nuclear powerplants then we're jeopardizing our food supply from the oceans.
You can't site nuclear powerplants wherever you want to. They require water. The heated water goes back into rivers (so you can't site them arbitrarily close at rivers unless you want to kill off everything in there). So you site them seaside (remember Fukushima?)

Going for the sealed, modular ones is just spreading the danger to many points using bulk/cheap units. Bulk and cheap has never been synonymous with 'quality' or 'safe'
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Apr 29, 2014
With each accident more and more land becomes effectively off limits. If we go for floating nuclear powerplants then we're jeopardizing our food supply from the oceans
But because the tech is constantly improving there may never BE another accident. Meanwhile fossil fuel continuously degrades whole ecosystems. The nuclear waste it produces can never be confined. And it is already destroying marine food sources.

"Oceans of Acid: How Fossil Fuels Could Destroy Marine Ecosystems"

-And there is absolutely no current tech that can replace it and meet the needs of power, transportation, and heat WORLDWIDE besides nuclear.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Apr 29, 2014
the danger to many points using bulk/cheap units. Bulk and cheap has never been synonymous with 'quality' or 'safe'
The term 'modular' triggers the Pavlovian response 'bulk and cheap' in aa's mind. Thousands of modular ICBM launch facilities have been installed around the world, next to schools, in peoples back yards, protected by little more than chain link fencing, and have stood since the 1950s with not one breech, not one failure, not one accident that affected human life anywhere.

Modular plants WILL be designed and installed with the same exacting quality, and they WILL share the same stellar safety record.

Meanwhile mine accidents, pipeline explosions, tanker sinkings, wellhead failures, train wrecks, and such will continue to occur, and scores will continue to die.

"The Lac-Mégantic derailment Quebec 2013... freight train carrying Bakken formation crude oil ran away and derailed, resulting in the fire and explosion of multiple tank cars. Forty-two people were killed"
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Apr 29, 2014
The term 'modular' triggers the Pavlovian response 'bulk and cheap' in aa's mind. Thousands of modular ICBM launch facilities have been installed around the world, next to schools, in peoples back yards, protected by little more than chain link fencing, and have stood since the 1950s with not one breech, not one failure, not one accident that affected human life anywhere.

There's a tiiiiny bit of a difference between an inert system and one that is supposed to run 24/7.

Much like parking a car in a garage and expecting it to not spontaneously break down for a few years...and running it on the road for the same time 24/7 and expecting it never to break down.

Even the most stellar designed cars have had recall actions (and even the most well tested spaceships have blown up).

If you had ever worked on any kind of complex technology you would know that "testing until 100% safe and perfect" isn't possible.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Apr 29, 2014
This includes the installation at vandenberg in California which stood within yards of densely-populated suburbs. Here is an interesting tale of people who recently broke into this decommissioned site.
http://www.terras...-missile
There's a tiiiiny bit of a difference between an inert system and one that is supposed to run 24/7.
As I said most of these were cryo fueled into the 80s. Russia still has cryo fueled rockets. The systems complexity and maintenance reqts would be similar to automated modular nukes.
If you had ever worked on any kind of complex technology you would know that "testing until 100% safe and perfect" isn't possible
This does not assure failure aa, only in your bad dreams. As I said not one breech or accident. Hundreds of subs with millions of hours in service with similar operating records.
Modernmystic
not rated yet Apr 29, 2014
As I said before: 'Nuclear or CO2' is a false dichotomy.


You're not hearing me. In the US, if you want to get rid of CO2 emissions then politically you DO have to go nuclear. How many ways do you want me to say it?

With each accident more and more land becomes effectively off limits.


What? All two of them and the few square miles around them?

I remember Fukushima, that' the one where no one died, and according to the WHO no one will die as a result of. Do you remember it correctly?
Modernmystic
not rated yet Apr 29, 2014
Here's a good article about the renewable experiment in Germany.

http://theenergyc...ge-ideas

Bob_Wallace
5 / 5 (1) Apr 29, 2014
"You're not hearing me. In the US, if you want to get rid of CO2 emissions then politically you DO have to go nuclear. How many ways do you want me to say it?"

I'm hearing you. I hear you spouting nonsense. There are many, many research articles showing that grids can go 100% renewables without nuclear.

And your linked EC article is nonsense. It even points out its nonsense with it's last sentence "The lesson here is not "solar and renewables are a failure", but "build solar where the sun shines." ".

Germany installed a lot of solar over a short period. Now they need to install other renewables at a higher rate. They're going to slow down on solar, not because it doesn't work but because they are approaching solar saturation in their renewable mix.

