 | Random Thoughts from ASPO-9 | The Oil Drum | Fleeing Vesuvius: The psychological roots of resource over-consumption |  |
Fukushima Fallout: A Nuclear Japan is Sooooo Last Century
Posted by JoulesBurn on May 10, 2011 - 1:10pm
The aftermath of the tsunami-induced accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant has mostly fallen off the radar screen of most of the world. There continues to be some curious developments at the scene of the accident, but even more curious developments in the Japanese government.
The prime minister said Japan's energy policy has relied on nuclear power and fossil fuels, but that he would shift focus to natural energy, such as solar and wind power and biomass fuels. He also pledged efforts to create a more energy-efficient society.
Back to nature.
Things at Fukushima are still somewhat unclean. At reactor No. 3, there is some speculation from Tepco that nuclear contamination sourced from the fuel rods in the reactor core was somehow deposited into the spend fuel pond. At reactor No. 1, air filtration has enabled workers to enter the building to begin repairs on the cooling systems, but excessive radiation levels are still not making things easy. Away from the reactors, the monitoring of radiation fallout continues. And Tepco has released a Roadmap to Recovery for bring things under control in 6-9 months.
The real fallout in Japan, however, is the waning support for nuclear power. Under pressure, the Chubu Electric Power Company has agreed to temporarily shut down the Hamaoka nuclear plant.
Chubu Electric Power Company has agreed to comply with a request from Japan's prime minister that it shuts down its Hamaoka nuclear power plant until its tsunami defences are strengthened. However, the company says that the plant is already adequately protected against tsunamis.
While this is not permanent, other policy changes will have longer impact. A plan to build 14 new reactors in Japan has been scrapped. To pick up the slack, the government is pushing renewables, including wind and solar.
The Environment Ministry estimates that the maximum amount of electricity possible from wind power generation in northeastern Japan would exceed the energy now being generated by domestic nuclear plants.
This will be an interesting experiment. While the governments of most other countries with strong prior nuclear support have expressed the desire to double up on safety yet persevere with current plans, Japan is taking a different road.
(Open Thread: Any Comments?)
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.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/09/angela-merkel-green-en...
I wish political incumbents in Germany (and in Japan, for that matter) would state which of coal, ng and nuclear is worst and first shut down that type. As it is now, politicians promise to fix everything, with the result that coal and ng, with their lower media attention, gets preferential treatment. I would like whatever strategy and prioritization they decide on to be clear and communicated to voters.
At Merkel's level, the vision of where the country is going is the appropriate level of information. For detailed transition plans, agencies responsible for energy planning would produce what you are looking for.
So, for instance, if Obama says the deficit must be eliminated by 2020, that's the appropriate level of information for him? And when medicaid is slashed over the next few years, agencies responsible for economic planning should defend and explain that "transition plan"? For some reason, I don't think that is good enough.
Apples and oranges comparison.
No. The analogy is apt, since it captures the essentials of the original scenario. If you think otherwise, please motivate why.
Sorry, deal with the subject at hand, or explain to the German people why Merkel should lay out a detailed energy transition implementation plan one month after establishing the vision. What you want does not necessarily translate into what the German leadership should take as an order. You can go directly to the voters, of course, your choice...
I'm simply suggesting that a prioritization should precede the vision. That nobody listens to the loons here on TOD, myself included, is a given.
I thought she did - she's downrated nuclear and coal, and uprated the rest:
"The chancellor now says she wants to slash the use of coal, speed up approvals for renewable energy investments, and reduce CO2 emissions drastically. That means that the 81 million Germans living between the North Sea and the Alps are supposed to cover their huge energy needs from wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass within a few decades."
I know you're an extreme optimist, and I can understand that you feel she need not choose between coal and nuclear, since you think both can be abolished so fast that it doesn't matter which they start with. I simply don't agree.
I know you're an extreme optimist
Nah. I just know what's technically possible. I'm not that optimistic about politics...
I can understand that you feel she need not choose between coal and nuclear
I never said that. The problem isn't that she didn't provide a plan it's that you don't agree with it. Actually, I don't see how she'll do it either...
No, the problem IS that she didn't provide a clear prioritization.
Tomayto, tomahto.
The problem is that she's pretending that both nuclear and coal can be reduced quickly, eliminating the need for prioritization.
Yes, that's what I said. They have been at it for 15 years and at a great expense managed to get from 6% to 16% renewable electricity. (France got to 75% nuclear in 19 years.) Germany might double up in renewables in 20 years, but then it will get very difficult indeed. And their CO2 footprint won't change much since they will use the renewables to replace nuclear, not coal.
Sadly, I agree.
Germany doesn't have very good wind or solar resources - not because of intermittency, but just because they don't have enough windy or sunny geography. That makes domestic wind and solar relatively expensive. That means that it won't get built as quickly as Merkel is pretending.
Germany really has to be willing to import energy from places that have better wind and sun (like Spain, Portugal, maybe Scotland, maybe even Morocco), if it wants to be cost effective and get rid of nuclear and coal. And, I don't see that happening...
Saddest of all is the fact that all of a sudden it's considered green to cultivate crops and forests as a source of energy.
I am late on this thread, but nevetheless a couple of remarks...
I am not completely sure about the plans, but I think the fallback solution will be gas which fits well with the intermittency of renewables. After all, it just comes from the pipeline...
Ex chancellor Schröder is on the board of the North Stream pipeline project through the Baltic see from Russia. Ex Foreign Minster Fischer is on the board of the Nabucco pipeline project which attempts to get gas from Turkmenistan etc. to Europe. And we already have a gas supply running from Siberia built before the fall of the wall. Supply from Russia is assumed to be quite stable as gas is one of the few products anyone buys from there.
Shale gas exploration just starts over here. If the data in the EIA report are final, Poland (more than happy for a chance to become independent of Russia) and France seem to have the big bounty here, but I suspect the German data are not final, and we might have quite a bit of the stuff, too. Another question is who wants the (perceived) mess over here.
An interesting project has been developed by Michael Sterner from Fraunhofer society, it has been included into a government study as well, and assumes that wind energy is transferred into gas via electrolysis and Sabatier reaction. We can already store LOTS of energy in form of gas. This might allow to increase the storage capacity by a factor of 500, as needed in order to smooth out the intermittency of renewables.
I would not exclude that sometime soon, Russia will offer cheap electric energy from nuclear...
-- exk
Germany doesn't have very good wind or solar resources - not because of intermittency, but just because they don't have enough windy or sunny geography.
Actually, according to this Fraunhofer study Germany can cover 65% of its electric demand with wind power on land alone (only 2% of the area):
http://www.wind-energie.de/fileadmin/dokumente/Themen_A-Z/Potenzial%20de...
Meanwhile wind power companies have developed turbines specifically for use in regions of low wind speeds:
http://www.repower.de/index.php?id=526&L=1
http://www.vestas.com/en/wind-power-plants/procurement/turbine-overview/...
http://www.enercon.de/en-en/65.htm
In addition, higher towers increase the energy yield significantly:
And based on the PV-installation data from 2010: Bavaria's roofs already provide 8% of the electric demand:
http://www.photon.de/photon/photon-aktion_install-leistung.htm
http://www.solarserver.de/solar-magazin/nachrichten/aktuelles/2011/kw12/...
