Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Nuclear Power
Options
Comments
-
Curly Judge wrote: »This is like arguing with a Jehovah Witness.
The whole thing is becoming increasingly ridiculous, incoherent and convoluted.The reality of the situation is that there are a limited number of people who sell reactors and most are in 1GW+ size.
The new UK plant is 3,200MWIf one reactor was to go down, or need to be shut down for servicing, it would throw the whole grid balance to the wolves.
This design of conventional fossil fuelled plant would not be even contemplated and neither would it's nuclear equivalent.
What you would need to design is a modular cluster of reactors of about 300 MW each. Say 12 by 300 MW giving a total of 3,600MW.
The extra 600MW could be used to cater for CM's famous tripping and routine servicing and refuelling.
So... nuclear power would not need 100% backup like wind, but 20% or there about, much the same as conventional fossil fuelled plant.
But lets' pretend we can get a kids size one, and that the R&D costs are zero and economies of scale don't apply. The UK reactors cost £12Bn for 3.2GW , the electricity costs 10p a unit, and total lifetime spend will be £88Bn and then you have to clean up. And that's if everything goes smoothly.0 -
NoCapt'n Midnight wrote: »You are just upset that after years of arguing real numbers have come from the UK and they completely undermine all your economic arguments.
Nuclear power is very easy to discredit, just dig around the story and some WTF will pop up.
You are upset because I can casually show large numbers of recent incidents worldwide that affect power production, many involving huge costs
You are upset that I keep pointing out that only the Scandanavians have a proper waste repository and that this will affect future economics
You are upset because when you play the new technology card I show that it was tried in the 60's. (btw. Oklo shows that reactor physics hasn't changed in two billion years so that breakthrough might take a while)
I've been providing specific examples of non-conformances at large numbers of plants. I've been showing that a lot of failures are not events out of the blue as near misses or similar faults have happened at other plants. There's less than 500 power reactors world wide. Look at how many I've named in recent events. Work out the stats. Also doesn't show them getting more reliable
Safety is a red herring because nuclear power isn't even economic or reliable. It's like claiming that coal powered trains are safe.
We can argue till the cows come whether SCRAMs are an indication of safety systems working or why it had to come to that, what we can't argue over is that they happen a lot and take the reactor offline. And you need to keep other turbines turning at £160m a year to cover for that.
Figure a cost of one million to preserve a human life in the HSE / road safety , multiply that by the fraction of government spending on them and you get a very rough figure for how many lives might be lost if funds are diverted. ( Yes I think those who are responsible for the economic mess indirectly have second hand blood on their hands )
As for safety - the attitude is blasé , Do I have to remind you how many tonnes of material BNFL "lost" for nine months ? (good thing there wasn't a leak in the sump) what counts more is that reactors can go offline at the drop of a hat.
Meanwhile renewable technology marches on.
I'm not annoyed really.
Just a little sad!
Anyway, in new report by the OECD, the whole basis upon which the costs of renewables is couched is called into question.
http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=140c559a3b34d23ff7c6b48b9&id=145cfe4a86&e=1e5e9369c3:
The complete report is well worth reading for students of energy policy but these two paragraphs stand out:In terms of total costs of electricity supply, introducing variable renewables up to 10% of total supply will increase per-MWh cost, depending on the country, between 5% and 50%, the report said. Satisfying 30% of demand could increase per-MWh costs by between 16% and 180%, the latter relating to solar in Finland, it said.
The study recommended, first, that the magnitude of systems costs introduced by renewables must no longer be borne “in a diffuse and unacknowledged manner by operators of dispatchable technologies as an unspecific system service.” OECD countries should ensure “full transparency of power generation costs at the systems level when making policy decisions affecting their electricity markets.”0 -
NoWhile it's hard to follow, you have not addressed the fundamental point made be Capt:
If you could put some figures up for the cost of 12 300MW reactors, and where it has been done at a reasonable cot before then your argument may have merit. Until you do, that argument makes no sense as all evidence points to it being prohibitly expensive.
Reasonable enough!
Give me a couple of days and I'll come back to you.0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,636 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 89874
Curly Judge wrote: »I'm not annoyed really.
Just a little sad!
Anyway, in new report by the OECD, the whole basis upon which the costs of renewables is couched is called into question.
...In terms of total costs of electricity supply, introducing variable renewables up to 10% of total supply will increase per-MWh cost, depending on the country, between 5% and 50%, the report said. Satisfying 30% of demand could increase per-MWh costs by between 16% and 180%, the latter relating to solar in Finland, it said.
Meanwhile in the UK the actual cost of Nuclear is nearly 100% above the wholesale market price. And that's not including the £160m levy on everyone else. Or the £100Bn clean up bill for existing facilities.
Solar. In Finland ? :rolleyes:
Of course it's going to be 180% dearer and of course Nuclear can beat that.
Oh wait :pac:
Nuclear in Finland is already 165% over budget and counting. And that's not including the €3Bn for waste storage. It'll be at least seven years late and blame game has started. http://www.bellona.org/articles/articles_2013/Olkiluoto_more_delaysThe original contract between TVO and Areva-Siemens signed in 2003 envisioned the plant would cost € 3.2 billion, with a completion date of 2009. TVO announced in December 2011 that it anticipated the 1600 MWe plant to begin commercial operation in August 2014, some five years later than originally planned. By that same year, the ancitipated costs of the plant had balloned to €8.5 billion, according to data released by Areva.
Oh yeah that's the same type of reactor the UK are ordering a pair of.