Renewables are doing so well in Germany that they just announced that they will be closing another reactor ahead of schedule. Grafenrheinfeld nuclear plant will close seven months earlier than planned.
Modernmystic
not rated yet Apr 29, 2014
And your linked EC article is nonsense. It even points out its nonsense with it's last sentence "The lesson here is not "solar and renewables are a failure", but "build solar where the sun shines." "


Well if it points out it's own nonsense, then it ISN'T nonsense. So which is it?

If what it says is true then solar is not only very expensive, but we can only build it within narrow range of latitudes to make it even sorta viable...

I'm hearing you. I hear you spouting nonsense. There are many, many research articles showing that grids can go 100% renewables without nuclear.


NO, your not hearing me. I didn't say anything about grids. I was talking about politics. Moreover grids do need power on demand stations to help wind and solar along. I haven't seen anything but hypotheticals as to how to get around that problem...but again...entirely beside my point.
Bob_Wallace
not rated yet Apr 29, 2014
"If what it says is true then solar is not only very expensive, but we can only build it within narrow range of latitudes to make it even sorta viable.."

Clearly solar has already become quite affordable. Utility scale solar in large parts of the world is under $2/W installed. China is installing for $1/W.

With utility solar around $2/W in the US we're seeing PPAs for 5c and less. That means ~6c/kWh production cost (including profits). As we close on $1/W we'll be moving toward 3c/kWh.

3c/kWh for brand new solar. That's pretty close to the O&M for our best performing paid off reactors. (Fear and loathing time in the nuclear industry.)

Solar has worked very nicely to reduce the cost of electricity in Germany, saving Germany billions of euros in fossil fuel purchases.

I'll bet that solar is going to work really well in Fairbanks as their number of 80+F days increase and they add more AC.

High latitudes = some really sunny days half the year.
Modernmystic
not rated yet Apr 29, 2014
Clearly solar has already become quite affordable. Utility scale solar in large parts of the world is under $2/W installed. China is installing for $1/W.


I'd have to see your source on that and if they include subsidy, SREC's and feed-in tariffs. Not to mention if that is a DIRECT capacity comparison or if they're taking those X4 because solar is only producing about 25% of the time. There's a lot to look at when just throwing numbers around.

With utility solar around $2/W in the US we're seeing PPAs for 5c and less. That means ~6c/kWh production cost (including profits). As we close on $1/W we'll be moving toward 3c/kWh.


Solar is solidly between 15-20c/kWh in levelized costs. Those are the facts, they are in the direct comparison levelized studies produced by many governments.

cont.
Modernmystic
not rated yet Apr 29, 2014
Solar has worked very nicely to reduce the cost of electricity in Germany, saving Germany billions of euros in fossil fuel purchases.


Germany, at a whopping 36.25 c/kWh pays more that virtually every other industrialized nation.

http://en.wikiped...mparison
Agomemnon
not rated yet Apr 29, 2014
We should expand nuclear power for the simple fact that we have all the fuel we need for the next 200 years stored up in all those bombs.
The only way to get rid of explosive nuclear bomb material is to burn it in a nuclear reactor.
Bob_Wallace
not rated yet Apr 29, 2014
Germany's wholesale price of electricity has plummeted in the last few years. Germany industry pays less for electricity than the EU27 average.

German retail customers pay a lot of taxes that have nothing to do with the cost of electricity. Stuff like VAT taxes. They do pay 5.3 cents for renewable subsidies. Temporarily. The rest of us pay our renewable, coal and nuclear subsidies through our general (income) taxes.

Take away the taxes that German retail customers pay and their cost of electricity is about the same as New York State.

We can probably burn up as much bomb-fuel as the powers that be will release in the reactors we have.

Let's face it. Putin and Kim the Latter aren't going to give up bombs which means that the rest of the world can't.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Apr 29, 2014
We should expand nuclear power for the simple fact that we have all the fuel we need for the next 200 years stored up in all those bombs.
The only way to get rid of explosive nuclear bomb material is to burn it in a nuclear reactor.
Why should we get rid of it? Fissiles are the most valuable material that a civilization at our stage of development can possess.

Fissiles are freedom. They enable us to operate in hostile environments for unlimited periods of time. They are a hedge against disaster. They will enable the permanent colonization of mars, the moon, and other locations throughout the system. And they are the only power source capable of getting us to these locations and back in a practical amount of time.

Future gens will thank us for having the foresight to stage a phony cold war for the purpose of justifying the effort and expense of producing it, and testing it in pseudo-spaceships beneath the oceans of the world for a century and more.
Modernmystic
not rated yet Apr 30, 2014
Germany's wholesale price of electricity has plummeted in the last few years. Germany industry pays less for electricity than the EU27 average.


