The Impact of Solar Feed-In Tariffs in Germany
Posted by Gail the Actuary on November 5, 2010 - 10:45am
This post is a guest post by Willem Post, known on The Oil Drum as wilpost37. Wil is a consulting engineer and project manager. He has a Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering and MBA degrees. More of his articles can be found on Coalition for Energy Solutions website.
The purpose of this analysis is to show the impact of Photovoltaic (PV) Solar Feed-In-Tariffs (FITs) in Germany. It has the largest installed base of grid-connected PV solar systems in the world, and much data is available about it.
German solar PV in 2009 produced only 1.1% of total German electricity, but issues of grid stability are already being raised, as is the issue of excessive cost. Through the FIT, the electrical system paid an average $0.54 cents per kilowatt hour for the electrical power for the electricity it purchased. The cost of wholesale power has varied over the years, but has been much lower than this. In 2009, the cost of wholesale electricity averaged $0.075 at peak rates, or $0.058 at base load rates.
Even this cost comparison may give too much credit to solar. The only real savings from having the PV systems is the savings in fuel, since the generating units used for peaking would still need to be in place, and employees would still be needed to operate and maintain them. The cost of fuel would have been even lower than base load rates.
In this post, I explain these issues in more detail, and talk about some other issues, including the impact on employment, and whether other approaches might provide a better use for funds.
Background
Prior to 2000 PV solar, FITs did not exist and there were almost no PV solar systems in Germany, because Germany’s annual PV solar capacity factor for true-south-facing, fixed-tilt, correctly-angled systems is about 0.115, which makes it a very poor candidate for unsubsidized PV solar power.
By 31 August, 2010, German households and businesses installed about 700,000 grid-connected PV solar systems with a total capacity of 14,680 MW, because of the subsidies and generous FITs in effect starting in 2000.
The FITs are lucrative for the households and businesses with grid-connected PV solar systems. They get to sell all of their PV solar power to the utilities at generous, but declining, FIT rates for 20 years from date of installation. The average FIT rate was $0.54/kWh in 2009. Households buy power for their own consumption from the utilities at about $0.28/kWh, for a gain of $0.26/kWh. Businesses buy power for their own consumption at $0.20/kWh, for a gain of $0.34/kWh.
http://www.energy.eu/
German utilities are allowed to include the additional costs of the FIT regime into their rate base. In effect, the few more wealthy households and businesses are being subsidized by the many less wealthy households and businesses. At present, renewables' FITs add $0.029/kWh to household rates and are likely to add $0.05/kWh in 2011, mostly due to the added PV solar systems in 2009 and 2010.
Businesses are complaining about higher electric bills making them less competitive.
Primary Impacts of Solar Subsides
The main results of the subsidies and generous FITs have been huge investments in PV solar systems and huge FIT subsidies paid to the owners of PV solar systems that produce only a very small quantity of variable, intermittent and expensive power and avoid the emission of a miniscule quantity of CO2.
- During the 2000-2009 period, Germany installed 9,830 MW of PV solar systems at a cost of about 9,830,000 kW x $6,000/kWh (2000-2009 average) = $59 billion. This cost has been dropping. The 2000 PV systems were about $9,000/kW, the 2009 PV systems were about $5,000/kW, and the 2010 PV systems are about 4,300-5,200 $/kW, depending on the type of installation.
http://www.solarplaza.com/article/booming-german-pv-market-could-cost-ra... http://www.gtai.com/fileadmin/user_upload/Downloads/Industries/Renewable...
- For the systems installed during the 2000-2009 period, the FIT amount that has been paid by utilities for the PV solar power fed into the grid from the start of 2000 and that will be paid until the end of 2029 has been estimated at $73.2 billion.
- Germany’s installed power plant capacity is about 135,000 MW and its peak power demand is about 100,000 MW. Its power production was 594,100 GWh in 2009, of which PV solar power was 6,578 GWh, or about 1.1% of Germany’s production.
- In 2009, 2.48 billion euros, or $3.54 billion, was paid by German utilities for the 6,578 GWh PV solar power produced by an effective installed capacity of 5,950 MW (start 2009) + 1/2 x 3,880 MW (added in 2009) = 7,890 MW. The 2009 average FIT was about $3.54 billion/6,578 GWh = $0.54/kWh. In 2009, the average wholesale rates at which German utilities buy and sell were about $0.058/kWh for base load power and about $0.075/kWh for peaking power.
http://www.slideshare.net/solarplaza/the-solar-future-de-karl-kuhlman-ca... http://rwecom.online-report.eu/2009/ir/3/reviewofoperations/environment/...
In 2009, Germany’s PV solar capacity factor was 6,578 GWh/(7,890 MW x 8,760 hr/yr) = 0.095. The low capacity factor may indicate the PV solar panels are aging, dusty, partially shaded by trees, partially snow-covered, etc., and, as about 80% of the PV solar systems are roof-mounted, many roofs may not be true-south-facing, and the panels may not be correctly angled.
If we assume PV solar power is produced from 7 AM to 5 PM, then the average level during these ten hours was 6,578 GWh/yr x 1,000 MW/GW x 1 yr/(10 hr x 365 days) = 1,802 MW, insignificant compared to Germany’s peak demand of about 100,000 MW.
Variation of PV Solar Power and Grid Stability
The sma.de website displays a graph of the real-time PV solar power production in Germany during each day of the year. The methodology of determining the display is explained in the website. The website shows 14,680 MW of PV solar was installed as of 31 August 2010, which means 14,680 MW - 9,830 MW (end of 2009) = 4,850 MW was installed during the first 8 months of 2010, or about 606 MW/month.
http://www.allianceforrenewableenergy.org/2010/10/germany-adds-nearly-1-...
This rate of installation is more than twice as high in 2010 as in 2009, because the FITs will be significantly reduced in 2011, making it less profitable to own a PV solar system. Installations planned for 2011 are being shifted to 2010 to beat the FIT reduction deadline. For comparison: US total installed PV solar was 1,256 MW plus 397 MW of concentrated solar power at the end of 2009.
The sma.de website shows the PV solar power production from the 14,680 MW of PV solar systems reached a maximum level of about 5.3 MW (36% of installed PV solar capacity), 3.6 MW (24%) and 7.0 MW (48%) at about 12 noon on October 6, 7 and 8, respectively.
The website shows that maximum outputs at 12 noon vary from about 20% (2,936 MW) to about 60% (8,808 MW) of installed capacity during the summer and from about 10% (1,468 MW) to about 30% (4,400 MW) of installed capacity during the winter.
The rapid build-up of PV solar power capacity will have an increasing effect on grid stability, according to an energy advisor to the German government. (See Grid Aching Under Solar Power.)
PV Impact on Daily Power Demand and Peaking Unit Operation
The Tagesgang website displays a typical power demand curve for Germany. This curve will vary somewhat during the year, but, to simplify the analysis, we will assume the curve is valid for all days of the year, which will not affect the conclusions of the study.
The website shows peaking unit operation from about 10 AM to about 2 PM which coincides with high levels of PV solar production. This means German utilities have less need for peaking units.
PV Solar Impact on Peaking Unit Operation
Peaking units usually are gas-fired, simple-cycle, gas-turbine generators. Their efficiency at full load is about 30%, or about 10,000 Btu/kWh, and at part load about 20%, or about 15,000 Btu/kWh. Peaking units usually operate at about 50% load, otherwise they cannot modulate as needed by demand.
For this study, utility long-term gas contract prices are assumed at $4/million Btus.
In analyzing the total FIT subsidy paid in 2009, we can allocate a part of it to the 10 AM to 2 PM period and the rest to all other hours of of PV solar power production.
If we assume the average PV power output during the 10 AM and 2 PM period of each day of 2009 at about 2,500 MW, and if we assume all of it is fed into the grid, then German utilities save about 2,500 MW x 1,000 kW/MW x 4 hrs/day x 15,000 Btu/kWh x $4/million Btu = $0.6 million/day in fuel expenses.
There are very little additional savings, because the peaking units are in service during other peak periods of the day (see Tagesgang website) when PV solar power is much less. The operating personnel are present whether the peaking units are operating or not.
In 2009, German utilities credited, as required by the FIT scheme, the monthly bills of the owners of PV solar systems on average about 2,500 MW x 1,000 kW/MW x 4 hrs/day x $0.54/kWh = $5.4 million/day for this 10 AM to 2 PM power, or 365 days/yr x $5.4 million/day = $1.97 billion for all of 2009. The FIT amount credited for all other hours of PV solar power production was about $3.54 billion - $1.97 billion = $1.57 billion.
German utilities could have bought the PV solar part of the 10 PM to 2 PM peaking power for $0.075/$0.54 x $5.4 million = $0.75 million/day from the grid, instead of buying it from PV solar system owners for $5.4 million/day.
A drawback of the PV solar power during the 10 AM to 2 PM period is that it is variable from day to day due to cloud cover changes, which means the peaking power purchases by utilities will vary from day to day more so than if the peaking power had been bought only from the grid.
This average level of PV solar power will increase as more PV solar systems are installed. It will have an increasing effect on the costs of owning and operating spinning reserve power plants and on the costs of standby power plants and transmission and distribution systems.
PV Solar Job Creation
By the end of 2009, the German PV solar sector employed, directly and indirectly, about 65,000 people and the thermal solar sector about 15,000 people in production, distribution, installation and maintenance. Employment is higher in 2010, because the rate of installing PV solar systems has increased so that more systems can be installed in advance of FIT reduction deadlines. The sector would employ even more people, but because China is the low-cost PV solar panel producer in the world, most of the panels, at least 50% of the systems’ cost, are imported which creates jobs in China, not in Germany.
There are several German studies and at least one Vermont study that conclude jobs created in the PV solar sector reduce about an equal number of jobs in other sectors, because resources, due to subsidies, are shifted to the PV solar sector away from other sectors; i.e., there is no free lunch.
According the Vermont Department of Public Service, VT-DPS, report “The Economic Impacts of Vermont Feed in Tariffs,” about $228.5 million will be required to implement 50 MW of FIT subsidized renewables and that 35% of that amount would be supplied by Vermont sources, the rest, mostly equipment, by non-Vermont sources. For example: PV panels from China and inverters from Germany are about 70% of a PV system’s materials cost.
The VT-DPS report states:
There would be a spike of about 550 short-term jobs during the 1-3 year construction stage which would flatten to a permanent net gain of 13 long-term full-time jobs during the operation and maintenance stage. In essence jobs are created in one sector (renewables) of the Vermont economy at the expense other sectors.
It appears using scarce ratepayer/taxpayer funds for a government-subsidized, capital-intensive renewables program that produces just a small quantity of expensive power and reduces CO2 at a high cost per dollar invested is NOT the jobs creation panacea so much talked about by proponents of renewables. See articles liked below:
http://publicservice.vermont.gov/planning/DPS%20White%20Paper%20Feed%20i... http://www.coalitionforenergysolutions.org/renewables_are_expensive_an.pdf
http://www.germany.info/Vertretung/usa/en/09__Press__InFocus__Interviews...
A Different Political Decision in 2000: Nuclear instead of PV Solar
Nuclear
What if the funds invested in PV solar systems had been invested in additional nuclear power plants? The $59 billion would have bought about 10,000 MW of nuclear power. If they had been started in 2000, they would have been in service by the end of 2009.
The 2010 nuclear power production would be 10,000 MW x 1 GW/1,000 MW x 8,760 hr/yr x capacity factor 0.90 = 78,800 GWh/yr of CO2-free, relatively low-cost, steady, 24/7/365 power. Nuclear plants are designed to last for at least 50 years.
The CO2 reduction of retiring 10,000 MW of coal and lignite plants would be 10,000 MW x 1,000 kW/MW x 8,760 hr/yr x capacity factor 0.80 x 2 lb CO2/kWh = 140.2 billion lbs of CO2/yr.
PV Solar
The 2010 PV solar power production would be 9,830 MW (at end 2009) x 1 GW/1,000 MW x 8,760 hr/yr x capacity factor 0.095 = 8,180 GWh/yr of CO2-free, high-cost, variable, intermittent power, that is “there” only about 10 hrs of the day and not at all at night, requiring fossil, hydro, wind and nuclear power to fill in the gaps.
The systems installed during the 2000-2009 period required a capital cost of about $59 billion, of which the PV panels were about $30 billion and the inverters about $6 billion. PV solar panel output decreases each year due to aging. The panels of the 2000- 2009 systems need to be replaced after about 25 years at a cost of about 25-35 billion dollars for removal and safe disposal of the old panels and installation of the new panels. The solid-state inverters need to be replaced after about 10-15 years at a cost of about 5-7 billion dollars. Such enormous additional investments are rarely mentioned by PV solar proponents.
The CO2 reduction for PV solar power is more complex to evaluate, because it is variable which requires other power sources to operate at variable outputs which is inefficient and produces more pollution per kWh and more CO2 per kWh, just as a car is more efficient and less polluting at steady speeds on the highway and less efficient and more polluting at variable speeds in the city. The CO2 reduction of PV solar can be estimated by using an inefficiency factor less than 1. For the purpose of this analysis, the inefficiency factor is assumed to be 0.75.
The CO2 reduction due to PV solar power would be 9,830 MW (at end 2009) x 1,000 kW/MW x 8,760 hr/yr x inefficiency factor 0.75 x 2 lb CO2/kWh = 12.9 billion lb of CO2/yr. The CO2 reduction will likely be even less because PV solar power will replace mostly gas-fired power sources which emit about 1.2 lb of CO2/kWh.
Conclusions
Based on this analysis, it is difficult to justify Germany's decision in 2000 to undertake the PV solar subsidy based on a review of economic, air pollution or global warming considerations. Instead, it is an extremely expensive way to subsidize an industrial sector, create jobs and reduce CO2.
Because of the large gap between the FIT rates and utility electric rates, it is easy for German households and businesses see that a decision to “go solar” makes economic sense, much to the delight of PV solar vendors, financiers and developers who call this (for them) a success. Spain is having a similar disastrous experience with its PV solar FITs. See this article.
If we are to mitigate climate change at a reasonable cost, we must use technologies that provide the greatest reduction in CO2 per dollar invested. As a renewable, PV solar is among the highest in capital cost per installed kW and the lowest in power production and CO2 reduction per dollar invested.
Capital-intensive investments in inefficient PV solar systems that, without subsidies, have simple paybacks of 20-40 years divert resources from less capital-intensive measures, such as energy efficiency that, without subsidies, has simple paybacks of 1-5 years AND reduces CO2 more effectively AND requires no changes to the grid AND is INVISIBLE. My recommendation would be to do energy efficiency first and renewables later. There is not sufficient money to do both at the same time.
http://repec.rwi-essen.de/files/REP_09_156.pdf
The German government had budgeted a certain amount for PV solar subsidies for 2010. Because of the rapid rate of installation of PV solar systems this amount is depleted.
The German government, already under budget pressures, is finding it politically difficult to rein in the inefficient PV solar sector which will become more harmful to the overall efficiency of the economy as it gets bigger.
The German government, over much opposition, has decreased the FITs at a faster pace than originally planned, and is planning still more rapid FIT decreases, to slow the growth of the sector to a more affordable rate. There were FIT reductions of 9-11% on 1 January, 2010, 8-13% on 1 July, 2010, and 3% on 1 October, 2010. Additional reductions are planned for 2011. These reductions are in addition to scheduled reductions. These FIT reductions caused spikes of 1,461 MW and 1,700 MW installed in December 2009 and June 2010, respectively, to beat the deadlines.
http://uvdiv.blogspot.com/2010/02/german-solar-industry-protesting.html http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/era/news/article/2010/05/germanys-so... http://www.solarplaza.com/article/booming-german-pv-market-could-cost-ra...
Supplementary Websites
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany http://www.coalitionforenergysolutions.org/power_capacity_and_producti.pdf
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Calculations looks ok.
However it is gonna be real nice for that small German village in 2020 with its 10 kW panels
to use to keep their freezers running when the power gets cut off for 2 days... how do you factor
in that value (kind of like an insurance)?
Dont underestimate the longterm view of that decision to install those German panels.
Looks OK????
It looks to me like the worst article TOD has published so far.
It's biased, a lot of the numbers are simply wrong and a lot of the statements are simply not true.
These two claims for example are absolutely unsupported and simply not true:
And for the numbers, please use the official numbers as reported by DENA and BNA for example instead of populist articles. For the production capacity and actual generation figures it's best to use the EEX's transparency website and you'll see that a lot of number come out much lower.
And use a neutral tone, not like this:
Article is a nice hatchet job.
In Europe the debate on climate change and its causes is largely over, with governments seeking a package of measures to reduce CO2 emissions and, at the same time, their reliance on fossil fuels.
This package will vary from country to country and will include a selection of the following plus some others:
Nuclear
Gas
Oil
Onshore wind
Offshore wind
Solar thermal
Solar PV
Wave power and tidal lagoons
River/estuarine hydro
Coal with CCS
Biogas and biomass
Power balancing units e.g. pumped water storage
Demand reduction
All tied with a smart grid: http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/uk_supply/network/smart...
Now given enough time I could probably do a fairly efficient hatchet job on every energy source (remember Chernobyl, and didnt BP have a small spill recently in the Gulf of Mexico?) but instead I'll concentrate on using the electricity generated by my pv array to increase the payback on the system by concentrating usage at peak power (read somewhere that consumer reaction in the UK to installing solar pv has been to improve home energy efficiency and anyhow its nice to help out the grid)
FWIW, the scenario evolving in the UK is for a doubling/trebling of electricity prodution by 2050 and a substantial electrification of transport/space heating. If you want to flex some UK options try this: http://2050-calculator-tool.decc.gov.uk/
Really important point!
That right there is a huge part of paradigm change that I constantly talk about.
http://integralvisioning.org/article.php?story=dm-levpnts
It has been my experience that every customer, of mine that has installed any photovoltaic system has started to monitor their electricity usage and production. It becomes a sort of challenge and the next thing you know their consumption starts going down and they start looking harder to find ways of cutting their consumption.
Nice example, and yes, that information flow is very important.
It is also so easy to do.
This is where claims of 'smart meters' / 'smart grids', need close consumer inspection.
Power companies have a strong vested interest in NOT lowering consumer usage, however much they may give fluffy assurances.
They simply cannot be trusted, to make the best efficiency decisions.
A local example (that sadly did not really surprise me), was a change made to a Pay-As-You-Go power device, by the supply company :
First generation model, showed Usage and Credit, on a LCD readout. Consumers loved that, and they drove down usage. They could budget too, and see '~3 days left'
So what did the supplier do on their New Models ?
Second generation unit, was clearly 'prettier', and 'cost down' but rather cynically, the display morphed to colored lights (?!) : Green for 'you are ok' and Red for 'Power is about to expire' (!).
Rate usage was lost, and so was budget information.
Hopefully, the consumer backlash has taught them a lesson, but I fear someone instead got a bonus for 'increased sales'.
Do we really need to spend $10K on solar panels just to delvier better consumption information to people?
I can't see any mention of needing Solar panels, nor a cost, to better consumption information, so I'm not sure what the question relates to ?
The clear answer is, of course not : Metering is cheap, and so too are simple LCD displays to show consumers what they are using. Well under $100.
Sorry. I was agreeing with you and replying to FMagyars comment:
It has been my experience that every customer, of mine that has installed any photovoltaic system has started to monitor their electricity usage and production.
Technically that is true. Psychologically and motivationally, I don't think so. Get the solar panels, and the individual feels motivated to make it work well. I bought an undersized system, rated at roughly 55% of my measured use. But for the first year (about two weeks to go) the figure will come in close to 65% -and it was an exceptionally cloudy year here. The reason, is I want it to work better than planned. And that means conserving more. I had already been monitoring my usage, recording the meter twice per day, and correlating it with weather readings, etc. But, now I had motivation to make the numbers get better.
Proportionally, very few people have solar panels or will have panels in the near future. I fully understand the impact of having solar panels or even contemplating panels, but this is a non solution to the problem of consumption.
Isn't the California approach a better one? If one is careful, one can have relatively low rates of electricity. If not, and/or one has a very inefficient house, the rates are astronomical. It gets your attention. It certainly got my attention when I lived in California. The CA approach has other benefits as it also has a built in incentive to get solar panels. Shaving off peak prices on peak days in July makes solar PV very economical.
Not sure if you had this in mind, but increasing block structures for electricity rates also should be standard to discourage over-consumption. That is, as you use more electricity, you pay a higher rate for the extra electricity (kinda like the income tax). Some states have the opposite: declining block structures, in which you pay a lower rate as you use more (a 'volume discount'). Declining block structures are something that should be ended everywhere.
A typical rate around here, bimonthly, is
If you use up to 175 KWHr
0.707 pesos for the first 75KWHr
0.849 pesos for the second 75KWHr
If you use more than 175 KWHr
0.707 pesos for the first 75KWHr
1.177 pesos for the second 75KWHr
2.489 pesos above that
If we use more than 400 KWHr per month (I think over 12 months but I am not sure) we get charged
2.971 pesos for ALL electricity
That rate is applied until your average for 12 months falls below the limit.
This gives quite a bit of incentive to keep your electricity use down and avoiding excess use.
NAOM
The sunniest state in the U.S. (Arizona) has long used tactics such as repressive rate schedules to defeat the value of consumer investments in solar energy and energy conservation.
Rate Crimes: Impeding the Solar Tipping Point
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5640
"Isn't the California approach a better one? "
The California approach is a formula for disaster if the entire nation or world follows it. They jacked up their energy prices driving out the energy intensive industries and raising the cost of living for their people.
Their energy statistics look good because the boundary conditions are incorrectly drawn. Every car, computer, TV, transistor, plastic dodad and beer can imported from overseas or other states has enormous energy and resource content that is not included in the energy stats for California.
The energy content and environmental consequences of all manufactured goods should be assigned to the final consumer, not the nation or state of origin. Under this criteria California would not look good at all and China would be a relatively clean nation, especially on a per capita basis.
Yes, you can do a hatchet job on any technology, but that doesn't change the reality that some technologies are better than others. There's no way around the fact that solar PV is a very expensive way to reduce CO2 emissions. We live in a world with finite resources so we have to make the choices that are most cost effective. The money that is being spent subsidising solar PV is not available to spend on other things that would be more effective in reducing CO2 emissions and reducing our dependency on fossil fuels.
The cheapest way to reduce emissions is to use less energy. Go for a 50% personal reduction, its not that hard.
After that I'll take analyses that make some effort to create a level playing field.
At times I recall posters on here knock some aspects of solar pv, nuclear, wind power, hydro, gas, oil etc. In the real world sometimes we dont know the cost of some technologies until they bite us on the b*tt. Perhaps some day there be a solar flare that will knock out the pv inverters (and a fair bit more). But solar PV is just one potential way of reducing emissions and not the most important in Northern European countries.
Solar encourages us to be more energy efficient (more insulation, higher efficiency appliances/HVAC/etc) while the nuclear argument is to continue BAU.
This article was rife with slanted adjectives and phrasing;
- issues of grid stability are already being raised (but nothing substantive offered as evidence)
- excessive cost
- may give too much credit to solar
- a very poor candidate for unsubsidized PV solar power
- the few more wealthy households and businesses are being subsidized by the many less wealthy households and businesses. (innuendo)
- Businesses are complaining (vague, unattributed claim)
- that produce only a very small quantity, of variable, intermittent and expensive power and avoid the emission of a miniscule quantity of CO2. (highly subjective and leading)
- If we assume the average PV power output during the 10 AM and 2 PM period of each day (that leaves out the power before and after that period, even if it is less than the majority of the generated power)
- There are very little additional savings (let the numbers speak for themselves)
- $0.75 million/day from the grid (yet earlier, the savings was listed as $0.60 million/day)
- the peaking power purchases by utilities will vary from day to day more so than if the peaking power had been bought only from the grid (unclear why this is an issue)
Etc, etc.
Then the main thrust of the article is brought forward - "Let's do nuclear!"
Completely avoids any issues with fuel availability, waste disposal, and very importantly, national security risks from terrorist attacks, not to mention the impact to the grid of a loss of a high output generator.
If the topic had been treated in a "just the facts" manner, it might have had a different reception. As it is, the heavy bias of the article eliminates its effectiveness as an analysis of alternatives.
So, your argument is that we should produce power inefficiently to force us to use it efficiently?
The "bias" is apt. PV does produce very little considering the costs.
But perhaps the author should have compared with wind power instead, for a more intermittent-to-intermittent comparison. Why have PV when another intermittent renewable technique has a fifth of the costs?
If the negative aspects of PV are so huge, then you don't have to write a biased article to lead the reader to that conclusion.
Since the negative aspects are so huge, it would almost be silly to write completely neutral. If you understand German subsidies, you should get angry!
"it would almost be silly to write completely neutral"
Jeppen, the article was biased and you obviously approve. So a few questions for you (or Willem to answer):
1) Are you connected to Coalition for Energy Solutions?
2) Are you funded by parties with a connection to the nuclear industry?
3) Is it correct that the founders of the Coalition for Energy Solutions are active proponents of nuclear power?
4) Is the Coalition for Energy Solutions funded by a party with connections to the nuclear industry?
Hmmm
http://www.slideshare.net/robert.hargraves/vermont-yankee-to-hanover-rotary
1 - No.
2 - No, but if any such parties read this, please send money.
3 - Don't know, but I hope so. The more, the merrier.
4 - Don't know.
The information given in the post is correct, overall. Many points raised are very important, but not very well understood by most. For instance, that renewables doesn't create jobs, even if it seems like it does.
Thin-film PV industry leader First Solar built a grid-tied installation (12.6 MW) in Boulder City Nevada that reached grid parity in 2008.
Source: http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/first-solar-reaches-grid-par...
Although this story is not 100% verified, I think it is safe to conclude that big, grid-tied PV plants in sunny regions are already very attractive even before subsidies. This is easy to understand because the PV produces best at the peak-summer demand season when electricity prices are high. And by the way thin-film PV is much less temperature sensitive than the more common crystalline silicon PV. Furthermore, thin-film PV produces much more electricity in low sunlight and diffuse sunlight than cr-Si panels.
Folks, nuclear does not have a snowball's chance in H_ll in these markets, especially considering the acute shortage of cooling water in the US southwest in general.
Now here is the kicker. First Solar produces about 2.2 GW/year of panels world-wide now, but only about 236 MW of panels annually in the USA. Why can't the US wake up to this paradigm-shifting golden opportunity and nurture its own production capacity for once?
For the purposes of this article, what is the definition of grid parity? How meaningful is that if backup is required when the sun is not available?
Apples and Oranges.
Grid Parity is an earnings comparison. The issues of required backup or simply 'whatever else is powering the grid' is another issue. Yes, it's related, but it doesn't undo the advantage for an investor who wants to decide whether to put in more Solar Capacity or not.
There are many 'grid parities'.
First, there is the (mainly psychological) threshold of $/Nameplate Watts. - and that $/Nameplate Watts can be calculated at various points in the chain.
Factory gate is the first point to cross this, then Project Signoff comes next.
(Right now, it seems component costs are falling faster than Project Costs, as project quotes/leadtimes mean suppliers pocket falls in components as profit)
Then there is $/GWh parity, that's a tougher one, and the final parity number, would be $/(Flattened GWh) parity, this last one, includes storage costs.
Solar thermal is closer to the final target, and that is why the recent new big GW scale Solar Power projects in California, are Solar Thermal.
Solar PV works in a slightly different space, as it can get closer to the consumer, and fits best where AirCon loads naturally peak with the sun.
In those usage-tracking installs, parity maths can exclude storage, and include transmission infrastructure savings.
Notice the California example above (now ~4GW approved), fits with the AirCon load tracking example.
The same article said that First Solar produces panels at a cost of 75 cents per watt in Malaysia. Going forward, it would be interesting to see what the cost per kwh would be in Germany assuming an installation with the costs that First Solar claims. Even if one stipulates the accuracy of the article discussed here, it would seem more productive to analyze what Germany should do going forward based on the now and projected reduced costs of producing solar panels.
We will never know if Germany's program directly caused the reduction in per kw costs of producing panels throughout the world. As a general proposition, however, producers need incentives in the early stages to devote the necessary resources to innovate. Without programs in Germany and elsewhere, it seems unlikely that we would have seen the tremendous reductions we see in per kw costs of panels.
Bottom line is that it doesn't seem all that important whether or not this article is correct in its analysis. Maybe it was a waste of money. Maybe it wasn't. The meaningful question is what makes sense going forward.
The subsidies has, at a cost of $59 billion, created German PV output that is equal to the output of a single nuclear reactor.
Whether this is too much money to get economies of scale going for PV is open for debate. But the more important problem, in my book, is that this investment into wind and solar has not been treated as a complement to real, large-scale, efficient coal replacement (yes, that's nuclear). It has been done INSTEAD of that, in the hope that either wind and solar would become real, large-scale and efficient some day. They haven't, and thus a decade has been lost so far, the clock is still ticking, the coal subsidies are still in place and the CO2-levels are rising.
Do be sure to watch Rutledge's presentation on the matter; watch the 40min technical version:
http://rutledge.caltech.edu
If his numbers are correct, the total coal available will ensure we don't go above 2 degrees even in a BAU scenario (but we still will have declining fossil fuel availability to contend with).
I sincerely hope his numbers are correct.
Actually between 2000 and 2009 approx. 20 TWh of PV was produced at an average FIT of €0.35 /kWh which is €7 billion paid by the elctricity consumer and not the tax-payer. In the same time frame Germany has spent €700 billion on oil and gas imports without German jobs. And in the same time period the US has spent $7000 billion on its military and this may actually be one reason why the US has a big trade deficit while Germany has a big trade surplus despite the high €/$ ratio.
2011 FIT for German PV start at €0.21 /kWh and continues to drop. FIT are the main reason why PV costs have drastically come down. Giving the third world with small grids (where often times even diesel generators are being used) access to cheap PV will not only reduce their fossil fuel dependence but also CO2 emissions.
By the way, contrary to the common believe most of the PV production equipment utilized in Chinese PV factories has been produced in Europe and has been exported with a taxed profit. And of course all German PV plants have been installed by the local population and are mostly using German inverters.
If you honestly fear raising CO2 levels the more judiciously you should invest to get the most and fastest CO2-reduction per dollar. Nuclear is neither low cost nor fast compared to many other CO2-reduction options:
http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E09-01_NuclearPowerClimateFixOrFolly
A study from McKinsey which underestimated new nuclear capital costs by 50% is arriving to a similar conclusion:
http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/ccsi/pdf/us_ghg_final_report.pdf
"Folks, nuclear does not have a snowball's chance in H_ll in these markets, especially considering the acute shortage of cooling water in the US southwest in general."
Why would anyone want to pay .05 per kilowatt hour( nuclear) when you can pay.20-.30( solar).
http://www.solarbuzz.com/StatsCosts.htm
Solar is only there 20% of the time yet you will pay for the solar panels 24/7
Nuclear does not have to be cooled with water. Just as in some solar designs it can be cooled with a salt.
The reactor core can be cooled with water, molten salt, molten metal, or helium, etc. But ultimately the waste heat has to be dumped into the atmosphere, and this is normally done by first dumping it into a body of water. It doesn't have to be done this way -- every automobile uses dry cooling in its radiator, and some proposed solar thermal plants will do the same -- but that's generally more expensive.
New nuclear has already topped 20 cents per kWh while PV is meanwhile at 17.4 cents per kWh:
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/67392/politics-key-to-russia-turkey-nu...
http://solarbuzz.com/
Actually the French nuclear power reactor Superphénix has been cooled with sodium (metal) and produced electricity for around 500 cents per kWh.
At least PV is there every day whereas nuclear:
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=47909
Seven German nuclear plants have failed to generate any electricity this month due to technical breakdowns. They have about half the production capacity of Germany's 17 nuclear reactors, but Germany did not suffer any power shortages.
To me, this says all about you.
"Folks, nuclear does not have a snowball's chance in H_ll in these markets, especially considering the acute shortage of cooling water in the US southwest in general."
Decarb, the largest nuclear plant in the nation is Palo Verde, Approximately 50 miles west of Phoenix, AZ. It uses treated effluent and so do the 4 combined cycle plants clustered around it. This can work almost anywhere.
*NOT* anywhere.
A lot of people with a lot of toilets & showers are required. With much of the scarce water diverted to them.
Alan
So where are these places with high energy demand and people with no toilets and showers? Not in the US, I'd wager, and I don't care if the unwashed have any electricity.
Mining, agriculture, water pumping, one day electrified railroads.
And it is an interesting question, the ratio of waste water produced to the cooling water demand for the electrical demand. Do we flush enough to keep the a/c running ?
Alan
Alan I am having trouble finding the exact number of housholds served but the water comes from the Phoenix 91st Ave treatment plant . It serves primarily the West side suburbs of Tolleson , Litchfield, Buckeye, Goodyear, and Avondale. It seems that the 5 power plants Utilize about 87,000 acre-feet per year, about a 1/3 of the output. The water is problematic due to a very high salt content. Not just NaCl but nitrogen, sulphur, phosphorus, and a host of other salt forming compounds. It is very corrosive, necessitating the use of exotic metals and facilities to remove it so that it does not become even more concentrated. The effluent is used at Palo Verde and Redhawk, approximatly 5000Mw of capacity.
So we do flush enough to stay cool.
Good to know !
Thanks,
Alan
Treated effluent water? Really? Even when the entire state of Arizona, Las Vegas, Southern California have crisis water rationing?
From the Arizona Republic, Aug. 12, 2010
"Drought-stricken Lake Mead has dropped an additional 10 feet since last summer, and now, Arizona and other Colorado River users are scrambling to keep the reservoir full enough to avoid water rationing.
Before year's end, the lake will likely sink to within 9 feet of the level that would trigger the first round of restrictions - and the first such restrictions ever on the river. They begin with a reduction in water deliveries to Nevada and Arizona, where farmers would be affected first."
Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/08/12/201008...
The article doesn't even touch on geothermal power;
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2008/06/geothermal-...