Dear Anyone - There is a sea windmill park in the North Sea about 8 km off the Danish west coast. The price of the wind mill park was 2 billion DKK (approx 378479999 USD) for which amount you could buy 7 billion kwh at that time.
The park produces each year approx. 0.6 billion kwh. It takes 12 years before the park has repaid is energy production value. The life time of the park is 20 years! Then you have to take backup from coal fired plants into account. There are approx. 100 days with almost no or none wind what so ever. You also have to pay for operation,maintenance and at last decommissioning.
Windmills have en eroei of 1 maybe less - there is no point at all in building them.
Your can read about the way the windmill industry is lying, lying, lying here:
http://www.hornsrev.dk/index.en.html
I mentioned wind power on land and the capital costs of wind farms on land are at: $1.33 /W
http://bnef.com/PressReleases/view/139
(And frankly, you whine about a certain project without delivering any details and facts and your link doesn't say anything about lying.)
And the EROI of wind turbines was at 25.2 in 2006:
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_return_on_investment_%28EROI%29_fo...
And is probably higher now.
And windfarms don't require back-up, they save fuel and water on already existing power plants, which have been dealing with variable demand for decades. http://www.awea.org/blog/index.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1699=7942
Thanks to wind power, Spain has been able to save water for years:
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSL1...
PS: French taxpayers invested €9.1 billion (45 billion DKK) in a breeder reactor (Superphénix), which only produced 3.3 billion kWh and the decommissioning is not yet paid for and as opposed to Danish wind turbines this French breeder technology failed and has never been exported.
Again, very typically, you intentionally mislead. It's clear from the link that's just the cost of TURBINES.
But I do agree that land based wind has acceptable EROEI.
Again, very typically, you intentionally attack ad hominem.
Anyway, the DOE states $1.48 /W for wind farm project costs (2006) which is not far from the $1.33 stated above:
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/41435.pdf
Regarding ad hominem: I simply point out what should be obvious.
Regarding $1.48 - wasn't the dollar worth something back then? I dunno, I'll go with Nick's $2 for the time being.
Neils,
If they repay their energy value in 12 years and have an (expected) lifespan of 20, how do you call even that an EROEI of less than one?
As far as lifespan and materials involved, it seems reasonable to expect that a good portion of the foundation and tower at the very least could still be workable after 20 years (hey, if they can double a Reactor's License age, why not?), and so rebuilding or refurbishing becomes a MUCH cheaper proposition..
and Finally, on Payback.. Don't forget that the operating costs for wind can become a great asset if the costs of other generation were to skyrocket. But then, what are the chances of that?
378479999 USD) for which amount you could buy 7 billion kwh at that time.
Really? Power was only about $.05/kWh?
The park produces each year approx. 0.6 billion kwh. It takes 12 years before the park has repaid is energy production value.
It didn't take 7.2B in power to build the plant. $-ROI and E-ROI are completely different.
The Fraunhofer study is in German - my German is a bit rusty. Did you happen to find an English version?
The wind vendor info for low-speed turbines is interesting, but there are no cost analyses. What kind of cost per kWh do they achieve?
I can imagine that higher turbines will find better wind resources, but what's the cost/output tradeoff? Are heights rising generally, or just in low-speed applications?
No, unfortunately it appears only available in German.
Here's a summary in English:
http://bit.ly/mtU7TW
Why don't you try Google translate?
It can translate entire documents:
http://translate.google.com/#
Heights are rising in general (at least inland). Over 50% of the German wind turbines built in 2010 reached a height between 101m and 150m.
http://www.wind-energie.de/fileadmin/dokumente/statistiken/WE%20Deutschl...
They don't maximize turbine height, when they are restricted by law or closer to shore.
The wind mill industry often claims that a windmill can repay the energy invested about 30 to 80 times. They build their figures on the false assumption that EE-values represent all the energy spent to build a windmill. EE-values do no comprehend expenses for wages labour, machines, and buildings. Actually EE-values only represent a fraction off all the energy.
The sales price reflects precisely the total amount of energy invested. The price of the windmill park at that time was in fact 2 billion DKK, and at that time in 2002 the production price of a kwh was DKK 0,27. That means that you could get 3,7 kwh for each DKK. It is absolutely fair to say that the price of the park was 2 billion x 3,7 = 7,4 billion kwh hour.
The capacity of the park is 160 MW, but the actual effect is 40 % of capacity. The park produceres 0.6 billion kwh per year which means that it takes 7,4 billion khw : 0.6 = 12 years to repay the energy spent on producing it.
100 days a year the mills almost stand still as the wind is not blowing. In that case coal, straw, gasfired plants, and imported current must fill the gap. You have to service and maintain the wind mills in the sea which is quite expensive, it costs a little to operate them, it cost a lot of effort (money) to integrate the current from the wind mill in the ordinary net and finally you have to use a lot of energy to tear them down because their expected life time is 20 years.
Up till now there has been the general conception that wind mill were usefull but there is a raising opposition against and more and more people understand that they have been mislead and cheated by the the lies of the wind mill industri. Wind mills cannot be seen as en energy producing system - they are an energy spending system.
Finland is building a new nuclear plant at Olkiluoto. I will cost about 8,5 billion USD. The price of a "European" kwh is today approx 0.07 USD. You can get 120 billion kwh for 8.5 billion USD.
The plant has a life time of 60 years. The capacity of the plant is 1600 MWe. Total production at full load during 60 years: 1600 x 24 x 365 x 60 = 840 billion kwh divided with the cost price of the plant 120 billion USD (840 : 120) = the nucelar plant repays itself 7 times.
But of course, the plant does not work at full load, maybe it only works on an average at 70 % capacity = 7 x 0.7 = eroei 5.
It has to be maintained, and the fuel also costs a bit and finally you have to pay for the very expensive decommissioning. These costs could very well be equivalent to 20 % of the plant production. (Or 160 billion kwh x 0.07 USD = 11 billion USD)
Or an eroei of 5 x 0.8 = 4.
Better than a windmill which will never repay itself - eroei 0.9 - 1.0
If you more or less accept the principles of calculating the eroei of an nuclear plant this way, you also must admit that the same method can be used for wind mills.
You can get 120 billion kwh for 8.5 billion USD.
Actually this nuclear plant is being built since 2005 and has not yet produced a single kWh but many working hours had to be paid for.
The plant has a life time of 60 years.
Besides that you don't know whether this will actually hold true, there's no technical reason why a nuclear power plant should last longer than a wind turbine (which is not exposed to high temperatures, high pressures and high radiation).
840 billion kwh divided with the cost price of the plant 120 billion USD (840 : 120)
So the plant does not require any refueling, no uranium, no operators, no maintenance, no decommissioning, no repository...