Yes, at the expense of consumers that are paying the subsidies necessary to pay for expensive wind and solar expansion. They are essentially robbing from the poor and giving to the rich. Looks like they took a page out of our book on that one.

Take away the taxes that German retail customers pay and their cost of electricity is about the same as New York State.


Take away the taxes, and you take away the solar and wind power...that simple. It doesn't pay for itself and it's expensive.

Germany's wholesale price of electricity has plummeted in the last few years. Germany industry pays less for electricity than the EU27 average.


And I'm sure many German CEOs are very happy and rich because of this....nice...

So in REALITY German prices looking at real (residential) costs.
Modernmystic
not rated yet Apr 30, 2014
cont.

Last sentence should read;

So in REALITY German prices looking at real (residential) costs are continuing to rise.
Bob_Wallace
not rated yet Apr 30, 2014
We should all thank the citizens of Germany who have done the hard lifting to bring the price of solar down to affordable. US citizens did the same for wind.

Now the rest of the world is benefiting from the contributions of people from two of the richest nations.

Clearly wind and solar have now reached grid equity. In many places. All energy is subsidized, coal, oil and nuclear much more than wind and solar.

Many German CEOs are immensely unhappy. The ones invested in fossil fuels.

German retail prices are slightly rising because of the unusual way the FiT is financed. The wholesale price of electricity drops and that means that there's more spread to be recovered.

This is not a major problem for Germans. The average German monthly electricity bill is $15 higher than the average American monthly electricity bill.
Modernmystic
not rated yet Apr 30, 2014
Clearly wind and solar have now reached grid equity. In many places. All energy is subsidized, coal, oil and nuclear much more than wind and solar.


False. Let's see your source. Make sure it includes SREC's, feed in tarrifs, and the difference in capacity needed for starters.

This is not a major problem for Germans. The average German monthly electricity bill is $15 higher than the average American monthly electricity bill.


It's six times higher on average, as has been sourced and shown in this thread.
Modernmystic
not rated yet Apr 30, 2014
Let's see your source. Make sure it includes SREC's, feed in tariffs, and the difference in capacity needed for starters.



Actually we don't need all that on second thought. We only need to look at the multiple DIRECT comparison studies done by many governments already provided in this tread which levelize costs. From there we demonstrated that solar is about twice as expensive, and wind (onshore) about the same as nuclear.

No need to re-invent the wheel....
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Apr 30, 2014
It's six times higher on average, as has been sourced and shown in this thread.

The source I have (from 2012) puts the average US cost per kWh at 8.89 (US)cent, and the average german cost at 15.5.
http://de.statist...aendern/

"Six times higher" is a completely ridiculous statement.
But if you look at the historical development of prices for electricity it has always been more expensive by about the same factor - even in times of rampant nuclear power.
Modernmystic
not rated yet Apr 30, 2014
"Six times higher" is a completely ridiculous statement.


Sorry, I read that in a study I can't find atm, but in this study it does show it as 4.5 times higher.

http://en.wikiped...mparison

So it's not "completely ridiculous" :) Hey you want to install expensive power you're going to pay for it. Don't be offended, I respect your choice...honestly no sarcasm. It's not the choice I'd make though.

I'll continue to look for the "six times higher" study because it's out there as I have time.

As to your study, well it's in German. I can't even tell if subsidies or taxes or other government schemes have been included. This is an English speaking site, and we're conversing in English. For clarity please confine your sources thus. Thanks! :)
Bob_Wallace
not rated yet Apr 30, 2014
According to the fossil fuel industry friendly IEA the average monthly electricity bill in Germany was 75.08 Euros ($97.98) in 2012.

http://www.instit...illions/

According to the EIA the average US average monthly electricity bill was $107.28 in 2012.

http://www.eia.go...&t=3

This set of numbers puts the US a bit higher than Germany. The cost of electricity is a bit higher in Germany. But Germans use less. And Germans pay significant non-utility taxes along with their electricity bill. You should be very familiar with the way Europe has used high energy taxes to promote efficiency. Just look at fuel costs. Over $10/gallon in Norway, an oil-producing country.

And learn how to use Google Translate.

This is suppose to be a site where intelligent people exchange information.

Modernmystic
not rated yet Apr 30, 2014
According to the fossil fuel industry friendly IEA the average monthly electricity bill in Germany was 75.08 Euros ($97.98) in 2012.