Yes, Geothermal is often overlooked, and it is developing strongly.
and it allows this type of double-benefit use :
"The first pioneer geothermal plant to start operating in Germany is situated in Neustadt-Glewe in the north-eastern part of the country. The 230-kW combined electricity and heat power plant started up in 2003 and extracts water with a temperature of 97 °C from a well 2250 meters under the ground. It supplies 1,300 households with heat and a further 500 households with electricity."
as a comparison here, Geothermal in New Zealand, generated ~70% of the GWh of the Solar PV in Germany, and delivered Base load GWh vs Cyclic GWh.
It's not solar that encourages energy efficincy. It's the desire to squeeze some return out of a massive sunk investment. You could achieve the same efficiency focus for a few hundred bucks by installing power meter displays in every houslehold kitchen and display the daily totals in dollars.
Yes, you could. But with PV, you'd ALSO have a secure, local, self-owned source for some of your own power as well. In fact, you are creating equity by letting a part of your house work for you, not unlike renting out a room. The incentive to make that earning as strong as possible works to your advantage in a number of ways.. not just 'squeeze some return'.
Fom societies perspective, it would be a much better investment to put a na energy monitor in evryones kitchen rather than the thousands of dollars of subsidised solar panels. The money saved could then be spent on the most efficient renewables which I believe today is wind but geo thermal and wave energy also has some promise for baseload.
If I want a back up system, then a gas powered gen-set will do for those occasions when the grid goes down. If the grid is going to fail long term, then that is a social and political issue that needs to be solved at a higher level. The grid connected solar panels that are being subsidised with FiTs however are not designed or intended to be backup systems. I've got no problems if you want to spend your money on increasing equity. I do have a problem when one section of the community wants another section to subsidise it.
http://www.physorg.com/news202967442.html
Without nuclear power, this report says, Germany could forget about its target of reducing CO2 emissions by 80 percent in 2050 from 1990 levels.
Environmental pressure group Greenpeace heaped scorn on the report and accused Merkel of yielding to the powerful nuclear energy lobby, a charge echoed by an increasingly confident opposition.
"Ten or 15 years' extension. That sounds harmless, but it's not," said Tobias Riedl, Greenpeace's nuclear energy expert.
Another item in the mix is the debate over how to make energy companies such as RWE, Vattenfall and E.ON pay for the extension of their plants and ensure a greater contribution to Germany's energy output from renewable sources.
The German government’s plan to extend the phase-out of nuclear power risks hampering investment in offshore wind turbines, a technology that may provide much of the country’s renewable energy by the middle of this century.
Utilities including E.ON AG and RWE AG may cut their investment in the industry to compensate for a tax of 3 billion Euros ($3.9 billion) a year they will be charged that will go to advance renewable energy deployment by financing feed-in tariff. The levy targets nuclear-plant operators to force deployment of renewable energy.
It’s probably detrimental for offshore, keeping that much nuclear power online means electricity prices will be stable and maybe even with some downside potential. That suggests less investment in wind energy.
Under Chancellor Angela Merkel’s nuclear extension plan, an extra 12 years of renewable energy support tax amounting to an additional 36 billion Euros will come from nuclear power production.
Without this continuing funding steam, the German government would need to raise income tax rates and VAT taxes.
Expanding renewable energy deployment requires expanding renewable energy deployment incentives. Nuclear energy being the low cost power producer in Germany is an ideal place to get the expanded renewable funding.
This nuclear power production extension enables the renewable development levy beyond a legally-mandated phase-out by 2022 and will help the nation of 82 million make a transition to renewable power at an affordable price. The final plan on the nuclear extension was presented to Merkel’s cabinet on Sept. 28.
The nuclear power industry has contributed 12 billion Euros to date for renewable power support via this tax and this extension will keep this money flowing to renewable energy development by the government far into the future.
The German power companies must not let this tax expansion discourage their development efforts in private renewable power investment.
“The decision is step backward to the energy technology of yesterday,” said Hermann Albers, president of the German Wind Energy Association. “The government is squandering the potential for wind energy.”
A very astute comment. Being able to think clearly about a subject (practically any subject) requires being able to strip our emotional attachment away, so we can create a model without the distractions caused by our desires and fears. The slanting may or may not be conscious. But, the excercise of trying to remove it from our thinking is important. We need to be constantly asking, does that datum make sense? Not does that dataum support my priors (or worse my choosen ideology)? Practice doing so, and your ability to think will go up substantially.
What is the PV adoption rate in Germany? Arguably, it makes the people who have it, more conservative. But what about those who don't have it. And isn't it those people we should worry about. Go solar. But don't use it as a way to increase efficiency in the aggregate. For that, we have steeply increasing tiered rates of electricity.
+10
NUCLEAR NEWS FLASHES - Thursday, October 28, 2010
INTERNATIONAL:
--SAUDI ARABIA WANTS TO BUILD 32 POWER REACTORS AND WILL MAKE PROGRESS TOWARD STARTING a nuclear energy program in the next 12 months, Jim Bernhard, chairman of The Shaw Group, said October 28 in a conference call with analysts. Shaw signed an agreement in July with US nuclear power plant operator Exelon and reactor vendors Westinghouse and its majority owner, Toshiba, to jointly seek nuclear plant business in Saudi Arabia. Shaw and its partners would bid to build nuclear power plants in Saudi Arabia under engineering, procurement and construction contracts, he said.
Why aren't they going solar? Even the Arabs know the sun does not shine at night.
Who said they aren't?
Saudi Arabia unveils largest solar power project
http://www.arabianbusiness.com/saudi-arabia-unveils-largest-solar-power-...
Saudi eyes large jump in renewable output by 2020
http://www.arabianbusiness.com/saudi-eyes-large-jump-in-renewable-output...
Saudi eyes solar powered desalination plant
http://www.arabianbusiness.com/saudi-eyes-solar-powered-desalination-pla...
Arab world 'must push harder' for renewable energy'
http://www.arabianbusiness.com/arab-world-must-push-harder-for-renewable...
Interesting headline, but over 12 months have gone by, and no sign of any bidding.
Meanwhile, what Saudi Arabia HAS done, is this :
Al-Qurayyah:
* power generation capacity in the range of 1,800 to 2,100 megawatts
* expected cost ~$1.8 billion,
* financial close Aug. 31, 2011
* fully operational on June 1, 2014
Perhaps they are waiting for Nuclear bids to come in at that ~$1/W level ?
and also this:
"The proposed target is between 7 to 10 percent of peak electricity generated by renewables by 2020, most likely solar...that represents roughly 5 gigawatts by 2020. Can we achieve that target? It's feasible."
The Gulf Arab state has said it was investing $80 billion to boost power generating capacity to 60,000 MW by 2020.
That $80B, indicates a budget of around $5.70/watt.
Current Solar projects are ~$3/(nameplate)watt, and the Gas project above is quite cheap.
Looks like a mix of Gas, and localised AirCon-complementing solar, will get them to 2020 targets ?
"Solar encourages us to be more energy efficient (more insulation, higher efficiency appliances/HVAC/etc) while the nuclear argument is to continue BAU. "
it is interesting how people like to compare wind and solar with enormous conservation against nuclear driving business as usual. They never compare the cost of nuclear with conservation against wind and solar under BAU. I guess that is because they subliminally recognize that fission has the potential to make energy abundant cheap and reliable while solar and wind do not.
"Is the dark side stronger?"
Yoda: "No...no...no. Quicker, easier, more seductive."
Seductive, as in.. "No, my son. You'll NEVER have to use less, or take responsibility (sorry, scary word) for your consumption, EVER! Cheap, abundant, reliable energy, Foreverrrr! Just sign right here.."
- Of course, as you bite into that succulent very realistic apple, you wonder if those promises will be kept..
It's actually worse than that. When a 60c gross feed in tariff was introduced in Australia earlier this year, there were menay peopl with no interest in the environment saw it a as money making opportunity. An $80K investment would be be paid bak in 4 1/2 years and then $30k a year in cash could be delivered to the owner. Those people are not going to re-invest that money in CO2 reduction. They'll mostly likely spend it on more consumerist CO2 producing pursuits.
Do you mean this ?
NSW is slashing the gross feed-in tariff for its solar bonus scheme because it is costing too much.
Premier Kristina Keneally today announced the government will cut the tariff from 60 cents to 20 centsc per kilowatt hour, and introduce a total capacity cap of 300 megawatts.
60 is/was dumb, even 20c, close to retail, should be enough to encourage installs.
VERY high FITs actually encourage fraud, and on very large scales.
( So are as counter productive as Emissions trading schemes, which also have a large fraud exposure )
Iam well aware that the NSW Solar Bonus Scheme has been effectively axed. I have upset many of my rich greenie friends by arguing that gross feed it tariffs are a rip off. These are the same ones that argue for social justice and equity but are quite happy to put their hands out and take money off the poor when it suits them.
There are ahowver another group of people I personally know, who had no interest in solar PV until it became a money making venture. I also know of at least one business locally that based their entire product line up on the NSW solar bonus scheme and were flogging these to farmers on the basis of making moneyhttp://www.upton.com.au/Content.asp?lngContentID
I interviewed several of their customers and all of them expressed that they were doing it for the money. (This was last month before the government cancelled it.) At 20c K/Wh these investments won't be paid off before the end of the scheme in 2016.
I ran some scenarios of investing in solar PV with a 20 cFiT or putting the money in the bank. Even if all the accrued cash flow was invested in the bank at interest (which would be taxed), it would still take 25 years to break even. Most of the people I spoke to will be dead by then making this an unattractive investment. Remember that these people don't care about emissions savings, they care about return on investment and getting their money back.
I don't consider these people to have been doing anything fraudulent. The government however has been careless with the taxpayers money which could have been much better spent from both an energy security and emissions reduction strategy POV.
In this case, hatchet job, I think not. I lived in Germany for 3 years in the 1980's and in the winter months -- all I can remember is DARK and gloomy. I can think of a least likely places to do Solar, but not many. As for other seasons, given the number of days with cloud cover, same thing. Germany just isn't a top candidate for solar to be their number one choice for alternate energy? They would have been better off building large solar farms in Algeria, where there is some sun, and building transmission lines up to Germany under the Med and across France.
Munich is a little north of Seattle, while Hamburg is at the same latitude as Edmonton.
And the weather was quite similar to Portland Oregon. I'm originally from the Portland area and it was very comparable.
Climate mythology: The Gulf Stream, European climate and Abrupt Change
People forget that Lisbon is straight east from New York and that most of Europe is north of that. The Pilgrims, having sailed west and a little south did not expect the rigor of New England winters.
"They would have been better off building large solar farms in Algeria, where there is some sun, and building transmission lines up to Germany under the Med and across France"
Nothing quite like having your supply of energy a hostage to fortune. Of course I'm joking, there is really no prospect of a supply interruption under the above scenario.
And a genuine query, is solar pv really Germany's "number one choice for alternate energy".
PC: You pretend to have in-depth knowledge of the German situation. I dare say you have not since you needlessly employ such an aggressive language without any justification nor substantiations. Your comments are the worst I have seen for a while. Go and see a psychiatrist!
It's not needless... I'm seriously offended by the quality of this article.
But I pointed to the DENA and BNA as an example.
I assume you don't read German very well, so I'll point to an english interpretation of some of the figures:
http://polderpv.nl/EEG_impact_BRD.htm "Impact of Germany's EEG - Graphic display of year reports by BDEW"
http://polderpv.nl/PV_weltmeister_2010_prequel.htm "Weltmeister summa cum laude - A first insight in Germany's market growth in photovoltaics in 2010"
But if you want som real facts and figures you should look at, for example, this publication by the BMU:
http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/pdf/...
- 531.611 kg CO2/GWh avoided for PV
- 12.000 Mio. Euro invested in PV in 2009 and an added value for the German economy of 16.200 Mio. Euro
- PV was responsible for 74.400 jobs in 2008 and some 79.600 jobs in 2009, excluding shared positions for renewable energies in general
- Merit Order Effect of all RE: 2006: 5 Bil. Euro, 2007: 3,7 Bil. Euro, 2008: 3,6-4,0 Bil. Euro
And whether I have in depth knowledge isn't even that import. I have enough to know that the author of this article has none.
It should state "PV was responsible for WASTING 74.400 jobs". Because that's what you do. To "create" jobs by doing stuff less efficiently is actually to destroy jobs. You take hours of labour from some other sector of the economy, and you waste them. Simple as that.
Your nuclear skirt is showing...
No, that was pure and simple economics. Kids should be taught stuff like that when they are 12-15 years old. Adults that doesn't know stuff like that would be wise to declare themselves incompetent and abstain from voting in general elections.
You demanded that even higher levels of biased language should be inserted into the article, which would have further removed it from consideration.
"Adults that doesn't know stuff like that" may not have the same perspective that you do, but that does not automatically make them wrong.
Is "waste" necessarily biased language? I think it's more a matter of fact here.
I don't really get the whining about biased language. There is always bias, and it's helpful when it's apparent and not hidden. You should be able to extract and value the facts provided anyway, right?
And again, it's hard to not be biased against solar PV in Germany when you have the facts.
Not only that and as I said: The feed-in tariffs (paid by the electricity consumers) for PV in Germany were €2 billion while the German PV industry paid €3 billion in taxes (2008): http://goo.gl/vDabH
On the other hand the German nuclear industry has received €204 billion in actual tax-payer subsidies:
https://www.taz.de/1/zukunft/umwelt/artikel/1/atomkraft-teurer-als-solar...
Doesn't the moderators ever tell you to stop rehashing the same stupid and refuted links over and over again?
PV panels lose a small percentage of their effectiveness each year.
PV mfrs. warrantee their panels for 25 years. They do last longer but will have less and less effectiveness.
Google: PV solar panel aging.
Because of the rapid PV system installation to beat FIT reduction deadlines, Germany will produce about 2% of its power from PV solar in 2010.
German PV solar requires huge investments and huge FIT payments to produce a small quantity of power and avoid a small quantity of CO2.
The variation and intermittency of PV power upsets/destabilizes the grid and requires an increasing MW capacity of spinning reserves that are ready to supply power within a very short period of time in the event solar power is partially absent due to cloud cover changes, a snowfall, etc.
I don't think anyone including the German government disagrees with that. I also don't think that was ever the main point of the program nor does it diminish the value of FIT in helping to get photovoltaics off the ground in Germany, and more importantly, helping to push the idea that there must be a fundamental paradigm change in the way we do things, into the mainstream.
see my other comment here: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7053#comment-738887
http://www.klgates.com/newsstand/detail.aspx?publication=6660
???
Tens of $B for 1 or 2%.
A useful lifespan of one human generation.
Then repeat.
Honestly, is this the "way forward"? How about we tackle the underlying problem first; WASTE. Oh yeah, too hard.
Sorry for the sarcasm. Just kinda frustrated that many still think BAU and unchecked growth are sustainable.
Regards, Matt B
Your barking up the wrong tree if you think that applies to me.
This just underlines the point that FiTs for solar PV have been a huge experiment which time will show, faded away as soon as the FiTs were removed. Already you can see the variability of take up of solar PV as governments offer and then withdraw subsidies. They are simply vote catchers, doing the most visible thing so that it looks like they doing something about climate change which is easy when you are spending someone elses money. But the other voters that are not getting any benefit either through powere generated or CO2 reduction are starting to awake to the fact that they are being ripped off. I would expect that as this anger rises, many of the installed solar PV are going to stop working due to the rocks that get thrown at them.
Actually decentralized PV reduces the load a grid particularly at high demand when most air conditioners run at full power and thus has a stabilizing effect to the grid.
Since PV power is spread out over a wide area (clouds don't cover and uncover an entire country in seconds) and weather is actually predictable, PV doesn't require huge back up power as opposed to GW power plants.
"PV solar panel output decreases each year due to aging. "
For amorphous silicon solar cells that statement is true. For crystalline silicon cells, not true.
Not sure on Cd-based ones, and not sure on the CIGS cells either.
Actually Schott Solar offers even 30 years performance guarantee on its double glass amorphous silicon modules:
http://www.schottsolar.com/global/products/photovoltaics/schott-asi-100/
http://www.schottsolar.com/global/products/performance-guarantee/
PC,
Your statement
About the Willem Post comment
Shows that you have no the slightest idea of how a solar module worlks.
He does not need to support his claim. Every manufacturer states in their technical specs that their panels degrade with time; most of them give a degradation rate of about 1% per annum and a maximum degradation of the power output of 20% in 20 years, with some of them showing in the specs a 10% degradation about year 10.
The reality, at least in Spain with a solar PV base of about 4 GW, is that modules degrade faster than 1% in the first year.
The 25 years life cycle mantra is another of the things that deserves comments. The fact that we have experienced some modules lasting 25 years or even more, DOES NOT necessarily imply that the vast, massive deployment of modules, from multiple origins (most of them from China, in fact), with so many technologies and evolutions and materials are going to last automatically, 25 years. And it is not the same a module well cared and maintained, in a controlled place, than massive installations in the most varied weather and ambient conditions, dust, corrosion, etc.
We have already experiences in Spain of modules that had to be replaced due to corrosion few years after the installation. Some others had the EVA or the Tedlar migrating and breaking the seal between the aluminum and the tempered glass, leaving the modules out of order. Some others have hot spots limiting the whole string functionality or breaking solderings.
How on Earth are you going to assure 25 years life cycle, when most of the companies manufacturing or servicing the modules were not simply existing or will not exist again five years after having sold or installed or signed the maintenance contracts the modules, to honor the commitments given of 25 years of life cycle? How to assure a duration higher than the average life of the companies signing the commitments? Have you ever seen a supply and maintenance contract of a solar PV plant? At least here in Europe, they NEVER guarantee 25 years duration of power output (even with the specified degradation rate). What they guarantee is 5 to 10 years MATERIAL WARRANTY and 25 years production output (with the above mentioned limits of the degradation rate), PROVIDED the material WARRANTY does not supersedes the power output WARRANTY and, OF COURSE, without any collateral backing the commitment to produce for 25 years.
Enough is enough for the 25 years mantra, taken from speculations of small series, when the world is being flooded by hundreds of different manufacturers out of legal reach for many of the purchasers and with “new” “promising” new technologies every other day, without knowing if the back junction box is made of materials that will degrade, or migrate or vanish or burn or whatever in few years from now, or if they will simply be in the other side of the phone when you call them to repair an inverter that is leaving 100 kW plant out of service and has not been paid back yet.
Good points Pedro. Look at the problem with defective drywall forcing the evacuation of some homes requiring very expensive repairs. Is China picking up the tab, not in most cases.
WOW! That has to be the most absurdly ridiculous comparison that I've ever heard!
Wow, what a drag!
So Spain bought a bunch of duds, huh? I'm sorry, but I didn't think I'd have to still say 'caveat emptor', people should know that one .. So it certainly IS possible to make BAD PV cells, and I'm sure there are all sorts of ways to cut corners, just as in the corners cut by high-end welders and weld inspectors at NPP's ... I have a friend who did this as a very young age, and said his supervisors were all screw-ups, and he went back and behind their backs had to fail pipes that they had passed.
You made Bill happy, though. For a minute..
Since it takes a long time to see if these last a long time, it's probably a good time to take the time and see which ones are doing the best, and which chemistries and mfg approaches didn't work out for the long haul. But we do know that many PV owners ARE getting 30+ year performance now.. so for those who insisted that PV must be cheap to be good, I have to say, 'Maybe you got what you paid for..'
That is the typical arrogant answer of an American believer in its technologies!
Spain produces high quality modules, import some others frmo Germany (and also exports to Germany), from the States, from Korea, Japan and of course, from China. This is a much more open market than the States, with EU certificates required for imports.
The fact that many modules are not compliant with the 25 years mantra affects to manufacturers from all over the world, not only Chinese. Here we have plenty of institutes and recognized entities double checking modules or inverters. But receiving, installing and commissioning 2.5 GW of solar modules in one year made the inspection and supervision work be overwhelmed.
Of course, this is a good time to follow up behaviors in real world, rather than in labs with gullible "experts" believing what the manufacturers are putting them in their noses.
We have paid what the world market offered in a free and open market and be sure we had a learning curve much higher than in the US. The many multimegawatt projects got the best available price in market due to volumes. The investors are not children or mentally handicapped people: they are, mostly, national, European and foreign investors (including huge investement funds from the US), demanding very severe due diligences with the financing banks siding them. So, I suggest that you should not be so simplistic.
And however,...the faulty modules are there. When you say that you know many PV owners that are getting 30+ years, you should indicate volummes and brands. How many manufacturers were active 30 years ago? How many different environments have you tested with those modules? How many companies survive today? Haven't you experienced degradation of modules over time? Because here we have massive experiences tested with sensible degradations in 2-3 years term. Have you left maintenance companies to wash modules in areas with water scarcity and have assured that they commit with the required specs of cleaning with deionized, demineralized and desalinated water every time they go to wash them?
Have you experienced the skills of big corporations selling modules through SPV companies of the group with a limited liability and legal barriers with the corporation (so called in the terminology "Chinese walls"), so that when something ails in the company of the group this dissolves with its limited liability leaving the corporation immune in risks? Have you tried to get a company commited 25 years to module replacement at no cost, if the modules fails or falls below the promised specs? I can tell you that you can find NONE in Europe. Show me one in the States if you can. They will be selling what they want, if their prices do not skyrocket and are comparable to others, with this commitment
And in any case, if American products are the best, what are you doing to your autocar industry? We are not the only ones in Spain falling down to the price and competitiveness of Chinese products. Think about before happily pouring sh.t on others and take note, becasue you may come after us, if finally the US takes off.
Sadly, you can't use grid tied PV (which is what the FIT is paying for) without there being power on the grid - the inverters monitor the voltage on the grid and push out a slightly higher voltage which is used locally before excess is exported to the grid.
When the grid goes down so does the grid tied PV.
In the real world, in the medium term, FF and nuclear based on finite resources like uranium isn't going to be available so we have to migrate to renewables - nobody said it would be cheap or adequate for BAU - IMO it won't be anything like BAU.
Oh I could think of a couple of ways around that little obstacle... See, I grew up in Brazil and *CAN'T* just doesn't compute. As long as the sun is shinning those panels are still generating current whether the grid is up or not. Would be rather wasteful not to put it to good use.
That was exactly my thought too in the scenario i mentioned above... :)
Here is a way round that problem http://www.geckosolar.com.au/files/SBUPSYSTEM-KEN090415.pdf
Grid failure is no problem at all :-)
Not many of the millions of dolts who have hade these things installed have those skills or wiring knowledge. I can imagine plnet of Homer Simpson types trying to divert their 1 Kw into their household grid and wondering why it dies every time they turn on the TV and the toaster. Just a day or two of that sort of treamtent will blow up the inverter.
That small village will have many of the resources on hand to build its own microgrid. Due to its modularity, PV is not only portable, but can be reconfigured to many purposes, including off grid, microgrid, or repurposed to waterpumping, etc. Some of my panels have filled several different rolls during their lifetimes.
One can envision a future where smaller outlying communities have their own microgrids, interconnected to other communities, having the option to trade electricity with each other, or to raid neighboring communities, not for their food, gold or women, but for their PV panels. Each PV panel is a commodity to those of us who live with it daily.
PV is a very expensive, unreliable (in Europe anyway) way of producing small amounts of electricity, the only thing making it worthwhile financially is the FIT (I am hoping to get an 8% to 10% tax free return on the money I have invested in my PV panels.)
You don't get FIT for standalone systems like people here are proposing, therefore IMO you can expect very few people to be able to afford it for the BAU amounts of primary energy required.
Eventually, all primary energy will be electricity - in Germany after huge costs they have around 1.1% of Electricty from PV, the percentage of Primary energy is MUCH LESS than that.
Personally I find you priorities completely misplaced. Perhaps you should find something to invest in that gives you a better return on your money. How about oil futures? As for me, what I really care about is electricity to run my freezer when the grid becomes unreliable or too expensive for me to afford!
BTW here in Florida we get a 30% tax write off.
Most peoiple are installaing Solar PV for the money, not some ideological committment to the environment. The economics of Solar PV make it complelty irrational for anyone on the grid to install. I'm on the grid but don't have a freezer (or dryer for that matter). If the grid goes down the much more critical thing is how to get water and me having solar PV wouldn't make any difference to that.
" ....you can expect very few people to be able to afford it for the BAU amounts of primary energy required."
BAU?...............Ok. I suppose PV's value is a matter of what side of the BAU curve you're on.
LOL! Do you happen to know what that is for?
Fred, I thought you'd already have one of these!
Solar-Powered Camels are THE thing now. They use their water reservoirs for a little pumped-storage, and there's no stopping them! Their still ornery, however, and as such will never really be a long-term solution for our energy problems.
A lot of Bedouin are taking advantage of the 'Camel's Special Pump-In Tariff' (CAMEL-SPIT) .. which in Arabic comes out as 'Faisal's Fuel-Extender', I think.
Yeah, but I'm holding out for a two hump model >;^)
Those boxes hanging from the camel are refrigerators, carrying vaccines.
I also have a picture of Taliban dudes with PV panels on donkeys for powering their sat phones and laptops, and one guy had a fan hanging off of the back of his
assdonkey, perhaps as an olfactory protection system. If I can find the photo, I'll post a link.Shade !!
Triff ..
xeroid;
Unreliable? - Maybe the German Sun is a little sketchy, but the panel is unflappable. You put it in light, and volts come out. Period.
Off-Grid - If you have panels on your roof, they are producing electrical current whenever the sun comes out, and even a bit when it's cloudy. If the grid is down, connecting panels to a basic battery charger is as easy as jumping a car battery off of another. A red wire and a black one..* (*They can be any colors, as long as they're red and black) Maybe every homeowner shouldn't be allowed to start snapping alligator clips to their array during a blackout.. but the power is right there, and can be used with a little Teeny bit of experienced help.
Percentage of Primary Energy - Well don't forget that we've been treated like pigs at the trough to simply obscene amounts of Primary Energy. Maybe you think this is what we 'Should' have available to us.. but when the lights are out, or the NORMAL rates start cresting up past those FIT prices, that modest little 1 or 2kw array might start getting a bit more respect.
I don't think so. My panels generate roughly 200-300 volts depending upon the light intensity and load. I could connect that to a 12volt battery through a rather large resistor, and get about 5% of the available energy into the battery. I could try to get electricly fancier, but then the cost starts to skyrocket. Given the rarity of blackouts, its just not worth the trouble/cost.
The high voltage configurations is why I put in the caveat, of course, but the point remains.. when the grid is down, your panels don't care, tho' you might. In such a case, there are clearly options, and someone with a little bit of electronics knowledge will be able to help the lucky PV 0wner make use of it. It has just been turned into a tired excuse to say that 'PV is unreliable'. Tell that to someone in Haiti or Pakistan, who is otherwise baking in the sun, but has no access to power.
A Series of Inverters were simply designed to keep the lineworkers safe, that's all that is. The workarounds are not that hard. Even with your system, unless you're flying the Kaneka 60v panels, it's very likely that you could repatch a couple panels and be pulling that 12-18 volts that has been fairly standard (and one would use a meter, in any event), and get some good healthy juice into your batts. And what batts, you might ask? Aside from car batteries or deepcycle marine or solar batts, you can also go parallel into the Sealed Lead Acid batteries in Uninterruptible Power Supplies, and that way, you've also got yourself an inverter and 120ac again! I'm also having fun finding useful ways to apply my 14.4 volt Makita Nimh Batteries, which can run any of my 12v stuff, can be adapted for radios, lights, etc..
I'm glad your blackouts are rare. Knock wood.
Some lines of inverters such as Outback's "Smart RE" are designed to be grid tied and switch to off grid battery backup if the grid goes down. http://www.outbackpower.com/products/smartre/
'At's not a Noife, AT's a NOIFE!'
or in other words... 'yeah, yeah. There ARE off-the-shelf options.. but what's the fun in that?'
..and I had the Dundee line before I even tied it in (electrician joke) with 'Outback'.. imagine!
It's not exactly safe, but you can get your grid-tie inverters going on a UPS. The UPS will balance the PV-output by charging on the surplus. If the UPS is full, I guess the grid-disconnect features of the grid-tie inverter will disconnect it.
I must admit that I never tried it myself, but I heard it from a guy who told me he got his central heating and fridge running like this during a black-out once. He also told that you need a UPS that switches the AC side instead of always running the load on the inverter. And I also reckon the UPS should kinda match your GT-inverter.
Xantrex announced a 600V to battery charge controller at SPI 4 weeks ago. This will be a common item soon,
I install almost all high voltage Grid Tie arrays with terminals for 2 or 3 sub-strings for low voltage battery charging future option. It adds little cost if you do it up front. Like everything else in life, a little planning goes a long way.
Wrong assumption regarding powering freezers etc during power failure. Grid tie systems need the grid to provide a reference for the Frequency 50/60Hz and must disconect from the grid on power failure. Most systems are not set up to work in island mode/off grid as it is more expensive in that you need idealy battery backup with charge controllers to smooth out peaks.
But again, and in case you've missed this whole thread just above here,(Mild Snark) these 'systems' are made from components, and the first component in the chain, the Photovoltaic Panel, is the key, and it is NOT affected by the presence or absence of grid power. If you have a car battery and a cheap 400watt inverter, you can get a PV's power to your fridge or freezer at least periodically, when everyone else might be taking Gas Cans into town or hoping there will be ice deliveries during this 'brief interruption'. If it has come to that, certainly it would also be very wise to start upping the r-6 or so insulation that the walls of your mass-produced food box rely upon.
Whether the owner knows it or not, that Array is an insurance policy against grid availability or price changes. The more people in a community have that insurance, the more that community is similarly able to function well through disruptions. (while the Panels are still helping during steady times as well!)
Whatever the investment originally was, and however the Individual or the Government is going to see its Payback for it or not, there are very few other tools which can run your Fridge, Tools, Lights, Phones and Radios, Water Pumps with as much reliability and independence as PV will.
I'm not opposed to having more centralized energy production for the main Bread and Butter, but in times of uncertainty and transition, it will be increasingly valuable to be able to have your own quick access to some power that isn't subject to miles of wire on wooden poles, to the health of the current economy, or the availability of whatever fuel runs your Big Box generator ten miles down the way.
It's funny how 'Price' becomes a deathknell for anything as sober and reasonable as this, while it is simply unassailable when you're 'judging' someone's taste in clothes or cars.
Bob
'What's in your tank?'
All this argues in favor of central inverters instead of micro-inverters or other optimizers. Depending on how fast and hard peak oil hits us, the various technology bets being made by companies and customers are going to have some interesting effects.
..could be. If I had suddenly acquired some Panels with built-on inverters, the first thing I would be looking for is the leads so I could come straight from the PV and by pass the rest of the electronics.
I think that misses the point of what in my opinion is a much greater and immensely more valuable result. The Germans are now at the forefront of photovoltaic technology. They are now poised to take advantage of all the RD that was indirectly subsidized by FIT. They have developed a new industry and that is where the real job creation will occur.
To be clear I've never been a big supporter of grid tied solar as a means of maintaining BAU in OECD countries.
The real future of solar as I see it is small scale systems in parts of the world where there is no reliable grid to speak of. It will be used for pumping water from wells for irrigation of small farms, it will provide lighting, refrigeration and telecommunications for huge swaths of the world that cannot otherwise have access to these amenities. This is a huge potential global market and German technology will be a big part of fulfilling that need. Let's face it exporting BMWs, Porsches and Mercedes Benz's to Dubai isn't going to support them for much longer.
I think the Chinese also get it, and that is why they also have invested so heavily in the technology for producing low cost photovoltaics.
About 5 billion customers is quite a potential market for German and Chinese PV technology...
BAU is dead and we can't afford to build eletric grids for most of the third world because we no longer have the resources to do so.
Years back I had the opportunity to witness first hand the what happened in my native Brazil when cell phone technology allowed underprivileged Brazilians to suddenly leapfrog from very primitive conditions into the modern world because they no longer had to invest in a prohibitively expensive copper cable based phone system.
IMHO, I think small scale solar is going to be a similarly disruptive technology!
Cheers!
I think the issue is that manufacturing is moving to the Chinese, because they are so much cheaper, regardless of the expertise the Germans seem to have in this area.
This recent analysis says:
According to Germany's solar PV a victim of its own success, proposed cuts in tariffs will disproportionately affect German manufacturers, since Chinese modules are cheaper.
I believe that may not be a permanent condition, but regardless the Germans still have the know how and that in and of itself continues to be very valuable.
My brother, who lives in Germany, is friends with the owner of a German solar energy company that does manufacture in China. It's still a German company and they own the technology. If at some point in the future they find it more economical to build panels in Germany or somewhere else, all they have to do is scale up their already existing plant in Germany. They developed all of their technology in Germany with German engineering.
China's expanding economic power will change realpolitik.
I'd be betting that Cameron et al will have a list of UK "open markets" investment opportunities for China, after all, someone has to pay for the infrastructure investment
http://bjreview.com.cn/headline/txt/2010-11/05/content_309832.htm
Yes, but that is not just Solar.
It is also important to note the prices :
The 2000 PV systems were about $9,000/kW, the 2009 PV systems were about $5,000/kW, and the 2010 PV systems are about 4,300-5,200 $/kW, depending on the type of installation.
but notice factory costs are now under $1/Watt for Solar panels, and Inverter costs are below 50c/Watt.
It seems the "project costing mindsets", have not come down as quickly, as the primary component costs, and that those component costs are actually a declining portion of the price.
To me, there is close inspection needed here.
Even if inverters and panels were free (FOB), these trends suggest completed system costs would still be $2800-$3700/kW ?
Looking at other numbers, they also are revealing.
FITs are good for seeding an industry, but they do have to decline.
2000-2009 period, Installed cost of about $59 billion
FIT Budget until the end of 2029 ~$73.2 billion.
That 73.2 Billion sounds large, but is 0.8663% interest on the costs.
"I think the issue is that manufacturing is moving to the Chinese, because they are so much cheaper, regardless of the expertise the Germans seem to have in this area."