Better than a windmill which will never repay itself - eroei 0.9 - 1.0
The EROI of wind turbines was at 25.2 in 2006:
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_return_on_investment_%28EROI%29_fo...
And is probably higher now.
Anyone
I had a similar discussion with a well known politician in Denmark. In order to prove the efficiency of windmills she referred to Energistyrelsen (Danish Official Energy Agency). When I asked Energistyrelsen about the origin of their figures they pointed to the .....windmill industry!
The windmill industry uses the so called EE values (Energy Embodied) to prove the efficiency of their windmills. These EE values only represent a fraction of the total energy imput. But they do so in order to make som persuading figures to deceive not to enlight. The above politician obviously had never heard about EE-values (and stopped corresponding with me). As I have already mentioned, very important energy input values like wages, machinery, and buildings are NOT included. One tonne of raw steel can eventually be transformed into a tractor. But you will admit that the total amount of energy lies in the finished tractor and not in the raw steel.
It is absolutely necessary that we find energy systems which can pay the invested energy back - windmills cannot. We have 5000 windmills on 40,000 km2 - why do you think that the private Danish cityzens pay the highest energy prices in the world if windmills in the real existing world can pay the energy input back som many times?
very important energy input values like wages, machinery, and buildings are NOT included.
Wages are not an energy input.
why do you think that the private Danish cityzens pay the highest energy prices
Have you looked at the taxes levied on power in Denmark?
Wages will sooner or later be converted into consumption, i.e. energy consumption. If you earn 50000 USD a year you may buy some new furniture (energy consumption), food (energy consumption) clothing (energy consumption) and so forth ...
Maybe you prefer to save some of your money and place the money in a bank, the bank will immedeately lend the money to persons who convert the money into consumption.
But if you burn or eat your money it will NOT be transformed into energy in one way or another. You cannot mention one single thing that do no has its origin in energy.
Taxes, VAT etc. will be converted into consumption (i.e. energy consumption) - the state takes care of that.
Wages will sooner or later be converted into consumption, i.e. energy consumption. If you earn 50000 USD a year you may buy some new furniture (energy consumption), food (energy consumption) clothing (energy consumption) and so forth ...
1) Many of those take very little energy.
2) None of those things are related strongly to productive work. If someone is working or not, they still eat, and wear clothes. We can't allocate those costs to productive work, like engineering design.
You cannot mention one single thing that do no has its origin in energy.
As a metaphysical exercise, perhaps. But, consuming most services (reading, looking at art, listening to a lecture, even using the internet despite it's use of power for processing and communications) generally takes very, very little energy, and even many goods require much less energy than others.
There really is a reason to use E-ROI instead of $-ROI.
The sales price reflects precisely the total amount of energy invested.
Not really. Compare an hour of engineering time at $50, and 20 kilos of aluminium at $50. The engineer maybe used .1 kWh for his/her computer (heat, light, food and embodied energy of most their education are part of society's overhead, though also not large). The aluminium required 273 kWhs.
Compare one tonne of raw steel and the finished 1 tonne "steel" tractor - to get from the raw material to the finished product is where most of the energy is used.
to get from the raw material to the finished product is where most of the energy is used.
Not really. What makes you think so?
What I really want to see is how Neils thinks that the MFR energy is excluded from their EE calcs.
I'd be pretty surprised to hear that they had skirted them. The TRACTOR analogy is getting a little silly. The LCA analyses I've seen for PV use a pretty industry standard system of evaluation.. so no, they don't include the Farmer making the sandwich for the Truck Driver who brings the panels to the House.. but they use a standard LCA set of assumptions.
The problem is that he's suggesting that $ Value Added is equal to energy input.
This is the AREVA presentation on
Impact of Fukushima event on nuclear power sector
It puts in perspective each countries nuclear industry policy. Doesn't look like there's alot of 'lessons learned' going around.
It is too early for lessons learned since it will take months to make the first analysis of what happened in Fukushima and what went wrong with the Japanese licensing and safety culture.
There are of course obvius things that are easy to spot like the lack of passive preassure release filters.
would be more intriguing if merkel had asked siemens and other German nuclear plant manufacturers to stop building and EXPORTING them.
other German nuclear plant manufacturers
What others are there?
In fact, ther are no more left. Germany stopped research in new reactors long ago (mainly due to the decisions of the Schröder governement) . In 2001, Siemens started a cooperation with Areva (France), they together developed the European Pressurized Reactor. Cost overruns at the Olkiluoto, Finland construction site and and allegedly marginal influence in the joint venture let to the decision to leave this cooperation in early 2009. A the same time they announced plans of a cooperation with Rosatom (Russia). In early 2011 they finally sold all their shares to Areva. They left all reactor people with Areva Erlangen, Germany. (see http://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article13130114/Siemens-steigt-aus-franzoe...).
German facility companies (e.g. RWE) still seem to invest though (e.g. in Cernavoda, Romania, but they seem to have left Belene,
Bulgaria which allegedly sits on a fault).
So there is no one left in Germany to build a reactor.
-- exk
Quite telling..
Maybe I'm not looking hard enough, but I'm still missing infographics about contamination levels of all the relevant isotopes in the wider environment as well as the immediate area of the Fukushima plants. If the situation there now is stable and relatively benign, the assessment of the damage sustained can and should be made, and preferably made publicly available?
it is NOT stable. there is just very little information being provided. secrecy is the norm for TEPCO and NISA.
Absolutely, the situation @ Fukushima Daiichi appears to be spiraling out of control.
- Indications from various measurements suggest post- tsunami criticality in all of the reactors:
a) Physicist Matsui @ Tokyo Institute of Physics calculates criticality from comparative isotope measurements.
b) Short lived fission products found in spent fuel pool.
c) Temperate rising in reactor unit 3 core since beginning of May.
d) Reactor unit 2 criticality determined by comparative isotope measurements.
- Criticality is also possible in reactor unit 4 spent fuel pool.
- Reactor unit 4 building is in danger of collapse for unknown reasons.
a) Reactor unit 4 contains large amounts of highly radioactive fuel in its spent fuel pool.
b) Temperature is rising in reactor unit 4 spent fuel pool.
- Most troubling is temperature rise in reactor unit 3:
a) TEPCO admits additional water injections unlikely to cool reactor unit 3
- Exponential rise in temperature due to criticality leads to prompt- criticality/steam explosion event as took place @ Chernobyl.
- TEPCO understates radiation levels at the plant.
- The entire complex is a mass of leaks. The leaks are intensely radioactive.
a) Cherenkov radiation has been observed @ the complex.
b) Neutron 'rays' have been detected @ the complex.
c) Plutonium, Strontium isotopes have been detected in the soil @ the complex.
d) Workers @ reactor unit 1 have discovered there is no water in the pressure vessel and little in the containment. The core has likely melted down completely.
The reactors are falling apart.
thanks for the links.
If there is a country that could make renewables work on a large scale, it would be Japan. Public support for this won't come again until it's way too late so if the government ever want to do renewables, this is their one chance.