Actually in the real solar costs are still falling. Who knows how much they'll have dropped by the 2016 ? In 5 yrs, the price of solar in the U.S. has dropped from $5 per watt to $.50 per watt, from one of the most expensive to one of least expensive energy sources.”0 -
NoIts dangerous and should all be abandonend!!!!Curly Judge wrote: »A succinct and well balanced argument.
Thanks for contributing it.Yeah cars should be abandoned, man more people have died from falling out of bed, beds shold be banned.
Yet despite all the fiffing and faffing about by the environmental left, including a certain CM taking minor industrial accidents scarely worthy of mention and inflating them out of all proportion calamitous near catastrophes, the record of safety is clear - the only nuclear accidents to cause widespread death and contamination were in the Soviet Union, a special case in breathtaking incompetence.
The historical record is clear, as measured by deaths per TW/H of energy produced, nuclear is by a significant margin the safest form of power generation there is, safer than ALL OTHER FORMS of electricity including all renewables. By far the most catastrophic nuclear accident this millenium was Fukushima and the only people to die there were two crane operators whose crane collapsed during the quake. That should tell you far more than any puff pieces by the environmental left.Capt'n Midnight wrote: »You are just upset that after years of arguing real numbers have come from the UK and they completely undermine all your economic arguments.
Countries that abandon nuclear power, such as Germany and Japan, do so by replacing them with fossil fuel fired power, such as LNG in Japan and vast quantities of coal and gas in Germany (coal being the most hazardous form of electrcity as measured by deaths per kw/h.) In all cases severe economic costs are extracted when one makes the choice of fossil fuels over nuclear electricity - Japan after Fukushima ran its first trade deficit in 30 years thanks to LNG imports and Germany has basically put its power supply in the hands of Gazprom, in addition to all the environmental damage caused by its coal fired power plant building spree that is just behind that of China.
All of this, is 100% the responsibility of the environmental left and it is all totally avoidable. The record on that is clear.You are upset because when you play the new technology card I show that it was tried in the 60's. (btw. Oklo shows that reactor physics hasn't changed in two billion years so that breakthrough might take a while)Meanwhile renewable technology marches on.
For example, you may talk about nuclear waste but there's a far greater problem of solar waste. Wind power is also extremely filthy, in some places causing as much destruction as Chernobyl did. They cost a fortune, defile our landscape, kill birds on an industrial scale and are second only to White Nose Syndrome (or perhaps worse) as an existential threat to the worlds bat populations. They are totally unreliable, they cost a fortune and provide bugger all jobs. And the best bit is that they produce insignificant amounts of power such that you would have to wallpaper all of Wales with the damn things to provide 1/6th of the electricity needed in the UK (ignoring the fact that they cannot be depended on), which is why we're about to have all of our midland hilltops ruined with these yokes in a deal with the UK, because they're actually trying to do it!0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,636 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 89874
Yet despite all the fiffing and faffing about by the environmental left, including a certain CM taking minor industrial accidents scarely worthy of mention and inflating them out of all proportion calamitous near catastrophes, the record of safety is clear - the only nuclear accidents to cause widespread death and contamination were in the Soviet Union, a special case in breathtaking incompetence.Outside of the UK the record is very clear.
I've mentioned the US / Japan / France a lot.
And Finland and Germany and Korea. And others. (inc. Russia too)
India isn't exactly a glowing example either , though the way irradiated heavy water is treated it might be. ( Here's a clue, compare the price of a Kg of heavy water with the average wage in India ) And looking into the mining of reactor fuel in India makes you glad it's them instead of you.measured by deaths per kw/h.
There are a lot of white elephant nuclear projects. I've mentioned Japan's $32 attempt to reuse nuclear fuel. Which resulted in one hours electricity onto the grid.
Also at least you are now acknowledging "minor industrial accidents scarely worthy of mention" happen. That many of these take a plant offline is important.In all cases severe economic costs are extracted when one makes the choice of fossil fuels over nuclear electricity
So in your view the Tsunami didn't affect Japan's economy as much as not having nuclear power on line or other events. Interesting. Also in case you missed it the Japanese have figured out how to harvest methane hydrates.
And again I'll remind you that the maximum liability of a nuclear plant in the UK is just £140 other countries vary but in general it's a lot lower then the cost of safety improvements at a plant.BS. Your side has been singing that tune since the '70s at least, it was BS then and it's BS now. Not only are renewables more dangerous in terms of lives lost than nuclear power, but the laws of physics clearly specify that many forms of renewable technologies will likely never be game changers, particularly wind.
Also you really don't get the large number of solar technologies out there do you ? Or the way capitalism works. If you are saying that industrialists try to lower costs by skimping on health and safety where does that leave the nuclear industry ?
Or the health and safety concerns about worst aspects of China (would you like to live near a Chinese reactor ?)
http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=3663Researchers from Georgia Institute of Technology and Purdue University have discovered how to make solar power even more eco-friendly, creating fully-recyclable organic solar cells using trees.
I've posted before about IBM using very cheap materials , dye sensitised cells don't need silicon processing or heavy metals. Unlike nuclear there are a lot of technologies to choose from.
As for laws of physics bright sunlight means there is 1KW/m2 to tap into, that's a GW per Km2. Applying the laws of physics to nuclear waste isn't fun, for example burying the waste in a subduction zone is pure cloud cuckoo land stuff.
The laws of physics especially Xenon poisoning which means if a reactor is off line for a few hours you have to let it cool down for up to 36 hours before you can restart it.