Not just China either. Q-cells is moving from Germany to Malaysia, and REC is closing the Swedish plant and moving it to Singapore.
For the moment, this seems to be the reality of electronics mfg..
Yet it is still worth remembering that you are buying the 'Equipment' from overseas, not the energy that it accesses for you.. and this eq. is a long-term property as well. That may seem like an academic argument, but I think it's central to energy economics, and a big part of why Solar PV is actively opposed by certain Oil-exporting (and other energy-invested) parties.
Party On, Wayne!
Party On, Garth!
If the primary goal was to promote RD, then current technology should only have been deployed on a limited scale. A FIT program that allows virtually unlimited installation of capacity is a liability since the large subsidies for a 20 year period will reduce the amount of money available to support installations of newer, better technology in the future.
In regards to jobs, has Germany actually developed superior technology that would support a significant number of jobs, or are most of the jobs merely dependent on a never-ending stream of new 20 year contracts?
The FIT for small Solar PV installations here in Ontario, Canada is CAN$.802/Kwh (.56 Euros) and from what I can see any jobs that have been created would cease to exist if the government stopped signing new 20 year contracts for Solar PV installations.
I think that is an important point, the degree of subsidization should decease as a technology moves up the growth curve. FITs (or other subsidies) which are fixed for a significant length of time run a serious risk of growing exponentially expense if the technology takes off. This isn't an argument for not using subsidies to incumbate promising tech, but rather a plea to do them intelligently. High rate FITs (like $.56Kwhr or even worse
$.80) are only going to generate reactionary resentment as a large number of people jump onto the gravytrain.
Yes, that's what big coal and big nuclear love. Academic exercises, with results in shelves on university libraries, or scientific magazines. But it's market penetration that counts. That's what FITs are good for.
Actually the above article is a sign of panic. While they're struggling to build the Olkiluoto EPR and that other reactor in France, with cost overruns in the billions, 3.8 GW of PV capacity have been implemented in Germany alone in 2009.
I'm working on the assumption that a dollar of subsidy buys a lot more early on in the incubation phase, than it does later on. Keeping a high FIT open once scaleup begins, invites backlash, as the people paying the subsidy (to those who invested in systems) gets angry. A long trem program has to be politically sustainable. A large FIT that was voted in because it seemed like a cheap way to do good, will not be sustainable once the industry reaches a decent scale, because its costs rise exponentially.
There is 20,000 TWh/year electricity in the world. If that energy were to be generated with PV, the FIT necessary would cost $10 trillion PER YEAR, or most of the US GDP. Plus the cost of energy storage. I doubt anyone is panicking over this.
A bad nuke project may have cost overruns that doubles its generation cost, but then it'll still generate electricity at a fifth of the cost of PV. PV is bad, mmkay?
BAU is bad, mmkay?
No. BAU is fucking great.
jeppen, it appears that you do not understand how science advances. I study amorphous and disordered photovoltaics in my spare time and have made significant breakthroughs with no funding. As we start feeding money into the research the odds go up that we will come up with further breakthroughs. I suppose you will want to argue this point, but frankly we don't have many other alternatives.
There are some harder to measure benefits that partially offset the costs:
(1) The reduction if fuel costs is not just the direct cost of fuel not burned, but also the reduction in fuel price caused by the lower (fuel) demand times the net usage of that fuel. This is not easy to determine, and the benefit is spread over a much wider area.
(2) The subsidies ought to advance the state of the art faster, and maybe give the local economy a leg up in the competition for a future industry. Again these are hard to measure and the benefits are somewhat diffuse.
These effects should at least partially mitigate the effects seen by a more narrowly focused accounting proceedure.
See my comment above... and BTW.
From today's Drumbeat: Hamilton: A misplaced tolerance for risk
The value of initiating paradigm change is in my opinion priceless!
I really do not understand this. I have a PV system and benefit from the FIT. The FIT are paid for 20 years and then they end. This does not mean the panels will need replacement. They may not be as efficient after 20 - 25 years but I bet they will still generate electricity. Even if they degrade by 50% they will generate useable power for myself.
Of course, in 25 years there may be a cheap replacement for old panels and it may be worth changing them but they certainly do not need to be replaced.
Yes, you're right. Probably many systems will need substantial overhauls after 25 years (not to mention new inverters about twice as often), but that does not necessarily mean that panels will have to be replaced. Very likely the panels will continue to work, perhaps some of them will need to have the wire leads replaced.
I see it as possible or even likely that there will be a large refurbishing and recycling market. Perhaps 'replacing your panels' will mean trading them in to a refurbishing company, who will give you refurbished panels in place of your old ones for a fee that is very modest compared to the cost of buying new panels. The refurbishing company will then refurbish your panels to give to someone else, while perhaps selling some that are not easily repairable to other companies that recycle cells, and so on.
30 year old polycrystalline 1970's panels used 2003-2005. Output: 30% of label. Cells bleached tan in color. Wire insulation a bit crispy. Still rainproof.
Well said.
There are also tens of billions in subsidies that benefit the world fossil fuel industry every year.
This is only one example:
http://www.pembina.org/media-release/1242
Of course a new solar and wind system can't compete with fossil/nuke energy which is firmly in place with an existing grid, existing coal/uranium mines, etc.
The tarrif has done what is was supposed to--install solar PV on roofs and bring down the price of solar somewhat.
Tying solar into the grid was necessary to provide the economics of expansion. The next step would be to focus on appliances where solar could directly take over from grid such as solar powered refrigerators, communications, lighting and intermittent devices.
Thought-provoking analysis, but I agree with prior commentors that there is more to it than just straight spreadsheet calculations. Preparing for various future scenarios (which I personally think Germany is doing rather nicely) requires courageous political decisions, which is pretty rare, especially amongst OCDE members.
Also, as someone living in Europe, I appreciate seeing TOD talk about European situations. These would be less surreal, however, if the numbers quoted were in units that we understand and use on a daily basis, ie, a) in €s, not U$, and b) anything but BTUs, the ugliest engineering measurement known to man. Just saying.
hmmmm....what continent gave the world the "BTU"? lol
But yes...the smorgasbord of units is pain for us all.
-dr
hmmmm....what continent still uses "BTU"?
Well, the Britain that gave us British Thermal Units, doesn't consider itself part of Europe, really. So America, which is the only place I know of that still uses that measure, inherits ownership ;-)
While I've long been appreciative of Germany's roll as an early adopter and driver of what, to me, is an elegant and important technology, I've also worried that Germany isn't the best location for PV and that this carries with it the risk of becoming a "failed experiment". One would hope that the Germans have some form of centralized monitoring and reporting of PV output over time so that they can maximise their investment.
It would be an ongoing process to alert home and business owners that their systems' production has fallen off (along with their FIT return). Some BOS vendors offer this technology; online monitoring of production and alerts if the system isn't performing well. While I have posted that our PV systems have been remarkably low maintenance, I keep close tabs on production. I notice, without inspecting an array, when its production has fallen off even a little, usually due to a big leaf or pile of bird poop on a single panel. Keeping track of individual arrays' relative output lets me know if one of my arrays is not performing to its potential.
Like other types of energy production, this isn't build and forget technology. Sites need to be carefully selected and maintained. Orientation is critical. Wholesale adoption, such as in Germany, certainly needs to take this into account.
I'm very much on the same page with you there, Ghung, but it seems to me that the Germans already know that as well.
From the Bunsewehr's report on Peak Oil
Streitkräfte, Fähigkeiten und Technologien im 21. Jahrhundert
- Umweltdimensionen von Sicherheit -
Rough translation :
Before promoting DESERTEC, the Bundeswehr people would be well inspired to consider the security aspect thoroughly, because it is going to fall on their lap (don't expect the French to get on board for a colonization adventure in Northern Africa : been there, done that already; there is no appetite for more). We are not even able to secure a tiny uranium operation in Niger and they want to locate hundred of billions of solar assets in northern Africa ? For an energy source that is not storable ? From a strategic standpoint, it is a complete disaster.
Re: Desertec and the French...
In fact, the French are already pushing ahead with a concept similar and related to Desertec. It's called Transgreen, soon to be renamed 'MedGrid'. I was at the 'Desertec Industrial Initiative' (aka Dii) conference in Barcelona two weeks ago, and Transgreen were certainly there. It is a consortium led (commercially) by EDF, but with the backing of the French government. People from Transgreen sit on the board of Dii.
As one French speaker put it (paraphrasing): Sarkozy wanted to push for a Union for the Mediterranean and the Germans didn't want to agree (as there is already the Barcelona process going on), so we decided to seduce them with solar. The MSP (Mediterannean Solar Plan) was the tool. There is now a Union of the Mediterranean, which has adopted the MSP
North African companies and governments (especially Morocco and Tunisia) are also taking part - and quite keen - on both initiatives provided they include to provision of water (via desalination), local energy supplies if practical, technology transfer and jobs.
Storage - the plan is to build CSTP (Concentrating Solar Thermal Power) plants which do have storage, as well as wind and hydro. Morocco is in the process of massively expanding its generating capacity with a plan to get 46% of its electricity from renewables in the next ten years or so. Will come from a mix of hydro, CSP, wind and PV.
Security - north Africa has been supplying natural gas (and oil) to Europe for many, many years. Somehow gas and oil pipelines from central asia are secure, but not a connection between Morocco and Spain. BTW, there is already a 700MW two-way connection between Morocco and Spain in place that has been operating for some time.
Renewable vs Finite - every morning, North Africa has as much sun as it had the day before. Not quite the same incentives to hold back supply to maximise gain as with a finite fossil fuel
Scale - Desertec plan has always been to first and foremost provide electricity for MENA region and export to Europe enough to cover up to 15% of 2050 EU demand. Also, that the 'supergrid' crossing the Med would be a two-way street.
For countries with a much better solar resource (including the US), it stands to reason that a FIT program with much more modest rates could have a similar effect on encouraging adoption. Here's hoping that people looking at Germany will take that into account, and that it isn't too subtle a point for policy makers.
Eventually, all PV owners will be like you. ;-)
A lot of one's reaction to the article depends on what problem one believes the world is trying to solve with alternative energy like solar and wind.
If the problem is creating a long-term technological/industrial base to ensure economic growth, provide poor countries with distributed local power options and as an eventual mitigation strategy for Peak Oil, initiatives like this make some sense.
If the problem we're trying to solve is CO2 in the atmosphere, this initiative is a grotesque waste of time, money, energy and resources.
CO2 is a problem right now, not 50 years from now. If we were pursuing effective CO2 reduction strategies in addition to playing with windmills and solar cells, I'd be a little more sanguine. We're not, so I'm not.
It's fine to take a critical view of renewable energy policy, but the poorly supported endorsement of nuclear power, without addressing any of that technology's shortcomings, and apples-to-oranges comparison of claimed nuclear plant capital costs vs. solar FIT's hurt the credibility of this piece. The comparison is really quite shallow, taking the dimmest possible view of solar as a "heavily subsidized" and "capital-intensive, long-payback" technology, while ignoring that these same criticisms apply just as well if not more to nuclear power, the proposed alternative. No credit is given for the long-term transformative potential of renewable energy. Even less attention is paid to the shortcomings of nuclear power, from its own dismal economics, long-term still-100%-unresolved-after-60-years liabilities and back-end costs related to decommissioning and spent fuel storage, or the peaking of nuclear fuels, heavily dependent on fossil fuels especially for the extraction and processing of low-grade ores, that will quickly be forced if nuclear power is to displace any significant share of worldwide energy consumption.
I'd like to see a more focused, apples-to-apples comparison. The fact that it's been so difficult over the years to even get a bead on the EROI for nuclear energy should give pause to those who might claim that it is somehow an easy way out of our energy predicaments.
I fully agree..
I was amused (while that word really has come to mean 'Ironically Chagrined, again'), when there was discussion .. hell, I'll just quote it..
well, I sure hope the PV industry has made some strides on that old "Hazardous Panel Waste" issue that's been such a thorn in their sides. Here's a paper by Vasilis Fthenakis and Ken Zweibel on CdTe panels, and toxicity issues around their manufacture and application, and misapprehensions about the same...
http://www.nrel.gov/pv/cdte/pdfs/real_perceived_risks.pdf
They Conclude, among other things,
The issues you raise with nuclear are not true problems. There is abundant uranium. The back-end costs are very low, the overall economics is very good (about 10 times better than PV).
There is abundant uranium in the same sense that there is plenty of oil - no shortage of low-grade, low-EROI supplies that can be used to produce energy at a marginal net surplus, if any at all. It's impossible to say what the back-end costs will be because storage of spent fuel is indefinite and no geologic repository exists. If the "overall economics" are good, then what is the net present value of a nuclear plant set to come online nine years in the future? If nuclear economics are more attractive than PV then why are investors supporting the latter and not the former where they are eligible for the same subsidies? Don't confuse operating costs of existing plants with full cost accounting for new power plants coming online. If you want to talk about thorium reactors or some other next-generation technology then you must account for the costs and timeframe for commercializing that technology as well.
No. There is abundant uranium in the high EROI sense. Please have a look at this recent MIT study.
"The cost of uranium today is 2 to 4% of the cost of electricity. Our analysis of uranium mining costs versus cumulative production in a world with ten times as many LWRs and each LWR operating for 60 years indicates a probable 50% increase in uranium costs."
It is clear that it is cheap technologically, as the problem is simple and the timescales are geologically speaking very short. Politics may demand any cost, though.
That depends on taxes, subsidies of other generation technologies and so on. Please calculate and compare levelized energy costs excluding government interventions.
They don't!
I don't.
I'm talking about current LWR technology.
This is getting rather OT, and rather than debate the merits of nuclear power here I think I'll just leave it at my original statement that it is disingenuous to dismiss the concerns with nuclear power out of hand, as the author does, in suggesting it as an alternative almost as an afterthought, and that the comparison between feed-in tariffs for solar and nuclear plant capital costs is not apples-to-apples and therefore not valid. We could, and I think should, continue to debate the matter, but to have a valuable discussion on the economics, supply issues, and so forth related to nuclear power, it needs to be its own discussion. In no small part because of the huge divergence of numbers and opinions on the matter. I'm not sure I would say I've ever seen the topic of nuclear power EROI, for instanced, addressed in a way that I thought was really comprehensive and satisfactory. To take up the matter here in a comment thread would only rehash points already contested many times over and accomplish little in the way of achieving consensus.
In the meantime, I would suggest to TOD's editors that nuclear power is a topic in need of revisiting, with many nuances of its own, and deserving of more attention than the side discussion here can justice.
Since France, Japan, China, Russia, India and the other countries that are in the lead in developing nuclear power are not very well represented here, discussing nuclear is a waste of energy.
In particular, I doubt whether the US will have much influence over the future of nuclear energy.
100% right.
To put solar PV in perspective, I live in Peninsular Malaysia, where they are perfectly happy to produce expensive PV cells for exports to Germany, but still there are no massive Solar PV power plant projects in the region and this is a country close to the equator ! The only incentive there for solar is net metering, and solar PV is still at twice the price of the grid.
Conversely, there are serious plans to get into nuclear power (Vietnam just decided to buy two russian VVER reactors). Poor or intermediate income countries cannot afford the luxury of grossly suboptimal investment allocation, which is why they will go for the cheapest energy source from the cheapest provider. If Germany thinks it will become an export behemoth with Solar cells (I mean net of export subsidy), it is deluding itself.
+5
Please name just one plant that has lasted 50 years, i.e. that was built before 1960 and is still in operation.
Why is that request relevant? The WNA database lists just 13 commercial reactors from that era, and their capacity was 5-60 MW. It is unreasonable to interpret the statement of 50 year-design life that those infancy plants should still be in operation.
However, there is a number of operating reactors from the mid-70-ies (~35 years old) that deliver around 1 GW each. For example:
* Biblis A and B, will likely operate beyond 2021.
* Browns Ferry 1-3, licensed to operate until 60 years old.
* Calvert Cliffs 1-2, licensed to operate until 60 years old.
* Cooper, has applied for another 20 year license (to operate until 60 years old).
* Dresden 2-3, are 40 years now and has license until 60 years old.
... and there I lost patience to go throught the alphabetical list. But you get the idea.
Having a license is one thing (words on a paper), being able to operate safely is another.
Not very much, unless you believe operators and regulators are all Homer Simpson clones. The flurry of license extensions we see now are telling you a story. Nukes were designed for 40 years and will operate for 60+. New nukes are designed for 60 years and will likely be operated for 80+.
You wildly underestimate how seriously nuclear regulator assess these things nowadays. Not all regulators are as careless than banking or oil industry regulators. Another important point is that new nuclear power plants have been designed to be modular with practically all elements that can be replaced, . To give you an example, russians have developed annealing procedures which enable to restore the pressure vessel of VVER to its original factory state, thus erasing years of embrittlement due to neutron activity.
Spent nuclear waste is a political problem not a technical one. This spent fuel should be recycled into other types of reactors. Not all reactor types require this spent fuel to be reprocessed and enriched.
The space requirement is 3 football fields a year for all the reactors in the USA. So even if you did not recycle them until the price of uranium was high it would take many years to fill up remote places. Dry fuel storage is very safe.
Recycling waste fuel is both problematic (ask the Brits after they scrapped a failed recycling plant that cost billions) and expensive (ask the French).
And storing waste fuel may take a small space, but that space is HYPER-expensive (ask the Americans and the $10 of billions for Yucca Mountain).
A cost not adequately reflected in electric bills.
Alan
It is hyper-expensive for political reasons, not for technical. Yet, I don't think it is under-funded, or is it? Often some $0.001/KWh is put away to cover the cost - that should be like $10 billion per year in the US.
It is hyper expensive for technical reasons.
Prolonged security with minimal risk for many millennium is not cheap.
One can lower costs by accepting higher levels of risk.
For example, does one put in Ti liner to keep water out ?
Yucca Mt. planned to.
Alan
Sorry, don't know what "Ti liner" is. Yes, obviously, accepting higher levels of risk makes for lower cost. What I'm arguing is that the level of risk is too low and the cost too high, at least for the Swedish method. But they think their funding is adequate anyway. My take on too low risk and too high cost can't be politically accepted, though, so the money is going to be spent and then some, probably. So they should have started with a lower funding and spent that and then some, for a final cost that is lower. Safety would have been adequate anyway.
Ti is the chemical symbol for titanium.
Alan
(LOL)
The real interest (even at low current rates) earned on the reserves for waste disposal is largely enough to pay for dry cask storage until the end of times.
to pay for dry cask storage until the end of times
Assume Wiemer Germany, with too many debts and without the means to pay, even the interest on the debts.
All fiat currencies become valueless, sooner or later.
Alan
... and 90 years after Weimar, Germany is able to find 73 billion EUR to pay for FIT and its currency is strong. I guess it could have replenished its nuclear waste fund easily !
Paper wealth is not important here; you can have a biblical jubilee every 59 years if you want; real wealth, based on productive asset (especially in the energy domain) is what counts. If solar + " the energy storage technology we haven't discovered yet" happens tomorrow to be more productive than nukes, we will stop nukes and invest the "waste fund" in solar PV + "the energy storage technology we haven't discovered yet" assets. If it is not, we will reinvest it in productive nukes, possibly burning the waste in the mean time.
And note that there is no irony in the above statement, solar + "the energy storage technology we haven't discovered yet" may indeed happen ( for instance with a combination of the technologies of Kilimanjaro energy ( http://www.kilimanjaroenergy.com/ ) and direct solar CO2 cracking ( http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18993-green-machine-cars-could-run... ). I would personally like it, but we have to fight global warming and fossil fuel depletion here and now with the technologies that we have, not the one that we would like to have.
Not all societies resurrect like Germany. I think the list of failed states will grow significantly post-Peak Oil.
For example, the Islamic Republic of Arabia (formerly Saudi Arabia) of 2068# may look a lot like the Yemen of today (the capital is at risk of running out of water, civil war, secession).
And I think that the Saudis are looking at 36 nukes (# from memory) starting soon.
Quite frankly, I would MUCH rather see 100s of GW of solar PV plus pumped storage (sea water off Red Sea coast and around Oman, across Gulf in Iran) and HV DC lines around the Arabian Peninsula.
Pumped storage works fine as an energy storage device. No magic new technology required.
# 2068 is within life time of their first nuke.
Alan
It is perfectly possible to secure the nuclear waste of failed states if needs be, and at a very reasonable cost compared to GDP (certainly less than 70 bln euro and counting). Actually, this is exactly what Europe has been doing after Chernobyl by taking care of the site.
I don't loose sleep about the potential threat of radioactive glass logs stored in a cavern in Saudi Arabia. Quite the contrary, it is probably one of the best place on earth for that purpose ! The biggest long problem for long term storage is infiltration of water (This is what the Ti liner is made for), and water in this place there is not ! If I had to worry about something, it would be about the 37 times Chernobyl deposited in a natural site in Siberia, including riverbeds, without any containment whatsoever, by far the most monumental nuclear cock-up in history. It happened 50 years ago, with the world population doubling since then and no devastating radiation-induced cancer epidemic, so I am not holding my breath in angst though.
Even in countries reasonably endowed with water resources, there is a lack of suitable mountain sites, even if you decide to dam every conservation sites available. David McKay does a good demo in the british case : http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c26/page_192.shtml Regarding Saudi Arabia, I didn't any external reference to pumped storage projects, can you provide some ?
Gail, you disappoint me. As others have implied, stating that panels have to be replaced after 25 years is ignorance unbefitting the thoroughness of much of what you do and seems to indicate a real bias. Most panels have a guarantee of 25 years to produce a minimum of 80% of original power. Obivously on average they have to expect them to do significantly better than that. It makes no more sense than saying that if a car warranty is for 5 years, then all cars will have to be replaced after 5 years and then factoring in that total cost.
In addition, this analysis doesn't apply to regions with far better solar payback, such as inland California. I always thought Germany was a stretch for solar given far from optimum conditions.
I think possibly the greatest contribution Germany has made, however, has been in bringing the costs of solar so far down. The price was cut in half over that period - to the benefit of Germany and the entire world - partly due to their large commitment. Now that solar is so mainstream, costs should keep falling and this is what will enable solar to truly make a difference in more appropriate markets. So thanks to Germany for this, although it may not have been the most sensible think for them to do financially!
Peakearl, don't shoot the messenger , the first sentence spells clearly out
This is the best analysis concerning fits/ grid-connected PV solar in a long long time. Thoroughly documented and backed up. Kudos to Willem Post for this. Thanks.
To me it's getting clearer by the day- PVs are NOT a method of conserving BAU gridwise. PVs are (for the time being) suitable as a single-house, village-grid or other small scale off grid solutions that may accept downtime.
You're right - my apologies to Gail. I was at work and a bit rushed. The overall analysis is informative but I don't think it should be taken as applying generally to the future of solar. The analysis is historical and specific to one location which is generally unfavorable. I would never claim that solar is the answer to conserve gridwise BAU. There is obviously no single answer. I do think it is part of the package, especially as cost continues to decline and it is applied in the correct locations.
I actually agree with that.
The problem is they are being sold to a gullible public as being a clean alternative to BAU when they are nothing of the sort.
"....they are nothing of the sort."
....so what are they?
Votecatchers
For me they are photon catchers/electron producers. Have been for 16+ years.
Silly little grid peeps........
I think First Solar said it best here:
http://investor.firstsolar.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=201491&p=irol-newsArticle...
I would like to thank the German people who had the foresight to invest in this technology, at substantial self cost, for the benefit of all humanity. They provided a market large enough that economies of scale could begin. Yes, there are countries that could have done this first for even greater benefit, but this was a true act of self sacrifice. It is humbling to see.
One other advantage of solar power is that while it is very expensive, it can be purchased in small modules (unlike a new power plant) and so it is likely to continue even after a financial crisis cripples the ability to build multi billion dollar power lines and plants.
Thirdly, a tiny amount of power has a giant boost to productivity over no power. A few lights, an electric cooking system, a working freezer, a rechargeable laptop, etc make a giant difference in what can be done. And those power needs can be met with panels purchased a few at a time. Year by year. Like old farmhouses around here that were built one room at a time.
It is way too early to tell if Germany's sacrifice has actually spawned a new industry that can survive on its owns merits or whether they ahve just blown up a bubble that will inevitbaly have to burst. From what I understnad of the soalr panle market, the current reduced pricing is not due to economies of scale in manufacturing but a glut in the market after Gernmanys changes to FiTs were announced. Once that glut has cleared and manufacturing capacity has been returned to nomral lelves, there is no guarantee the price will not go back up again. Think dot.com
I think the answer to that is both no, and yes. Clearly we have reached a point where smallish off grid applications in sunny climates will find the products more than satisfactory. Whether we will see
the cost curce pushed far enough down that solar becomes an abvious way to save money on bulk power remains to be demonstrated. But, it never would have gotten as far as it did without a long period of incubation. The problem is that the benefits of that incubation are globally distributed, whereas the costs are borne by the few localities that have greated overly generous programs. Naturally, they don't include the potential benefit the rest of the world gets from having a proming technology nursed through infancy in their bean counting. The cure isn't to throw the baby out with the bath water (as we say in the US), but to reduce the FIT to a reasonable level (and to allow that level to drop as conditions warrant).
I think you are right about off grid applications which are still very capital intensive but justifed in remote areas.
What I am less sure of is whether there has been any great breakthroughs resulting from Germanys investment. Sure there has probably been some incremental advance in the technology and manufacturing methods and the economies of scale have naturally lowered the cost of production. This would have happened with any technolgy that had this much money thrown at it (except maybe fusion!).
I'm not at all sure that Germany's investment will actually deliver much benefit to the rest of the world. If the industry cannot stand on it's own, or the public investment to get it there is too high then it will have been a curse rather than a benefit, and the world will end up spending a fortune on something that delivers very little social benefit.
We have the perfect example in Australia where the New South Wales stategovernment introduced a generous GFiT after a huge lobbying effort by the Greens, citing Germany as the poster child. It lasted 10 months which was enough time for small businesses to ramp up their installation capacity and spend money on training, stock etc only to have it collapse because it was too successful.
"Substantial self cost" is an understatement. 73 billion EUR represents a little more than 3% of Germany GDP. To give an order of magnitude that may resonate with most of the readers here, the savings and loans cost was "only" about 2.5% of US GDP for taxpayers. The situation is even worse in Spain, and germans should not rejoice too quickly about their "export success" in there because sales have been largely funded by german export agencies money, who will get defaults as the dire financial situation in peripheral euro countries is unraveling.
Finally, it is not because solar power can be purchased in small modules that it can be produced in small modules. The financial crisis will cripple the ability to build solar modules manufacturing plants before the ability to build power lines and plants.
Regarding the 50 years on nuclear, this is something we are all familiar with the discussion about. In the US, there are a lot of plants that were originally certified for 40 years, and now have been certified for another 20, so someone thinks plants will last at least 50 years. Recently, there was a Drumbeat article talking about 40 + 40 certification, for a total of 80 years. This struck me as ridiculous.
There are going to be different opinions on everything. That is the way it is when one is discussing a controversial topic like energy.
The average life span of nuclear reactors is somewhat under 30 years, and an average should IMO be used for calculations like those in the article above.
If you can't oppose nuclear by other means than by being unreasonable in your treatment of statistics, then I guess nuclear is quite good?
So what's the average life span of existing solar panels? 10 years? 5?
If you mean life expectancy, it's been stated many times as 30 or more..
If you mean their average age since installation.. who knows, but what's the point of that question?
Completely ignores the 'Merit Order Effect' where the renewable electricity displaces the most expensive peak supply and can mean the FIT generation costs are not met by the ratepayer which is certainly not the case for any capital intentive alternative.
http://econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/28511/1/565631225.pdf
PV is only one (expensive) part of the FIT and is generally considered complementary to Wind generation.
That would be 10,000MW at remote sites requiring additional infrastructure and incurring transmission/distribution loses so may nett 7,500 MW and more importantly I doubt individuals would buy $59B of shares so the energy companies would need to raise the funds on the open market paying commercial interest rates. As a baseload much of the generated energy might not actually sell for much so the rate of return could be quite low.
If the funds had been invested in nuclear power in 2000, they would still be a decade away from producing the first watt of power in 2009.
That's pure speculation. The construction time of current German nukes are fairly spread out in the range of 5-10 years. Using current standardised and simplified plants and a bit of political will to streamline the regulatory environment, achieving short construction times should be no problem.
Outside of Russia and a few countries in Asia, there has been no sign of political will to get plants built in a reasonable period.
Without Governments that will site plants and write checks for inevitable cost overruns without regard to local opposition, interest costs and construction delays will continue to get the best of nuclear projects in countries with Democratic governments (or without traditions of deference to Government).
While I believe that new nuclear capacity is an essential element of meeting base electrical loads, I have no illusions about its massive and unpredictable cost. No private company can finance projects with lag times of 15 years or more to the first dollar of income.
I don't agree on much in that comment. Construction delays and cost overruns are not inevitable, and private companies can absolutely finance nuclear projects if allowed to. But you do need a clear political will, otherwise there are political and beaurocratic obstacles that can't be overcome.
BS !!
Look at the MASSIVE subsidies for new nukes in the USA.
* Extends the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act through 2025;
* Authorizes cost-overrun support of up to $2 billion total for up to six new nuclear power plants;
* Authorizes a production tax credit of up to $125 million total per year, estimated at 1.8 US¢/kWh during the first eight years of operation for the first 6.000 MW of capacity; consistent with renewables; [Nukes get the wind/solar subsidy PLUS]
* Authorizes loan guarantees of up to 80% of project cost to be repaid within 30 years or 90% of the project's life;
* Authorizes $2.95 billion for R&D and the building of an advanced hydrogen cogeneration reactor at Idaho National Laboratory;
* Authorizes 'standby support' for new reactor delays that offset the financial impact of delays beyond the industry's control for the first six reactors, including 100% coverage of the first two plants with up to $500 million each and 50% of the cost of delays for plants * Allows nuclear plant employees and certain contractors to carry firearms;
* Updates tax treatment of decommissioning funds;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005
Starts with free insurance (any business would like that, but for nukes paying insurance is a deal breaker)
Yet STILL not enough. Constellation Energy recently pulled out of a deal to build an EPR. Stated reason: "Not enough subsidy".
Your ideology appears to trump facts.
Now, I do support even larger subsidies to get a half dozen new nukes built in the USA.
Pay nukes double the subsidy/kWh of wind & solar ?
Ok, do it. I support it (with a smaller increase for wind & solar).
Not enough ?
Ok, have the feds pick up 15% of the construction cost (investment tax credit). (How about 5% for wind/solar ?)
Not enough ? Only five new nukes under construction ?
OK, that's enough to restart the industry.
I am pro-nuke, but I understand the economic limitations.
Alan
None of this (except for the hydrogen R&D) is a guaranteed cost to the government. Everything is about covering risks, and there is almost always a price tag attached to the government offers of handling those risks. (It was such an excessive price tag that made Constellation bail out.) And why does the government need to handle nuclear risks?
* Small utilities and operators. (Are they allowed to buy each other, even?)
* Fragmented regulation utilities.
* Regulated prices and profits.
* Lack of national competition.
* Fragmented grids that limit competition.
* Excessive nuclear regulation that creates risks of delays and cost overruns.
* Lack of internalized costs for fossil energy sources.
You simply deny companies the muscle and the operating freedom necessary to handle and minimize risks, while you allow fossil sources to stay cheaper. I'd say operators in my own little Sweden are allowed more muscle. To fix the problems the governments' regulations (or lack thereof) has created, a flurry of additional regulations are offered to patch mitigate the orginal regulations' effects.
Many of these will cost the gov't dollars. Same subsidy as wind/solar as one of several subsidies. If the Finnish EPR got these subsidies, it would cost the gov't billion(s) more.
New Nuclear Power Plants are *NOT* economic !
See the massive subsidies above, and see the ground being broken on new nukes in the USA 5 years later. Facts on the ground contradict your ideology.
Your list of points have no impact whatsoever on why new nukes are not economic in the USA. I read than and scratched my head trying to understand your point.
Because the USA has 300+ million people and we use about twice the electricity of the EU, problems of scale are not an issue. Small Austin Energy (2,515 MW peak demand) was allowed a chance to buy 16% of South Texas NP and turned it down because it was uneconomic.
The peak demand in the electrical island of Texas peaks at about 64 GW. All of Scandinavia is a fraction of that. The rest of the USA is much bigger.
Some states are regulated, some are not.
The two AP-1000s to be built in Georgia are because the ratepayers (customers) are subsidizing them. They will start paying for them as they are being built, and absorb the risk and provide capital "for free" to help build them.
Georgia supplied the extra subsidy required.
Alan
When Shale Gas is thought to stay at 3 $ forever (see aeberman contribution on TOD), coal seems infinite and greenhouse gas problems are denied, new NPP are not economic indeed.
A lot of people in the US share assume these assumptions are all true, especially in the power industry. This is why most new NPP will be built in Asia, quickly and on budget.
Then let me try to explain my point again. Your "subsidies" are all related to risk. If risk is eliminated, utilities want to build, right - that's you "facts on the ground"?
Now, the main risk is that of cost overruns (including costs related to delays) and that risk has two parameters, namely average and variance. Now, if a company is big enough - has enough economic muscle - then the variance is no problem. You aren't going to go bankrupt just because one plant overruns with $10 billion. You just throw the dice again and know that on average, you are going to win.
Also, the component of the average that is related to this being the first-of-a-kind AP1000 and the first in the US for a long time, should not be a big problem either for a big enough utility. It could expect to recover this in the several dozen reactors that should follow.
Now, my take on the reporting so far, is that the average overrun is not such a big problem. Much of this should also be accounted for in the cost estimates. The killer is the variance. And that means there is a size/muscle related problem. Add to that that arguably most of the risks are related to politics and regulatory frameworks.
Should not be an issue. But as I understand it, the market is extremely fragmented, and the regulatory framework is fragmented as well. Each state has its own peculiarities.