Actually that's the IER. Please reference properly if your going to cast the reference source in a negative light.

According to the EIA the average US average monthly electricity bill was $107.28 in 2012.


Which means nothing because the two studies could be using differeing methodology. You're comparing apples and oranges.

And learn how to use Google Translate.

This is suppose to be a site where intelligent people exchange information.


Thank you for the suggestion and opinion. In the future thou one might ASK. My answer is no.
Bob_Wallace
not rated yet Apr 30, 2014
... many governments...levelize costs. ... solar is about twice as expensive, and wind (onshore) about the same as nuclear.


In the US wind is selling at an average of 4c/kWh. And dropping. Gave you the link earlier.

In the US solar is selling, in the sunnier parts, for 5c/kWh and less. And dropping. Gave you the line earlier.

Add back in 1.15c/kWh to tease out the subsidy.

Latest estimates for the Vogtle reactors is 11c/kWh which includes subsidies. That price assumes no further cost/timeline overruns.

Gave you the link earlier.

Looking at new nuclear in the western hemisphere - Hinkley Point 13c/kWh plus subsidies. Two reactors now being built on the continent are going to produce very expensive electricity due to massive overruns.

Italy, Spain and the UK are installing utility scale solar for less than the US. Two of those places have a lot of sunshine.

(cont.)
Bob_Wallace
not rated yet Apr 30, 2014

"New wind and solar can provide carbon-free power at up to 50 percent lower generation costs than new nuclear and Carbon Capture and Storage. This is the result of a conservative comparison of current feed-in tariffs in Germany with the agreed strike price for new nuclear in the UK (Hinkley Point C) and current cost estimates for CCS, neglecting future technology cost reductions in any of the four technologies.

New wind and solar can provide carbon-free power at up to 50 percent lower generation costs than new nuclear and Carbon Capture and Storage. This is the result of a conservative comparison of current feed-in tariffs in Germany with the agreed strike price for new nuclear in the UK (Hinkley Point C) and current cost estimates for CCS, neglecting future technology cost reductions in any of the four technologies."

http://www.agora-...ntechnol
Bob_Wallace
5 / 5 (1) Apr 30, 2014
"Which means nothing because the two studies could be using differeing methodology. You're comparing apples and oranges. "

OK, you're not worth my time. Your no different than a climate change denier or a 6,000 old Earth believer. Any data that doesn't fit with your belief system is simply waved away.

But you can post ridiculous stuff like "six times higher" and "solar is about twice as expensive, and wind (onshore) about the same as nuclear" without any proof at all and you expect people to believe you.

Time to turn this thread off.
Modernmystic
not rated yet Apr 30, 2014
OK, you're not worth my time. Your no different than a climate change denier or a 6,000 old Earth believer. Any data that doesn't fit with your belief system is simply waved away.


No, your data can't be compared because there are differenet studies using different variables in their calculations. It has nothing to do with my belief system. Do you understand the concept of methodology? I'm not being sarcastic at all, I just honestly want to know if you understand how important it is.

But you can post ridiculous stuff like "six times higher" and "solar is about twice as expensive, and wind (onshore) about the same as nuclear" without any proof at all and you expect people to believe you.

Solar is twice as much as wind and solar I'll provide the link for about the fifth time.

http://en.wikiped...stimates

It's all there and the numbers are similar across all the numerous studies.

Modernmystic
not rated yet Apr 30, 2014
In the US wind is selling at an average of 4c/kWh. And dropping. Gave you the link earlier.


Not including extraneous costs. The real cost of wind is 8c/Kwh

http://en.wikiped...stimates

In the US solar is selling, in the sunnier parts, for 5c/kWh and less. And dropping. Gave you the line earlier.


The real cost of solar PV is approx 13 kWh.
Modernmystic
not rated yet Apr 30, 2014
Add back in 1.15c/kWh to tease out the subsidy.


Lol. Minus a unicorn times some lucky charms and you get .00001 c/kWh. What method are you using? Based on what data? From what source? Does it include SREC's and feed in tariffs, as well as the need to install four times capacity.

Latest estimates for the Vogtle reactors is 11c/kWh which includes subsidies. That price assumes no further cost/timeline overruns.


Wow one reactor...my study includes all of them and uses the same methods to compare all sources. Now which one should we use Bob?

Looking at new nuclear in the western hemisphere - Hinkley Point 13c/kWh plus subsidies. Two reactors now being built on the continent are going to produce very expensive electricity due to massive overruns.


See above.

Italy, Spain and the UK are installing utility scale solar for less than the US. Two of those places have a lot of sunshine.


No sources. /Ignore.