Considering that the entire so called civilized world's ongoing experiment with fossil fuels and nuclear energy really hasn't been working out all that well...
Insisting on trying to sustain the unsustainable comes pretty darn close to the definition of insanity! Perhaps the Japanese are on the brink of deciding that there is little honor in being both suicidal and stealing from their children's future by clinging to the current paradigm. If nothing else they do have a reputation for producing some pretty impressive technology! I at least would be happy to buy their solar and wind products. Heck I even like their gardens...
Real change may as well start there.
Domo arigato!
I read a research blurb a month or two back. They were trying to design wind turbines that can work with nonhorizontal winds (uphill/downhill at an angle). Seems most of Japans wind sites are located in mountainous terrain, and conventional turbines don't do well in that environment. So the plan was to design their own turbines that could do well in those conditions. So the slow start of wind in Japan may have been due to technical rather than political reasons.
Cylindrical wind turbines like those designed by Aerotecture (www.aerotecture.com) would seem to work well in those kinds of locations. They have started to appear in urban situations in the UK on the roofs of modest-sized office and factory buildings. They utilize air-flow over the structure. Unlike propeller-type turbines, they apparently work well in cluttered environments.
Every home or garden should probably have one.
I've installed several of the Vertical Axis Wind Turbine's (VAWT) out there, and have been disappointed. There may be 10 mph average wind speed in Chicago, but most other areas will have not such a resource. To date, it appears that non laminar wind resources can not currently be harvested economically. Then there is the 20h rule for normal turbines, turbine should be 2000ft away from a 100 ft tree. The Aerotecture 720 Aeroturbine costs 25K USD and harvests 3000 kWh per year. Using 120kWh/month per Installed kW, 2 kW of Grid Tie PV will do that for well under 10k USD. Price of Install cost for Distributed PV keeps falling and is now looking favorably with any Centralize Generation even including the low capacity factor of PV. Standazardization for PV is happening. Permitting is still a major blunder in the US. http://www.solarabcs.org/about/publications/reports/expedited-permit Standards for small wind are still evolving.
Unfortunately I don't have the benefit of your technical expertise in this field. All I can say is that I have observed these types of cylindrical turbines spinning frantically in a light breeze on top of three story structures in the London suburbs. I'm not carrying a torch for these devices, but no doubt capital costs could be lowered if governments were to dole out support to the wind and solar industry as they do to nuclear power.
A recent article in The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/closure-of-japanese-plant-casts...) relates how more than $2 billion was tossed into the garbage to build a MOX fuel processing plant at Sellafield, that has not repaid the public even one cent on this investment.
I suspect the wind or solar industry might possibly have improved on this performance, without the calamitous poisoning of the environment that we are witnessing in Japan - not to mention the endless expense and danger of nuclear decommissioning, storage and clean-up that awaits our descendants.
"no doubt capital costs could be lowered if governments were to dole out support to the wind and solar industry as they do to nuclear power."
Are you kidding us? Throughout most of the world, nuclear is arbitrarily taxed and milked by governments, whereas enormous amounts of money is spent on subsidies to wind and solar. Hundreds of billions of dollars.
Something to back that assertion up with? Do you also want to separate out the funding for various levels of technology readiness?
It is getting kind of tiresome when you keep making assertions with nothing to back them up with. Some of us would like to see the numbers.
I was talking about the present, not history. I don't think I can create a global survey here, but I can offer you two data points:
Sweden: Nuclear "power rating" tax: 4 billion SEK/year. Mandated renewables subsidies, paid by rate payers 2010: 4.7 billion SEK/year. (There are also nuclear fees for beaurocracy, waste handling and decommissioning, insurance and so on.)
Germany. A nuclear fuel tax of 2.3 billion euro. The renewable FITs are projected to amount to 13 billion euro this year.
The nuclear power industry should pay for all of these things. You seem to be advocating massive subsidies for the nuclear power industry allowing them to dump their toxic waste into the government's lap (I think they succeeded) and making tax payers pay the bill. And yes, the nuclear power industry should pay for the bureaucracy needed to regulate them. Without mandated decommissioning funds, executives would plan for bankruptcy when it comes time to shut down a nuclear power plant externalizing the end costs upon others. I suspect your arguments are based on the ideology of unregulated free markets running amok. It is dangerous ideology.
They do pay into a waste fund. They do put up bonds for decommissioning. so the government can open yucca mountain. Oh wait a sec. the government reneged on that deal now the utilities are suing to get the money they have been paying in. Don't blame the utilities for the federal government games that go on.
Sure, as should all industries. However, we do have a problem in that the government can just pile costs onto utilities by adding regulation that makes political sense but has no basis in any relevant cost/benefit analysis.
Now you are just making things up. That is not a reasonable interpretation of what I have written.
I would like markets to be as unregulated as possible, yes. The "running amok" part is nonsense, though.
What is actually nonsensical is the fantasy that there is any such thing as a "market" absent regulation.
We can quibble about types of regulation and their extent, and the effects thereof, but the idea that "the market" is a real thing with independent existence is laughable.
whereas enormous amounts of money is spent on subsidies to wind and solar. Hundreds of billions of dollars.
Actually:
Nuclear is still receiving more subsidies in the US than all renewables combined even though nuclear has been receiving subsidies for decades and has not added any new capacity for decades:
http://www.awea.org/learnabout/publications/loader.cfm?csModule=security...
http://www.enerwebwatch.eu/WNISR/WorldNuclearIndustryStatusReport2011.pdf
Not to mention taxpayer backed loan guarantees for new nuclear power:
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15545418
www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aC7VY11v6aMw
www.weeklystandard.com/articles/nuclear-socialism_508830.html
http://www.enerwebwatch.eu/WNISR/WorldNuclearIndustryStatusReport2011.pdf
German taxpayers are paying for decommissioning of old nuclear power plants:
http://meta.tagesschau.de/id/38789/atomreaktor-rueckbau-kostet-bund-106-...
UK taxpayers are going to pay for decommissioning of nuclear power plants:
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/10/nuclear.nuclearpower?gusrc=rss&feed...
US taxpayers are partially paying for depositories:
www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2008/2008-08-05-091.asp
Austrian taxpayers without nuclear power pay almost double as much on Euratom than on the 1011 MW Austrian wind power plants:
www.igwindkraft.at/index.php?mdoc_id=1009697
The Swiss are forced to pay more for the PR of new nuclear power plants than for the FIT for PV. Even though Switzerland has a PV industry but no nuclear industry and no uranium:
www.sonntagszeitung.ch/wirtschaft/artikel-detailseite/?newsid=174501
International tax-payers pay for IAEA and Euratom.
And of course: Japanese tax payers pay for Fukushima.