This is also a regulatory problem and a problem of fragmentation. In other industries, we don't have that kind of discussions. That Walmart, IKEA and others charge their customers whatever they like and use the money to build new stores is not an issue. In fact, one would be considered a mad commie if one complained about that. The only reason this is an issue in the US is because you, for some reason, can't seem to create satisfactory competition between electric utilities, and thus you resort to a hybrid socialist/market system that is severely crippled in its ability to invest in large projects.
And again, fossils are very subsidised by society due to external costs. If those costs were internalized, the economics of nuclear would be completely different, as it's the sole large scale contender.
Given your location and knowledge that comes with that, I think that you have made a reasonable and quite wrong analysis.
I do not think that there is a commercial entity in the world willing to gamble $10 billion. Exxon Mobil, $1 or $2 billion, but *NOT* ten. Kashagan has a MUCH bigger payoff than a new nuke, and if they had it to do over again, I think the oil companies would walk.
And oil company execs have a very different POV towards risk than utility execs (night & day).
Austin Energy (owned by the City of Austin, pop about 500,000) backed out of 16% of STNP not becasue it was too big (they could have opted for 8% or 5%), but becasue it was too risky. See Finland and concrete there.
Their advisers said if all went well, it would be a small win. But if things went wrong, it could be a small or large loss. Net probabilities x gain or loss = negative.
One basic truth pro-nuke advocates overlook.
What killed the nuke building industry in the USA was the nuke building industry. Not some green scapegoats, but the terrible performance of the industry itself, in the field.
Zimmer, an over budget, delayed nuke, finally completed. Too low quality to get an operating license.
TMI, a modern nuke turned into hyper-expensive scrap in a day.
Trojan, major repairs, too expensive to be worth repairing, closed after 13 years.
Massive cost over runs and delays. Etc.
Over promise and under deliver.
TVA canceled 11 nukes in one day.
WHOOPS started 5 nukes, finished one.
Utilities still remember.
Denial of the facts with some nuclear myth does the cause of new nukes great harm.
Best Hopes for accepting reality,
Alan
That nukes varied in completion time was well known before TMI, but it seems the risks were deemed bearable then. However, then came TMI, and, I guess you will correct me if I'm wrong, the ensuing regulation made risks unbearable.
You have made changes to regulations to enable new builds, but just barely. Not long ago, I heard the NRC demanded changes to the AP-1000 to make it handle direct impacts from big airliners. (So any would-be terrorist must choose an old nuke to crash into, presumably.)
So, nowadays, nukes are simpler, better designed, have type certifications, and the US electricity market has grown considerably. But you still can't revive the nuclear industry that was flourishing before TMI. Why? Because utilities remember being bad in the 70-ies and 80-ies? I don't buy it.
I stand by my analysis. Less regulation (both nuclear in particular and utilities in general) and internalized fossil costs would make nuclear a slam dunk. I know you will stand by your analysis - that private companies can't take the risk. If so, perhaps we'll have to wait until someone makes those small modular factory-built reactors for the US to get on the bandwagon.
"few countries in Asia" ?
By that, you mean, only China, India, South Korea, Vietnam, which represent the bulk of the growth of electricity market ?
Strangely enough, NPP in Asia are built on-time with reasonable costs overruns. The only sources of economic uncertainty susceptible of jeopardizing significantly the profitability of NPP projects are unscientific political interference and unequal taxation. Provide an irrevocable indemnification for these risks and these risks only and investors will come en masse.
That's because the first concern is something you largely made up, and the second one is being eclipsed by technological change.
Panels are warrantied for 25 years, and that's why payback is usually calculated on that timescale. That does NOT mean that panels will need to be replaced after 25 years. And, panels will provide 80-90% of initial power after 25 years. The way you have presented this issue in this article, exaggerating conclusions without mentioning numbers, is misleading.
Advances in micro-inverters mean that by next year we will likely be seeing modules with integrated inverters, all with a 25 year warranty. Meanwhile, the cost of replacing central inverters has come down.
Most likely panels (and inverters, though to a lesser extent) will provide myriad opportunities for refurbishing, repair, and recycling, thus bringing down the cost of replacements in the future.
And, how much does it cost for the "removal and safe disposal" of the spent nuclear fuel under the alternative scenario?
That's a trick question, of course.
Sure, because that cost will be anything you like it to be.
.. because nobody knows the answer to it yet.
No, because politicians decide. The problem is technically simple and there are cheap solutions. The question remains how many orders of magnitude overkill politicians will need to impose on the industry before being viewed as sufficiently "responsible" and "tough".
Many countries, including the US and my own Sweden, has decided that about $0.001/KWh shall suffice. It can, easily, but it remains to be seen if it is allowed to.
One of the costs of Nuclear waste for example is needing 16 thousand police officers to protect its safe passage... (e.g. http://www.shz.de/nachrichten/deutschland-welt/politik/artikeldetails/ar...)
That is so sad. But as they say, the road to hell (a coal furnace in this case, I guess) is paved with good intentions.
They are already a Lowes. In my opinion the price is too high, I could find
traditional DC panels for about half the price per watt, but the early stage availability has already begun.
Actually, no. Those modules have a removable micro-inverter that has a separate warranty than the DC module. (I'm quite familiar with that product, I've installed a few hundred.) I was talking about modules where you have a micro-inverter in the module junction box, and the whole package is a single product with a single warranty.
Are the inverters suddenly going to work for 25 years, instead of 10 years?
Our machines use alternating current. When the inverters go, don't we have a problem?
I'm not sure that the 10 year lifetime expectation of inverters is fair. One of my inverters is 13 years old and is powering the laptop I'm using now. It "failed" 2 years ago, the result of a cooling fan bearing going out; 4" muffin fan, easily replaced, locally sourced. Inverters are as repairable as most appliances (perhaps more so), since they are mearly an assemblage of mostly off-the-shelf parts. The circuit boards and control systems may be a problem, but it seems that most failures are due to mechanical parts (fans, relays, etc.) widely available.
Use a Trace(now Outback) 2424 on my off-grid house. Inverter is now twenty-three(23) years old with zero trouble(1987) or maintenance. I haven't even blown the dust off. Fan only comes on when I run the table saw in the shop. On the other hand I do have a friend that bought an identical inverter at the same time and one day awhile back, it stopped working. After some investigation he discovered his cat was peeing on it. So he took it outside and turned his garden house hose on it and let it dry in the sun for a couple of days(solar cooking). Has worked fine ever since. Mine has taking major overloads, occasional shorts when I do something silly, and lighting strikes that showed up as arcs in the bedroom.
Cheers,
Paul
ps. My solar panels are the same age, with no apparent reduction in output. I've never washed or cleaned them. I just let the rain do it's thing.
ps2. Typed with 100% renewable electrons.
ps3. I also have a 1kw Bergey windmill that does require maintenance. At least every two years, the thing has to come down end get greased and tightened up. Solar is vastly more maintenance free.
Minor correction. Trace became Xantrex, became Schneider. When Trace was aquired by Xantrex, a core group of their engineers left to form Outback, an unfriendly divorce, as I understand it.
I have 2 Trace 4024s. Working nicely for many years, though not true sinewave. I also have an Outback for true sinewave loads. Only one of the Trace inverters has needed any repairs, mentioned above.
What sort of loads benefit from true sine or are happy with squared sine?
NAOM
Many electronic things, T.V.s and Computers, use diodes almost immediately to turn the A.C. input power into D.C... Sine doesn't matter.
Some electromechanical things, like box-fans, use A.C. motors that don't run well/burn-up on square-wave (called "modified sine-wave") power.
Some big old heavy electronic things, things with big transformers, like power amplifiers, are going to eat more power due to "core loss".
Old phonographs may not only turn poorly but also pass-on the noise from the steep edges of square-wave power.
Some things like some DVD players, FAX machines, and VHS tape players don't like the noise radiating from square-wave power.
Power-factor corrected power supplies, like in some UPSs, may be unhappy on square-wave power.
So...
If it works, it works.
If it doesn't turn properly or buzzes internally or starts to buzz, don't push it: turn it off.
If it hums badly out the speaker, it hums badly but is probably not going to smoke.
If it smokes, quickly turn it off.
Pure sine is the safest single choice.
I run square-wave because my loads are lighting and diode front-end power supplies.
Joke:
Electronics runs on magic smoke. That's what's in all the little parts. If you let the smoke out, it quits working. Is simple, yes?
.
P.S.:
I turned-on an oscilloscope in a cheap sine-power inverter (no output filters) powered solar home and saw very tall, 100KHz ringing waveforms everywhere instead of the 60Hz sine-waves you see on an open probe in a grid-powered house.
Fan failure will cook things. The common muffin fan accepts no oil. Air-flow switches exist: annunciator?
Capacitors degrade with "ripple-current", especially 'lytics and surface-mount ceramics. Whatcha gonna do?
I've had very few problems with my Trace "modified sine" (54 step) inverters running things. Things with cycle counting clock timers (my bread machine, cheap alarm clocks, micowave clock, etc.) aren't accurate over time. We have a seperate 100 amp subpanel for the pure sine Outback and run critical/sensitive loads from there (critical lighting, electronics, things with clocks, controllers for other RE stuff, refrigerator). This allows us to shut down the Trace inverters in a power down. A/c motors (well pump, air compressors, vaccuum cleaner, etc) do fine. The Traces also provide 240 vac. We have a washer that has had problems, but have found that it isn't an inverter problem. Most of the better inverters nowdays are pure sine. We hope to replace the Traces someday with a pair of Outbacks.
Hmmm, should fans be replaced every 5-10 years on spec? Are unit failures caused by fan failure? My feeling is fan quality has declined over the last 30 years, are today's Papst fans as good as they were? Do fans still appreciate their 1 drop of oil in the bearing every 6 months? Just some idle thoughts.
NAOM
The one I had (PV Powered) is warranted for ten years, I think the average lifetime is more like twenty. I baby mine, I mounted an 8watt persoanl fan to blow onto the heatsink. Now thats the weather is cooling off, I'll probably leave the fan unpowered until spring. But, note, the installer warranteed the product without the cooling fan.
I doubt most inverter models have been around long enough to create a long track record.
Unfortunately, we had our inverter fail after 6 years. It was probably related to a surge stemming from a problem with our AC. It cost 300 for another one, factory rebuilt, and it was taken care of in less than a week. They are rebuilding/repairing old ones now, so even if they go out, it is far from replacing with a new unit in cost or energy consumption. Talking with the people, this was a very unusual event to have one go out like this.
Yes, the inverters would work for 25 years. And if not, they would be replaced under warranty, free of charge. I'm not sure what was hard to understand about that.
SMA offers 25year warranty on their inverters. They wouldn't do this if they weren't very sure about the quality. That doesn't mean they'll never break down, but that there's a relatively small chance or a good chance that it's an easy fix. Meaning most of them will last 25years or more. (SMA is the #1 inverter manufacturer worldwide technological- and market share-wise.)
Correct, given falling panel prices,and rising efficiencies, we can expect maintenance panel replacements to be more increase-revenue decision based, than 'Oh, I've hit 85% output', ie instead a very low incremental cost, that may even be negative.
True, but I'd be a little cautious about someone claiming 25 years on power electronics operating at the panels.
That 25 years is 43x the Electrolytic 5000hr sticker life, so you need to move into lifetime multipliers. Thermal cycling is also a life-killer.
http://mexico.newark.com/pdfs/techarticles/cornell/multipliers.pdf
~3.5x for ripple, ~10 for some aggressive temperature reductions (this one is much harder at the panel), add some for voltage reductions, add some for 'off' at night ? .... - and all of these are 'guesses', actual operational experience is sparse.
A replacement swap, might be a better way this is handled.
- tolerable on a large utility site, less so on someones roof.
Enclosure and connector standards will be important here.
The industry scuttlebutt is that the new products don't use electrolytic capacitors. That's the innovation behind the 25 year warranty. Again, this is not on the market yet, but companies have made announcements.
Interesting claim, but I'd still be skeptical of anyone claiming 25yr warranty on panel-mounted power components.
A claim on paper is easy, delivering it is harder.
I found this
http://www.solar-pv-management.com/solar_news_full.php?id=73388
but I don't think that is a panel mounted claim, and even after saying this
...the first commercially available inverters of this type with greater than 25 years' life expectancy.
I see they are only brave enough to offer this :
Enecsys micro-inverters come with a 20-year warranty.
Encsys is one, SolarBridge and Greenray are others. Solarbridge is currently saying 25 year warranty. Might be fair to say that the 25 year warranty is a reach. Still, with multiple companies involved, I'm not too skeptical that a micro-inverter without electrolytic capacitors will hit the market sometime soon.
Ambient temperatures here would be 40-50 C, I'm not sure how much the electronics would appreciate that.
NAOM
While Mr. Post's post presents a detailed analysis of feed-in tariffs in Germany and makes some very good points, I think it should be clear that he does not like solar PV and would much prefer the money spent on nukes. I suspect this was the whole motivation for doing the analysis in the first place - to support that preconceived notion.
I also think it might be somewhat instructive to take a quick look at the activities of this Coalition for Energy Solutions (CES) of which Mr. Post is a member, as well as the makeup of some of its other members. A brief sampling:
- Meredith Angwin .... Formerly with (EPRI) Electrical Power Research Institute and formerly with a consulting company with electrical utility contracts.
- Steve Fox ..... Formerly with Oak Ridge National Laboratories.
- Harold Shaffer ..... Former nuclear sub engineering officer, and former start-up engineer for a nuclear power plant.
Courses given by CES:
- Rethinking Nuclear power.
- True Economics and Hidden Issues of Alternative Energy.
Lectures given by CES:
- Safety and Nuclear Power.
- Alternative Fuel Cycle.
- The Future of Thorium Energy.
- America's Future Energy Supply.
Do we notice some common threads here? Could it be ties to the electrical utility industry and an interest in advocating nuclear power? Could CES's agenda here be to make nuclear power look good by making solar PV look bad in comparison?
When I was with a major management consulting firm working in the environmental field, I had performed the same type of analyses Mr. Post has, so I know how one goes about slanting both the basis of the analysis and its findings to fit the desired conclusions of the party who is paying you. Carefully pick the right assumptions and scope of analysis, and you can come up with almost any conclusion you wish. Nothing unethical about this, but one must always be on the lookout for advocacy disguised as objective analysis.
I personally don't think that solar power and nuclear power have to be mutually exclusive, and it is a false choice to say we can have one but not the other. I would like to see a major build-out of both. I would also say that almost any economic projection much out beyond five or ten years rapidly becomes an exercise in pure guesswork rather than science.
Joule and other commentators:
All the members of our Coalition are retired with well above average incomes and do not need, nor receive any compensation from any entity; a founding rule.
The main reason for the article is to show the economic impact of PV solar in Germany which is a VERY poor candidate for PV solar. (I know the weather: I lived in Europe for more than 26 of my 73 years, including 3 years in Southern Germany and 3 years in Southern Norway and the rest in the Netherlands).
In the US Southwest, Southern Spain, etc., I do like CSP (capacity factor about 0.40) and PV solar power (about 0.24 for 2-axis tracking systems) very much. Californians and others agree; that is why California has 1,250 MW of the 1,700 MW of US solar power at the end of 2009.
The other reason is to show the enormous investments, the very small quantity of power and the very small quantity of CO2 avoided which is partially offset by increased operation of CO2 producing spinning reserves which provide power as soon as PV solar power lessens.
The German papers are writing about a solar madness. Google: solar madness. The FITs will add 5 dollar cent to the current 28 dollar cent household rate in 2011, half of it due to PV solar FIT payments, the rest due to FITs of the other renewables. German households and businesses are complaining and politicians are/will be listening.
I agree with you PV and nuclear are not mutually exclusive. Because of the enormous costs involved, we need to use the most efficient CO2 avoidance technologies, such as energy efficiency (capacity factor 1.0) and nuclear (capacity factor 0.90).
Those advocating PV solar for creating new industries and jobs, etc. completely miss the point. We NEED to do renewables to avoid/minimize global warming. Therefore, we need to have a structure of priorities.
For example: It is much better to first deal with the urgent issue of global warming and later work on viable solutions for decommissioning, waste processing and storage.
Oops, you just excluded Nuclear, as it is not renewable, and so not even on this priority list..
In western countries, Nuclear is currently a sunset industry. Staff are old, and R&D is low. Planned decommissioning, exceeds planned new plant, in most cases. So added GW is low to negative. Sticker shock abounds.
In the UK, even with plans to stretch Nuclear, no new Nuclear sites have been approved, (rebuilds only) and the speed of decommissioning, coupled with lead times, is looking likely to cause them serious problems, and they may yet have to prop up the industry.
You should have said: Oops, you said "renewable" which is an irrelevant concept, in regard to global warming and in regard to everything else.
In prominent eastern countries, nuclear is ramping like mad. That is slowly spreading to the two old worlds.
This argument is completely bogus. Decommissioning is irrelevant to additions, and only gross additions should be counted. I'd rather use $10 billion to build 2500 MW nuclear than 250 MW solar PV, regardless of how many GW old nuclear has to be decommissioned in the same time period.
Strange attempted deflection. So, on a leaking boat, you would only look at the bilge pump flows, and ignore the inward leak flows ?
Good luck with doing that.
It is also strange logic for a Nuclear proponent, to ignore the decommissioning rate, as that's one of the few arguments for speeding replacements (and pushing life extensions).
Planned decommissioning also strongly influences new Nuclear site choices. In the UK thus far, ONLY decommission sites have been approved for New plant.
If you started now, you would not get anything like 2500MW for $10B,
in the west, let's see :
..two 1,100-megwatt Westinghouse reactors....has had its share of problems.
Once slated to be on line by 2016 and to cost about $17 billion, the proposed nuclear plant will now be operational no sooner than 2021 and will cost as much as $22.5 billion.
That has some environmental and customer advocacy groups complaining that Progress Energy’s proposed nuclear plant is a financial black hole.
Ouch. That's gone past $10,000/MW, (projected) so smarter still might be to spend your $10B, on Geothermal, or heck, some politicians might even choose Gas, the current low cost king.
Geothermal currently runs at US$1890/MW - US$2350/MW, (Less if you can use the heat), with shorter lead times.
Let's keep talking energy.
Simple example: New nuclear 5 cents/KWh, solar 30 cents/KWh (please accept figures just for the sake of argument). A 6 TWh/year nuke is getting old and has to be decommissioned. Now, should we replace that with 6 TWh/year nuclear or (using the same expense) 1 TWh/year PV? You say we should go for the PV, because the nuclear alternative would mean net nuclear addition of zero, but the PV alternative would mean a net PV addition of 1 TWh. That is (sorry) not very intelligent.
I don't think the decommissioning rate is very interesting. To me, it's irrelevant for the choice of new builds. Of course, there is probably some wins in keeping staff, utilizing site connections and so forth with nuke replacements on current sites, but to me, that's not the big picture.
In Sweden also. But that's perhaps natural in the beginning? The politicians can start fighting NIMBY-ism when the rebirth of nuclear has proven successful. No need to make the first steps hard.
Perhaps not - the dollar is getting worthless. But the latest contract seems to be UAE, with four APR-1400 för $20 billion. Yanks seems to be able to make nukes very expensive using regulatory burdens, and they are very worried about financing and contingencies since most of its states seems to have a worst-of-both-worlds hybrid commie-market system in electricity. But they'll probably learn eventually. Or not.
If that were true and scalable, then geothermal would dominate the electricity market, but it doesn't, so it isn't.
Adding some topical Gas numbers here, as a reference.
Many countries have the current luxury of simply ignoring any CO2/renewables talk, they have Get-out-of-CO2-free cards.
Al-Qurayyah :
* power generation capacity in the range of 1,800 to 2,100 megawatts
* cost ~$1.8 billion,
* financial close Aug. 31, 2011
* fully operational on June 1, 2014
Enviable lead times, and prices. And a captive gas supply.
Actually last year China installed:
http://www.ren21.net/Portals/97/documents/GSR/REN21_GSR_2010_full_revise...
- 13.8 GW Wind
- 23 GW Hydro
- 9 GW Geothermal heat
- and 29 GW Solar thermal (it is cheaper to heat water on the roof than the use nuclear power to do the same like France does).
Actually besides that nuclear is more expensive and has a long construction time, thinfilm PV modules have already reached $0.7 per Watt:
http://www.pv-tech.org/news/_a/eu_pvsec_oerlilon_solar_launches_upgraded...
Which is even cheaper than the decommissioning costs of nuclear at $1 per Watt:
www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=55119
Or even cheaper than the costs for ultimate repositories at $1 per Watt:
www.postandcourier.com/news/2008/aug/27/nuclear_surge_needs_waste_plan52...
Besides PV doesn't require and tax-payer institutions such as the IAEA or Euratom.
As I said, nuclear is ramping like mad in China. They also do other stuff, yes. We'll see what dominates in the end.
If the PV modules cost $0 to produce, solar PV would still be more expensive, since mounting, installation, transport, profits and so on dominates. Long construction times are irrelevant - time is money. As nuclear is 10 times cheaper, it is also around ten times faster as you have limited yearly budgets.
I've refuted your claims in these areas multiple times. As always, you use selective, misleading and misinterpreted stats. For instance, the decommissioning link you give cites $900 million for 2*1040 MW, which is $0.43/Watt. Also, those watts are worth some 4-5 times more than PV watts just by better availability, and an additional factor 2 at least due to longer life and no worsening of performance. Also, in economic terms, nuclear, wind and solar is expensive due to up-front costs and interest rates. Costs that are taken decades after operation has ended is an easy burden for the same reasons.
Actually PV modules make 45% of the costs and of course as opposed to nuclear a PV system does not require any fuel, any cooling water, any expensive decommissioning, any ultimate depositories and competes at end-user electricity price-level:
http://www.solarchoice.net/images/PV_cost_categories400.gif
Actually, this is a contradiction.
You mean having long construction times, having high capital costs, having high decommissioning costs, needing an ultimate depository, depending on fuel imports, depending on cooling water, producing full power at night when demand is low, having to compete at whole sale electricity price-level and having unplanned outages is a good thing:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-10-20/french-power-climbs-to-7-mon...
The cuts have forced France, Europe’s second biggest market, to import electricity from neighboring countries. Imports were as much as 5,990 megawatts between 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. local time today, according to grid operator Reseau de Transport d’Electricite, a unit of Electricite de France SA. That’s equivalent to output from about 6 nuclear reactors.
http://www.cleveland.com/newsflash/index.ssf/story/british-nuclear-react...
EDF Energy PLC says one of Heysham 1's two nuclear reactors was offline and declined to say when it would return to service.
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=47909
Oh, is it? So your $0.7/Watt makes for a final installed cost of $1.6/Watt. So you don't agree with the article we're debating that claims $4,300-$5,200/KW?
So? PV is still 10 times more expensive, all included.
That's a drawback - it leads to suboptimizations.
You should interpret it as the costs related to construction time is included in the pessimistic calculations of new US nuclear we have seen.
The high capital costs of PV make it overall ten times more expensive than nuclear, all included. You can sing the same whining song another 100 times, it doesn't matter. PV is still stupidly expensive in relation to nuclear and wind.
Which you can compare to $8 to 10 /Watt projected costs for new nuclear not including fuel costs, cooling water costs, decommissioning costs, security costs, IAEA and Euratom costs and ultimate depository costs...
Once slated to be on line by 2016 and to cost about $17 billion, the proposed nuclear plant will now be operational no sooner than 2021 and will cost as much as $22.5 billion.
Again, your treatment of that quote and how you cut it out of context says much about you.
Actually, $22.5 billion for 2.2 GW says roughly $10 /Watt and pretty much everything about capital costs of new nuclear alone.
As usual, that's you cherrypicking data, in this case a pessimistic forecast. However, even if correct, I'd rather take $10/Watt nuclear than $5/Watt PV, since nuclear has some 4-5 times better availability and twice the life, for a levelized cost advantage of a factor five.
Nuclear certainly manages base load better.
But let's fine tune those numbers, a little.
Solar PV is ~$3/watt for future plants, and if we allow ~$1/watt average per operational refurbish, lifetime becomes continual.
(Zero decommission shocks)
Nuclear prices for Arab Nuclear, indicates Appx equal capital price, and lifetime operational cost contracts.
So, allowing a 20 year refurbish rate on PV, we have $6/watt, and we can nudge down the Nuke operational cost a little, to maybe 50% of capital, for $10+$5 = $15/watt, over the 60yr base line.
Nuclear now comes in at 1.6:1 over Solar PV. Still ahead.
At year 61, the picture changes somewhat :
Your Solar PV is freshly refurbished, ready for 20 more years, and the Nuclear, well, it's EOL, and maybe they have complex refurbish possible in 61 years time, at what $$$.
And see what gets on-line first ! Renewables (plus conservation).
My GUESS is that the Chinese leadership sees a coming crunch in coal production and is attacking the problem on all fronts.
In 2022, I have little doubt that nukes will dominate the list of new production added. But that is a dozen years from now.
Best Hopes for reduced Chinese Coal Consumption,
Alan
I like the Chinese strategy. As long as nuclear is ramping, I'm fine with a "rush to wind". I have big problems with western countries who "rush to wind" to avoid dealing with the need for new nuclear.
Did you actually read what you wrote here ?
Claiming a $0 PV cell, and then that "mounting, installation, transport, profits and so on dominates", yet magically "nuclear is 10 times cheaper".
Wow, really ? So Nuclear has $0 production costs, and ONE TENTH the "mounting, installation, transport, profits " costs ?
This is not helping your cause.
Let's look at a topical news report, to get some Nov 2011 grounding:
["An explosion on Entergy Corp's main transformer shut the 1020-megawatt Unit 2 at the Indian Point nuclear power plant in New York, the second shutdown at the company's nuclear plants within an hour.
The company has also shut its 605-megawatt nuclear plant in Vernon, Vermont due to a system pipe leakage.
The reactor is known to have leaked tritium twice this year and the Vermont Senate has voted to permanently shut the plant in 2012"]
Not much of a pin-up poster, is it ?
Oh, and big protests in Germany, as French waste is transported/stored - yet I thought proponents claimed the french stored their own waste ?
To me, the biggest risk with Nuclear in the west, is that it may decline too quickly.
Yes, I stand by my comment. The cost advantage mainly stems from the fact that nuclear energy is extremely concentrated, while solar insolation is extremely diffuse. Thus ease of collection is very different.
That large parts of the public and of politicians are so very afraid of radiation is a problem. We'll have death by coal and AGW until they get better.
Besides the fact that collecting energy on your roof without any moving parts and without any noise is pretty easy:
Most people just need a comfortable room, a warm shower, a hot coffee and don't need to blow things up. Also people live spread out, so power densities have little relevance. In fact roof area of a house can easily produce more energy than what the house underneath requires.
Meanwhile some PV thinfilm modules are cheaper per area than roof coverings which can reach up to €100 /m2 (a roof is needed anyway):
http://www.baumarkt.de/nxs/8565///baumarkt/schablone1/Was-kostet-eine-ne...
This company sells PV thinfilm modules for €36 /m2:
http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/285944071/solar_photovoltaic_panel.html
And since PV produces power locally it reduces the load on the grid and can even prevent blackouts due to increased air conditioning demand.
It's not French waste; it's German waste, which was reprocessed in France.
It's not French waste; it's German waste, which was reprocessed in France.
Thanks for the clarify, I did think it was strange, for the French to send their waste to Germany.
Besides the fact, that renewable energies in China are getting built in much larger numbers and growing much faster than nuclear energy is (even though China has by far the most aggressive nuclear program in the world):
Even if the Chinese nuclear power plants under construction last year were all connected to grid in that very same year, they could not even have covered a third of the raising power demand in China not to mention the raising energy demand:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKBJI00220320100118
Given the fact that nuclear power does not even have a 2% power contribution in China, nuclear is unfortunately not going to cover a significant amount of the Chinese power demand not to mention Chinese energy demand any time soon.
Well, at least with this little nuclear energy contribution, China does not need to worry about its dependence on uranium imports given the fact that China produces only about 1% of the world's uranium demand.
wilpost37 -
I was certainly not implying that your position is the result of a quest for monetary gain, but rather that it is the result of a long-standing built-in bias toward nuclear energy and and built-in bias against solar, which I think some in your field view as an annoying upstart interloper.
In my view, global warming is not a relevant issue either, simply because globally we will never be able to make a really significant dent in CO2 emissions, and giving the long lag-time of these effects, most of the damage is probably already done, and all we can hope to do is to mitigate the effects as best as we can.
As neither solar PV, wind power, or nuclear power are all that labor-intensive, I don't see jobs as being a real issue one way or the other. I think it is a wash. Anybody bringing up the issue of jobs is just waving a red herring.
So, for me the main reason for promoting things like solar PV and wind is that at some point alternative energy will no longer be an 'alternative', but rather the only game in town. And it hardly matters how bad the economics are or are not, as we are going to be stuck with what we can do and will have to endure the consequences thereof.
I read an article on the internet, please excuse me that I do not recall where, that the grid stability issue, in Germany, was due to bottle necks that could be removed that would enable the feed in system to work more effectively. What are your thoughts on this.
NAOM
In fairness to Mr Post, he only argued that PV FITs are unjustifiable in Germany. He did not argue against use of PV for any other purposes, or against PV FITs anywhere else in the world.
I don't see any good counter-arguments, so I think he has made his case.
No doubt PV is a worthwhile renewable power source in the tropics and subtropics, but we don't all live there.
Joule: "I think it should be clear that he does not like solar PV and would much prefer the money spent on nukes. I suspect this was the whole motivation for doing the analysis in the first place - to support that preconceived notion"
Noticed this report too
"Renewables are Expensive, and Produce Little, but Expensive Power" by Willem Post.
As with the initial post, its the language that hints at bias.
here is an article on Finland's EPR reactor.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/03/finlands-rational-appro...
from the article:
Conclusion
Although burdened by high up-front capital costs, financial risk, and difficult politics, Finland recognizes the positive long-term impact of nuclear power. Not only has Finland begun constructing a new reactor, but it has an approved waste disposition plan. Its policy is rational and consistent with the economic and national interests of the nation.
As the U.S. struggles to develop a productive energy policy, it should learn from Finland that nuclear power can have an important role in reconciling the desire to reduce pollution with the need to remain economically competitive. The U.S. should not blindly follow Finnish energy policy simply because Finland is building a reactor. It should, however, recognize the important role that nuclear power can play in meeting America's energy requirements and follow the Finnish example of how to move from talking about nuclear power to actually building nuclear power plants.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5746334,00.html
fears of how nuclear will drive down costs.
http://www.power-technology.com/projects/Olkiluoto/
Nine years not twenty from signing the contract to completion. This is a first of a kind behind schedule project ran by the French.
First, the Heritage Foundation is *NOT* a credible source of information or analysis. Quoting them leads me to assume that the opposite is true. I could go on, but less than zero credibility.
Second, Olkiluoto 3 is WAY over budget. There are significant technical risks (i.e. billions) with new nukes. One I heard of is that the Finns let the aggregate for the concrete in the base get wet and the concrete failed quality tests after the pour.
Not some nasty Greens, but a technical problem.
In China, I suspect, OK, lets file issue that away. In China political solutions to technical problems help bring costs down and speed schedules.
Alan
Yes, but notwithstanding that, Finland has decided to build two more reactors, so it seems uncontroversial to conclude that "Finland recognizes the positive long-term impact of nuclear power."
I knew that the Finns were studying the possibility of "more" but I heard that the decision for "more" was dependent on "lets finish this one".
A link to the decision to build two more nukes please.
Alan
Here you go finland more nuclear approve ; pick one :-)
Just political pre-approval *IF* the companies decide to build, nothing more.
The companies, which have five years to submit construction license applications, hope to begin operating the plants by 2020 ... must first decide where to build its plant. Two possible sites, at Simo and Pyhajoki, have been identified.
A number of US reactors that will not be built soon, have submitted the equivalent of "construction license applications". And they have specified where to build them.
This is very clearly NOT a decision to build two more nukes.
Alan
Where you see "a orange light" I see "a green light".
NYT:
This is a clear YES for more nuke, at least where I come form, meaning "we like to have more nukes" .. because ....
Also from that article :
Don't you get it? What ever happens with the if's and but's is an entirely different discussion
This is a clear shift in the sentiments on nukes ... taking place all over the world. The renewable industries can not deliver, as long as BAU 24/7 is the prevailing mindset on things.
BAU 24/7 is the Achilles Heel to all of our upcoming challenges- THAT has to change.
Bill Woods claim was "Finland has decided to build two more reactors".
All this vote does is say "We will accept, at anytime in the next 5 years, a construction application from either of you".
given the size of the Finnish market, I suspect only one of the two contemplated reactors will be built by 2020.
Approval of such a future application is not guaranteed (although likely).
This is VERY far from a decision to build !
Sites and reactor type still uncertain, although one of the two groups will very likely build a 2nd EPR next to the first one.
There is some change in attitude, but the Finns have never been like, say, the Austrians.
Alan
Alright then , so we are nitpicking between "the will to do something" and "actually doing it/eg. startup", if so, let's wait till 2020 to conclude on this.
Size of Finnish market
Olkiluoto 1 & 2 - 1720 MW
Olkiluoto 3 - 1,600 MW (by 2013)
Olkiluoto 4 - 1,600 MW (by 2020)
Loviisa 1 & 2 - 976 MW
Rough calcs
1720 + 976 = 29% of Finnish MWh (assume minimal growth or shrinkage of demand)
+ 1,600 MW = 17% more = 46%
+ 1,600 MW = 17% more = 63%
Marketing issues arise with a 63% nuke grid. Late night exports (except winter) to Sweden or the Baltics (or Russia) a la France will arise with 63% nuke Finnish grid. That is with ONE more nuke.
Add two more nukes and I am not sure transmission can handle a roughly 80% nuclear grid.
Alan
"Add two more nukes and I am not sure transmission can handle a roughly 80% nuclear grid."
Since the conductors neither know nor care where those electrons came from it appears that you are saying that the Finns are too stupid to build an adequate transmission/distribution system.