Oh yeah back to Osmosis, like a lot of renewables the problem is how to commercialise stuff that works in a lab. http://www.rdmag.com/news/2013/03/nanotubes-generate-huge-electric-currents-osmotic-flowA team led by physicists at the Institut Lumière Matière in Lyon (CNRS/Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1), in collaboration with the Institut Néel (CNRS), has discovered a new means of harnessing this energy: osmotic flow through boron nitride nanotubes generates huge electric currents, with 1,000 times the efficiency of any previous system.
...
Concentrated at the mouths of rivers, the Earth’s osmotic energy potential has a theoretical capacity of at least 1 terawatt—the equivalent of 1,000 nuclear reactors.0 -
SeanW wrote:Actually, I can't blame Dude111 for his/her view, as it was the same view I had before I grew up.
Time to wake up from your sleep!!!!0 -
I dont know what more proof you need than whats happening in Japan now!!!!!!!! -- THE WHOLE WORLD COULD BE AFFECTED!!!
Time to wake up from your sleep!!!!
These earlier posts may be helpful where we looked at safety figures
and the WHO, World Health Organisation report "WHO: Low radiation risk from Fukushimato"
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83643687&postcount=491
"I haven't checked the source of this but it's a start
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/dea...gy-source.html
Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh) CORRECTED
Coal (elect, heat,cook –world avg) 100 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal electricity – world avg 60 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal (elect,heat,cook)– China 170
Coal electricity- China 90
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12 Peat
12 Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (0.2% of world energy for all solar)
Wind 0.15 (1.6% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)"
"WHO: Low radiation risk from Fukushimato"
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83661430&postcount=525
""Clear cases of health damage from radiation generally only occur following exposures of 1000 mSv - far more than the 10-50 mSv WHO said was received by people in Namie and Iitate. Across Fukushima generally the doses were in the range 1-10 mSv, said WHO."
Also of note is this from the same report:
"WHO's use of the linear no-threshold method of gauging health effects will have resulted in a cautious overestimate of health impact. The method is controversial, given that the effects of radiation at low doses are small enough to be overwhelmed by other environmental and lifestyle factors. The WHO noted dissenting views about the highly conservative assumption, but thought it "prudent" to adopt the method, "attempting not to underestimate the risks." "0 -
I dont know what more proof you need than whats happening in Japan now!!!!!!!! -- THE WHOLE WORLD COULD BE AFFECTED!!!
Time to wake up from your sleep!!!!
Well said Dude111. It's a good thing we didn't have such idiots living on Earth thousands of years ago, otherwise we would all be dying from their disintegrating nuclear waste capsules.
Any form of energy production which consumes fuel and produces toxic waste
(inc. coal, oil, gas and nuclear) is crude, archaic and completely unnecessary.
What are sold nowadays as 'renewables' are (though an improvement on nuclear) inefficient and often take many years to offset the energy used to manufacture them in the first place. The only sustainable solution for free clean energy is a Nicola Tesla style tower which taps into the trillions of watts of electricity produced by our planet every day. I know I already posted this but if it wakes up only one person from a lifetime of programming, it will have been worth it. For a brief overview of Tesla's life and achievements, here's the first of a 4 part biographical video off youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srrjMjFROCU0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,636 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 89874
Chloe Pink wrote: »These earlier posts may be helpful where we looked at safety figuresEach balloon, measuring two meters (6 1/2 feet) in diameter, can generate 500 watts of electricity and will eventually cost less than $2.
Most of the danger with solar rooftop is the rooftop part , working at height retrofitting stuff is more dangerous than installing it at ground level.
As for hydro , how many deaths have there been in the last 35 years in Europe ? ( since you like to blame Russian accidents on their culture you can't include them )
Wind deaths - be interesting to see the stats to see what size /age / region is most dangerous ?0 -
Advertisement
-
Capt'n Midnight wrote: »From that site http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/04/concentrated-solar-power-balloons.html
Most of the danger with solar rooftop is the rooftop part , working at height retrofitting stuff is more dangerous than installing it at ground level.
As for hydro , how many deaths have there been in the last 35 years in Europe ? ( since you like to blame Russian accidents on their culture you can't include them )
Wind deaths - be interesting to see the stats to see what size /age / region is most dangerous ?
What's the point in providing that figure? There is hardly any possibility of an increase in hydro energy production in Europe.0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,636 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 89874
What's the point in providing that figure? There is hardly any possibility of an increase in hydro energy production in Europe.
But it's more to show that there might be some selective choosing of stats. cba looking it up because I reckon that nuclear diverts spending from health that isn't counted in the health effects.
In the past IIRC some studies on wood biomass used the death rate for lumberjacks instead of taking into account that a lot of it would come from coppiced willow.0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,636 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 89874
From the wind thread
- this could be talking about reactors or backup cooling system generators or transformers.Chloe Pink wrote: »“We seeturbinefires around the world when it gets very, very windy,” he said. “They usually shut themselves off as a safety feature if thewindgets too much. But sometimes there is another failure.
“It can catch on fire for a whole multitude of reasons. It can be the mechanism going into overdrive. It can be to do with the connections or oil catching alight.”
A review of this weeks nuclear industry news . ( there are
The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station has been offline for more than one year since a radioactive leak from a damaged steam generator tube January 31, 2012. Southern California Edison said Monday it submitted a draft plan to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to restart one of the plant's two units.
This statement sums up my view of how the nuclear industry prepares for the worst case (except maybe the word unwilling especially in the purse strings dept.)
“We must sincerely accept that we were unable to draw on human wisdom to prevent it.”