If they are spinning frantically in a light breeze they are not likely "pushing" many watts to the Grid. There are a couple of great 200-2500 watt Horizontal turbines on the market that work well on a tower, While they look very KOOL, vertical axis turbine are not proven yet. Price of PV has come down to a point that unless you have a ridge or more than 10 mph average, One to 3 - 250 watt PV modules with micro Inverters can produce as much as a wind turbine, tower, etc costing 2-10 times as much. Wind just does no scale like Solar, Bigger is best for Grid Tie wind power. Many PV panels now have a 30 year power warranty. Install and Forget. Hard to forget a Wind turbine. I would rather be Installing new panels than servicing old wind turbines. Now if you are Off Grid, wind to complement PV can reduce battery consumption many fold. IIRC, Oil and Nuclear has so far received at least an order of magnitude greater US gov funding than renewables. Now with PV panels under $2 watt - what is needed is Feed In Tariff contracts that reflect the realities of the cost of NEW centralized generation along with "time of use" rates for generation and use. Distributed generation is under appreciated.
-from their website: "The 610V Aeroturbine has an estimated cost of $15,000... The 610V rated power @ 32 mph wind speed is 1000 Watts"
-These costs are about an order of magnitude too high IMO.
And the idea is to mount it to your buildings.
Buildings are ment to be a statics problem. Adding Aeroturbines make the buildings a dynamics problem, and is that a good idea?
Buildings are designed to sustain wind loadings (among others), which is a dynamics problem.
Wind loadings are a "dynamic"load, but they are also a "distributed" load. Put a turbine on a tower and then you create a "point" load, and, possibly worse, you also have a "vibration" load, which will become a serious factor for anything turbines over about 10kW.
There is a reason why turbines have large mass concrete foundations - you don't normally find that at the top of a building.
In any case, these small turbines produce little, and have low capacity factors - very variable winds in and around buildings.
Also, unless the building is using very little energy, (e.g a an energy efficient house) they can never hope to power it - so it is not really scalable solution.
All the little ones are no good. Wind does not work efficiently at the small scale. propellers only become cost-effective when the machine is very large and mounted quite high above the ground. Then wind power can be caught. In California wind makes tens of GWh almost everyday:
http://www.caiso.com/green/renewrpt/DailyRenewablesWatch.pdf
"So the slow start of wind in Japan may have been due to technical rather than political reasons."
One of the best wind resource areas in the US is in mountainous terrain, and it also happens to have a lot of Mitsubishi wind turbines installed. It's in Tehachapi, Ca.
I am happy to be buying their solar products: Kyocera PV panels are being installed on my rooftop Monday morning!
I put a thumbs up for action!
Set a direction and do something. I think I would feel the same if the Japanese were going to build modern reactors up a mountain, though this has scope to be much better
The latest news here (UK) is that there 'won't be enough electric car charging points'. No mention of what will power these when we are a gnats crotchet off brownouts in the winter already
I fear this will become the third disaster, a lack of electricity within 10-20 years.
Japan will get an even tougher competition with China for coal, oil and gas.
The largest hope I have for japanese renewables that might contribute a lot is sea current power.
It is allways possible to find savings but they are not as wastefull as USA.
Wonder if there are some power intensive industry that needs little manpower that can be moved to other countries, for instance Si refinement and wafer production?
Wonder if there are some power intensive industry that needs little manpower that can be moved to other countries, for instance Si refinement and wafer production?
I think the worry is that any industry, energy intensive or not, will be looking to go somewhere else. What are the chances of Toyota building another factory there? Who would be willing to bet on an island country that is betting on wind, when even the interconnected countries, like Denmark, haven't been able to get up to 50%?
It has been said before, and it is clearly now happening, that Japan will be the first example of "power down" on a national scale.
What are the chances of Toyota building another factory there? Who would be willing to bet on an island country that is betting on wind...
Maybe it's time to learn when to hold em and when to fold em. The dealing is done. Now it's time to count em and cut the losses. Time to stop betting on BAU. Time to stop betting on the Toyotas of the world, it's a losing bet, the deck is stacked and there are no more aces up our sleeves!
I think cut the losses is exactly what Japan will do. If they are going to power down, I hope they show us how it can/should be done. If BAU takes what's left of it's BAU elsewhere that is not all bad.
What's more likely is this:
If the countries betting big on renewables can't make them work reliably and at scale, they will just lose business to the countries that continue to use things like nuclear power. This in turn will skew the global balance of economy and power away from those societies that embrace "green" solutions and toward those that don't.
If, on the other hand, they are successful in their renewables push, then the opposite could occur. Countries that implement good renewable energy infrastructures could see themselves winning the battle for business.
In either case, we're going to have differential selection in the global economy for what works in which "works" is defined as "is able to scale to meet demand." It's really not any different from differential selection in nature.
Renewables work perfectly reliably already, it's the people that need to readjust their expectations and redefine what their needs are, meaning they need to scale down.
BTW, do me a personal favor, please don't use the term "green solutions", not even plants like green, which is why they reflect that useless and odious color and use mostly red and blue wavelengths for photosynthesis... Thanks!
I'm all for conservation. Americans, Canadians, Australians, and many other nations are profligate energy wasters and could certainly scale down dramatically. Americans use something like twice the energy of Japanese and certainly do not live twice as well.
But the Japanese are not profligate energy wasters. I guess we'll see how much more they can trim.
Of course, I suppose we could trim really far if we adopt the philosophy of self-righteous self-denial. After all, absolutely nothing other than eating and making babies (at replacement level) is necessary. Comfort, entertainment, art, travel, science, exploration... I guess all that could go.
I've been a vocal proponent of doing all of the above on much less energy than we use now. So no I don't think any of the above needs to go.
We are already doing plenty of both, I wish it weren't the case but wishing doesn't change reality. I expect it to get much worse before it gets better. For now I'm trying to get people to admit that they can and should reduce demand.
Japan's problem is that it has relatively little natural resources and it has to import raw materials, manufacture goods, and export value-added goods in order to import basic necessities like food and fossil fuel energy. To do efficient manufacturing required continuous, high-quality electrical power.
At present, Japan imports over 60% of calories consumed by its population.
Also, Japan without its economic power would no longer be a strategic partner in Aisa. It would just be another Philipines with a lot of mountains.
You are still missing my point about the necessary powering down of the entire global economy and the paradigm shift that it requires.
It is necessary to NOT power down. That's why the future of humanity likely will be powered by nuclear breeder reactors.
The most efficient use of power can indeed mean a reduction in power requirements. PowerDown merely means reducing wasteful demand (unless one is a cornucopian).
The most efficient use of power can indeed mean a reduction in power requirements. PowerDown merely means reducing wasteful demand (unless one is a cornucopian).
By the way, the UK has about the same living standard as the US and uses 54% less electric energy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electric_energy_consum...
If all 900kWh refrigerators are replaced by 150 kWh refrigerators not only lowers many electricity bills,
it saves about the electricity generation of ten new nuclear power plants in the US alone.
150 kWh refrigerator with 312 liter volume:
http://www.amazon.de/Siemens-KG36EAW40-K%C3%BChlgefrierkombination-safet...
Of course this is a fraction of the size of a typical US fridge. It's hard to get "efficiency" without revisiting functionality trade-offs as well.