80% of total MWh demand means a surplus (>100% of demand) much or most of the time. This surplus implies major export transmission lines. Such new lines take time (often longer than nukes) to build.
Likely most severe is spring when Finnish hydro maxes (17,112 GWh hydro vs. 22958 GWh nuke in 2008) and demand drops (minimal heating, less lighting). One could imagine an 80% nuke (of total MWh) with good snow melt that needs to export 40% of total generation from nukes and hydro that cannot be held back.
If Finnish hydro is good, so is Swedish hydro. So using the 1,500 to 2,100 MW exports lines to Sweden may not be an option. 350 MW to Estonia, 40 MW to Norway and potentially 1,470 MW to Russia.
http://www.fingrid.fi/portal/in_english/electricity_market/cross-border_...
Upon reflection, and looking at Fingrid site, *IF* a deal can be made with Russia to buy surplus Finnish nuke power, existing export transmission lines could support two more nukes by 2020.
In wet years, some MW may go to waste for a couple of months, but that is not a deal breaker.
Alan
New Nukes in Finland are essentially paid by industrial users under the "Fennovoima" umbrella who will take most of the production. This will likely results in increased demand not stagnant one. Industrial plants frequently work 24 hours a day, and even 7 days a weeks to maximize industrial capital usage and they manage to locate close to energy sources, so I don't see why transmission will be much affected.
Loviisa site has been dropped and another site in the North will be chosen instead (Pyhäjoki or Simo). An interesting feature is that it will do district heating as well.
"First, the Heritage Foundation is *NOT* a credible source of information or analysis. Quoting them leads me to assume that the opposite is true. I could go on, but less than zero credibility."
People who live in glass house should not throw stones.
"Second, Olkiluoto 3 is WAY over budget. There are significant technical risks (i.e. billions) with new nukes. One I heard of is that the Finns let the aggregate for the concrete in the base get wet and the concrete failed quality tests after the pour."
So sloppy workmanship is a nuclear problem only?
Thank you for this article. The insanity of German energy policies is simply astounding.
Really? Why would you say that? The links I give here: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7053#comment-738968
seem to give the impression that they are lot saner than most. They're even phasing out FIT for PV. They think nuclear is a bridge technology and they are extending the service lives of their reactors and the folks over at the Bundeswehr think this:
So what's insane about all that?
Statements such as "we need a mix" and "there is no silver bullet" and such may sound reasonable, but is likely inaccurate and often hide insanity, such as in this case. German PV FITs are insane - obscene even - which the article proves.
The FIT is a heritage from times when the German Greens where more influential in German politics and when complete nuclear decommissioning was a goal stated in law with a time table. The FITs also serves as an alibi for continuing coal subsidies and coal burning.
Germany could be like France - almost CO2 free in their electricity generation, with 80% nuclear. Instead they are burning particularly bad indigeneous coal and have made themselves dependent on Russian natural gas - each wind farm and solar installation that is supposed to decrease coal use requires more Russian gas for balance.
As I said - it is insane, and gives the Germans BOTH extreme electricity prices AND high environmental impact.
Given that the link I provided explicitly says that FIT is being phased out, my question is why are you still tilting at windmills?
If they phase out PV, there will be no new PV of significance. Simple as that. Its energy is still many times more expensive than that of windmills.
The german PV FIT are being reduced by 10 - 15% a year. From December 2009 to January 2011, it was even reduced by 38%. Nevertheless, the growth rate has continued to be exceptional. Grid parity will be likely be reached in 2 - 3 years, even in the not very sunny Germany. You also can't say it is "many times more expensive" than windmills. E.g. offshore wind gets FIT of 15 eurocents while PV gets 21 eurocents, so not even double. Again, in about two or three years, FIT for PV will be less than offshore wind and potentially more electricity will be produced by PV than wind in Germany!
At about 2800 Eur/kWp, the current average price of turnkey ready PV in Germany, you get a electricity price of 2800 Eur/kWp / (1000 kWh/kWp/a * 25a) = 12 eurocents per kWh. Do the same in Hawaii or somewhere similar (2400 kWh/kWp/a) and you get a price of 4 eurocents/kWh. So even today without any further cost reductions, PV can be quite competitive. Furthermore, if you look at price trends ( http://www.pvxchange.com/de/index.php/download.php?pvx_2010_10_preisinde... ), you will see how rapidly the price has collapsed for PV thanks to Germany's gigantic investment into a sustainable energy future. PV modules alone can now be manufactured at 500 Eur/kWp ( http://www.oerlikon.com/ecomaXL/index.php?site=SOLAR_EN_press_releases_d... ). So if you add another 500 Eur/kWp for inverters and other stuff, you get to prices of 4 eurocents/kWh in Germany or < 2 eurocents/kWh in Hawaii. Thats cheaper than Oil or Gas today! And there is no increase in fuel costs over the next 25 years, which can hardly be said for Oil and Gas.
Furthermore, PV is reasonably well decorrelated, if not even anti-correlated to wind, so you will need both.
You are talking past tense about something that lies in the future. The growth rate is exceptional precisely because people are rushing to take advantage of the current subsidies before the government curbs them. Renewables markets are known to collapse entirely when subsidies are cut. One year, zero growth, another year, 100% growth.
Even though electricity prices are extreme in Germany, I'm deeply sceptical. Why would solar prices move at all?
Your figures are incorrect. Onshore gets 9 eurocents and offshore 13 eurocents. PV gets 28-39 eurocents. It's all here.
Again, if PV FIT goes below offshore wind for free-standing commercial facilities, then no significant PV of that kind will get built. The suboptimisation of "grid parity" may muddle things, but probably PV can't survive even for residential systems at even subsidies.
Without interest, maintenance and so on.
It seems to be stagnating. And that's only PV prices, not installed prices.
Yes, if you dream about marginal costs of component production being the only costs of your home's installed roof-mounted system. Ignore profits, interests, distribution, installation, maintenance, insurance and so on.
You will need neither.
APMON,
The above short cut method is invalid, misleading, not used by professional consultants presenting various alternatives to clients.
Please use multi-year life cycle analyses
See below examples
http://www.coalitionforenergysolutions.org/residential_wind.pdf
http://www.coalitionforenergysolutions.org/residential_pv.pdf
I notice that the degradation rate for PV is offered as .2, which while it generously offers a '50-year' life for the panels, is applied linearly, assuming (as you've stated in your post) that a panel would be down to 50% of spec at 25-years, which seems to be demonstrably pessimistic, as we have been shown panels at 30 years that are still at the 80% or better mark, including these ancient ARCO's that were recently tested by an owner and were performing at BETTER than their factory spec after 30 years.
Since it's not hard to believe that we can recreate the conditions that went into building such robust panels, and can probably even improve on whatever weak-points have shown up in these collectors, it would be responsible to check the assumptions in those studies.
http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/musings/testing-thirty-ye...
You're leaving out the time value of money. Plug your numbers (2800 E/kW, 25 years, 12% capacity factor) into a calculator like http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/tech_lcoe.html and see what you get. For comparison, try some very conservative nuclear numbers (10,000 E/kW, 40 years, 85% CF).
"is likely inaccurate and often hide insanity"
You are beginning to border on excessively strident commentary.
So jepp, at the end of their useful lives we'll both bury our choice for power generation in our back yard, PV in mine, nuclear waste in yours. Then we can revisit "insane". And again in 10,000 years, insane. 50K years? 100K?
Considering our likely non-BAU future, nuclear is not only selfishly shortsighted, it's truly insane. Keep kicking that big, foul, nasty, deadly can. Just don't expect me to have anything to do with it.
I'd suggest we don't bury industrial waste of any kind in people's back yards.
A new nuclear plant is just about the most valuable gift we can give our children.
"I'd suggest we don't bury industrial waste of any kind in people's back yards.
Around here we call that a Tea Party response.
That was just about the strangest guilt-by-association I've seen for a long time.
Wow, who would have thought the solution was so simple: 'Don't bury industrial waste of any kind in people's back yards' !!
Sadly, here on planet earth, it is always someone's back yard, and some industrial waste is worse than others.
You can 'store' it, and avoid the semantics of Bury, but the problem does not change.
A smart person considers their great-great grandchildren too.
Depends of your definition of "back yard". It's fairly easy to bury the waste in a way so that it stays put until the sun goes red giant and swallows the earth.
We have the problem of nuclear waste already, so we'll handle it, right? The amount is not really important at this stage.
Actually, nuclear industrial waste is precisely a model of what industrial waste should be. Provided no water comes on it, casks are effectively indestructible until the content goes back to natural radioactivity level. All you need is a very small group of people ensuring nobody gets into the warehouse and there are no leak in the roof. It is indeed a good job opportunity for our great-great grandchildren, albeit very limited in size, as a handful of site only are necessary for all Europe.
The most rational place to store this waste is in the nuclear sites themselves. France stores essentially 100% of its vitrified waste in a single room, and you can actually walk in this room.
I can't disagree with that. FITs at circa $.50 per Kwhr are way over the top. The sacle of the subsidy matters a great deal. Setting it too high encourages just the sort of anti-solar rage that we see bearking out here. Renewable energy credits of perhaps $.05 probably make sense. [ If it were up to me Nuclear (as carbon-(nearly)-free would qualify for the same credit {I'd probably get strict and limit it to 4th gen or Thorium units...}]
I'd suggest we get rid of coal before worrying about the type of nuclear we use to do it.
The same nonsense over and over again. This has been refuted so many times now, it's irksome to repeat that just because someone loves to ride his dead horse again. DFTT.
Sorry, it has never been refuted. It's quite obvious that if you try to replace baseload with intermittent, you need dispatchable power to balance it all.
Of course it has been refuted, many times. It's simply propaganda from the good old days.
And a CEO of a German utility (Fritz Vahrenholt, who is in favor of nuclear energy) has even said, that nukes are able to back up intermittent wind/solar energy. Now what?
Your "coal and russian gas needed to back up renewables" is pure nonsense.
You shouldn't believe anything you read. Nukes are a particularly bad match to intermittent sources. Also, my German isn't that good but I don't think the CEO says what you think he says.
I didn't say that. I said that if you decommission coal and substitute with intermittent sources, you need to increase gas to balance it all. You can't just expect to replace Germany's 50% coal with 50% wind/solar. Perhaps you can substitue with 20% wind/solar and 30% gas, if lucky.
Being a German I think I understand pretty well what he says.
"Wir können innerhalb einer Viertelstunde die Kernkraftwerke auf 50 Prozent herunter- und wieder hochfahren. Das macht RWE oft, um Windflauten auszugleichen und eine verlässliche Stromversorgung zu garantieren."
("We can shut down nuclear reactors to 50 per cent or ratchet them up again within a quarter of an hour. RWE often does just that to balance calm winds in order to secure a reliable electricity supply.")
And when your German isn't "that good" you might consider restraining yourself from judgements like "insane energy policy" for the future.
Ok, thanks. That's for nukes with pretty fresh fuel, I guess. I hope you realize having nuclear as backup for wind makes the wind almost worthless. What you save is the perhaps 10% of nuclear energy cost that is due to fuel.
No. I'll keep critizing foreign energy policy even if I don't master the language of the foreign country in question. My judgement stands, btw.
Regarding intermittency and such ......
Just a little chart I just googled and found Hidden fuel costs of wind generated electricity
Lead text ; Fraction delivered wind of total delivered power. Wind delivery varied from 0,2% to 38% of total power delivered to the grid.
The bloke that steers the on/off-switch keeping conventional power in/out according to demand - has extremely busy days it seems.
Also the fellow that pays for all that idling backup-power must be a very rich man.
Give them a big and warm applause !
To me it seems that WTs (just like PVs) will suit a future society better than todays 24/7_BAU_paradigm, after all, a society willing to accept downtime and being flexible to utilize the power when around could possibly become a more Smiling Society. The power when around would be appreciated - big time - just try it: Switch off you PC ...... then : switch it on againg ... get it?
5 cents only.
6 year old data presented on an anti-wind power site presented by someone formerly of Shell.
NAOM
.
Please post a more recent equivalent profile.
I did have a good scout around but so many of the links just go around in a circle. Since then Germany has gone from just over 14 GW to just under 26 GW so I would like to see more up to date data myself. I do not speak German so, maybe, one of our German members can find more up to date information on the E.ON web site. I would also like to know if this represents the wind power availability. The graph is titled 'Wind Power Feed In' which could mean that capacity is not being used even though it is available, I don't know, I tried to find out more but just went around in a big circle of anti-wind sites and did not find the original.
NAOM
Ok folks- my chart was fast and furious- but the message conveyed still stands firmly, unless German winds have started blowing more evenly .
Source of the chart is publicly distributed by Eon, so there... Do yo see anything negative about WT's notanoilman? Maybe you like to have one put up in your backyard?
That's a pretty poor chart. The wind distribution follows Rayleigh's law arbitrarily well. This is derived from the mean energy of an average wind speed alone (with a cutoff at max allowable wind speed according to the design).
Why do you drag Rayleigh's law into this?
The chart is a daily sampling of the actual wind-resource in Germany, here expressed by the changing output from their WT-fleet. You simply don't understand the chart WHT.
One day it blows, the next its not blowing at all. What is so peculiar with that?
Because I did all the heavy lifting myrtvedt.
http://mobjectivist.blogspot.com/2010/06/wind-variability-in-germany.html
This is the way to analyze Germany wind power. The chart exactly matches what you would expect for maximum entropy allocation of wind energy.
Then you go on and do autocorrelation and other nifty signal processing analyses.
You don't do it by showing a stupid fluctuation chart and say "that's that".
Join the world as governed by entropy. You will have to think about things differently I am afraid.
There is nothing "poor" about my linked chart, it is most likely a 100% correct chart published by Eon- (Only drawback is that it's slightly outdated)
Try some different wording next time.
Your "wind probability chart" is great and actually underscores WTs limitations, although already known to many.
It is also interesting to note, that interconnected wind farms over a wide area have little correlation.
www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/aj07_jamc.pdf
If you, for instance, care to compare Spanish Wind production with German wind production:
https://demanda.ree.es/demandaGeneracionAreasEng.html
http://www.transparency.eex.com/en/Statutory%20Publication%20Requirement...
And power can actually and efficiently be transmitted over long distances:
http://www.abb.com/cawp/seitp202/06c9cd09d993758cc1257601003db274.aspx
Besides wind power saves water:
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSL1...
That's exactly the way people have to think about it. Work with entropy, not against it.
I would still like to know if this is wind capacity or what is actually allowed into the grid. With 50% increase in wind capacity I would want to know if geographical spread of production has improved the production levelling. Unfortunately wind speeds here are not conducive to wind power, 5-10mph and mostly the lower figure.
NAOM
The chart - ABOVE -is showing the factual and true wind power supplied onto the grid controlled by EON (a German Power company)- as spelled out in the headline of the chart. A couple of days that year the wind supplied about 35% of production .... or more likely probably could. Although, I have some problems to see that the flexible part (standby) of conventional power could follow up these sorts of extreme fluctuations, without severe inefficiency losses.
A 50% increase in WT capacity that you talk about will only make matters, that I initially made a "snark" about, even worse IMHO. German WT capacity factor is around 17% , thus 83% of installed capacity is there only to help ensure that "the 17% can happen". 83% is an added but necessary flaw to WT systems, if I may.
Here is a chart that explains how they secure power to follow actual demand in society - on and - off with natgas or equivalent fast power to even out. As you probably understand the extreme peaks are "just going to waste..." in the real world
E.on is just a fraction of the German grid, so some diversity is lost.
I have some problems to see that the flexible part (standby) of conventional power could follow up these sorts of extreme fluctuations, without severe inefficiency losses.
I do not. Such fluctuations are foreseeable and comparable to spikes in demand. Winter storms (see Day 31 peak) probably see both peaks in wind and peaks in demand.
Good scheduling, which requires good forecasting, is all that is needed for an efficient, high % wind grid.
Alan
PS: The graph is just wind and gas, a bit of statistical manipulation by E.on. Sometimes the two combined are large, sometimes small. And more than a bit irrelevant since coal load follows quite nicely. And then there is pumped storage, both in Germany and Switzerland.
I hope to see wind displacing 100% of NG and cutting into coal one day soon.
Wont that happen instead as : wind displacing 100% of Coal and cutting into NG one day soon ?
New coal plants are already rare, but new Gas plants are much more common...
In most areas, even with their lower efficiency, coal fired plants still have lower marginal costs (mainly fuel) than combined cycle NG plants.
So wind tends to run off NG plants first.
OTOH, NG works better as a partner with wind than coal, so another reason to build NG and not coal fired plants.
Best Hopes for More Wind displacing more coal, and no more coal fired plants,
Alan
I'm a little unclear on what point you are trying to make ?
That Wind Power is Cyclic ? I think everyone knows that.
That the grid has to accept cyclic power ?
Yes, but the grid _already_ has to follow varying profiles, as consumption varies. So variable grid management is nothing new.
That wind power does not average nameplate ?
No, that's already known, and shown in the capacity factor numbers.
What wind 'buys you' is the area under the curve, which your graph shows quite nicely.
It is not a 'perfect' energy source, but it is 100% local, and well insulated from spot price variations, and finite affordable fuel effects. (and it also saves CO2).
Sorry, but the chart you used is a poster child chart of the anti-wind movement. The use (not by yourself but by those organisations) of a single, 6 year old, unsupported by the rest of the information/data and supplied with no link to the original tastes very badly of selection of prunus avium fruit. If you feel that adding 50% more capacity has made matters worse then please show the figures for 2009 or YTD 2010. The chart you include in this comment shows, quite nicely, an approximately 50% saving in gas over this part of the supply range. Would E.ON simply have installed more wind capacity in the same areas or looked to installing more capacity in geographically different areas to obtain a different wind profile with a smoothing effect on supply? Have they made any improvements to pumped storage in this time to take account of this fluctuation? Again, does the original chart show the power availability of the wind generators or just that part that was accepted into the grid?
NAOM
You're welcome Mr notanenergyman !
But still you seem to need to rehearse on the concept of chart-reading- is it really that difficult?
What is the point in signing every entry of yours here with this "NAOM"? Some people are still on low bandwidth- and bandwidth steals energy, didn't you know?
Btw the last graph is lifted from her : http://www.masterresource.org/
I was polite with my responses, I fail to see the need for juvenile responses. Perhaps Gandhi was right :)
Oh, I have no trouble reading charts but when context is lacking they lose meaning. I have only requested that information so that I may put it into the correct context.
Well, I guess I shall have to accept I am using 5 characters more than could be used, would have saved more if I had not had to ask for the relevant information again.
A blog, with lots of articles, a bit more specificity would help (and conserve bandwidth energy by my being able to go directly to the article).
NAOM
Nice analysis, Not.
But contrary to your own thoughts ,you CAN NOT understand charts- that you have proven twice here already, at least for me. All the info asked Qs about are spelled clearly out in the charts themselves,so there you go.
And you ask me to dig up specific info for you, like ".......... please show the figures for 2009 or YTD 2010" How about digging that up yourself for once ? yeah, how about that?
Ah, Paal, all I have done is asked you to qualify the information you have supplied. I have taken neither a pro or anti view to that information but have noted that it appears to be information which has been carefully selected by the source you quoted. It is not for me to dig around for that information. Yes, I have done digging and that is why I question the reason for that data being presented. We will have to differ on this as I will not be responding further.
NAOM
The links on this page take you to various data sets. Some assembly required:
http://uvdiv.blogspot.com/2009/12/section-17.html
Also, there's this: http://www.transparency.eex.com/en/
Switch off your induction furnace..... then : switch it on again...
Switch off your lift..... then : switch it on again...
Switch off your operating theatre respiratory machine..... then : switch it on again...
get it ?
The implication is that 'only nuclear will keep the lights on always'.
Good luck keeping that promise. The Cost and Complexity all wrapped up in a single source have all too much opportunity to crash and burn (figuratively, in this case)..
So sure, we have all sorts of systems built without the flexibility of accepting a loss of power. We'd better get over this fantasy that we get constant energy and unlimited credit, and design our systems to match that more sober worldview.
Hi Bob,
A perfect example lies just a few hundred km north of you:
AECL reactor work to be probed by N.B.
See: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/11/02/nb-point-lepreau-craig-leona...
Cheers,
Paul
You "can" also drive your car in "bang-bang" control mode by alternating pedal-to-the-metal and emergency-braking, but it doesn't mean that you should.
Please discard my comment if radlafari stands for Michael Schumacher ;-)
This is quite badly fumbled, as it confuses new plant prices, with maintenance.
Current inverter prices are under 50c/W, and falling, and Solar Panel prices are ~$1/watt, and also declining.
Applying even these 2010 numbers (2030 prices will be lower)
you then get Panel replacement of under $10B, and inverter replacements of ~$4B.
2030 model inverters and panels will have higher efficiencies, and so will help finance their next 25 years, from revenue gains.
The bulk prices of certain components at the factory gates may not be very relevant. Remember that we are dealing with a very diffuse energy source, and that it is therefore relatively challenging per energy unit to get the stuff out there, install it and maintain it.
One point mis in this matter: the increase of the price of the power will boost efficiency significantly.
Compare the mileage of American cars to European cars, as well as the fuelprices, and you will find out that the cost of fuel for the same distance is quite similar.
The two most glaring errors in this post:
1. Compares the cost of recently installed PV vs. mix-of-ages conventional generation capacity. Due to inflation in a capital intensive industry, the latest-built capacity is always going to be more expensive. The value of the other power should have been indexed upward to the point of being equal aged to account for inflation.
2. Comparing peaking power to average or baseload power. Peaking power is much more valuable than more baseload, but there is no attempt here to account for the higher value that solar provides, only a hand wave dismissal that only fuel costs are saved.
While I agree it would probably be better to concentrate on completing the European Supergrid and putting solar in North Africa, this article should not be considered a reasonable evaluation of the net cost of Germany's FITs.
German differentiated feed-in tariffs reveal the irrationality of PV for new generation in comparison to other sources.
Hydro can get 3.5-13 eurocents/KWh, with higher rates for smaller installations.
Waste gas can get 6-9 eurocents/KWh.
Biomass 8-12.
Geothermal 10-16.
Onshore wind 9.
Offshore wind 13.
Solar PV 22-39.
So, even though solar (in small amounts) could be considered "peaking power", while wind is arbitrary, solar still needs 3-4 times the amount of subsidies to be viable.
It is not a weakness of PV technology that the Germans chose to set a subsidy 2 or 3 times higher than necessary to implement it.
That's simply not true. It wouldn't get built with that much lower subsidies.
That's merely an unsupported assertion. PV is getting built in the US in places that do not have subsidies. Much lower subsidies might change the rate of installation, but to say it wouldn't get built has no basis in fact (or even hypothesis).
(I have also been like that - doing overly strict interpretations to "win" arguments. I try not to, nowadays.)
I'm talking about significant additions motivated by direct economic gain. Sure, regardless of price, some rich people will build PV as a status enhancer, some companies may build a little as part of luxury products' environmental concepts, and some utilities may build a little on their PR budgets.
The differential feed-in tariffs in Germany aren't irrational, but show that Germany has realised that one technology alone will not be capable of creating a sustainable future, especially in a very energy poor country as Germany.
Hydro, for the lack of mountains, can't be expanded that much further.
Wind, has its issues, as compared to many other countries, Germany isn't that windy.
Biomass, is problematic because of the hughe space requirements, which the population dense Germany doesn't have
Geothermal, well there aren't that many hot springs or volcanoes in Germany to supply large amounts of Geothermal
Solar, Germany isn't the sunniest place on earth.
Solar does actually have the technical potential to come close. It currently produces about 2% of electricity and so far it has used up about 2% of suitable area (south facing roof space)
But the main thing is that Germany has realised it needs all possible methods, efficiency improvements and all types of renewables if it wants to come close to reducing CO2 by 80% or having a chance of keeping living standards if peakoil really hits in the next few decades.
Of cause, one can continue buying McMansions and SUV on credit, complain how terrible everything will be if peokoil strikes and buy loads of guns to make sure you are the last man standing. But to me at least investing your savings in a very broad range of possible solutions while you still have a well working efficient industry seems like the less insane policy!
And don't forget, Germany is quite a rich country. It can afford to create such a backup plan. It is still cheaper than a war in Irak or an increase of Oil prices from 20 dollars to 150 dollars. But it does require a bit of forward thinking that most people and politicians lack.
They won't reduce CO2 by 80% and they won't combat PO with solar PV - that's more like stalling.
Again, look at Rutledge's numbers closely. It does seem that the IPCC has made some very large mistakes in their resource estimates.
http://www.aspousa.org/2010presentationfiles/10-8-2010_aspousa_CoalQuest...
For another take, this time from the Uppsala Global Energy Systems Group, see:
Validity of the fossil fuel production outlooks in the IPCC Emission Scenarios
Published in Natural Resources Research, Volume 19, Issue 2, June 2010, Pages 63-81
http://www.tsl.uu.se/uhdsg/Publications/IPCC_article.pdf
I'm now more concerned with the impacts of declining fossil fuel production on 7 billion people than climate change. It's a bit of trading one disaster for another but that's how it goes sometimes.
Thinking over night about this, I take it back. Even if the temperature increase stays under 2 degrees because there aren't enough reserves, given what's happening at a 0.7 degree increase, it's still going to be a mess.
Everyone seems to have missed this paragraph from the "conclusion" section:
(Emphasis added.)
Mr Post argues for economically rational efficiency first. I don't think anyone can seriously hold a contrary position.
So why does Germany have a PV "white elephant" instead of an efficiency drive? I suggest the answer is the word INVISIBLE.
With energy efficiency, there's nowhere for a politician to put up a brass plaque with his name on it. How do we change that?
Our friend Jevons might have a bone of contention.
-from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany
I don't think the issue is that they've been ignoring it or promoting solar "instead of" efficiency.
> Jevons
I think you mean the rebound effect. Jevons's paradox applies to demand for inputs to an intermediate good with high own-price elasticity of demand. (Translation/example: when the price of iron fell, the increase in demand for iron outweighed the reduction in coking coal used per ton of iron, that caused the price to fall. So more coking coal was used overall.) It could be considered a special case of the rebound effect.
> instead of
Persisting with high feed-in tariffs for PV amounts to a subsidy, and that money could have been used, instead, on efficiency measures. Boring, as Paal says; but apparently effective, even with the rebound effect, especially when applied in manufacturing and transport.
I started out by saying that the choice of what gets done seems to depend on whether politicians get monuments to themselves, such as a power plant with a brass plaque saying "opened by Representative Doe."
How do we change the political incentives so politicians favour efficiency?
If efficiency is marketable, it will sell itself, since the real issue is the price of energy. Maybe the best way to achieve overall efficiency gains is to tax/increase the price of energy itself. If the goal is to redirect funds specifically from FIT's to efficiency, then lower the FIT and increase energy taxes or mandate or subsidize efficiency directly. I do think, though, there is some merit in keeping some FIT intact - the goal is to lower the production cost of renewables and bring better technology onto the market by making it easier to integrate with the existing grid and support systems, and that goal should be supported. If you are able to achieve overall gains in efficiency and lower total energy consumption, that also brings down the cost of FIT's - if your renewable mandate is 40%, then it's a lot easier to achieve 40% of a smaller number.
Increasing energy prices may not be the most palatable solution politically or, in the short term, economically, and a lot of folks will be hurting, but this is all against a backdrop of dramatically increased fossil fuel prices over the next several decades anyway.
In the land of no speed-limits and Porche you cant expect that the word "efficiency" has any actual meaning.
That said, it's obvious that boring stuffs like efficiency, insulation, reduced speed-limits, collective transport, work from home, hefty taxation on petrol and aviation, electricity bills with sliding taxation linked to amount of consumption ......... should get Pri #1. FGS make public transport free and have the private car drivers pick up the bill. "Simple as that !::-) //Minor snark there
I still think you can make a case that it is in Germanies long term interest to foster an industry with great future export potential. Judging the results solely on current (or past) costs and benefits
is too a great a hurdle to impose. The Germans are pretty well know for top-notch engineering leading to success in the export market. That justifies at least some current cost excess doesn't it?
Efficiency is a really tough sell. I guess it just isn't sexy enough. Much of the US stimulus devoted to efficiency is unspent. Too hard to find takers. Thats a real problem, as the potential is tremendous. But, something about humans makes the motivation hard to crack.
"So why does Germany have a PV "white elephant" instead of an efficiency drive"
It is not instead of, it is in addition to! Germany also has a big drive for efficiency. E.g. every couple of years, it lowers its allowed energy consumption in housing by 30% each time, it mandates efficiency measures when renovating old houses, it has ways to transfer cost of efficiency measures for home owners to people who rent them, so that those properties also get improved. The EU has several mechanisms to require energy efficient appliances and Germany is one of the countries with the most efficient home appliances. It has carbon trading, starting to tax aviation, and various other measures to reduce the amount of energy used.
In addition it has a diverse program to increase the amount of energy created in a renewable fashion and reduce energy imports. PV happens to be only a small part of that. OK, it turned out to be more costly than expected, because it was hugely more successful than anyone had predicted, but that is why Germany is correcting those problems by reducing subsidies much faster than originally anticipated. It is also shifting its incentives to those who can balance their local supply and demand to deal with the intermittent nature and the strain on the grid as at times already more than 25% of demand can be covered by PV alone.
It appears to me that the attempt at solar energy in a country where the weather is so bad that they have two bases in the US so that they can have flying weather to train their Luftwaffe pilots might be typical of how well thought out some of this alternative energy is. There seems to be unlimited enthusiasm with very little rational thought.
I am amazed that nowhere in the article and over 100 comments has anybody mentioned the ERoEI of PV, and in particular the timing of the EI with respect to the ER.
Let the ERoEI be X, to avoid argument on its exact value, and let the lifetime = 25 years, then the energy payback time is (25/X) years, and it is only after that point that an energy profit is being made. The EI is mostly spent in the months prior to the panel rolling off the production line in China, being transported to Germany, wharehoused, retailled and installed. But some of the EI is each panel's share of the energy needed to build the factory and the machinery inside it, and if it lasts for 30 years, that means it will be between (25/X) and (30 + (25/X)) years before the panels begin to make an energy profit, and another (25 - (25/X)) years after that before they complete their slow trickle of ER.
Moreover if the industry is to grow at an exponential rate, by the time the early panels have paid off their energy debt, the energy needed to build more and more panels will have increased.
So demand for PV means more consumption of our current energy sources (fossils mostly) now, for a slow trickle of energy profit down the track. In "The Energy Dynamics of Energy Production" I have laid this out in a spreadsheet (which you are encouraged to download) that you can adjust for ERoEI, Lifetime and Growth and see how it works out - the results are surprising.
If you set the industry Growth factor higher than (100/(25/X))% per year, then the entire project will NEVER make an energy profit.
It follows that although we can embark on a massive PV building project, given the constraints of the peaking of fossils and climate change, we cannot finish the project before we are faced with the choice of either building more panels or keeping the lights on.
We clearly need to be focusing on the energy technology that has the best ERoEI, but I despair of governments and financiers ever getting the message.
This might be somewhat semantical, but as long as the ERoEI of PV is higher then 1, then the project will deliver an energy profit. I think what you mean to say is that (given a certain growth factor), the whole project will never be sustainable on its own energy. Of course, the assumption that a certain growth factor will be maintained indefinitely is unrealistic, so the use of 'NEVER' is not very appropriate. As it turns out, very high short term growth followed by a leveling off would make a given size for the PV industry self-sustaining much sooner than slow growth based on self-sustaining with existing installed power. The same is true for avoided CO2 emissions. (This is leaving aside any other 'Leibig's Minimum' factors that might affect the industry.)
If you believe in the long term promise of PV, and you're looking at the looming prospect of peak oil, it makes the most sense to throw massive FF resources at building PV in the short term.
***** This is leaving aside any other 'Leibig's Minimum' factors that might affect the industry. ******
jaggedben - this side remark will haunt the PV industry into some hazy marshland - before rather than later IMO.
Maybe. Maybe not. If it's going to be a problem, my guess is that it will have something to do with inverters. Possibly DC applications for PV will have a better future than grid tied.
I think the 'Leibig's Minimum' will be found on the Wall Street in 'the next' downturn
That sort of thing isn't what I was talking about; I'm talking about supply of resources required by the PV industry. And I think you're wrong, unless by putting quotes around 'the next' you meant to imply that it could be any of a series of downturns that we might expect in a catabolic collapse scenario.
,,,,, I know, I just stretched the Leibig's definition into a new territory, the financial one. Money - also a resource - for renewables has dried up substantially during the 'last' recession.
Wall street is almost back up where it was before the recession today, whereas the solar industry is still down in the sump ... many even plunging further down.
German PV maker Q-cells for instance is down 97% since new year of 2007/8. Slide the timecapsule down right to include late 2007, percentage drop you'll find in upper left corner of the chart
Doesn't bode well.
Btw, by 'the next' i felt the quotes were deemed appropriate since I can not be 100% sure there actually will be another downturn, since I was wearing my Cornucopian glasses when typing /: snark
With all respect, you don't know what the heck you're talking about. The PV manufacturing industry roughly doubled this year, reaching something over 12GW of production. The fate of one German company is not a stand in for the whole industry.
Solar grew during the recession.
Read my relpy one more time.
I'm NOT talking about the volume of cells hitting the market- I'm talking of value.
Like these sorts of articles
Solar went completely into a frozen standstill during the recession- that has thawed over the last year (it seems). But if you look at the PV stock values those are still way-way down as compared pre recession levels. Look it up for yourself.
Whatever, Paal.
You treat this like it's a surprise. We have lower demand for Petrol products, people at all but the top levels of wealth are recovering or trying to plan for a recovery.. it's hardly a predictive of the intrinsic value of PV that it is slow to rebound given the circumstances.. but by all means take advantage of its stumble to keep pushing it down.
The fact is that even during such tough times, people have continued to purchase Solar, (but less and at lower prices..) and sales haven't crashed as badly as the overall economy.. even if many of these firms are staggering today.
Bob
Puhleeze...