Study says famed cyberattack against Iran nuclear plant is an ‘act of force’
UK nuclear plans set back 5 years and first plant already has another £2 Bn added to the price tag. That didn't take long did it ?
Government extends new nuclear power station timetable by five years, confirms first plant will cost up to £14bn
The plant, about 20 miles north of Omaha, has been offline since April 2011. The reactor was shut down for a scheduled refueling process, kept cold because of flood concerns and eventually put under federal oversight because of a host of other safety problems.
UK Torness two nuclear plant taken offline due to unplanned outage ( It's the jellyfish one )
Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s president said it would be impossible to restart reactors at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant soon, damaging the utility's financial plans.
U.S. Renewable Energy Production Now Tops Nuclear Power:PBut the trend lines tell the story: Wind energy, for instance, grew 89% while electricity production from nuclear power plants fell 4%.0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 3,372 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 3262
Nohttp://cen.acs.org/articles/91/web/2013/04/Nuclear-Power-Prevents-Deaths-Causes.html
Here's an article about a paper which has shown that Nuclear power has saved many more lives than it has killed, just taking into consideration the effect it has had on air pollution.0 -
Nohttp://cen.acs.org/articles/91/web/2013/04/Nuclear-Power-Prevents-Deaths-Causes.html
Here's an article about a paper which has shown that Nuclear power has saved many more lives than it has killed, just taking into consideration the effect it has had on air pollution.cba looking it up because I reckon that nuclear diverts spending from health that isn't counted in the health effects.
If you accept that, I would be willing to debate the issue of funds diverted from health spending. Unless you are willing to recognise the environmental-lefts role in promoting fossil fuels, it's just more:Capt'n Midnight wrote:selective choosing of stats0 -
NoCapt'n Midnight wrote: »As for hydro , how many deaths have there been in the last 35 years in Europe ? ( since you like to blame Russian accidents on their culture you can't include them )
Do that and you have a death rate of approximately 0 mortalities per TW/h.0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,636 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 89874
Lifetime costs BTW
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/04/powering-world-with-nuclear-would-cost-quadrillion-dollars-says-expert-are-renewables-only-option"We would need 10,000 nuclear plants to provide the majority of global energy need," explains Tickell. "The cost to the tax payer for one single reactor would be $100 billion. To build 10,000, it would cost 1 quadrillion dollars. The nuclear industry is in state of desperation."
Also there is the problem of how to fuel 10,000 plants when we aren't mining enough fuel for less than 500 at the moment.
Nuclear is more expensive when you have to retire plants early.
http://www.power-eng.com/news/2013/04/02/russia-might-decommission-7-gw-of-nuclear-power-early-by-2019.htmlRussia might decommission 7 GW of nuclear power capacity ahead of schedule in the period to 2019, but gradually replace it with new capacity,
...
All of these units have RBMK light-water graphite-moderated reactors that are beginning to have problems with graphite stacks, which are deforming earlier than anticipated.
After Fukushima what are the chances of a Nuclear Plant being flooded especially after it's already had a flood defence upgrade ? (nice picture in the link)
http://boingboing.net/2011/06/28/nebraska-nuclear-pow.htmlThe Army Corps of Engineers expects the river to crest no higher than 1,008 feet elevation, and the flood barriers would protect the power plant to 1,010 feet. But that doesn't leave a lot of margin for error. If rainfall becomes extraordinarily heavy again, the river could crest higher.0 -
NoPeople use ridiculous unrelated events to scaremonger against nuclear power .. like ohhh North Korea etc.0
-
NoSo in your view the Tsunami didn't affect Japan's economy as much as not having nuclear power on line or other events.
But its refreshing that you actually admit something else happened that day because the sense I've been getting is that environmental leftist boneheads like Greenpeace et. al. are writing tomorrows history books, the event will be recorded something like this:On the 11th of March 2011, there was a little earthquake and some flooding in Japan, after which the Fukushima 1 reactor just blew up for no reason, casting a big black scary cloak of radioactive DEATH over the countryside. 15,882 people died. It was the biggest nuclear disaster since Chernobyl which killed 500 millionCapt'n Midnight wrote: »Lifetime costs BTW
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/04/powering-world-with-nuclear-would-cost-quadrillion-dollars-says-expert-are-renewables-only-option
Also there is the problem of how to fuel 10,000 plants when we aren't mining enough fuel for less than 500 at the moment.
For added challenge, assume that the Chinese get sick of trashing their environment with rare earth metal processing to support boneheaded Western renewables programmes. Or that they simply run out of the stuff. Solar power also relies on rare earth metals as do the lithium batteries in those Green favourites, the hybrid and electric car.
In China, the true cost of Britain's clean, green wind power experiment: Pollution on a disastrous scale.
Nuclear is more expensive when you have to retire plants early.
http://www.power-eng.com/news/2013/04/02/russia-might-decommission-7-gw-of-nuclear-power-early-by-2019.html
Yet, from your own article ...All of these units have RBMK light-water graphite-moderated reactors that are beginning to have problems with graphite stacks, which are deforming earlier than anticipated.
As an ardent pro-nuke, I've always condemned the RBMK reactor design and I'm delighted they have to be consigned to history sooner than expected, for any reason.