Oh, how I miss my UK style fridge! I had to shop more often in Wales than in the US, but in the damp climate, it was necessary because food spoils faster. Shopping more often there meant a lovely walk through the woods and down into town and back up a monster hill, so no need for a gym membership or extra time spent working out. I liked the tall, slender shape of the fridge better too. My electric stove was a bit smaller, but had a lovely fan / roasting oven that was also a joy.
Kate
Eventually it will be fusion reactors. But for the next couple hundred years, breeder reactors fueled with uranium and thorium will provide a bridge.
If you develop the technology in time. The time to get it to work must be shorter than the time for the current system to fail.
+1
The technology for breeder reactors is in place. The current system cannot fail due to a shortage of electricity.
Electricity is but one of many, many factors required to be in place to sustain BAU or even BAU-lite. This include financial institutions, food production, transportation(!) of JIT products, water, waste, Government, other energy, public health, etc. Note that there are significant dependencies between these critical infrastructure sectors;
And as the economy grinds lower and lower due to high oil prices, maintenance of the grid and generating stations will become more and more intermittent. So it is certainly not a given that there will be no interruptions in electricity.
All I'm saying is that electricity availability won't be the primary source of any widespread societal collapse. There is simply too much coal, ng, uranium and so on for that to happen.
Just because there is coal in the ground does not automatically mean that electricity reaches all customers. There are a large number of intermediate points, all of which have their own critical dependencies in order to operate.
There are a large number of intermediate points, all of which have their own critical dependencies in order to operate
and have multiple bypass loop configurations that are too darned hard to put into a simple graphic.
Here is another simple graphic
Living wasn't all that bad at the median in 1955 USA--a bit below the 'Ozzie and Harriet' level but a bit above that of 'The Honeymooners' I'd guess. Look at the increase in real median income since. That entire increase can be sucked back into the effort (effort includes buying expensive oil) to get COAL while still allowing the US to maintain a living standard that would be considered modified first world level. Sure it could be an uneven effort--but the sheer mass of humanity and machinery we have to throw at doing that should scare the hell out of everybody. Good things can come from having the hell scared out of you.
Seems to me, ironically, that the 'current' system at Fukishima did indeed fail from a shortage of electricity.
Of course it can fail, all that is needed for guaranteed failure is a strong political will to hinder and postpone investments in fourth generation nuclear technology and powerplants while using the seed capital to party and buy votes.
As you know the Chernobyl accident made the wheel come of nuclear development for 20 years in Sweden. Assuming 4:th generation reacors are ready for the industry (wich I doubt but never mind) to replace 3:rd generation will require first the panic from Fukoshima to settle and then the implementation period. This is decades in the pipe. I'm not holdig my breath.
I agree that we, at least in the Western world, are set to lose at least another two decades to coal. We believe too little in global warming and too much in renewables. Reality needs to set these beliefs straight, and that takes a lot of time.
I agree that we, at least in the Western world, are set to lose at least another two decades to coal. We believe too little in global warming and too much in renewables.
Besides that China is the largest coal consumer in the world.
China also installed more wind power last year than Europe and North America combined and China installed 77.5% of all solar hot water systems worldwide:
http://bit.ly/jBviG5
http://www.ren21.net/Portals/97/documents/GSR/REN21_GSR_2010_full_revise...
China is big. So?
Only parts of the current system are needed in order to develop the new technology. If other parts fail, or decline to participate, that may be regrettable but inevitable.
Not according to this author.
Fuel is not the only limit to growth.
Why nuclear power will never supply the world's energy needs
And zirconium is used in some welding consumables. Have used some of that. It was in welding I first ever heard about. Never asked around what good it does in the weld.
Grain refinement, oxide inclusion control, and chemical resistance.
"Weldability of materials"
"Effects of grain refinement on aluminum weldability"
"The master alloy used for aluminum welding consumable additions involves the aluminum-titanium and aluminum-zirconium binary alloy systems. The master alloy contains between two and six weight percent of either titanium or zirconium"
http://books.google.com/books?id=8AJUAAAAMAAJ&q=zirconium+welding+consum...
"The Pyro-Metallurgical, Physical, and Mechanical Behavior of Weldments"
"The physical and chemical behavior of welding consumables were investigated in studies of the titanium and zirconium as grain refining nucleants in aluminum alloys, and studies of the influence of titanium, zirconium and boron additions on oxide inclusion formation and on the nucleation of acicular ferrite in microalloyed steel weld metal."
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifie...
Most of that is not needed in a molten salt reactor or a salt cooled solid fuel reactor. What he is talking about is a typical light water reactor.
Not to mention the useful fission products that can be sold.
If Fukashima had a Liquid fluoride salt reactor the iodine and cesium would not be leaving the fluoride salt. The decay heat would not need to be removed because you only add the fuel as you need it. You remove neutron poisons so there is greater burn up.
Solar and wind use more resources than nuclear power per MW.
That article sucked in that it started with a false premise and went from there. It assumed one type of nuclear power plant. It also had nothing to say about what I first mentioned: the amount of resources wind and solar require per MW.
Solar and wind use more resources than nuclear power per MW.
You're really talking about steel and concrete, right? There's a lot more that goes into building solar, wind or nuclear than steel and concrete.
>You're really talking about steel and concrete, right?
Wrong.
You can do better than that.
Do a cost comparison with the six reactors at Fukushima Diichi.
Assume Fukushima Diichi outputs 6 GW 75% of the time (nuclear reactors must be shut down for refueling and maintenance) for 40 years. The electrical energy generated is:
6 GW * 24 hr/day * 354.24 days/yr * 40 yr * .75 = 1,580 TW·hr
Assuming photovoltaic panels last 40 years cost $3 / rated watt, generate power 6 hours/day 75% of the time, what is the cost of the PV panels that generate 1.58 TW·hr over their lifetime?
1,580 TW·hr / 40 yr / 365.24 days/yr = 108 GW·hr / day
108 GW·hr/day / 6 hr/day / .75 = 24 GW rated PV power
24 GW * $3 / watt = $72 billion
If I recall correctly, the low estimate for just the cleanup in Japan from Fukushima Diichi is $100 billion. Of course money is not the same as resources, but the comparison is enough to cast doubt on your assertion.
Misleading to only compare with failed nukes. Try averaging failure costs over all nuclear generation.
>Solar and wind use more resources than nuclear power per MW.
Your opinion is just so much noise. The site can do without that.
Make a statement, back it with credible references. Or keep quiet.
That was not his opinion, but a statement of a well known fact. I think the burden of proof is on those who think more expensive sources of energy use less resources (why would they then be more expensive?).
Wind isn't more expensive, and if it were it would very likely be caused by labor costs, not steel and concrete costs.
If you make a levelized energy cost comparison with reasonable inputs, you'll notice wind is quite a bit more expensive - up to double the cost depending on discount. If you believe otherwise, please provide your inputs (discount rate, investment, build time, fuel+O&M costs/kWh, power rating of the station, capacity factor and life time) for nuclear and wind, respectively, to make wind's LEC lower.