Let's go through the top ten:
1> pessimistic on solar, but from over a year ago, and now out of date
2> from Jan 2008, before the recession started in earnest
3> Videos: "Solar- Recession Proof Jobs" and "Recession Means More Cost Efficient Solar Panels"
4> Says recession hitting solar bad, from Jan 2010
5> "Global Solar Installations Grew in 2009, Despite Recession"
6> "Is Solar Recession-Proof?" (from 2008)
7> "Statistics show that despite a harsh recession, the solar industry added new solar electric installations totaling 441 megawatts [in 2009]"
8> "In recession's shadow, solar power shines"
9> "First Solar and Fotowatio Reap the Recession's Benefits "
10> I couldn't make sense of this one.
The results aren't an advertisement for Google, but if anything the evidence they offer is equivocal and does not support your point.
No one looks at stock prices as an indication of output.
Solar production certainly did not fall to zero, so it's not clear what your "completely into a frozen standstill" was meant to mean.
Try :
April 2010: iSuppli predicts solar installations will rise to 13.6 gigawatts (GW) in 2010, up 92.9 percent from 7 GW in 2009. The previous forecast, released in February, called for 8.3 GW worth of installations in 2010, up 64 percent from 2009.
Aug 2010 Global PV system installations in 2011 will amount to 20.2 Gigawatts, up 42.7 percent from 14.2GW in 2010. While this represents a significant slowdown from 97.9 percent growth in 2009, it remains an impressive performance in light of expected rollbacks in subsidy programs from various governments.
and a good graph here
http://www.isuppli.com/Photovoltaics/News/Pages/Solar-Market-Set-to-Cont...
Forecast is close to 40GW installation rate in 2014, which covers the multiple GW-class factories hitting productions.
The problem with your analysis is that PV EROI is a moving target. Its geting better. But we don't know where it will stop. So the model is a useful thought experiment, but not of great predictve value.
Solar PV has supposedly one of the highest EROI for any renewable energy source. It possibly can even compete with many of the current day fossil fuels on EROI. It also has one of the highest power densities (i.e kW / m^2) of renewables. I have read claims of energy payback times of less than 1 year for the most modern manufacturing of thin film panels. That would be a EROI of > 25 if you assume a lifetime of 25 years. The EROI is still improving as better and more efficient manufacturing is coming on stream. Even if you take way more conservative EROI estimates of 5 - 10, PV still remains one of the better options available.
Also if you assume that peakoil is imminent (in the next 10 - 30 years), then making all the energy investments up front while you still have an abundance of energy is the best thing you can do.
So if you believe in peakoil and peak fossil energy, then PV appears to be technically the best bet we currently have. Not great (for the many the valid concerns mentioned), but the best options we have.
Most estimates of solar EROEI that I've seen are in the 4 to 8 range. Care to cite some sources for the 25 claim? (Considering only the manufacturing energy of the panels isn't adequate.) Claims for wind are usually much higher than solar.
Hi jaggedben, see the First Solar site for their data, particularly slide 54 on their presentation for analysts at Las Vegas on June 24, 2009. They claim energy pay-back time for a complete panel+balance of system of 0.8 years. They guarantee that the panel will produce 90% of rated output the first 10 years and 80% of rated from 10 to 25 years. I think you can do the math on this one. Of course not all PV technologies are as good as this, and I am sure there are less competitive suppliers of obsolete panels that have EROEI of only 4-8. These suppliers will likely disappear if they cannot keep up with likes of First Solar.
First solar is probably going to encounter problems with tellurium supply. They've bought the worlds major supply company to guarantee their access to tellurium. They may keep going for a long time, but tellurium is going to limit their market share. Also, lower sun-to-electricity efficiency isn't helping to increase their market share.
You'll have to supply a link to the presentation if you want me to read it. It's not in an obvious location on the website.
Hi jaggedben, try
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9OTE1OHxDaGlsZ...
Concerning the limits of tellurium, check the George Washington Solar Institute article at
http://solar.gwu.edu/index_files/Resources_files/ScienceMag2010May7Zweib...
This article concludes that there is enough tellurium supply to support about 40-50 GW/year of CdTe panel production with current technology.
I tend to turn my nose up at amorphous silicon and thin film panels and readily admit to being a mono crystaline snob, however there is a lot happening in the thin film world that might begin to make the technology very attractive indeed.
http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article...
Of course we can't really take professor Carter's word on any of this because professor Carter is a she, and how could we ever trust a female scientist, I'll bet she even has socialistic tendencies to boot and probably wants to make the world a better place for poor people... Can't have that!
Hi Dave Kimble, The energy pay-back time of First Solar panels+balance-of-system is less than 1 year. Same for Oerlikon PV panels. This can be verified from independent test labs. The PV panels are guaranteed for 25 years to produce 80% of initial. So they produce on the order of 15-20 times more energy than used to make them depending on the solar input at your site of course.
Dave your analysis is full of holes and you do not understand the first thing about current PV technology.
.. and if his analysis is purely for Economic Payback, it is skewed by the 'unnaturally cheap' electricity rates that it is presently built upon.
Prepare to recompute..
My analysis doesn't choose a value for ERoEI, so not knowing what the latest technology can do is not a problem.
The analysis isn't for "economic payback", its for "energy payback" - why not have a look and see.
Sydney University's ISA team were asked to produce ERoEIs for all the competing technologies in 2006 for the Australian Government. Their model for PV was a 100 MW solar farm, which must be better than rooftop mounting and grid tie. As well as their report, they produced spreadsheets for nuclear and fossil and renewables, so you can dig into how the calculations work, and change their values if you don't like them, to see how that affects things. It is the most transparent work I have seen, and it has been accepted by government and influences their political judgements.
They have PV as the worst of all the technologies with a base case of ERoEI = 3, (range 1.5 - 6.0). (Actually they use Energy Intensity, which is the inverse of ERoEI).
My model is simple and only allows for constant annual %age growth, but I would welcome somebody modifying it to some other strategy. (Do save it as a separately identifiable spreadsheet !)
That's a bad assumption, especially if you say 'must'. Building large solar farms requires large investments in site preparation and supporting structure that roof mounted systems generally don't need. This may be offset by the fact that large systems can be designed for better energy production, and benefit from economies of scale, but it's hard to say. My guess is that the variability of ERoEI for both is quite a bit larger than the difference between their averages. I don't have any data to prove it, by my gut feeling is that residential solar roof installations, when the site is ideal for energy production (that's an important caveat) have the best potential solar ERoEI.
Dave,
I appreciate the link and have been looking at it. (Family duties are limiting my chances..)
Apologies for the confusion about Financial Payback, I had been looking at a quote from the Keypost mentioning Simple Payback, not at your comment.
Bob
Thanks for that Sydney University's ISA team-link
Now, if PV's in reality has a base case ERoEI = 3 , and this turns out to be true, a brand new PV-panel with a life-expectancy of 30 years has to produce- and deliver back "borrowed" energy over a whopping 10 year period ... >>>>> before they begin to deliver net energy!
We do live in confusing times, I give us that!
Of course one of the big catches to this analysis is that they allow the 'complete' lifetime of these panels as 25 years, (and you allow another five, many thanks) when we have numerous testimonies of them producing, and they are warranteed to produce some 80% of nameplate at 25 or 30 years, in which case that fat tail of 'life after 30' would likely offer a considerable jump in even the EROEI numbers offered here.
A 'Whopping' ten years, huh? Ten years isn't as whopping as it used to be..
They used 2005 module cost numbers, old and during the polysilicon shortage,
so the costs are high, and do NOT reflect current reality.
This is so typical of PV critics to use outdated info.
The whole point of the German FIT is to drive down costs by subsidizing volume increases which drive down the learning curve.
It's worked!
PV system costs in Germany are among the cheapest in the world.
World wide module costs are half what they were just a few years ago.
oldish (2005) paper (PDF) on learning curves:
Learning Curves and PV
LBNL's PDF The Installed Cost of Photovoltaics in the U.S. from 1998-2008
Neither my analysis not the ISA analysis has anything whatever to do with financial costs.
Note also that if an individual panel has an energy paypack time of N years, then it takes 2xN years for the industry as a whole to make a net energy profit at zero growth. If growth is positive, even more energy has to used to increase the production of panels as time goes by. This makes the time to net energy profit to increase further, and when growth reaches a certain level (100/(25/X))% per year, that time disappears off into the infinite.
If you don't like a Lifetime of 25 years, just change that value in my spreadsheet, and of course it helps if the Lifetime is longer, but the problem doesn't go away. Similarly, I accept that ERoEI is improving over time, and that that will also help the situation, but the problem still won't go away. (My first and only panel lasted 11 years, and the retailer went bust in the meantime.)
To more accurately reflect the diminishing ER of a panel as it ages, you can change the figures highlighted in blue in my spreadsheet. This would tend to make the problem worse.
I appreciate the effort you put into the spreadsheet.
What would be interesting is if the spreadsheet allowed one to model spectacular growth in the near future, followed by no growth or slow growth. That would probably be more realistic as far as what will actually happen. As I said before, positing unlimited growth into the next century isn't really useful.
From an economic standpoint, the point and which the industry sustains itself (N years) is rather more important than the period of time it takes to pay back a fossil fuel subsidy.
The energy used to make panels is a fraction of the energy inputs that need to be figured into a meaningful ERoEI figure. You also need to consider the energy to manufacture the balance of system, and the energy to transport all materials and workers to the site of installation.
I think that all Americans should refrain from telling anyone how to run an economy.
They have blown all their credibility right out of the water.
Go Germany.
The article also mentions solar-thermal, in passing:
"For comparison: US total installed PV solar was 1,256 MW plus 397 MW of concentrated solar power at the end of 2009."
Perhaps this is the advantage of solar-thermal: it is a machine, a heat engine, that can be repaired and kept running... Like a car in Cuba.
If we leave the kids engines like geothermal, solar-thermal, and windmills, they can be fixed. They also illustrate how to make more of them.
A solar panel does not tell you how to make another solar panel in your garage.
A nuclear reactor is too dangerous for the kids to take apart or even to try to start.
Solar panels are good elements of transition: They appeal. They supply power without central authority or supply should chaos ensue.
Nuclear reactors are good elements of transition: They supply enough constant energy for 40 years to prevent chaos from carbon decline.
The guillotine is a good transitional element: It fulfills an incentive program to forestall chaos from simple financial charlatanism.*
.
* 'Cause they're already gaming nuclear:
http://www.raisethehammer.org/article/1227/the_coming_nuclear_subprime_rout
No, but to be bothered by that, supposes a very high level of social fragmentation/collapse.
If someone is able to pay for the panel, a factory can make them.
100 years ago, we could do this.
I think there is ~5GW of Solar thermal in the pipeline now, in California, so it is moving rapidly.
It does appeal as an almost 'milking machine' level of technology.
The comment of 'they can be fixed', assumes some level of social fragmentation/collapse, but not enough to prevent a supply chain of Electronics components.
Lose than supply chain, and you cannot fix them.
Modern windmills have quite complex electronics, Geothermal needs motor control, and sensors, and process controllers, and solar thermal needs tracking servo-control, and more sensors, and process controllers.
"The 2000 PV systems were about $9,000/kW, the 2009 PV systems were about $5,000/kW, and the 2010 PV systems are about 4,300-5,200 $/kW, depending on the type of installation."
I'm building my own solar panels at a cost of about $2500-$3000/kW including micro-inverters.
This post contains some omissions, misinterpretations and errors that I would like to address:
Unlike the tenor of this article, it is smart German money that is flowing into solar. It is an attempt to fundamentally change the energy equation in Germany and tap the most abundant source of renewable power the world has. It is therefore not a short term strategy, but a long-term one and in such, the benefits will accrue in the long term on a global basis. PV systems have been following a 20% experience curve for the last 40 years. Moore’s Law equates to a 30% experience curve, ask anybody in Silicon Valley what it means. It is only a question of time until solar is the cheapest source of electricity on an unsubsidized LCOE basis.
Actually annual peak demand occurs in winter at around 80 GW. Summer peak demand is less than 60 GW. Peak PV production this summer was around 10 GW with an installed base of 14,68 GWp. These are still very early days in PV, therefore this figure will increase.
This raises an interesting point. For many years, and indeed until recently, PV was mostly seen as a joke that could never provide am meaningful amount of power. Now we learn that, long before it can fulfill its promise, it is a danger for grid stability because it is providing too much power! Many recent studies http://www.fvee.de/fileadmin/politik/10.06_FVEE-Eckpunktepapier.pdf and the energy concept of the German government have detailed how to get to 80% to 100% renewable primary energy supply by 2050. http://www.bmu.de/english/economy_innovation/doc/46516.php
In all cases, PV is an important part of the strategies. In all studies, the need for additional storage and gird expansion is emphasized.
Actually, this is not the case, as PV manufacturers and project developers can easily match the FiT decline of 13% on January 1st, 2011. Costs of leading producers have been reduced even further in the past year, indicating that high margins on projects in 2011 will not shrink. This means that the boom will continue unabated unless there is a cap or a much larger reduction.
The article does not mention the merit order effect. It arises because PV and wind power fed into the grid reduced the need for peaking power plants by shifting out the supply curve. This reduces prices for peak power significantly and therefore reduces average power prices. A study by Fraunhofer for the German Environment ministry in 2007 concluded that this effect over-compensates the FiT cost http://publica.fraunhofer.de/documents/N-67163.html . The European Wind Energy Association shows one example by Riso DTU of Danish wholesale power prices with and without significant wind – the difference is roughly DKK 200 per MWh (US$ 37 per MWh). A review of different scientific studies yields an aggregate merit order effect of wind power in the range of $4.2 to $32.2 per MWh. http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/publications/repo...
Therefore, PV and wind do not benefit incumbent producers but consumers, but we knew that already. Further, as PV and wind start to eat into the middle load coal-fired plants operational hours, they will become unprofitable to operate. The study by Fraunhofer concludes that by 2020, the concept of base load power will become irrelevant while storage, grid and smart grid investments will be needed.
I think everyone in Germany would agree that increased efficiency is essential. However, I think most would disagree that this precludes investment in PV. In February 2010, Forsa asked 4,800 Germans about their views on renewables; more than 90% view renewables favorably. 80% state that investment in renewable should be stepped up and the use of coal, gas and nuclear should be curtailed. 74% stated that they would like to have a solar system in their neighborhood and 48% think that it is possible to have a 100% renewable electricity supply. http://www.unendlich-viel-energie.de/fileadmin/content/Panorama/Meinunge...
So one can criticize PV for its real shortcomings, but one should not miss the fact that it will be fundamentally changing the structure and economics of electricity markets over the next years.
If wind and solar are so cheap, why Germany and Denmark have the highest (and by far !) electricity price in Europe ? see here.
And no, it is not explained by taxes flowing from electricity industry to the general economy : Denmark electricity taxes are 51 DKK per GJ, I.e. only 0.025 euro per KW.h, and, as mentionned above, the biggest electricity taxes in Germany are levied on nuclear power.
Your tax numbers are off. Pretax cost of electricity in Denmark and Germany are very similar to the EU average, but Denmark taxes at 56% and Germany at 41%, the two highest in the EU. So there is no cost base evidence that renewable increase electricity costs significantly.
It is obvious that they increase costs. That they increase prices, OTOH, is more uncertain. Most often subsidies does just that - increase costs and decrease prices.
A FIT is not a subsidy, consumers pay for the extra cost solar electricity.
They don't willingly, so it's a subsidy.
Wow! What kind of argument is that? Redefining words arbitrarily?
Jeppen's dictionary: Sub·si·dy, noun \ˈsəb-sə-dē, -zə-\ Any payment for a good or service beyond a voluntary donation.
You are splitting hairs, my friend. For all intents and purposes, this is a subsidy. I'm not sure about your criteria for calling something a subsidy, but in all likelihood, this would be a subsidy even by your definition if it was simply constructed a bit differently but with unchanged economic impact on all parties involved.
I think you are doing nuclear a disservice with your line of argumentation. I am a physicist and have no problems with nuclear energy, but nuclear proponents, yourself included and the nuclear industry in the USA are damaging future prospects of new nukes with your words and attitude.
You are sorely mistaken if you think a nuclear industry, in any country in the world, works or could work in a "free market". By contrast, photo-voltaic and wind might, in the future, and if the learning curve works out OK, be able to be purely commercial. There is essentially zero chance of this happening with nukes because of the risk of catastrophic accidents and because of anti-proliferation concerns.
Germany's solar strategy is risky, bold and expensive. The origin of nuclear power was also risky, bold and expensive. The USA no longer "does" either bold or risky, but are you so set in your ways that you need to condemn other countries for trying something new?
I'm simply true to myself and to what I believe is truth. If that is counterproductive, then so be it. But I don't really think my words make any difference one way or the other.
Then I'm sorely mistaken, because I do think it could, and that it will. (To the extent energy matters will ever be left to the free market.)
You mean the government will have to meddle a bit? Yes, perhaps. But I think it can be done with little disturbance. I don't expect anything to be pure in a literal sense.
I only agree on expensive. What's the risk associated with wasting consumers' money and keeping the coal? None, really. Where's the boldness? I rather think it's the opposite. The political elites haven't dared dismantle the German coal subsidies, and they didn't, until recently, dare challenge the anti-nuke sentiments in society. So they used lots of consumers' money instead to weave a web of fluffy, pink dreams and to enable them to postpone bold action against coal. It's all about kicking the can down the road.
I'm Swedish. If Germans had taken steps to really combat coal then I would applaud them if they also spent lots of money unselfishly to get the PV industry going. But I can't applaud procrastination and self-delusion on a grand scale by a world-leading economy.
my tax number for Denmark comes from the Danish Ministry of finance,
http://www.skm.dk/foreign/english/taxindenmark2008/6649/#106
the 55 DKK per GJ is an average, as households pay much more taxes than industries as illustrated by this second document, related to 2010 budget
http://www.skm.dk/public/dokumenter/engelsk/Danish%20Tax%20Reform_2010.pdf
At 165 DKK per GJ for households, it amounts to 0.075 euro per KWh, still short of the 0.13 euro price difference with France. 5 cents out of 13.8 cents is around 36% price difference. It is definitely significant by my book.
How about a document from the Danish wind industry association ? http://www.windpower.org/download/541/DanishWindPower_Export_and_Cost.pdf
Look at figure 8 on page 22 and you will see that it corroborates my finding.
Because they aren't using enough these automatic solar lights from Brazil... Audio in Portuguese.
I love the machine shop owner's comment, "when we come to work in the morning the lights are on, after we go home they shut off automatically." >;^)
http://s289.photobucket.com/albums/ll225/Fmagyar/?action=view¤t=Li...
These money-hawks need also to be reminded that it's clear that Renewables ARE expensive at the get-go, and they need these subsidies to be placed in service.. but that they DO pay for themselves in the long term (unless one chooses to model the 'perpetual rampup of new PV Factories' as their answer to PV's otherwise healthy EROEI.
The real objection is that it isn't FAST. It cuts into high-speed corporate returns and 'Easy Power'.. too bad.
They are oil pushers they don't care about your life only their profits... it's all about control!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTkg-gsnVl0
English translation of the Lyrics
Two, three, four
One, two, three
Well, it doesn't matter
Well, when I tell you the story
None the less,
I'm quite used to it
It won't be running in TV-Funk (magazine). -
Yes, she was young,
Her heart so pure and white
And every night has its price.
She says: “Sugar Sweet,
ya got me rappin' to the heat!”
I understand, she's hot,
She says: “Baby, you know,
I miss my funky friends,”
She means Jack and Joe and Jill.
My understanding of funk,
yeah, it'll do in a crunch,
I understand what she wants now. -
I think it over,
Her nose does the talking,
While I continue to smoke,
She knows the 'Special Places' very well;
I think she takes the metro, too.
There they're singing:
“Don't turn around, look, look,
the Kommissar is out and about!
He'll keep his eye on you
and you know why.
Your zest for life will kill you.”
Alles klar, Herr Kommissar?
Hey man, wanna buy some stuff, man?
Did you ever rap that thing Jack?
So rap it to the beat!
We meet Jill and Joe
And his bother hip
And also the rest of the cool Gang
They rap to, they rap fro
In between they scrape it off the walls. -
This case is clear,
Dear Mr. Commissioner,
Even if you have a different opinion:
The snow on which we all
ski downhill,
every child knows.
Now the nursery rhyme:
“Don't turn around, look, look,
the Kommissar is out and about!
He has the power and we're little and dumb;
this frustration makes us mum.”
“Don't turn around, look, look,
the Kommissar is out and about!
When he talks to you
and you know why,
tell him: 'Your life is killing you.'”
Actually the wholesale electricity prices are lower in Germany than in France.
http://www.eex.com/
Also, industrial electricity prices before tax (2007):
Denmark (20% wind power): 7.06 cents/kWh
Belgium (55% nuclear power): 9.69 cents/kWh
Belgium (55.1 % nuclear power):
and 13.66 t of CO2/capita
and $47,617 GDP/capita
Denmark (0% nuclear power and 20% wind power):
and 10.94 t of CO2/capita
and $67,387 GDP/capita
http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/eedrb/data/BE-npsh.html
In addition Denmark exports over 90% of its wind-turbines with a profit and over 20% of its electricity.
I'm suspicious of claims made about savings under the claimed merit order effect. That claim is that the costs could have been higher so we're somehow better off. Maybe we're all better off because unicorns and other mythical beasts are watching over us.
The MOE contradicts other studies that conclude gas backed wind power saves little gas and in some cases uses more gas. Add subsidised PV to that mix. The data needs to be wide ranging across regions and time periods and should erase the effects of economic downturns. For example less gas could be burned due to recession and that got lumped in with the supposed savings. I'm not buying the merit order effect at this stage and I think simple aggregate cost figures tell the real story.. most new renewable energy is not viable without permanent subsidies.
"most new renewable energy is not viable without permanent subsidies."
With high energy prices (2008) seems at least France found them viable
http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/20100920/french-renewable-feed-tariffs-sa...
Probably bogus. If there is €5 billion in savings in it, no FiT is necessary, right?
You slipped 1,000.
€5 million could very easily be saved by time of day value. Electricity late at night in France is essentially a free good. More power then has no economic value, yet ratepayers are charged anyway.
If any other source of power can be throttled back or cut-off at night, it avoids adding to the unnecessary surplus of power. It's economic value per kWh jumps by about 1/3rd.
Alan
Oups. Well, €5 million for France during a whole year should be within margins of error.
Then we're talking but biomass and hydro, not wind or PV,
Solar PV automatically shuts down at night, so it's value is enhanced by that feature in France.
Alan
BTW, I created a "Florida 2035" grid. Nuclear, solar PV & pumped storage for 80% of the MWh.
Surplus nuke late at night, Pumped Storage +
Early morning, demand > nuke + PV, so PS -
Solar noon, PV + nuke > demand, so PS +
Evening, demand > nuke + PV, PS -
Night till ~10 PM, demand > nuke, PS -
Alan
The stated amount is €5 million, not €5 billion.
contradicts other studies that conclude gas backed wind power saves little gas and in some cases uses more gas.
No valid study shows that, just anti-wind screeds lacking in intellectual honesty.
Every utility in the world loads follows. Adding wind variability (which is fairly predictable, especially over large areas) is "no big deal".
Texas gives only a 7.5% or so capacity factor to wind, which means that capital equipment already built should not be scrapped, but kept for reserve.
Alan
You say "no" and then follows up with a few irrelevant statements.
Not irrelevant. That you say so seems to show a lack of comprehension of utility operations (true for 99% of society).
Adding wind and solar to the mix will require no extra natural gas to be burned than what is required to load follow today.
Nukes require massive spinning reserve (i.e. typically FF burned), wind & solar essentially zero spinning reserve.
Alan
" Adding wind and solar to the mix will require no extra natural gas to be burned than what is required to load follow today."
Right. Add wind and solar to an existing fossil grid and emissions don’t change much. But the real question is, what would happen if the money invested in wind and solar was spent in a more effective way, such as building nuclear plants that will produce reliable dispatchable low emission kWh's for decades.
"Nukes require massive spinning reserve (i.e. typically FF burned), wind & solar essentially zero spinning reserve. "
If the U.S. went largely nuclear we would need about 500 GW of nuclear capacity and enough spinning reserve to cover the largest plant, say 1.5 GW.
If the U.S. went largely wind and solar we would need spinning reserve for the largest transmission line, perhaps 5 GW, and fossil backup for the worst day, about 500 GW of low efficiency gas turbines. The cost and emissions of maintaining and operating those gas plants should be assigned to the wind and solar plants, but they never are.
By the way those transmission lines will be a great terrorist target. Think about dropping all the lines across the Mississippi river during a 100 year east coast heat wave.
What's your point about the Transmission Lines? Don't NPP's have wires on them, too? Seems like it would be a sight easier knocking out a few Nuke Feeds as opposed to thousands of Wind wires from countless farms (the offshore ones being underwater), and then the direct PV on several Million Households.. That's a lot of work for those crafty devils.
Add wind and solar to an existing fossil grid and emissions don’t change much
Emissions are reduced, MWh for Mwh for every Mwh produced by wind and solar, and likely 0.95-0.98 Mwh for every MWh of nuke.
Spinning reserve is for each unit. One for North Texas, another for South Texas in ERCOT. South Texas NP wants to add 1.7 GW nukes, so spinning reserve takes a hike up.
SWAG, there are 30 regions of the USA with their own spinning reserve components.
We may need zero additional EFFICIENT combined cycle units. Built lots already.
An all nuke grid is de facto impossible with current technology. Nukes need HV DC and pumped storage too, as well as FF. Why are the French still 10% FF ?
The French are, in Phase I, adding 5 GW of wind to their nuke fleet. Winter peaking generation and they have the transmission and pumped storage in place to support their nukes. Wind will cut into that stubborn 10% FF in ways that new nukes cannot.
Alan
"Emissions are reduced, MWh for Mwh for every Mwh produced by wind and solar, and likely 0.95-0.98 Mwh for every MWh of nuke. "
As long as wind is the fly on the elephants back that is somewhat true, though wind usually replaces gas power, not coal, and coal has higher emissions per kWh. When wind becomes a sizeable fraction of total production the jockeying of conventional plants to balance wind reduces plant efficiency and increases emissions. In the Denver area that effect was enough to completely offset any wind contribution.
problems are beginning to show up in texas where wind is becoming more than a fly.
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/BENTEK-How-Less-B...
Colorado wind is concentrated in the NE quadrant and is funneled into the Denver grid, resulting in the increased emissions in the Denver area. The wind industry’s response is to average the data over the entire state, thereby hiding the impact of wind on Denver under a mountain of unrelated data.
http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2010/04/19/daily11.html
" Spinning reserve is for each unit. "
No, it is for the entire grid as long as there is enough transmission capacity to transfer the necessary power. Nuclear is becoming so reliable that spinning reserve is not as important as backup power for unreliable intermittent sources. The absence of spinning reserve for a nuclear plant very rarely leads to an outage because they rarely go down unexpectedly.
"An all nuke grid is de facto impossible "
A straw man, since I did not say “all nuclear”. Of course it is possible. Show me an all wind or all solar powered submarine.
Given your bias, I question your statistics and conclusions. ATM, I have higher priorities for my time than dissecting your sources.
Naval reactors are variable power but they will NEVER be able to get a civilian license for power generation.
And naval reactors are more expensive to operate than small oil fired power plants. Just ask the US Navy why they retired their nuclear cruisers and replaced them with oil fired ships.
You did mention a "500 GW nuke" grid which I assumed meant all nuke (plus whatever hydro we have). Just what were you proposing if not an all nuke + hydro grid ?
Spinning reserve is usually calculated conservatively. "What if" any of the larger plants tripped ? Spinning reserve on the end of a transmission line running at capacity does not count. Neither does spinning reserve that arrives needing reactive power (so far away that HV AC distorts the sine wave).
It is my understanding from long ago discussions with ERCOT engineers that although North Texas and South Texas had good transmission between them, they had separate spinning reserves. No need to keep track of full transmission lines between them (required with combined spinning reserve) and far fewer issues with reactive power (Comanche Peak nuke goes out and almost all the spinning reserve is in South Texas).
Apply the same logic nationwide and about 30 separate spinning reserves seem to be required. I could accept a lower number as reasonable (say 24).
Best Hopes for Larger Subsidies so the USA will build at least 5 new nukes by 2020, (I am both pro-nuke and realistic)
Alan
As I've mentioned before, Denmark seems to have as big or larger problems with 20% wind than France has with 80% nuclear.
And France is adding, as Phase I, 5 GW of wind. Cheaper than new nukes in their case.
For some reason, the extreme pro-nuke supporters (as represented here) have decided that
1) nuclear power is significantly cheaper than it is and can be built faster than it really can be in the US & EU (see Finland) and
2) Renewables are the enemy and must be destroyed
The truth I see is
1) that the enemy is coal, with NG the secondary foe.
2) Renewables can be deployed en masse and quickly, but there are technical limitations, even with pumped storage, above 55% or so of grid MWh.
3) OTOH, a nuke + renewable grid can be 88% to 90% non-carbon.
4) A maximum of 8 new nukes can be built in the USA by 2020, perhaps slightly higher in the EU. However, these few new nukes MUST be built in order to gain experience, reactivate moribund supply lines, and have the capability for an efficient and economic build-out of nukes after 2026 or so.
4B)It is now apparent that the subsidies in 2005 are not quite enough and more subsidies will be required to restart the nuke building industry in the USA.
5) The powers that be, and the environmentalist community, need to be convinced that nukes are a necessary "second wave" and are far better choice than coal.
6) Attacking renewables, the necessary "first wave" makes pro-nuke supporters the enemy. A "us vs. them" mentality. The environment and the economy are the losers from such an unnecessary battle. But that is the irrational choice that the rabid pro-nuke supporters are making.
I support a "Rush to Wind", HV DC & pumped storage, much stronger conservation, continued strong support for solar PV, geothermal, microhydro, limited biomass and a rational restart of the nuke building industry.
Absent any more major nuke building screw-ups, I hope to see a "Rush to Nukes" in 2026.
The twin rushes could get the USA to 90% carbon free generation by 2045 or so.
Best Hopes,
Alan
How do you know? Decisions to do wind is ultimately political everywhere.
It is cheaper than it is, i.e. it would be cheaper if the regulatory burden were less. There is a reason China is going for an indigeneous design, and UAE chose a South Korean design. Also, Finland's screw-up doesn't represent what the US and EU can do. We are more powerful and smarter than in the 70-ies and 80-ies, so we can do better than then.
The view that renewables can replace nuclear/coal/ng is the enemy. That view must be destroyed. Renewables are ok if coupled with a full-speed real coal replacement program.
Rather 20-25%.
As I said, the real problem I'm attacking is the converse - that greens think nukes are evil and renewables suffice. Also, of course, I'm attacking extreme waste, such in Germany.
France is adding, as Phase I, 5 GW of wind.
EdF said that wind is winter peaking and they need more winter generation to match their winter peaking load. Enough transmission & pumped storage to handle the extra MWh and match to load.
EdF also said that the two new EPRs are being built to export power (see UK nearby).
Since EdF already turns off several nukes for spring & fall, I read between the lines that building a new EPR that only runs during the winter is bad economics. But EdF wants to reduce that 10% FF, so add wind.
Rather 20-25%
Without pumped storage, HV DC and 30+ GW of new Canadian hydro, close enough to debate/not too far off. But add more hydro, pumped storage and HV DC and the upper limit grows.
We are more powerful and smarter than in the 70-ies and 80-ies, so we can do better than then.
Simply false. The experience is dead or retired. The supply lines are moribund. Too much heavy industry has moved to China. Our nuke building capabilities are significantly less than they were. OTOH, our computer game capabilities are vastly beyond "Pong".
Inexperience among Finnish contractors was blamed for much of the delays. The second EPR in Finland should go much better.
As I said, the real problem I'm attacking is the converse -
That is MOST definitely NOT the message that I am getting !
That view must be destroyed.
Interesting choice of verbs. I would have used "persuaded".
Your Renewables are ok if coupled ... is the first time I have seen such a remark from you. Of course "renewables are ok" is lukewarm and sure to win allies.
IMO, touting nuclear as a necessary second wave is the most viable pro-nuke strategy.
Best Hopes,
Alan
I'll leave most of it be. Just a comment on this:
Now, how can you do this without pointing out the inadequacies of renewables? If renewables does the job at a cost that is not too much higher, which seems to be a widely held perception, then how can nuclear get going again?
With nuclear regarded as dirty and renewables as clean, and with nuclear burdened with taxes, regulation and moratoriums, and renewables supported and subsidised, and all this goes unchallenged by our politicians, how can we get this second wave going?
I don't want to wait until authoritarian Asia decisively shows us the way. I would like this to work in our Western democracies. But how, if we who understand won't bang the drum on renewables' shortcomings? Why don't the knowledgeable people go out in numbers like the German anti-nukers? Are knowledgeable people too reasonable? Thinks others are reasonable like themselves?
Now, how can you do this without pointing out the inadequacies of renewables?
The basic argument is that renewables (except hydro & geothermal WHERE available in quantity) cannot supply the maximum displacement of coal that nukes can.
In Austria, I would have difficulty making a pro-nuke argument.
70% hydro today. Let conservation increase that to 80% (quite doable) with much of the savings being during the winter months. Add 8% solar PV, 16% wind, 1% microhydro and 1 to 2% from reworking existing hydro (giving a slight surplus to trade and for dry years).
Perhaps I could argue for Austria to buy 10% of three northern Italian EPR nukes (3 x 0.10 x 1.6 GW = 480 MW) as a non-carbon guarantee for dry years and possible future growth.
The argument that nukes are cheaper is unlikely to prevail in Austria.
In Iceland and Norway, they simply do not need (or want) nukes. Ireland ?
Portugal looks like it will get close to 100% with renewables, but it appears that they will come up short. Perhaps a couple of EPRs jointly owned with Spain ?
Malta is WAY too small for nukes marketed today.