Yet you come on saying premature retirmement makes nuclear power "too expensive" and to support that you cite a reactor design that any nuclear advocate or Westen nuclear regulator will tell you never should have been built? You just made that argument for me, nearly as strong as I could have! :rolleyes:After Fukushima what are the chances of a Nuclear Plant being flooded0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,636 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 89874
If you are claiming that the need to import vast quantities of fossil fuels (which they had to do because they took their nuclear plants offline) didn't have anything to do with the subsequent trade deficit, that would be quite an interesting claim.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/06/fukushima-nuclear-decommissioning-plant-safetyNow, Japan is about to embark on a clean-up that could cost at least $100bn – on top of the cost of compensating evacuees and decontaminating their abandoned homes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17219008But the country's national and local authorities believe the reconstruction will actually cost more than 23 trillion yen (£181bn) over a decade.
It's still not clear if Fukushima will cost more than all the other tsunami damage combined.
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/03/business/global/japanese-cabinet-proposes-energy-sector-overhauls.html?src=twrhpMr. Abe instructed Industry Minister Toshimitsu Motegi to submit the power measure to the Parliament as soon as possible. He also urged Mr. Motegi and Environment Minister Nobuteru Ishihara to work together on strengthening environmental impact assessments to promote use of environmentally friendly and high-efficiency thermal power.For added challenge, assume that the Chinese get sick of trashing their environment with rare earth metal processing to support boneheaded Western renewables programmes. Or that they simply run out of the stuff. Solar power also relies on rare earth metals as do the lithium batteries in those Green favourites, the hybrid and electric car.
Solar doesn't rely on rare earths. Some types of solar do. Dye sensitized cells use organic dyes and white paint. I've posted before about cells made from wood. Cheap printable solar using common materials from a well established company ? http://ibmresearchnews.blogspot.ie/2012/08/shedding-light-on-new-frontiers-of.htmlSo far, the tests of our Cu2ZnSn(S,Se)4 (made of readily available copper, zinc, and tin, and referred to as CZTS) thin-film devices have achieved a world-record PV solar-to-electric power conversion efficiency of 11.1 percent (10 percent better than any previous reports) for this class of semiconductors. And it can be manufactured by simple ink-based techniques such as printing or casting.
Our CZTS PV cells could potentially yield up to 500 GW/year – getting closer to the Terawatt levels of renewable electricity the planet needs.
Rare earths aren't rare, now that demand has gone up they are being mined in other parts of the world. Yes they give slight gains in efficiency with generation but thermal and hydro plants operate without them and wind can too.
Hybrid cars aren't that much an improvement on a good diesel. And well to wheel of fully electric isn't great, the advantages of fully electric are mainly the different tax rates and the ability to use electricity generated from non-fossil fuel sources.Yet you come on saying premature retirmement makes nuclear power "too expensive" and to support that you cite a reactor design that any nuclear advocate or Westen nuclear regulator will tell you never should have been built? You just made that argument for me, nearly as strong as I could have! :rolleyes:
How many examples would I have to give to convince you of the true cost of nuclear ?
Japan / Germany / Italy
Belgium / SwitzerlandPresumably the same as before Fukushima? :rolleyes:
How is Germany doing with nuclear ?
http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/archive/2013/april/beitrag/germany--power-exporter-even-with-fewer-nuclear-plants_100010756/Germany imported 43.8 TWh of power via the European electricity grid in 2012, costing the country €2.3 billion. At the same time, countries like Austria, the Netherlands and Switzerland bought 66.6 TWh of power from Germany to the tune of about €3.7 billion. The surplus was thereby €1.4 billion in the German coffers.0 -
Advertisement
-
NoIf it were the only type then maybe
How many examples would I have to give to convince you of the true cost of nuclear ?
Japan / Germany / Italy
Belgium / SwitzerlandLOL
As it stands, you have completely failed to address the issue of these problems with current generation renewables. "LOL" indeed.Mr. Abe instructed Industry Minister Toshimitsu Motegi to submit the power measure to the Parliament as soon as possible. He also urged Mr. Motegi and Environment Minister Nobuteru Ishihara to work together on strengthening environmental impact assessments to promote use of environmentally friendly and high-efficiency thermal power.Solar doesn't rely on rare earths. Some types of solar do. Dye sensitized cells use organic dyes and white paint. I've posted before about cells made from wood.
Meanwhile nuclear energy is a current, viable alternative to fossil fuels. More to the point, it has been for many decades.Rare earths aren't rare, now that demand has gone up they are being mined in other parts of the world.if so then it means lessons weren't learnt
(all thanks to the environmental left).
Like Japan, where gas is looking likely to be used as a drop in replacement for nuclear?
Or how about closer to home, where Ireland built the Moneypoint coal fired power plant as a direct response to the actions of the environmental-left at Carnsore point?
One point you have failed to deal with is that there is a choice to be made in many cases between nuclear energy and fossil fuels. That choice is real, it is unavoidable, and it is made as a matter of routine.
Yet despite the facts of history and today being crystal clear, when I point this out I get accused of spreading a "false dichotomy" despite the reality clearly showing that it is the truth.
You have had the option of either accepting or explicitly demolishing my central point which is simply this: for a large portion of our power needs, we must choose between nuclear and fossil fuels, i.e. coal and gas. The environmental-left clearly demonstrates a very strong preference for fossil fuels and are key, central forces in encouraging nations (Ireland, Germany, Japan etc) to embrace coal and gas with unprecedented zeal in their bid to eliminate nuclear power. They do this in spite of being the loudest voices claiming that we're going to all going to be burned to a crisp or washed away unless we radically change our lifestyles to avoid the catastrophe of global warming.
Both historical and current facts clearly and unimpeachably support this claim. Except for the ability to spoof nonsense about wooden solar panels and osmotic membranes and other Steorn-esque drivel, you have absolutely nothing.0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,636 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 89874
Don't bother, because most likely it would be trivial matters blown totally out of proportion.Translation: we're going to import vast quantities of gas.