My stats here:
The UAE nuclear deal is $20 billion for 4*1400 MW, 5 years build time, fuel + O&M = $0.023/kWh, 90% capacity, 60 year life.
Brahehus wind station in Sweden: $6 million for 2.3 MW, 1 years build time, fuel+O&M = $0,016/kWh, 28% capacity, 20 year life.
10% discount gives nuclear power at $0.09 and wind at $0.14. 5% discount gives nuclear at $0.05 and wind at $0.10. And don't forget wind power is intermittent and has significantly less value on the spot market if the penetration is close to or above double digits.
(Also, labor costs should be more dominant in nuclear due to the extreme safety concerns and beaurocracy involved.)
So, we have:
the UAE nuclear deal at
$4/average Watt, 10% interest, 60 year life, O&M/kWh=$.023 and
wind at
$9.3/average Watt, 10% interest, 20 year life, O&M/kWh=$.016.
Now, how do we account for the 5 years build time? And, do you happen to have a link for the UAE costs?
The UAE deal is easily googled, but here is one nice link.
I accounted for the 5 years build time (I thought the expected build time of 48 months a bit too optimistic, so I added a year) by uncharitably assuming that the whole investment was taken at year zero but no power was produced until year five. That is punished in the formula for LEC, due to the discount.
That is punished in the formula for LEC, due to the discount.
What formula do you use? I tend to calculate these things is a very simple way: I put the cost/kWH, interest rate and life into a PMT spreadsheet formula, then divide by 8,760 hours to get a cost per kWh. Then I add the O&M costs to get a total $/kWh.
Would we multiply the capital cost by 1.1 to the 4th to account for the four years of delay?
I use my own excel version of the formula given by wikipedia:
Perhaps one could make a google doc of this, or something.
The delay means the discount won't affect the investment term, but will divide the energy contribution terms with 1.1 to the 5th, in a sense.
Ah. I'd say my approach is equivalent, as long as the costs or outputs don't vary by year.
Ok......that interest rate is higher than I would expect. I would have gone for 5% for government sponsored projects, and about 7% for commercial. Does that make sense?
unless you pay cash for construction. In that case the interest rate is zero. Utilities do this by over charging a little and saving for expansion.
You still have to account for opportunity costs. IOW, you could have invested that money elsewhere, and if you get zero % return, then you've lost money.
I do not know of any real-world business that uses less than a 10% rate to find acceptable internal rate of return projects. This corresponds to a 10% discount rate using the present-value method. Real-world businesses also have rigid payback-period horizons, typically much less than twenty years.
Thus I do not think it is realistic to talk about low rates such as 5% and 7% return on investment. Even government regulated public utilities in the U.S. are typically allowed a fairly generous rate of return to stockholders, certainly above 7%.
I do not know of any real-world business that uses less than a 10% rate to find acceptable internal rate of return projects.
I agree. Heck, I see a lot of people still using a 5 year payback rule of thumb. But...that relates to rationing of scarce capital, and incorporates a lot of other considerations. Large organizations have a lot of overhead, and have to deal with risk - projects have to pay a lot better than commercial paper to be worth doing. There has to be a large gross profit from a project to generate adequate net profit for the organization.
The cost of capital, on the other hand, can be measure by borrowing costs: if government can borrow for 4%, then that's the cost of it's capital input on projects. The same for business: if it can borrow for 7%, then that is it's cost of capital.
"if it can borrow for 7%, then that is it's cost of capital."
Not quite. If a company borrows more money, its capital stock (shares, owner equity) becomes more risky and hence requires a higher rate of return to compensate for the added risk to the shareholders. Thus, if a company borrows money by issuing a twenty-year bond at par to yield 7% on the face value of its bonds, the true cost of that capital is substantially above 7%. To figure out exactly how much more than 7% you pretty much need an MBA in finance to get it right.
In my solar PV calculation, I reduce output by 1% per year.
Yes, the interest rates you suggest makes sense. However, low interest rates favor nuclear a bit due to its long life, so wind proponents often demand 10%. Sometimes they even demand different rates for nuclear and wind on the grounds of different risks.
. Sometimes they even demand different rates for nuclear and wind on the grounds of different risks.
I should think that the relevant question is: what do investors demand? Have we seen any data?
Perhaps on wind. Nuclear is a bit too big to be free, it seems. Also, one could argue that most of the risk is political. There simply is nothing close to a free market in these things.
ok, I think we've gone as far as we can with that. Let's look at the next important assumption: design life.
Is 60 years really the original design life? US reactors weren't designed for that, but then had their life extended. So, does this assume an extension, or is the rated design, with no significant additional mid-life investments, really 60 years?
If so, that's a substantial change, right? Is that standard in the industry?
Yes, it's the design life and yes, it is standard in the industry. See: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf08.html
Mid-life investment, I'm not sure.
Interesting. On the wind side, some wind turbine infrastructure components are much longer lived than 20 years, a few will require replacement at shorter intervals. It would be interesting to see good info on that. Anyone?
Ok, on to the next big thing: wind costs.
Why choose such a small wind farm? In the US, wind costs and outputs are pretty well documented. My understanding is that new wind farms are costing about $1.75/Wp and getting 35% capacity factors. Add about $.25/Wp for the transmission needed to transport the power to the grid and you get about $6 per average Watt. Of course, costs may be higher in Europe, but I wouldn't expect name plate costs to be much higher (assuming they're on land, and we convert costs using purchasing power parity, not market currrency conversion). European capacity factors are likely to be substantially lower, of course.
Does that make sense?
I simply took a recent Swedish project - I made the calculation for a Swedish discussion.
Yes, it makes sense. I'm surprised you would get that much better capacity factor, though. Do you have statistics to back that up? If I substitute my figures with yours in my spreadsheet, wind is as cheap as nuclear.
The intermittency problem remains, of course. But given such figures and the current state of the nuclear option, I hope the US goes all in with wind (with gas backup) and tries to retire as much coal as possible with that combo. (Preferably by enacting a carbon tax.) As it is, renewables will have to be tried first, and nuclear if/when that doesn't suffice.
I'm surprised you would get that much better capacity factor, though. Do you have statistics to back that up?
Figure 2-4 on page 27 shows 36%:
http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/pdfs/20_percent_wind_2.pdf
Wind tech keeps improving. Plus, the US is very lucky to have a lot of wide open windy places. The people who live there aren't so excited about all that wind, but they're very excited to finally be making money from it.
I hope the US goes all in with wind (with gas backup) and tries to retire as much coal as possible with that combo. (Preferably by enacting a carbon tax.)
I agree. I'm enormously pleased that we were able to have a good discussion, and come to a consensus!
Thanks for the link. I'm still a bit baffled at the 36%, but I'm accepting it for now.
The overall average for the US has been around 27-30% in the last few years. New projects do a bit better.
The US just has much more and better wind resources than Europe, in part because it's larger and so it's easier to find things in unpopulated areas.
My Sweden is quite sparsely populated, so I'm not sure I buy that explanation. But I guess parts of the US has flatter terrain and less forests than Sweden typically has.