Elsewhere in the EU and the USA, I would, and do, argue that renewables have an upper limit in the grid. This upper limit can be stretched with pumped storage and HV DC shifting (neither option thrills many environmentalists, but they will buy into it to expand renewables. Nukes need pumped storage & transmission as well, just ask EdF).
BUT I point out that a maximum renewable build out will still leave FF, most likely coal. For the second half of going non-carbon nukes will be needed. And we need to build a handful today to give us this non-carbon option later. And I admit, I can see how to get to 90% or so non-carbon (in nations with minimal hydro) with nukes + renewables, but I do not see how to get to 100% economically. Leave that to the next generation.
I am working with a major environmental group on electrified rail. I am going to make this point when the time is right. I am certainly NOT their enemy, and generally support renewables. BUT more important than renewables per se, is the goal of phasing out coal and other FF.
Best Hopes,
Alan
PS: The "nukes are cheaper" argument is unlikely to prevail. In part because coal is apparently cheaper than new nukes.
Most of your argument is about how well renewables can do and how many countries there are that shouldn't have nuclear. Regarding renewables, you are quite optimistic that it can work (without dominating hydro) to high penetrations, even though this is completely unproven. OTOH, you are very pessimistic about nuclear, even though its challenges and ability to scale are much more known and explored. And then you end with a statement of coal being cheaper (it is not - it has considerable external costs).
I don't think your arguments will wake people up and create (nuclear) action in countries such as the US, UK, Italy and Germany. But I'm pretty resigned to West losing another decade. I think Asia will have to lead the way in nuclear and countries such as Germany will lead the way in renewables, and then West will have to ramp nuclear whenever they realize renewables doesn't do the trick. There'll be a lot of unnecessary coal cancer deaths, but if we are lucky, the AGW threat is overblown, and then it might be no big deal.
how many countries there are that shouldn't have nuclear.
I stated Iceland, Norway and Malta (maybe Ireland) shouldn't have nukes. Austria would be a nearly impossible sell. Not a big deal IMO.
The technology for expanding renewable % is well proven and understood; pumped storage and HV DC. Nukes need the same BTW. Ask EdF.
The Finns can operate nukes VERY well (two Swedish and two Soviet design nukes - 94% capacity factor) but have problems building a new nuke.
The Swedes do not operate nukes as well, have major problems just refurbishing a nuke that they know well (Swedish designs). To assume that there would be problems with a new Swedish nuke seems a quite reasonable planning assumption. The Swedes of 2010 are not as good at nuke building as the Swedes of the 1970s.
Renewables cut into FF consumption. I do think that saying "yes let's do renewables as much as we can" but there is an upper limit. Lets revive nuke building slowly so that nukes can do what renewables cannot.
Perhaps an offer to Denmark. Go 50-50 with Sweden on a new nuke (or revive that old one) and put that coal fired plant you have into deep reserve standby. REALLY cut your carbon emissions in one step ! Perhaps sweeten the offer with 50-50 split on a new pumped storage unit in Sweden.
The Danes will likely so no at first, build Sweden's next nuke elsewhere. And go back to Denmark for the second new nuke. A few years to think and debate.
Your tactic of "destroying" a deeply held position is unlikely to prevail. May I quote my mother "You catch more flies with honey than vinegar". I have seen a lot of vinegar on this thread.
Attacking renewables is VERY unlikely to prevail. Saying "Yes, but" and point out a longer, more complete POV works better.
Best Hopes,
Alan
There are lots of others too. But why mention them?
Again, the technology is the same, but the levels differ. France have problems with 80% nuclear. Danes have problems with 20% wind.
If people think nuclear is "expensive" and wind and solar also is "expensive", and they don't understand that the wind/solar intermittency limit their penetration, then why would they bother with nuclear at all? If you can't point out renewables' drawbacks (i.e. make "attacks") then there is no hope for nuclear until people get it by observing facts on the ground - i.e. wind/solar can't be expanded for practical reasons and Asia having abundant carbon-free cheap nuclear electricity. I'd like not to wait, even though I realize that I probably have to. And no, I don't think your renewables-leaning "more complete" POV works better.
But why mention them? [Iceland, Norway, Malta, Ireland, Austria]
In order to list the nations not worth trying. All the others are fair game.
I don't think your renewables-leaning "more complete" POV works better.
A fundamental difference in how we assess our fellow citizens.
I know that I have swayed, in one on one conversations, some anti-nuke environmentalists to a "maybe", "I'll think about it" position. A flat out attack on renewables (which is N*O*T my position) would have gotten a severely negative response.
I think a Swedish offer for a 50-50 split of a reactor with Denmark, on Swedish soil but close to Denmark, is the only chance for a "Danish" reactor in my lifetime. And "good enough".
Germany may buy nuke power from nearby reactors in France, Poland and Russian Kalingrad before they build another on German soil. But partially powering Koln from France and Berlin from Poland and Russia still reduces carbon emissions. And it creates a common sense force for more nukes.
Alan
Yes and no. You think they are too prestige-bound to handle the truth. I think that that only goes for some. I think people need to hear the truth. That they need to be shocked, even.
You talk about "attack". That can be divided into "negative" factual content and negative attitude. I may have both, and perhaps I can do without the latter, but definitely not the former. And the former is interpreted as an attack by anti-nuke greens. That can't be helped. I think with your way of sugar-coating renewables and doing negative portrayals of nukes, the take-away message will be that nukes are dangerous and not needed for the time being.
The point of the placement of the Barsebaeck reactors was precisely closeness to Copenhagen and Swedish Malmoe. So it had more or less optimal placement, but the Danes turned around and wanted it closed. I don't think they'll want a repeat. However, we can build ourselves and sell them electricity and call it "hydro" and they'll probably be fine with that.
Actually, to me, Swedish nuclear isn't that important. We could do without since we have so much hydro. That's me being "reasonable" when talking with Swedish greens - I readily agree that we don't need nuclear and that some wind would suffice. If we want to help the world getting more low-carbon electricity, and help our own economy, we should build. But if we just want to be symbolically pure, we could decommission and do ok.
Do you not see the contradictions in your own thinking? Not to mention that saying things like "wind/solar can't be expanded for practical reasons" is patently false! I find ways every single day to expand solar in practical ways. I work with solar and not wind but I'm sure the same is happening with those who work with wind as well. Rome wasn't built in a day but it was eventually built.
You mentioned in a comment above in response to Alan's saying that coal was cheaper than nuclear, that it wasn't, because it had external costs, well there you are correct it does have external costs that are not generally accounted for. However in the next breath you completely ignore the external costs of building out nuclear. You seem to think they don't exist at all and that nuclear could be developed without massive subsidies. I fail to see how you back that up with hard empirical data other than your own ideological wishful thinking.
It seems to me that you feel nuclear is worth it despite the costs because it is a great insurance policy that allows the continuation of some semblance of BAU. In my opinion that is precisely why it is the wrong policy. We need to move away as quickly as possible and as far away as possible from any further attempts at maintaining BAU. I know that is not something you want to do and you want to maintain BAU at any and all costs. You said somewhere up thread that BAU is great. Sorry Jeppen it isn't because it simply is unsustainable in the long run.
While there are certainly many issues with the current state of the renewable energy industry and the large scale implementation of these sources of energy, by definition RENEWABLES are the only long term sustainable basis for any future civilization. In many respects Nuclear is not much better than fossil fuels and in some respects it is worse because it depends on the long term existence of the a complex industrial BAU paradigm. Since I think we are heading into a less complex and a more unstable and insecure future at least in the near term, I don't think we really want to take the risk of building out nuclear instead of the much saner and safer alternatives. Just a question of economics and simple risk assessment.
I know we see the world very differently but we are both going to have to find a way to live in it and possibly the future will turn out to be somewhere in between our opposing world views.
Best hopes for saner future.
Cheers!
No, actually I don't. And I suspect there are none.
Wrong interpretation. I was talking about the future - when the intermittent sources' limits have been reached, eventually, people may start getting the fact that they have limits. I want people to get it before that happens.
Such costs are very small, and many of those there is are political creations.
I do think they could be developed without subsidies. It's hard to back that up with empirical data as governments stubbornly refuse to leave energy alone, and as guys like you stubbornly regard stuff that doesn't cost anything (like Price-Anderson) as "massive subsidies".
What is your vision of the alternative to BAU? I think of poor Africans, Chinese, Indians, who have a fighting chance for an improved life due to BAU. I'm thinking of wars nearly eradicated among the developed countries due to BAU. I'm thinking of democracy which is spreading due to BAU. I'm thinking of tightening environmental regulation due to BAU. Of tech progress due to BAU. So what is the non-BAU world you'd like to transition to, as fast as possible? It must be good, since you want to power down society today and not keep milking it for progress for as long as we can?
Uranium and thorium in breeder reactors can literally power the world for hundreds of millions of years.
I think nuclear is one way to make the complex industrial BAU paradigm more stable. If you are right and we are destined for a crash anyway, then I don't really care. I value that future essentially to zero, so I'd rather gamble on trying to create the future that I want, however likely or unlikely that future might be.
I'm not against progress! I just don't see a continuation of the BAU growth paradigm as being even remotely connected with real progress. Wars eradicated? You can't be serious. Very little of what you cite above is actually occurring. Quite the contrary, we are destroying global ecosystems, we are creating much greater poverty than ever before and true democracy is something that is fast disappearing, at least in the USA, under corporate facism. If we continue with BAU we will end up engaging in global resource wars and misery will result for the vast majority of the human population.
In my view the antithesis of the BAU paradigm would be a steady state economy.
http://steadystate.org/discover/briefing-papers/
We disagree, and this is a bit off topic here - I guess we'll find another time and thread to debate this. In the meantime, I recommend "In defense of global capitalism" by my countryman, Johan Norberg. One needs to challenge ones viewpoints from time to time, right?
For sure! >;^)
" Given your bias, I question your statistics and conclusions. ATM, I have higher priorities for my time than dissecting your sources."
Ha, two insults and a quick change of subject, is that the best you can do? The best that the wind industry experts could do was to average the data for the entire state of Colorado, most of which has very little wind power. Can you do better than wind industry experts? So what exactly is it that you question about my statistics and conclusions?
Can you site any examples where a coal plant is jockeyed to provide free voltage and frequency control for large quantities of wind power without reducing the efficiency of the coal plant?
Nuclear can replace coal directly, providing the largest reduction in damaging emissions, wind and solar cannot. Demanding that new nuclear plants be capable of providing free voltage and frequency control for wind farms is silly.
" Just ask the US Navy why they retired their nuclear cruisers and replaced them with oil fired ships."
Do you make decisions on commercial aviation based on the performance of military aircraft?
"Just what were you proposing if not an all nuke + hydro grid ? "
An orderly transition, replacing the oldest dirtiest fossil plants first as new nuclear comes on line.
More importantly, the U.S. has not built an experimental power reactor since 1973. The new plants being proposed are refined 1960’s technology. They are safe and will work well, but they are expensive and time consuming to build. Still, comparing 1960 nuclear technology against 2010 windmill technology, nuclear is best in the long run.
There is no law of nature that requires nuclear plants to be time consuming and expensive. If you hand build a Corvette in your garage from raw materials it will take many years and hundreds of thousands of dollars, or you could buy it from GM for a fraction of that.
My recommendation for a long time has been;
Increase R&D for energy by more than a factor of ten to $100 billion per year, 90 cents per day for each of us. Push every technology as hard as possible, build prototypes of everything as it becomes possible and publish the performance data.
When someone says R&D most people only hear “Research”. In truth Development is the really expensive part, and the U.S. has done very little of that in recent decades.
Build intermediate scale plants of all promising technologies, nuclear, cellulosic biofuel, solar power, geothermal, coal with full sequestration. For those technologies that are successful in medium scale we should built at least one full scale commercial size plant.
We have yet to build a fully sequestered coal plant after years of talk. We need to try even if the first plant is a failure.
There are dozens of ways to split a uranium atom. What are the odds that a steroidal submarine reactor is the best? There are huge improvements to be made in nuclear power plant design and construction, yet we have not built a new experimental reactor since 1973. We should be building experimental models of at least two molten salt reactors, the simple uranium MSR and the thorium breeder MSR. We should be building Integral Fast Breeder demo plants, sodium cooled and lead cooled. We should be working on modular reactors and floating nuclear plants
http://www.atomicinsights.com/aug96/Offshore.html
The road of progress is paved with stones of failure. By spending 90 cents per person per day to push every technology as fast as possible, the best technologies and breakthroughs, whatever they are, will emerge as leaders in the shortest possible time. 95% of that money will probably be wasted on unsuccessful technology, but that is cheap insurance to assure that we get the best solution. Relying on a bunch of gray haired law school graduates in Washington to cherry pick technology is a formula for disaster.
The new technologies will tend to suppress rising energy costs. I believe the savings could surpass the annual R&D cost within 15 – 20 years, and save over $2,000 per year per person within 30 years, not to mention a large improvement in the environment and quality of life with this approach. 100 years from now energy will be cheap, clean and abundant.
A big R&D push will provide the U.S. with new products that are highly desirable all over the world, providing Americans with high paying manufacturing jobs and products to sell overseas to eliminate our trade deficit and strengthen the dollar.
The key to changing the worlds energy mix is to develop new sources of reliable dispatchable energy that are cheaper than burning fossil fuel. That will only happen through R&D, not mandates and feed in tariffs.
R & D spending contributed almost nothing (AFAIK nothing) to the wind turbines being installed today. Feed in tariffs, and Danish Gov't publishing performance stats for different models were the keys to this successful technology. Experience, in the field, drove the development of this technology.
So you are simply wrong on that point.
And your stated goal will, in all probability, not be reached in my lifetime, if ever, absent a carbon tax. I prefer not to gamble the future of our society and planet on unrealistic expectations, hopes and dreams.
New types of nuclear reactors are a waste of time and money for the next couple of decades. A radical new reactor (perhaps Idaho will accept them being built there, although I doubt it) will take decades of operational experience and several generations of prototypes (built where ? NIMBY !!!).
It takes decades of operation to debug a new nuke. See the Brit problems with their Magnox reactors. 15 or so years to discover a near fatal flaw. Failure of the reactor shutdown system to rapidly shut down the reactor, or failure of natural circulation, was not considered in the design. In 1967 Chapelcross experienced a fuel melt due to restricted gas flow in an individual channel ...
I could see some fancy new nuke go into widespread construction between 2035 and 2050. Too late I am afraid.
A diversion of resources, energy and effort from solving our problems. The perfect is the enemy of the good [enough].
I would protest strongly on wasting $0.90/day on new R&D. New technology is *NOT* required ! We need to build what we know how to build. Off the shelf is good enough, with a nickel per day in R&D for solutions 2030+
Alan
Depends what you mean by R&D ?
Government pure R&D is cumbersome and long range, but necessary.
The fusion research for example, fits here.
That said, there certainly was R&D in the wind sector, and continual development of new models. Each Size step, is considerable R&D, tho you could call that Production Research (like wind tunnel testing and optimise of each blade change, or the shift away from Gearboxes).
This R&D is funded by companies and start-ups.
Solar PV is a good example, where research pays dividends, both in Production Engineering (gives lower panel prices), and in higher panel efficiencies (gives hopefully better $/W, certainly better W/m2)
An excellent point !
What Bill H. was talking about was strictly R&D, one prototype here, a dozen more designs there. Gov't funded or supported R&D (although I do support R&D tax credits). I inferred (I believe correctly) that he wants lab and prototype R&D. Specifically, a large number of research reactors and I infer a large number of one off, prototype wind turbines. Perhaps 1 m2 solar PV panels of every possible technology, chemistry and process.
If other technologies do not thrive with that model, too bad.
He supports R & D divorced from the feedback that comes from mass implementation of production models (since he is against FITs and production credits).
Alan
Alan, are you a closet doomer? Your recommendations will make their predictions more likely.
" Feed in tariffs, and Danish Gov't publishing performance stats for different models were the keys to this successful technology."
The fact that some people are building windmills and solar cells is not my definition of successful. Solving the world’s energy problem would be success. Mandates and feed in tariffs for expensive intermittent energy systems will not solve the world’s energy problem. They produce very little energy in the wealthy countries that have them and nothing in the other countries.
What do you propose for developing nations that do not have a mature grid with lots of fossil capacity? Should they build massive quantities of windmills, solar PV, full fossil backup capacity, a fossil fuel supply system and an oversized grid to handle the large rush of intermittent energy when conditions are good? What will that cost per GW of reliable dispatchable power and what will the emissions be? What will it cost when fossil fuel costs have doubled, and doubled again?
"It takes decades of operation to debug a new nuke. "
So what? How did the first U.S. reactors get debugged? They started from scratch with a 50% capacity factor and now they are up to 90%. How does Boeing debug a new model? How do the car companies debug a new model? When airplanes and cars crash people die. Next generation plants can destroy themselves in a full meltdown without hurting anyone. The older plants can probably do that as well, but it was not in their design basis.
If $500 billion invested in R&D produced a technology that can be mass produced that will produce reliable dispatchable power cheaper than burning fossil fuel all over the world, it would be a bargain at ten times the price.
The key to changing the worlds energy mix is to develop new sources of reliable dispatchable energy that are cheaper than burning fossil fuel. That will only happen through R&D, not mandates and feed in tariffs.
Note that I do not insist that the breakthrough technology will be fission. I will take whatever works best.
An impossible dream. Not going to happen, at least in the next 25 years.
You chose to ignore reality and the L*O*N*G lead times required to debug new nuke designs.
You ignored the example I gave of British nukes generic design fault. 15 years from first design to discovery of fault. And it could have been 25 years.
I, a nuke supporter, would picket a new, unproven design nuke that might destroy themselves in a full meltdown. You live in some alternative universe if you think that risk is acceptable outside an unpopulated valley in Idaho (and even there it would be an issue).
You might claim that a meltdown is is safe. I, as a knowledgeable engineer, say that the risks of miscalculation are far too great. Mr. Murphy is not dead. The Titanic was unsinkable, only one Shuttle mission in 10,000 would fail, etc. etc.
Since your stance appears to be all or nothing, it will end up with nothing. You pave the way to doom with fantasy plans for $500 billion for R&D while opposing realistic solutions. Ain't going to happen and There is *NO* guaranty of success if we do spend that much.
You are the type that leads to doom.
No Hope for the Just-in-Time Technology Fairy,
Alan
Thanks, Alan.
You present this very well.
Inasmuch as you hold out some hope for Nuclear where I cannot, I really do appreciate your sensible way of putting it in perspective. All things being in a continuum, I do not flat out oppose all nuclear full-stop, at least to the same degree that I support and am encouraged by our renewable sources, which of course can only be viable in the context of a considerably leaner overall energy consuming lifestyle.. (Lest the BAU sharks are waiting to nip at my tail yet again!)
It sure is a persistent argument, though. It seems about as intractible as 'Abortion' 'Death Penalty' or 'Evolution' (Without insisting on which side of this discussion gets to play the Evangelists..)
Bob
I'm not clear of what this means. Would you picket AP-1000, EPR-1600, APR-1400, CPR-1000 if situated close to you? Would you rather have a copy of a proven generation II reactor? Or are you talking about not accepting, for instance, a new MSR design, such as the LFTR?
Then what does that mean? Is the current fleet risk-free? If not, the the risk is obviously acceptable.
And what does this mean? The risk of a containment breach and subsequent nuclear release in the event of a meltdown is too great? Quantify "too great", please. We need to acknowledge that coal kills more people (for sure) than a very unlikely full meltdown with containment breach would.
Isn't it rather your stance of no risk or no build that ends up with no build?
Fast breeder tech is proven in a way and there are several interesting concepts out there. It seems fairly certain that there is a lot of low hanging fruit in those areas. However, I agree that we should build what we have and not stall on hopes for advanced nuclear or PV holy grails.
I would gladly accept an AP-1000 as Waterford IV (about 20 km from me). Shaw Group is a Louisiana company that owns 20% of AP-1000 and has proposed a module construction factory for the AP-1000 in Shreveport Louisiana. Or a French EPR (see reasons to prefer the AP-1000 above).
An AP-1000 is proposed for Riverbend, Louisiana perhaps 180 km upriver from me.
Not as sure about a Chinese designed nuke. I would picket a fast breeder or sodium cooled reactor at Waterford. Or the very first LFTR.
Beryllium and many of it's compounds are very to extremely carcinogenic and toxic. Using beryllium salts for cooling raises quite a few questions.
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/beryllium/bepathogenic_changes.html
LFTR uranium and thorium dissolved in fluoride salts of lithium and beryllium
Cooling with a strong carcinogen, not so good.
I think each generation of reactors should show a roughly order of magnitude increase in safety over the prior generation.
Alan
I don't understand your beryllium worry - I think the actual radioactive stuff in there is the dominant cancer hazard. To me, the LFTR is orders of magnitude safer (when it comes to core meltdown accidents) due to simplicity and the physics involved. Perhaps you are more worried of worker safety? But perhaps this is a bit off-topic.
I don't understand this either - seems so arbitrary as it doesn't consider where we are and where we need to be. Mustn't safety and costs be weighed against each other? Isn't each successive magnitude in safety improvement worth only a tenth of the previous improvement?
The OSHA standards for exposure to beryllium are just slightly larger than those for plutonium when they were first issued.
Later, the standards for Pu were tightened, but not Be.
Just think of transporting, using, storing, recycling, cleaning up spills of a substance only slightly less toxic than plutonium.
Each new generation of a/c is much safer than the one before. The number of reactors will expand, and the number of operating years will grow. To keep the cumulative risk low, the average safety level needs to rise.
Best Hopes for Increased Safety, not less,
Alan
I still have a hard time seeing beryllium adding very much to the care with which nuclear fuel has to be handled with. To me, this seems like a result of environmentalists searching for something-anything to keep nuclear dirty, rather than an actual problem.
"a/c"? Another abbreviation that I'm not familiar with that probably have an obvious explanation? Not air condition I guess?
Is the cumulative risk important? The usefulness expands with the number of reactors and the number of reactor years, so isn't it reasonable that risk does as well?
Sure, more safety is nice, but I think it is irrational to just require a magnitude better per generation. Again, we need to consider where we are and what any improvement costs. One risk is that safety improvements cost so much that we get coal instead, which already has orders of magnitude worse consequences, on average.
My guess was 'aircraft'.
Ah. Sounds likely.
" You might claim that a meltdown is safe. I, as a knowledgeable engineer, say that the risks of miscalculation are far too great. "
Since you have stated that “the risks of miscalculation are far too great.” You must have done calculations quantifying that risk, a graph of fatalities vs. probability per reactor year for all next generation reactor designs. Where can I review that calculation?
If you do not have that data, then your statement is just an unsubstantiated illogical emotional outburst, not a good quality in an engineer.
You should know that the risk of doing something must be weighed against the risk of not doing it. Where do you calculate the risk of not developing new technology that is cheaper than burning fossil fuel?
" The Titanic was unsinkable, only one Shuttle mission in 10,000 would fail, etc. etc. "
You ignore the central point of my comment. To survive a ride on the space shuttle, thousands of heavily loaded components, some rotating at high speed under enormous stress, must not fail. If we designed nuclear plants to that standard, they could be built for less than half the cost in less than half the time.
Nuclear plants are designed to fail without hurting people.
If we built molten salt reactors and you were a terrorist who managed to get inside one, how would you initiate an accident that releases large quantities of radioactive material beyond the plant boundary?
If you were a licensed reactor operator for a MSR, and decided to kill as many people as possible, what would you do?
Provide details on how the fission products are transported beyond the plant boundary. What energy drives the process, how much energy to penetrate several feet of steel reinforced concrete? Which fission products are released? What chemical form are they in?
" An impossible dream. Not going to happen, at least in the next 25 years."
When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor the nuclear cross sections for uranium were crudely known. Plutonium cross sections and physical properties were unknown, yet three years later we had two working bomb designs and a commercial scale production complex spread across the U.S. It was accomplished as follows.
1… Gather the best scientists and engineers in the country.
2… Assign the best project manager in the country. [Leslie Groves built the pentagon in 18 months, try that now]
3… Give the manager a checkbook on the U.S. treasury.
4… Give them full access to national resources, labs, test sites etc.
5… Eliminate all interference. No EPA, OSHA, congressional oversight, legal obstructionism, etc.
This methodology could have commercial size demonstration plants running in 5 years and the facilities to mass produce them.
Obviously this is not possible under business as usual conditions; it is the opposite of BAU. People can say that the country will not support this approach, but that does not prove that it is impossible. On the contrary, the Manhattan project and the Apollo project prove that it is possible.
Two of the four major types of mass produced reactors, Magnox and RBMK, had major design flaws. One was hidden for 15 years and the extent of the other was not fully comprehended or appreciated for over 20 years.
So the odds of major hidden (or not fully comprehended) flaws in new nuke designs is about 50%.
The odds of minor flaws are greater.
If a flaw is apparent to an armchair casual observer, it would probably be fixed. Major screwups (see Magnox & RBMK) often are more subtle.
As for the rest, it is simply ridiculous. Your analogies are unconvincing. German and Japanese efforts to develop atomic bombs failed. The large Soviet moon rocket exploded on the pad, killing many top people. The failures of crash programs greatly outnumber the successes, but we forget the failures.
Suppose we spend $500 billion on R&D, go into mass production, we become dependent on reactor X, and THEN we find a critical, fatal flaw that requires all of them to be shut down permanently (as both the UK & USSR should have down with Magnox & RBMK reactors).
And reactors will not, per se, solve the looming liquids fuels crisis.
You are proposing a crash program to solve a long term, NOT imminent, multi-decade problem. Why even have a crash program with all the waste that goes with that ? I see no logical reason to pursue the rabid crash program that you propose.
You want to bet the future of our civilization on a wild search for the JIT Technological Fairy instead of just using what we know works.
I fundamentally disagree with your proposed approach and nothing I say will change your conclusions.
So lets leave it at that. You live in your world, I live in mine.
Alan
The RBMK reactor is a graphite moderated pressure tube reactor. The dangers of the RBMK design were well publicized in industry journals before they were built. Go to a good engineering library and look into the back issues of Nucleonics International magazine. They would never have been approved for use in western countries.
The magnox reactors are graphite moderated CO2 cooled plutonium/electric production reactors of 1950’s technology, designed for 25-30 year lifetimes. No two are identical. Some had steel vessels while others had prestressed concrete vessels. External heat exchangers were common.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/nuclear/magnox.pdf
Two magnox reactors are still in operation, so the secret safety problem you allude to must not be very serious.
How many 1950’s vintage windmills and solar farms are still in operation? What other technologies do you evaluate based on the earliest and least successful designs?
" The failures of crash programs greatly outnumber the successes, but we forget the failures. "
Right, even within successful programs there are many failures for each success. For example several enrichment technologies were tested and rejected in the Manhattan Project.
If I said let’s bet everything on Molten Salt Reactors you would be spot on. You conveniently ignore my recommendation to push every technology, including non nuclear technology.
Meanwhile you want to bet the farm on wind and solar. Alan, take your own advice.
" Why even have a crash program with all the waste that goes with that ? I see no logical reason to pursue the rabid crash program that you propose. "
If it puts coal out of business just 10 years earlier it will save tens of millions of lives.
" You want to bet the future of our civilization on a wild search for the JIT Technological Fairy instead of just using what we know works. "
Which country gets over 75% of its electricity from wind and solar, and has the lowest electricity cost in Europe?
You want to bet the future of our civilization on technology with a track record of poor performance that is unable to replace coal power.
Shall we abandon aviation because the early de Havilland Comets had design flaws?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet
Meanwhile you want to bet the farm on wind and solar. Alan, take your own advice.
A willful misrepresentation of my position and you know it !
When someone deliberately misrepresents your position, they are longer worth debating.
I support a "Rush to Wind" coupled with a "Rush to Conserve", more geothermal, biomass and a serious build-out of pumped storage and HV DC lines connecting variable generation with variable loads. Meanwhile, a safe, economic build-out of nukes at close to maximum safe limit. A push to expand solar (say at 30% to 40% compounded) until the economics get slightly better, then push it. A "Rush to Solar Water Heating" with natural gas back-up preferred.
Once we get 5 to 8 new nukes in the USA by 2020 (the maximum possible,(sorry about your fantasy, but not enough nuke rated people to build. And unlike you, I do not want to trash most nuke safety regulations, which your crash program would require), step the speed up. Perhaps 10 or 12 more new nukes by 2026 and then have a second wave "Rush to Nukes" starting around 2027. Perhaps 3 and then 4 & 5 new nukes/year.
I think the first Rushs can get us to a 50% or so non-carbon grid, and a greater than 50% reduction in carbon emissions. Adding lots of nukes can get us to a 90% or so non-carbon grid and, with conservation. After 2035 or so, new nukes may replace scrapped, worn out WTs.
My proposal has almost zero technological risk and is manageable (although barely I admit, Some management failures are likely, but my plans have no single point of failure).
Yours will likely be a complete and utter failure due to technological risk and management failures. Wasted time, wasted money, no energy left to do anything except burn FF. We enter a death spiral post-Peak Oil after the failure of the JIT Technology Fairy to show up.
My cost is comparable and my time frame is comparable. My risk is orders of magnitude lower than yours.
my recommendation to push every technology, including non nuclear technology.
That misrepresents your own position. You did *NOT* advocate "pushing every technology". In fact, the opposite. You wanted to KILL wind and solar by eliminating FITs and production credits !
Nukes may still need still more R&D subsidies from the gov't after 50+ years. Wind certainly does not, and solar PV seems to be past that stage. The renewables need volume production and mass in the field experience to improve their economics and performance. But you want to strangle them instead so that we have no viable alternative but nukes.
BTW no production credits = no new nukes in USA, nukes need MORE subsidy than wind in the US. A simple fact that can be confirmed by observation.
so the secret safety problem you allude to must not be very serious.
Not secret. I posted it on this thread !
Failure of the reactor shutdown system to rapidly shut down the reactor, or failure of natural circulation, was not considered in the design.
And
In operation it was found that there was significant oxidation of mild steel components by the high temperature carbon dioxide coolant, requiring a reduction in operating temperature and power output. [Should have been decommissioned. Built with wrong materials, ordinary carbon steel nuts & bolts]
The British Gov't found itself in a box. A fleet of unsafe reactors but the lights would go out, the economy would crash, people would starve if all the unsafe reactors were shut down. Some later descriptions of the tense cabinet meetings.
So they did what politicians do, they compromised. Derate the reactors instead of shutting them down.
Just because reactors operate does not mean that they are safe. See Chernobyl & RBMKs before & after. But because the Brits are allies and not enemies, we do not rag them about operating unsafe reactors.
I can see your crash program with some new reactor resulting in EXACTLY the same problem.
I just wasted over an hour writing this. You just live in your world, I will live in mine.
Bye,
Alan
Others have read your post too, Alan, so don't count it as totally wasted.
Bill is shooting blanks.. "How many solar farms from the fifties.. ?" starting to sound a little desperate.. but for what it's worth, here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1264487/Worlds-solar-pane...
.. and here is a story about the very early Bell Labs panels, from ca. '55:
http://www.porticus.org/bell/belllabs_photovoltaics.html
( I went to 'Telstar' for junior high school, which is a few miles from the Receiving station in Andover, Maine.. and they had a really cool model of the Satellite in the Auditorium, too, but I wasn't intrigued by it at the time.. )
Wow, a guy builds a solar cell, puts it in a box for 60 years, and it still produces 1.5V No indication of current, perhaps a few milliwatts. Yep, let’s hang the future of the human race on that!
Look at the pile of graphite in the University of Chicago football stadium.
Alan
" Look at the pile of graphite in the University of Chicago football stadium. "
What’s your point? If they put CP1 in a box for 70 years it could be started up again.
But the real question avoided with this diversion was; How many 1950’s vintage windmill and solar farms are still in operation?
That is not a real question.
Alan
" My cost is comparable and my time frame is comparable. My risk is orders of magnitude lower than yours. "
Several countries have shown that it is possible to ramp up nuclear at a high rate under BAU conditions, China is going to be the next country to do that. Which countries have ramped up wind, solar, biomass, geothermal to a substantial market share at an affordable price, including the cost and emissions of backup plants to make it reliable and dispatchable?
Your risk is huge because all the practical experience indicates your grand design is totally impractical. For example, I will predict that it will take an infinite number of years to get permits for the massive grid system you need to swing huge quantities of intermittent power back and forth across the country. Transmission cost will be huge because the average capacity factor of the overbuilt grid will be low, and the average distance traveled by each kWh will be much larger than now.
So you have a very complicated unproven and expensive plan to reduce U.S. emissions by 50%. What is your plan for the rest of the world that cannot afford a Rube Goldberg design?
" BTW no production credits = no new nukes in USA, "
On a level playing field, with all externalities included, nukes will be fine, but if I am wrong, and other energy sources can provide reliable low emission energy at a lower cost than nuclear, that is fine with me. Why are you so afraid of a level playing field?
" That misrepresents your own position. You did *NOT* advocate "pushing every technology". In fact, the opposite. You wanted to KILL wind and solar by eliminating FITs and production credits ! "
Wrong again. I advocate pushing every technology, including non nuclear technology, up to and including at least one full sized commercial production facility. Then publish cost and performance data.
After that I let the free market choose the best technology on A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD with all externalities included, no subsidies, mandates, rebates, or discounts. The price of energy will rise to its true value, whatever that is, eliminating the inefficiencies produced by distorted markets, and the best technologies will dominate.
Windmill design is already up to 60% of theoretical maximum efficiency. Wind will never be completive on a level playing field because there is not enough room for improvement.
Solar energy still has a chance of becoming a major player, but not with existing technology. A solar cell that can directly decompose water at a very low cost would be a total game changer. A solar cell that can directly make hydrocarbon fuel from atmospheric CO2, water and sunlight, at an affordable price, say $50/barrel equivalent, would be a total game changer.
If someone invented a solar cell that could make hydrocarbons at $50/barrel equivalent, would it need mandates and FITs to spread around the world?