Gas like Nuclear is a transitional power source.Underground steam caverns. Osmotic membranes. Solar panels made of wood. You certainly have a fertile imagination, but like Steorns claim to have solved the energy problem by breaking the laws of physics, I suspect that the reason most of this stuff only exists on paper or in a laboratory, is because it's total bunk.
All the stuff I've posted have at the very lease been demonstrated working in a lab.Meanwhile nuclear energy is a current, viable alternative to fossil fuels. More to the point, it has been for many decades.No doubt with the same environmental costs.
You missed the bit about them not being essentialMemo to Capt'n Midnight: your sarcasm detector is on the fritz. :rolleyes:Or how about closer to home, where Ireland built the Moneypoint coal fired power plant as a direct response to the actions of the environmental-left at Carnsore point?One point you have failed to deal with is that there is a choice to be made in many cases between nuclear energy and fossil fuels. That choice is real, it is unavoidable, and it is made as a matter of routine.
Because as a general rule peaking plants are fossil, and usually gas.Both historical and current facts clearly and unimpeachably support this claim. Except for the ability to spoof nonsense about wooden solar panels and osmotic membranes and other Steorn-esque drivel, you have absolutely nothing.
One very important consequence of renewables is that they reduce the peak cost of electricity when they are available. Overall this means that nuclear can't compete on sunny or windy days.0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,636 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 89874
Rat Chase Again Bedevils Fukushima Nuclear Plant
http://www.kentucky.com/2013/04/04/2585766/paducah-nuclear-plant-avoids-layoffs.htmlCommercial enrichment operations at the plant have been uncertain for some time as the market for nuclear technology dwindles. Contracts signed in 2012 with multiple parties to re-enrich high-assay depleted uranium hexafluoride, called tails, into low-enrichment uranium end May 31, and officials have been alluding to plans that the plant will shut down.
SEOUL, April 4 (Yonhap) -- A nuclear reactor on South Korea's southeast coast was shut down Thursday afternoon, but the cause was not immediately known, plant operators said.
Japan to Become Largest Solar Market After China, Between 6GW and 9GW this year.0 -
NoSteorn, the guys selling perpetual motion ?
All the stuff I've posted have at the very lease been demonstrated working in a lab.Do you even read my posts ?
You missed the bit about them not being essentialRare earths aren't rare, now that demand has gone up they are being mined in other parts of the world.Japan to Become Largest Solar Market After China, Between 6GW and 9GW this year.Grid parity, the point at which photovoltaic electricity is equal to or cheaper than grid power, is achieved first in areas with abundant sun and high costs for electricity such as in California and Japan.
I don't know if you've noticed but there's a difference between the Californian climate and that of ... oh ... say ... Ireland?So tell me what lessons were learnt from Fukushima by the nuclear industry that weren't bleedin' obvious already.For the Nth time, we get more energy from wind than from coal.
I additionally asked you to explain why Germany - which I contend is at the behest of its environmental left - is on a coal fired power plant building spree the likes of which are unprecedented in the Western world. They have a choice between nuclear and fossil fuels, so they're choosing fossil fuels with a vengance because the eco-left told them to.One very important consequence of renewables is that they reduce the peak cost of electricity when they are available!!!!!!! Overall this means that nuclear can't compete on sunny or windy days.The actual choice is between Nuclear + Fossil or Renewables + Fossil unless you are lucky enough to have a lot of hydro.
Again, 90%+ non-fossil power, mostly nuclear (~75%), some renewables and the remainder (<10%) in fossil fuels. If the environmental left had their way, they'd flip that on its head and increase the share of fossil fuels from <10% to something dramatically higher. Problem for them is that the French aren't that boneheaded.0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,636 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 89874
You have to admit, when you talk about wooden solar panels, osmotic membranes, solar ballons and the like, you cannot be surprised that a reasonable person is reminded of other bunk like Steorn.
All the other stuff I've listed exists. Not all of it will be commercialised.
rare earths Japanese have found deposits on the sea bed that are 1000 times more concentrated than on land.If you want a more meaningful answer, I suggest you ask nuclear industry insiders and nuclear regulators.
And let's be clear, this is how the nuclear industry behaves when in the spotlight and fighting for it's existance.
Fossil fuel[/quote] If you can explain how nuclear can replace most fossil fuel then I'll listen. Until then it's a temporary fact of life.
That's the point, they are unreliable and inconsistent. So you subsidise the bejesus out of these things, and after you've powed a fortune into them, they work great ... when the weather is cooperating :rolleyes:
except with nuclear you have can loose huge %'s of your generating capacity without warning and for times varying from hours to yearsOh dear, you'd better run over to France then (90%+ non-fossil)
So overall
What new nuclear technologies have there been since the 1960's ?
What large scale proven cost reductions have there been in nuclear technologies ?
Peak uranium ?
If nuclear power is so cheap why are there continual screw ups caused by penny pinching and delaying upgrades ?0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,636 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 89874
Here is a survey for North East USA , with more costings than I've ever seen from any nuclear proposal
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2012.09.054Our model evaluated over 28 billion combinations of renewables and storage, each tested over 35,040 h (four years) of load and weather data. We find that the least cost solutions yield seemingly-excessive generation capacity—at times, almost three times the electricity needed to meet electrical load. This is because diverse renewable generation and the excess capacity together meet electric load with less storage, lowering total system cost.
...
but for simplicity we here conservatively do not assume load management but fill any remaining gaps of power with fossil generation.
...
We discounted future renewable generation at 12%, did not project any increase in fossil fuel prices, eliminated tax subsidies for renewables but not traditional generation, and did not project any technology breakthroughs for renewables, all of which raise the comparative cost of renewable power.
...
Counter-intuitively, when we increase the requirement from 90% to 99.9%, less storage and significantly less fossil backup capacity are needed. This is because, to meet 99.9% of hours, more renewable generation is required from more diverse sources.
...
We find that 90% of hours are covered most cost-effectively by a system that generates from renewables 180% the electrical energy needed by load, and 99.9% of hours are covered by generating almost 290% of need. Only 9–72 h of storage were required to cover 99.9% of hours of load over four years.
...
Today we build dispatchable generation, and design for enough capacity to meet peak load plus a reserve margin. If we applied the findings of this article, in the future we would build variable generation, designing for enough capacity to make electric load for the worst hours, and as a side effect we will have enough extra electricity to meet thermal loads.0 -
NoCapt'n Midnight wrote: »Steorn is different, it's more like nuclear in that they haven't produced working examples of new technology.rare earths Japanese have found deposits on the sea bed that are 1000 times more concentrated than on land.I've shown that predictable problems are still happening. I cba checking up on the promises made because so far there is a whole litany of failed inspections.Fossil fuel If you can explain how nuclear can replace most fossil fuel then I'll listen. Until then it's a temporary fact of life.Except with nuclear you have can loose huge %'s of your generating capacity without warning and for times varying from hours to yearsAlso France have more controllable reactors then others, slightly less efficient. Also they export at night. Also and this is the rub, why aren't they building more of them ??Capt'n Midnight wrote: »Here is a survey for North East USA , with more costings than I've ever seen from any nuclear proposal
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2012.09.054- The Northeast United States is a huge, varying region sizewise that has lots of wind, tidal and solar. Ireland is not, we have a unreliable wind 'asset' that has a proven negative correlation between supply and demand (i.e. when we need electrcity the most desperately, during anti-cyclones such as the big freeze of 2010) the wind will not co-operate. Tidal maybe, but not there yet, I doubt.
- It also, like much of the world, has very warm summers, so if solar energy can be made viable, then it makes sense to use it because there's likely to be a very strong correlation between air-conditioner use and solar radiation. Ireland does not have this peak problem.
- Using unreliable renewables continuously, i.e. regardless of weather conditions, requires obsecene levels of storage. That means: if you want to store wind energy, for any reason, you need something like a massive mountain valley that you can flood with pumped hydro. Other things are proposed as solutions, such as storing solar energy in energy crops.
As you might like to know, they proved that renewables could supply any given amount of energy (1/100th of 1% IIRC) at any given time.
The chief problem was that the video started by the assumption that there was going to be a phase out of both nuclear and coal mining. We now know that this will not happen, yes to the nuclear phase out, but coal consumption, rather than being phased out is accelearting at an unprecendented rate. The second problem arose near the end, in that their approach relied on storing solar energy in biogas energy crops, and wind power in pumped hydro. So to go from 0.01% to 100% of the supply for Germany, you would need 10,000 mountain valleys, and 10,000 times as much land to be pressed into service for energy crops. Much of it, I feared, would be taken from nature reserves. I hoped against hope that I was wrong, and sense would prevail. It didn't. I was right about the potential environmental destruction that would follow from this madness, but to a far greatet extent than I ever dreaded.
From Der Spiegel:The Costs of Going Green
One would assume that ecology and the Energiewende, Germany's plans to phase out nuclear energy and increase its reliance on renewable sources, were natural allies. But in reality, the two goals have been coming into greater and greater conflict. "With the use of wood, especially," Kaiser says, "the limits of sustainability have already been exceeded several times." To understand what this really means, one needs to know Kaiser's background: For several years, he has been the head of the climate division at Greenpeace Germany's headquarters in Hamburg.
same article:Encroaching on Nature Reserves
The opposition in Berlin has so far contented itself with criticizing Merkel, believing that her climate policies have failed and that she has steered Germany's most important infrastructure project into a wall. Granted, neither the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD) nor the Greens are part of the ruling coalition at the federal level, but they do jointly govern a number of Germany's 16 federal states. And, when forced to choose between nature and renewable energies, it is usually nature that take a back seat in those states.
It was in this way that, in 2009, Germany's largest solar park to date arose right in the middle of the Lieberoser Heide, a bird sanctuary about a 100 kilometers (62 miles) southeast of Berlin. Since German reunification in 1990, more than 200 endangered species have settled in the former military training grounds. But that didn't seem to matter. In spite of all the protests by environmentalists, huge areas of ancient pine trees were clear cut in order to make room for solar collectors bigger than soccer fields.
A similar thing happened in Baden-Württemberg, even though the southwestern state has been led for almost two years by Winfried Kretschmann, the first state governor in Germany belonging to the Green Party. In 2012, it was the Greens there who passed a wind-energy decree that aims to boost the number of wind turbines in the state from 400 to roughly 2,500 by 2020. And in the party's reckoning, nature is standing in the way.
The decree includes an exemption that makes it easier to erect huge windmills in nature conservations areas, where they are otherwise forbidden. But now this exception threatens to become the rule: In many regions of the state, including Stuttgart, Esslingen and Göppingen, district administrators are reporting that they plan to permit wind farms to be erected in several nature reserves.