The key to changing the worlds energy mix is to develop new sources of reliable dispatchable energy that are cheaper than burning fossil fuel. That will only happen through R&D, not mandates and feed in tariffs.
I will predict that it will take an infinite number of years to get permits for the massive grid system you need
Use railroad ROWs, while electrifying the railroads. Make it easier to get permits (one bill to make it easier was passed about a half dozen years ago). Go further.
Nukes require substantial transmission as well, especially at French levels. If France were an island, they could not get much above 55% nuke. Subtract pumped storage and drop even lower.
Wrong again. I advocate pushing every technology, including non nuclear technology, up to and including at least one full sized commercial production facility.
Not far enough to improve the economics of production. And you ignore the feedback from commercial installations. Wind has NEVER needed gov't R&D (past 1930s NACA). But wind needs experience and commercial volumes.
How about a level playing field for all alternatives ?
$0.00 for gov't supported R&D.
$250 billion for investment tax credits for building non-carbon generation, transmission, and pumped storage.
$250 billion in production tax credits at 2 cents/kWh.
Fair and even for all.
An example you can relate to.
Build one nuclear reactor (say Calder Hall). Operate it for one year. Record the capacity factor, # of scrams, costs and generation.
Now see if anyone wants to buy a nuclear reactor instead of a coal fired plant, even with carbon taxes. THAT is your proposal for every technology that competes with nukes !
No decades of debugging, feedback from operations, etc. It took US nukes over a decade to get to where 88% to 92% capacity factors are normal. Newly built nukes struggled to get to 75% and 80%.
Nuclear power has had decades of unlimited political and gov't economic support to get where it is today. $100s of billion worth. Now you want another $500 billion in gov't subsides for new type nukes.
In 2005, nukes got *MORE* than wind, significantly more.
Two new nukes in Georgia, because Georgia ratepayers will supply an additional subsidy (pay for the nukes as they are being built).
That is it 5 years after the feds boosted federal subsidies. Two AP-1000s for Georgia Power and nothing else (except TVA looking at finishing Bellefonte).
THAT IS THE FACT. Wind is being built with less subsidy than new nukes.
There is one way to ensure that no new nukes are EVER built in the USA.
I let the free market choose the best technology on A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD with all externalities included, no subsidies, mandates, rebates, or discounts.
China is also ramping up wind and solar.
You do have one thing quite wrong.
you [Alan] believe that investing in R&D will not increase the probability of discovering improved energy technology.
I do agree that substantial R&D will increase the chances of new technology emerging. BUT EVEN $500 BILLION WILL NOT GUARANTEE IT ! My SWAG is less than 50% chance even with a half trillion spent. A half trillion better used elsewhere.
Alan
Buying on layaway isn't a subsidy; it'll save the ratepayers money in the long run.
Thus far, zero (0) new reactors have been given construction licenses by the NRC; kind of hard to build without that.
it'll save the ratepayers money in the long run
No and maybe. Many of those paying for the new nukes will have moved (US average used to be every 5 years, although a good % of movers will stay with GA Power service area) or died.
Likely a majority will never get their "investment back". Someone pays in for 5 to 7 years, and gets slightly reduced rates for 8 more years (at slightly reduced rates of electrical consumption) and then dies or moves out. Not enough time & consumption to recover their forced "investment".
And the ratepayers take the risks, NOT all risks are on the owner, Georgia Power. Perhaps Vogtle 3 & 4 are Zimmers. Low quality means no operating license. Perhaps extended delays or the project is canceled (about 30% of all nukes in the USA were canceled before completion). These risks are borne by the ratepayers.
Prepaying is a subsidy, and an unfair one at that. Vogtle would likely not be built were it not so.
zero (0) new reactors have been given construction licenses by the NRC, kind of hard to build without that.
Actually not, Georgia Power has broken ground and is digging a hole for the foundation under an Early Site Permit. A picture from March, 2010 of Vogtle 4 is at
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_reactors/reactorcom.html
By today, concrete may have been poured.
Alan
When there are price controls and state regulators plan the energy investments and direct consumers to pay them to optimize controlled rates, then it is socialism. The fact that a private company, for efficiency reasons, have been put in charge of day-to-day operations in exchange for a more or less regulated profit, is of minor significance. I think it is meaningless to talk about subsidies here.
You do not understand.
Good conservative Republican politicians CANNOT vote for socialism ! Glenn Beck would put them up on his blackboard !
And conservatives support nuclear power (since liberals were against it decades ago). So how can it possibly be socialist ?
Now windpower, with it's 2.1 cents/kWh for the first 10 years (privately owned, planned & operated, selling by contract or on the hourly spot market), THAT is socialism at work ! Makes my red American blood boil to see one of those ungodly creations spinning.
Of course nukes get the same 2.1 cents for the first ten years. But we will ignore that.
Alan
" Nuclear power has had decades of unlimited political and gov't economic support to get where it is today. $100s of billion worth. Now you want another $500 billion in gov't subsides for new type nukes. "
Interesting strategy. If you can’t attack my position, make one up and knock it down.
The U.S.s 104 nuclear reactors produced 799 billion kWh in 2009, over 20% of total electrical output. I pay 8% in taxes on my electric bill. If that is the national average, government collects about $6 billion per year in taxes on nuclear power.
Government makes more on nuclear than it spends on nuclear, not true for renewables, so stop wining about nuclear subsidies.
Existing U.S. nuclear plants paid for themselves long ago and are cash cows for their owners. I would like to see a 1 cent/kWh fee added to nuclear kWh's that would be dedicated entirely to advanced commercial nuclear power plant development, $7.99 billion/year.
You cherry pick the times.
Go back to 1954 (one year operating experience with Calder Hall) or even 1962 and leave nukes to the free market.
Wind and solar need less, FAR FAR less gov't subsidy and support than nukes did in their infancy.
I tell you what, lets give just $200 billion more in production credits and FITs to wind, solar and geothermal, $50 billion in investment tax credits for pumped storage and HV DC and come back in 2040 and see how well they are doing.
And since nukes got a MASSIVE headstart, zero more R&D for them (Hurrah for Obama). Pay their way with commercial funds from here on out. If some foreign gov't wants to subsidize a new type nuke, fine, let them do it.
And quite frankly, a new reactor type falls far down my list of "nice to have" post-Peak Oil and facing Climate Change. Perhaps #13 after we have spent several trillion on better investments. New AP-1000s & EPRs are much higher, and more immediate (perhaps #6 on the list).
New reactor types do not create or directly substitute for liquid fuels, they will not be built in quantity for several decades (they need to be debugged first, say 25 to 30 years for just that stage, and 8 to so years to initial design and build, then decide in new technology is more attractive than proven technology nukes, etc.).
There is no need and no benefit to the crash, $500 billion R&D program you espouse, throwing all safety regulations in the trashbin in the later, more expensive buildout. *IF* we spent the money we would look back (even if we beat the odds and were successful) and say "Why did we do that, that way ?"
OTOH, I do support increasing federal and state subsidies so that we build to completion at least five new nukes (plus complete Watts Bar 2 & Bellefonte 1) by 2020. IMHO, that is the minimum number required to restart the supply lines and more importantly, rebuild a pool of experienced people. I would prefer to see seven new nukes (plus WB 2 & B 1) completed by 2020.
As I said before, you can live in your world, I will live in mine.
Alan
" You cherry pick the times. "
Integrate the taxes and fees paid by the nuclear power industry over the entire period. Cut out the spending for military related work. The government comes out far ahead. Not so for renuables.
The amount of money we are talking about is chicken feed compared to what people spend on energy. Developing less expensive sources of energy will save vastly more money than the R&D cost.
" I tell you what, lets give just $200 billion more in production credits and FITs to wind, solar and geothermal, "
Windmills have been around for 300 years, solar cells as long as nuclear, so why are you terrified of a level playing field? Because wind and solar would dry up immediately.
Your dirty little secret is that on a level playing field, intermittent, unreliable, undispatchable kWh's would be worth a tiny fraction of what reliable dispatchable kWh's are worth. Especially in undeveloped countries that do not have the fossil plants to provide free subsidy of voltage regulation, frequency regulation and backup power.
" As I said before, you can live in your world, I will live in mine. "
I would love to have that option, to live in a world of rational thoughtful people with reliable abundant inexpensive energy while watching the lights in your world go on and off with the wind and sun.
First, a word of agreement.
$500 billion is much less than what people (around the world) pay for for electricity per decade. Lowering that price significantly in a few years could pay for that $500 billion investment, plus interest.
Your plan will do "none of the above".
$500 billion is just for R&D, not the new, cheaper, non-carbon power plants.
It will take several decades for your new nuke type (*IF* one is developed, we may just blow a half trill on Idaho waste sites) to be debugged and ready for widespread use. Add interest and opportunity cost to your $500 billion.
During those decades, more coal will be burned. Putting $500 billion on "red" removes investment capital for alternatives (including AP-1000s) that we know work.
Generating electricity is a side show to the more immediate problems post-Peak Oil. By 2040+, the option of a massive build-out of anything may be lost.
For several reasons, the USA of today is not the best place to build experimental reactors. Let France, China, Russia, India, Japan or even South Africa take this on. Let them gamble on new types, and then debug them. *IF* they succeed, we can buy from them.
Best Hopes for Low Risk,
Alan
PS: I may respond later to your other claims.
That nukes have paid gov't for their R&D ?? Laughable !
A 1956 $ is worth more than a 2010 $. Add interest to = the two.
I noted that you included sales taxes on electricity as part of your gov't recapture of revenue. Hint: They collect sales taxes on ALL sources of electricity. Coal, NG, hydro, wind, etc. You use 237 kWh, you pay sales taxes on 237 kWh. Nuclear power has nothing to do with sales taxes collected on electricity. If the USA had zero nukes, you would still pay sales taxes on 237 kWh.
PPS: Nukes in many developing nations have been an unmitigated disaster. Mexico, Philippines, Brazil, Argentina have been expensive boondoggles. And Iran (what if the Shah had stayed in power a few more years and completed a few of his proposed fleet of reactors ?)
A solar cell that can directly make hydrocarbon fuel from atmospheric CO2, water and sunlight, at an affordable price, say $50/barrel equivalent, would be a total game changer.
A bizarre fantasy that has no correlation with reality.
I can assure that such a solar cell will never be built.
Is that your straw man ? If solar could just perform miracles, you would support it ?
Alan
Solar cell in the Silicon/band gap sense may not be quite correct, but there are plenty of Solar to Fuel efforts around :
http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/blog2/index.php/hydrogen-fuel-production/...
Mr. Lasich’s technique heats the water to 1000 degrees Celsius, a temperature at which the process delivers 140 watts worth of hydrogen for every 100 watts of electricity.”
Tho I note they skip the energy to GET the water to 1000'C.
and that page has a link to this
The Penn State direct solar to hydrogen system mimics photosynthesis that plants use for similar purposes. The Penn State system, however, uses an orange-red dye to absorb blue light, which offers the most energetic wavelengths. When sunlight strikes the dye, it excites an iridium oxide catalyst, which in turn splits the water into hydrogen and oxygen.
Of course, these create a fuel that is not liquid, but it could deliver another way for Solar thermal to stretch delivery times.
The home page of the link, has more about the status of Hydrogen.
including a Algae to Hydrogen, that is solar(photosynthesis) driven.
http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/blog2/
It is hard to count the orders of magnitude that an optimized version of either process is away from $50/barrel (Bill's benchmark).
Alan
Whilst the first statement is correct, the second claim fails to recognize they apply to different part, and phases, of development.
Establishing if something CAN be done, is basic R&D. - but that alone is not sufficient, it needs to be viable in volume, and that includes 'sellable' and 'fundable' and 'practical' (low failures), which R&D will not tell you.
Some of those questions can only be answered, by actually building in volumes, and certainly making a difference means you MUST build in volume.
So, you actually need both.
Further, if the economy tightens more, you will see more decisions to 'defer' projects, and that will require MORE push.
" Establishing if something CAN be done, is basic R&D. - but that alone is not sufficient, it needs to be viable in volume, and that includes 'sellable' and 'fundable' and 'practical' (low failures), which R&D will not tell you. "
D is the expensive part of R&D, the part we do very little of. For a new technology that has little or no advantage over mature technology the point is valid. However I see that oil is up to $88/b now. If the first full scale commercial size plant of a new technology produces an equivalent product for $50/b, the private sector will jump all over that technology.
By the way, on a totally level field oil prices would be higher than $88.
If cold fusion had actually worked how many commercial scale demo plants would the government have to build to get the private sector interested?
Cold fusion refuses to die, but it is a good example of the research end of the process.
It does seem something 'is there', but it has yet to produce operational energy. (as opposed to instrument energy)
What determines if the private sector is interested, is the relative cost, and risk. That relative cost is not only oil, it includes Gas, and even Coal in some locations.
- and speaking of Fusion, at the other end of the scale, this fresh news is topical :
http://optics.org/news/1/6/11
10 Nov 2010 NIF clears latest hurdles towards laser fusion
The Team operating the giant laser system fired has a 1.3MJ ultraviolet beam at a substitute target and also set a new world record for neutron yield.
The National Ignition Facility (NIF) remains on track to achieve a fusion reaction within the next two years, following a series of key experiments performed within the past few weeks.
It may be large, but the NIF appeals to me, over other pathways, as it shifts many of the problems to the software domain.
That means they do NOT have to rebuild the whole shebang, with each iteration, and it also removes common R&D bottle-necks.
This sort of press release, is probably not good news to the Fission Camp.
If there are a string of successes and breakthroughs from here, there are still very daunting problems in going from a fusion reaction to stable voltage and amperage 60 Hz HV AC.
How to convert fusion energy, surrounded by a sphere of lasers (all of which have to be very durable and reliable), to usable electricity (creating wildly variable V & A DC, not so useful) is an engineering challenge of the first magnitude.
And after you FINALLY get to the first "commercial" prototype (the fusion Calder Hall), Bill would cut off your R&D funding. It will be a struggle (I suspect) to get from prototype to commercially competitive rates.
Given the likely erratic nature of the early commercial fusion reactors, locating them at the base of a pumped storage plant might not be a bad idea.
I suspect that Vogtle 3 & 4 may be preparing their life extension applications before they need to be worried about fusion reactors beating them on price of generation.
Best Hopes for Fusion !
Alan
I have sometimes wondered if the true role of fusion may be to breed Thorium into useful Uranium 233. Surround the fusion reaction chamber (except portholes for the lasers) with a layer of Thorium.
Interesting thorium-fusion idea. However, I don't really understand your issues with conversion from fusion energy to "stable" electricity. Isn't it simply an exotic thermal plant? The issue might be how to get the heat energy into a primary cooling loop, but from there, even if heat transfer would be a bit uneven, it's known territory.
Yes, getting the heat out well enough to not melt all the equipment around will be a major issue. The energy from fission ends up as heat pretty quickly and evenly and is scattered around over a dozen m3 (or so).
Laser fusion will create super high neutron flux (all reaction from laser fusion inside basically 1 cm3) and much of the energy released is in the form of fast neutrons. Some energy in fairly fast unfused H2 and H3, some in high energy photons (X-ray & gamma), etc.
It has been decades since I looked at the energy mix (and it varies with fuel used, several potential fusion reactions) but it is not pretty if you are looking at running a steam turbine with it. Alternative is run products of fusion through a strong magnetic field (pretty high efficiency), but then you get wild DC pulses.
Radiation flux will be severe and findings materials to handle the flux for long enough to be economic will be difficult.
Early models will likely be erratic generators. Think "Pulse of fusion, clear, reset, pulse again, but laser 4C was off a bit and yield was down 85%. After 3,284 pulses, laser 7A broke down. Take a few hours to fix."
Getting these bleeding edge lasers to function flawlessly for 100,000s of pulses/month will be quite a challenge.
Still Best Hopes for Fusion,
Alan
Thermal averaging is relatively simple; The energy gets transferred as heat, so getting AC from there is old-tech.
The Laser tech is also more mature than you think, and there are many of them, so a single laser, or amplifier, being replaced, will not halt the plant. (see below)
To me, the biggest challenge, is Materials Neutron tolerance.
Such systems would demand very-high-efficiency laser diodes to seed the laser emission, as well as large-scale, high-quality optics and optical components capable of withstanding the enormous neutron bombardment that accompanies a fusion reaction.\
One example of Solid state Laser Tech :
http://www.thefabricator.com/article/lasercutting/analyzing-the-potentia...
Fiber Advantages
What makes the fiber laser unique is that the resonation actually happens inside a double-clad fiber—no crystal rod (Nd:YAG) or blazingly hot gas cavity (CO2) required. This is why so much fiber laser power can be generated from so little space. Pres Metal’s 2-kW source contains modules consisting of diodes that pump the double-clad fiber. Because the system generates less excess heat, fiber lasers require only small chillers. Overall wall plug efficiency is around 28 percent, more than twice that of CO2.
The result is an efficient, solid-state (less maintenance), high-powered, short-wavelength, high-beam-quality laser delivered via a fiber. These days the diodes pumping the fiber last on the order of several hundred thousand hours. And because the beam is transported to the head through a fiber, the beam path length never changes, eliminating the need for complex and expensive compensation devices
You can see industrial cutting, is already advancing this technology.
Thermal averaging is relatively simple; The energy gets transferred as heat, so getting AC from there is old-tech.
The Laser tech is also more mature than you think, and there are many of them, so a single laser, or amplifier, being replaced, will not halt the plant. (see below)
To me, the biggest challenge, is Materials Neutron tolerance.
Original Background
Such systems would demand very-high-efficiency laser diodes to seed the laser emission, as well as large-scale, high-quality optics and optical components capable of withstanding the enormous neutron bombardment that accompanies a fusion reaction.
and more details here http://optics.org/news/1/3/1
One quickly found example of Commercial Solid state Laser Tech :
http://www.thefabricator.com/article/lasercutting/analyzing-the-potentia...
Fiber Advantages
What makes the fiber laser unique is that the resonation actually happens inside a double-clad fiber—no crystal rod (Nd:YAG) or blazingly hot gas cavity (CO2) required. This is why so much fiber laser power can be generated from so little space. Pres Metal’s 2-kW source contains modules consisting of diodes that pump the double-clad fiber. Because the system generates less excess heat, fiber lasers require only small chillers. Overall wall plug efficiency is around 28 percent, more than twice that of CO2.
The result is an efficient, solid-state (less maintenance), high-powered, short-wavelength, high-beam-quality laser delivered via a fiber. These days the diodes pumping the fiber last on the order of several hundred thousand hours. And because the beam is transported to the head through a fiber, the beam path length never changes, eliminating the need for complex and expensive compensation devices
You can see industrial cutting, is already advancing this technology.
Alan, we have two fundamental differences. I believe that a transparent marketplace with all externalities included, in which buyers and sellers are well educated and fully informed, will automatically choose a near optimal energy system, whatever that system is, even if there are no new developments in technology.
You believe that AlanfromBigEasy has a magnificent brain that has designed the best possible energy system for the U.S. and the world. You believe that there can be no improvements in energy technology, or at the very least, you believe that investing in R&D will not increase the probability of discovering improved energy technology.
If you are right, my recommendation and your recommendation will end up producing approximately the same [optimum] system.
I don’t believe that you are that smart. I don’t believe that I am smart enough to design the optimum system. Our goal should be to produce a process that will automatically evolve the best system, whatever that is.
Our goal should be to produce a process that will automatically evolve the best system, whatever that is.
And your process has two steps.
1) Kill all current development of wind and solar#
2) Spend $480 billion on new nuke prototypes and another $20 billion on weird wind turbines, exotic chemistry solar PV, "innovations" in hot rock geothermal, etc.
Alan
I have a hard time thinking of ways to spend even $20 billion of solar & wind R&D productively. But the nuke guys can
spendwaste an infinite amount in Idaho.# All that further development of wind and solar down the development curve needs are FITs or production tax credits.
I note that Bill advocates including externalities in his level playing field. A US National Research Council reported to congress a year ago that coal externalities are some 3.2 cents/KWh, and then AGW/CO2 costs weren't even included. Are you sure wind and solar would be "killed" by unsubsidising them, even if coal externalities (at least 3.2 cents, but more likely 4-5 cents including CO2 externalities) were internalized by taxes?
To me, it seems that wind, at least, would be thriving in such an environment.
The Production Tax Credit of 2.1 cents per kilowatt-hour for the first ten years was supposed to level the playing field. However, he wants to kill that (except, I assume for new nukes).
Raising the cost of the competition by 3.2 cents/kWh would obviously be better :-) However, the biggest winner would be natural gas fired generation (it would suddenly be MUCH cheaper than coal) and much of the nation would move to NG baseload, until we ran out of natural gas.
There are some major economic dislocations (read cause Great Depression II) involved with "including all externalities".
Alan
I think he said explicitly said that all subsidies should be abolished.
You're going to have be prepared for coal burners trying to avoid the taxes by lowering emissions. The per-KWh tax burden will end up lower after utilities adjust - how much I don't know.
Natural gas would only be punished with 0.16 cents/KWh according to the same report, however, again, that excludes AGW-related externalities, so it should be more IMO. Wouldn't the additional pressure on NG generation raise its price? I think wind would be considered an economical way to make the gas last longer.
From an economic POV, including externalities is about stopping suboptimizations and make companies' actions optimal not just for themselves, but for the overall economy. So there are countless billion dollars of benefits to society in this, and I really doubt any GDII would result from that. However, shocks are not good, particularly not in an already weak economy, so you'll probably want to phase it in over a 5-10 year period.
What do you propose for developing nations that do not have a mature grid with lots of fossil capacity?
For Africa, develop the 44 GW Grand Inga hydroelectric project, several more GW hydroelectric in Angola and elsewhere, geothermal along the Great Rift Valley, some wind where it is a good resource, a dozen nukes in South Africa and North Africa and HV DC to balance it out with local FF and solar PV to "fill the gaps'.
More reliable and lower cost than today. Perhaps twice the MWh of today.
For South America, much the same but without the giant mega-project (Guri and Itaipu have already been built).
Alan
Will that even keep up with Africa's population increase? The stuff you give numbers for is less than 100 GW, and that is 100 W/capita.
From memory, African demand is about 70 GW x 24 x 365 GWh today. About a third in South Africa.
Alan
Still, that is extremely little and Africa may almost double its population in the next 40 years.
I would significantly expand the grid, and almost entirely supplant FF. Why build 40 years before the demand is there (if it arrives) ?
Plenty of doomers can give you good reasons the population will not double.
It seems an odd criteria.
Alan
Well, I just point out that per capita, you cite 70 W for Africa. The EU has 700 W and the US twice that. Africa is going to need a lot more, eventually.
No, from the side of smart money, it's an attempt to profit from subsidies.
On the contrary, it is a short-term strategy to kick the coal can down the road. The drawbacks will accrue in the long term on a global basis as CO2 levels rise.
Wind costs have leveled off since 2005 and solar is starting to have economies of scale but is still extremely expensive. Likely solar PV won't ever be competitive unsubsidised where there's a grid. Especially not in Germany.
No, it is not. Nothing points to that. On the contrary, PV is so expensive that it is almost unthinkable.
German FIT rules are a bit complicated, but the tariffs have already been slashed during 2010, and there seems to be some levels for 2011 buildout after which tariffs will be reduced further. Overall, it seems the German government is determined to stop bleeding this much money.
This should be close to the price of the last used fuel.
This is due to wind, not to solar. And I'd like to point out that the FIT is not the only cost associated with the renewables.
No, PV benefits producers, no-one else. Wind may benefit consumers, in the sense that it is better than nothing. (Germany doesn't allow new nuclear and has curbed coal somewhat, and so has strangled production.)
When that happens, it is not coal but PV and wind that will become (even more) unprofitable to operate, less FiT. You see, each new wind plant hurt the spot prices of all other wind generation, but hurt only a third of spot prices for other generation.
And who is going to pay for those external costs of intermittent sources? These costs will add to the costs of FIT.
That people are generally clueless is nothing new.
That is not a fact. On the contrary, it is very unlikely.
PV benefits producers, no-one else
On the contrary !
The world benefits from reduced CO2 and more importantly it has helped solar PV over part of the learning curve.
I have no doubt that you would have criticized the "Great California Wind Rush" of the 1970s & 80s for much the same reasons. Yet is quite clear today, that wind would be nowhere near where it is today were it not for the experience and production learning curve subsidized by California ratepayers. Wind might be still be a weird assortment of R&D projects.
Germany is replacing California in this case.
Higher electric rates promote conservation.
German national security is enhanced.
Contrary to what you wrote, in 2060 the solar PV installed today will still be generating significant energy. The subsidies fade away quickly, the power does not. I have no doubt that in 2060, the "old solar" will compete with old hydroelectric for being the cheapest source of power.
And more.
Alan
It does not. The world suffers from continued CO2 releases, the curbing of which have been slowed by the malinvestments and delusions of solar power.
I probably would.
It is not clear to me, actually. It is not clear that state-mandated industrial bubbles are needed to keep a technology on a learning curve. I generally don't buy that the government need to push R&D and investments at all. If government left markets alone except for internalizing external costs, industrial players would be big enough and motivated enough to take the R&D costs and do the necessary investments themselves.
Look at the nuclear scene, for instance. Government meddling, inertia and regulation probably severely hurts the pace with which new nuclear technology is deployed. (For instance, small reactors, MSRs and so on.)
Let's acknowledge that PV is marginal.
I didn't say anything about that. But as solar PV hardly generates significant energy today, I doubt the same installed base will in 2060. I would expect most of it to have been thrown away because of lack of motivation to repair and maintain it.
Nuclear energy received **massive** government subsidies in its first decades. I doubt the nuclear industry would have started at all without these subsidies since coal was and is a cheaper way to produce electricity. Google "Manhattan project" since you appear not to be aware of it already.
Let's put some figures here. A good starting point is http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/pdf/subsidies.pdf
The "massive" government subsidies are estimated for the period 1947-1999 at 115 billion 1999 dollars. I exclude the 30 billion Price-Anderson act "hidden subsidy" because, even if one considers that it is real, the absence of nuclear accident in the US means it generated an equivalent revenue for the federal government. The report seems to forget that the NRC recovers all its budget from fees charged to nuclear operators and I think it also overlooks the fact that most nuclear research at least until the end of the 60's was "dual use" : From a pure energy generation standpoint, the early power plants were not very efficient, neither safe. One of the main explanation is that they had to incorporate the constraints for production of military plutonium (ability to refuel the core easily to prevent excess irradiation which would make the plutonium unfit for military purpose). This is why these designs had to be ditched prematurely (unfortunately, the RBMK design was not ditched soon enough, the russians closed their last "dual use" plant in ... April 2010 ! http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/15/2874254.htm ).
Anyway, even if we stop at the 115 billion number, 59 billion euro for Germany is much more than 115 billion for the US, and there is not much power to show for it, nor very much hope to see significantly more in the next decade. The case of wind is better, though it benefited also from a lot a "free" R&D from aeronautic research.
But the most important point in my mind is that the 115 billion money was for R&D or military production, not for production price subsidies. R&D is investment, production price subsidies are a sunk cost ! Pretending that the fat returns earned by solar power plant investors leveraging high FIT are a contribution to R&D is a gross misrepresentation. The "trickle down" effect is small.
I have nothing against solar or wind or any other alternative solution receiving "massive" R&D subsidies, quite the contrary. I would be even happy to see monsters like ITER or CERN seriously downsized to make some budget room for these technologies. Had this happened, maybe we would have found already that the best technology for win, solar or even nuclear have nothing to do with the ones that are massively deployed nowadays.
A bit of apples and oranges. Nuke R&D vs. solar production subsidies. So your $115 to 59 billion euros comparison is faulty. Germany got installed capacity for their money, the US got a technology, but basically little built for theirs.
Add the tens of billions wasted on short life nukes and the many dozens of canceled nukes (Watts Bar 1 & 2 + Bellefonte 1 will one day be finished) to the nuke costs.
Nice hand wave of eliminating Price Anderson subsidy. If we eliminate Price Anderson, I PROMISE you no new US nukes ! It is a very real and very valuable subsidy.
Also, wind has received almost nothing of value from gov;'t R&D. Private R&D has driven the wind industry with gov't production subsidies.
Alan
Even if a reactor was charged 20 million $ per annum (according to REEP estimate), it would be still profitable, but the money would go the federal government as an income, so would count as a negative subsidy from the government in the absence of an accident that the NRC does a good job preventing.
Also, I think you underestimate the impact of public aeronautic R&D on the development of efficient wind installations.
From what I understand, all the aerodynamics they needed to know that was not industry specific was known by the 1930s. No transonic or supersonic issues with wind turbines (the focus of after WW II research) but deliberately designing stall into the airfoil as a control mechanism.
Research on stall (and prop design) was big in the 1930s. I would not call 1930s research a subsidy for modern industry. Rather that it is part of the common heritage of humanity, like Newton's Laws.
Alan
It's real, but don't overstate it. The government estimates the value at about a million dollars per year per reactor. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear.pdf
Meanwhile the government is charging an annual operating fee of $4.5 million per reactor.
I do not know who and where that "$1 million/year" came from, but it fails the smell test badly. Perhaps an industry promoter inside gov't ?
I do honestly and truly believe that Lloyds of London (or Munich or Zurich ReInsurance) would have a hearty laugh at such a price.
Ask them to write an unlimited liability, $350 million deductible (with a proven worth of at least $75 billion to back it up) and the figure would be closer to $100 million than $1 million/year.
Best Hopes for More & bigger nuke subsidies, so the USA will build at least five new nukes this decade.
Alan
That is about $100 million/year -- there are over 100 operating reactors in the US. And the deductible is $10 billion, for which the industry is required to buy private insurance.
Yes, my error.
$350 million to $10 billion deductible would drop the premium significantly. Although I still think $1 million for "excess coverage" is low.
Alan
How lame!!! So you are saying that the Manhattan Project was about generating electricity?
No, but the nuclear industry today would not exist without those government billions spent on the research.
I would expect most of it to have been thrown away because of lack of motivation to repair and maintain it.
A homeowner is going to throw away something that cuts his electrical bill by, say, 2/3rds ?
I could write a sarcastic comment, but I will refrain from doing so.
Once installed, the marginal cost is low (mainly replacing inverters). And more reliable inverters are a strong probability in the coming decades.
They also make roofs last longer.
I have followed the wind industry for decades and talked with older Danish engineers (trade shows, one privately on-line, etc.). There is no doubt that the California Wind Rush was pivotal in the development.
Likewise, tens of billions in gov't R&D and subsidies of one type and another were required for nukles to get where they are today. The private market would N_E_V_E_R have built the first nuclear reactors with their own capital.
Alan
For it to have that big an impact on his electrical bill after 50 years, it seems to have been quite overdimensioned in the first place, and relies on him being able to gain a lot from selling his electricity during summer and using that money to get electricity during winter time.
Also, your take is that PV modules will take 50 years like a charm and never need a major maintenance investment. I hope you are right, and I guess we won't know until 50 years from now. I plan to be alive then, so I'll wait and see.
So, you have good anecdotal evidence. That's nice.
You seem to lack the imagination to picture a world without government R&D and investment subsidies, but with internalized fossil costs. My take is that government R&D push out private R&D, and that goverment subsidies make private investments more cautious in all areas (currently) non-subsidised.
Jeppen "lets acknowledge that PV is marginal" is spreading yet another partial truth. PV is marginal in the same sense that cell phones were marginal in 1985, or that the personal computer was marginal in 1980, or that air-air heat pumps were marginal in 1990, or that the internet was marginal in 1990, or the electronic book reader was marginal in 2005....
As you may have guessed none of these technologies are marginal today, in fact some of them dominate. PV is heading down the same path. The only real question is how fast the PV manufacturers can keep up with growing demand. In case you did not get one of my other posts here, there is a credible claim that a First Solar thin-film PV installation in Nevada has a LCOE of 7.5 cents/kWh before subsidies. It was installed in 2008, and since then First Solar has lowered its cost of installations by about 30-40%! This trend will continue, and it will soon become clear that the modest historical investments in technology development in PV will pay back with unprecedented high rates of return.
I sincerely hope that you are right, but I don't believe it. My best guess at this time is that PV won't ever be competitive without subsidies.
"That people are generally clueless is nothing new."
Classic response to polling when you don't like the answers. You'd be thrilled that 'The People are on your side!' if they had polled for Nuclear, but somehow, they are strongly against it.
4800 People, but Jeppen is smarter!
Yes, I'm smarter and more educated than average, by quite a margin. Is me saying so a problem for you?
Is the German public really anti-nuke? In Sweden, the public is pro-nuke and have been for a long, long time, but our parliamentary system has allowed relatively small green parties to veto all progress in the area, and has kept the largest socialist party nuke-skeptic for it to keep voters.
I don't mind you saying so, and I'm sure you are very bright, but however it is that you gauge your own intelligence is not actually the point I'm making.. it's how you gauge the intelligence of the 4800 people who spoke on an issue that affects them. It's easy to target a 'big group' of people and equate them with 'The Masses', which you can then call Ignorant.. and yet by definition, only half of them will be 'below average'.
And of course, being bright doesn't make you right.
I thought it was ok to call the masses "clueless" in a forum devoted to peak-oil doomerism. But jokes aside, I think relevant education and intelligence matter - those with more typically make better decisions.
"Those with more.."
well, as my brother liked to say about the Pentium 5, "It makes faster and more accurate mistakes"
As far as Doomerism is concerned, that's clearly one side of the coin here, isn't it? There is also a populist ideal going on that has a great deal more skepticism about those with a lot of Power and Access (and how well it can corrupt, and has)
Intelligence DOES matter, and as Americas previous President will show, with his connected family, his wealth and his Harvard and Yale backgrounds, there's little guarantee of where you can pin down those with inaccurate credentials.
You can call the masses whatever you like.. it doesn't mean you're even close to the truth. And what about the decisions of Dr Fritz Haber? Very, Very bright guy, and his decisions gave us Nerve Gas, Zyclon B, High Explosives and then The Green Revolution.