But apparently even that isn't enough for Claus Schmiedel, the SPD leader in the state parliament. Two weeks ago, he wrote a letter to Kretschmann recommending that he put the bothersome conservationists back into line. Schmiedel claimed that investors in renewable energies were being "serially harassed by the low-level regional nature-conservation authorities" -- and complained that the state government wasn't doing enough to combat this.
It costs a fortune, some say the "energy revolution" in Germany will cost 1 trillion dollars, i.e. $1,000,000,000,000. Most of this will be paid for by consumers, including recipient of the Hartz IV welfare scheme who are already feeling the pain.
It has also caused massive power fluctuations that cause serious damage to industrial users, with damage from an unstable grid costing upwards of €10,000 each time to repair wrecked machinery, write off destroyed goods in production and possibly even compensation for injuries to workers.Sudden fluctuations in Germany's power grid are causing major damage to a number of industrial companies. Germany is undergoing a transition to renewable energy which is wreaking havoc on the German power grid. Spikes and dips in power are becoming a regular occurrence.
Grid Instability Has Industry Scrambling for Solutions
German Chancellor Merkel set the ambitious goals of boosting renewable energy to 35 percent of total power consumption by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050. Germany is phasing out their nuclear power reactors by 2022.
Some of these industrial companies are responding by brining online their own power generators to help minimize the risks.
Some companies might be forced to leave Germany if the government doesn't deal with the issues fast.
The Cause
It was 3 in the morning when the machines suddenly ground to a halt at Hydro Aluminium in Hamburg. The Aluminum rolling mill's highly sensitive production line stopped so abruptly that the aluminum belts snagged causing significant damage.
The reason behind this disaster: the voltage from the electricity grid weakened for a millisecond.
After the shutdown, workers had to free half-finished aluminum rolls from the machines. Several hours elapsed before the machines could be restarted.
The estimated cost was $12,300 USD (€10,000).
In the following three weeks, the voltage weakened at the Hamburg factory two more times, each time for a fraction of second. No damage was done because the machines were offline both times. A lucky twist of fate.
Power fluctuations could also lead to a plant fire and that would be expensive and threaten people's lives.
If you want to talk about how nuclear power is "too expensive" you also have to talk about the cost of the mass-embrace of renewables that you claim is an alternative ... yeah, if you don't mind destroying your nature reserves, threatening the survival of bats and endagered birds, going hell for leather into coal/gas burning, spending $1,000,000,000,000 and threatening whats left of your industrial base with the consquences of an unstable grid ... But other than that it's a great idea :rolleyes:
You couldn't make this stuff up, but I seriously fear that boneheaded environmental-leftist policy will threaten not only what remains of our first world lifestyle, but also whats left of our ecosystem.0 -
NoMore on the realities of an embrace of renewable power from the Institute for Energy Research.
It paints a much more sobering picture than your puff pieces about how great solar ballons and osmotic membranes etc are.0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,636 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 89874
Nuclear energy exists. Steorns' "we've broken the laws of physics" whatever it was, does not.
Their claim to "over unity" is unproven and IMHO the whole thing was at best a publicity stunt.
Similarily the nuclear industry has made many claims of "over unity" when it comes to enriching fuel and yes physics says it's possible. However, efficiency and economics matter.
Yes you can make breeders
The Japanese had one delivering energy to the grid for an hour.
The French and Russians had better "success" getting up to 8% up time
But there were massive problems in reprocessing and the breeding rate so far has been abysmal.
The Shipping port one ran for several years and had only a tiny % more fuel than when it started.
I still contend that there hasn't been any fundamentally new developments in nuclear power since the late 1960's. And that while the vast majority of the lab developments won't be commercialised the ones that do could easily pull the rug from under nuclear.
Nuclear power can't follow demand. So for peaking you still need fossil fuel or pumped storage or lots of nuclear idling at off peak (like in France where they export to Italy/Germany). Pumped storage is expensive. Like really expensive. Like accountants get nervous when you mention it expensive.http://www.sustainability.ie/pumpedstoragemyth.htmlThe total energy storage capacity of Turlough Hill is thus about 1.6 GWh ... or roughly one two-hundredth of one percent of Ireland's annual electricity demand.
Now here's the thing, if you use fossil fuel or interconnectors to balance the day/night demand with nuclear then you can do the same with the day in / day out supply of renewables.
PS. Portugal got 37% of it's electricity from hydro and 27% from wind so far this year. And they are exporting 6% of the electricity they produce.0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,636 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 89874
This is interesting. Germany is moving to Coal.
But it's nothing to do running out of capacity since they shut down the nukes.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/03/what-do-struggling-gas-fired-plants-mean-for-renewables?cmpid=WNL-Friday-March15-2013“Gas-fired plants are stopped three days out of four,” Gerard Mestrallet, chief executive officer of GDF Suez, France’s former gas monopoly, said at a briefing on Feb. 28. “The thermal industry is in crisis. There is overcapacity.”
...
Gas plants are also unprofitable in France, the Netherlands, Spain and the Czech Republic, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. In the U.K., they’re barely breaking even.
...
Germany’s second-largest utility and Europe’s largest carbon dioxide emitter, churned out 11 percent more greenhouse gases last year as coal-fired plants increased production, according to the company’s annual report. Their profitability has been increased by the collapse in carbon permits to record lows, cutting the cost of burning coal.
...
Utilities in Europe need to shut more than 30 percent of fossil-fuel fired stations to counter increasing production from wind turbines and solar, UBS analysts led by Per Lekander said in a note last week. Gas-fired plants will lead shutdowns, they said.
...
In the meantime, plants are likely to keep closing until the mismatch between power and gas prices ends, analysts said.0
Advertisement