I guess parts of the US has flatter terrain
Yes, the Great Plains are where the wind is.
Surely Europe has something similar?
I think the steppes of central Asia have good wind, but compared to the U.S., most of Europe is poor in wind resources unless you go offshore. And offshore is a lot more expensive than on land. Something else I've heard--do not know if true--is that wind turbine gearboxes fail after just a few years and have to be replaced at considerable expense. If this is true, I think it reflects poor design.
the steppes of central Asia have good wind
Combined with relatively poor economies. Export possibilities?
wind turbine gearboxes fail after just a few years
If you're going to have failures and maintenance problems, that's where it will happen. Problems vary (Vestas had major problems with one big batch - caused a major financial problem for them), but I think your source is exaggerating, overall.
Isn't it a little early to be talking about reliability or even costs? These machines are nearly prototypes, are they not? There hasn't been a million of any one of them built, has there? This is a bit like estimating the future cost of space flight based on the experience with the shuttle program. There are no hard-automation or even robotic factories turning these things out from raw materials, yet. I don't think many companies make them for model railroads... they are not common features of the current landscape.
http://forum.atlasrr.com/forum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=51075
http://forum.atlasrr.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=65703
good point.
A great deal of Sweden lies just to the leeward side of the mountain divide with Norway. Is the wind near that border fairly reliable?
My Sweden is quite sparsely populated, so I'm not sure I buy that explanation
By Western European standards Sweden has very low population density.
Montana and North Dakota, two states bordering Canada, together are about 123% the size of Sweden but have only about 17% as many people. Lots of wind in those two states which extend to the the west side of the continental divide and ramp down from it about 880 miles due east through the sweep of the great plains.
Those plains begin in Canada and continue all the way down through Texas just into Mexico.
The United States is almost as big a Canada but is more varied geographically. Quite a few good wind areas besides the great plains.
And since I live in Alaska I will mention that it is quite undersized in that inset above-it is a bit larger than Texas, California, Montana combined. Alaska has some incredibly windy areas-some probaly too windy but it also has fairly still areas that could swallow Sweden nearly whole.
Wind isn't more expensive, and if it were it would very likely be caused by labor costs, not steel and concrete costs.
Actually new nuclear is more expensive than wind:
New nuclear is meanwhile close $8 per Watt:
www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/665644
www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1869203,00.html
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89169837
www.ocala.com/article/20101026/ARTICLES/101029758?p=2&tc=pg
(Keep in mind: All the above articles which report actual data from the nuclear power industry are before Fukushima. )
While wind farms are at $1.4 Watt:
http://bnef.com/PressReleases/view/139
In addition, wind power doesn't require any high decommissioning costs, no uranium mining, no uranium imports, no costly repositories, is built quickly and has lower operating ccosts.
Furthermore, distributed wind farms are insensitive to war, earthquakes and tsunamis:
http://www.energydigital.com/sectors/renewables/wind-farms-vs-nuclear-en...
and do not require any cooling water at all:
And a wind turbine is not exposed to high pressures, high temperatures and high radiation. There's no technical reason why a nuclear power plant should be able to last longer than a wind turbine.
Keep als in mind:
Taxpayers are forced to pay for organizations such as Euratom and IAEA to promote nuclear power.
In fact Austria without nuclear power pays almost double as much on Euratom than on its own wind power:
www.igwindkraft.at/index.php?mdoc_id=1009697
Consumers are forced to pay for the capital costs of a new nuclear power plant in advance:
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89169837
www.weeklystandard.com/articles/nuclear-socialism_508830.html
Taxpayers are forced to give out loan guarantees for nuclear power:
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15545418
www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aC7VY11v6aMw
Taxpayers have paid the major share of energy research on nuclear power:
www.world-nuclear.org/sym/2001/fig-htm/frasf6-h.htm
Taxpayers pay over $100 billion for decommissioning of nuclear power plants:
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/10/nuclear.nuclearpower
Taxpayers pay billions on ultimate repositories:
www.postandcourier.com/news/2008/aug/27/nuclear_surge_needs_waste_plan52...
Federal laws dramatically limits the liability of the nuclear power operator:
www.progress.org/nuclear04.htm
The German wind industry not only generated over 90,000 sustainable, tax-paying jobs and Germany exports over 80% of its wind-turbines, German wind turbines (which has not been exported) actually do lower electricity prices in Germany:
www.repower.de/index.php?id=348&uid=1881&L=1
www.tagesspiegel.de/wirtschaft/art271,2147183
On the other hand the nuclear power industry is apparently not such a big export-hit and provokes losses even before Fukushima.
www.mineweb.co.za/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page72103?oid=107035&sn=Detail...
I wondered when you would appear. It's nice to see that you have updated your collection of misleading links.
Regarding the wonders of German wind turbines and their lowering of electricity costs: Please name a few other goods, beside electricity, in which consumers' mandated subsidies actually would generate a profit for those same consumers. It seems so wonderful - just forcing people to subsidise something and then let them reap the benefits - that we should try to replicate this in other markets. What about letting consumers subsidise sustainable poultry farming? How much money could they save due to lower poultry prices by doing that?
Besides that you fail to back up your claims with facts - as always.
Actually, as opposed to nuclear PV and wind have not received any taxpayer subsidies in Germany.
In fact: 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://bit.ly/1MuYwM
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...
Also, industrial electricity prices before tax (2007):
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-DK-07-001/EN/KS-DK-...
Denmark (20% wind power): 7.06 cents/kWh
Belgium (55% nuclear power): 9.69 cents/kWh
In addition Danish private wind manufacturer export over 90% of their wind-turbines with a profit as opposed to the mostly state owned French nuclear industry.
We didn't even saw numbers for nuclear power related taxes. One could ask the ratio for nuclear power too, otherwise we can't compare. We don't have a per kwh basis, neither.
Furthermore, we fail to see capacity factors for wind turbines. A cost per kw is useless without theses, since in can change the levelized cost per kilowatthour by a factor of 2 !
No numbers which we can compare relative exporting industry.
The last link about nuclear costs is the figure for the ontario Darlington nuclear power plant. What I dislike about cost per kw for nuclear capacity, is that the numbers are NOT consistent, sometimes they include interests, sometime not, other include maintenance and fuel1.
About 61 reactors in 16 countries are under construction, I did not checked them all, but I know S. Korea one are particulary2 inexpensive along with china ones. ($2 to $2.5 / watt)
______________________
1 http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2009/07/is-aecl-down-for-count.html
2 Korean Nuclear Industry and its Competitiveness Page 15-16-17 (2008 paper)
Bitly links don't really tell one much about where one is going. A proper hyperlink is more informative especially if it is descriptive.
For those of us who don't speak German(Google Translation was a help) or know Germany what is the first organization, is it a solar industries promotion organization? The second link, what is Taz?
TIA
NAOM
I just used bitly because it wouldn't recognize the link automatically and didn't have the patience to write it out 'manually'.
Solar and wind use more resources than nuclear power per MW.
Actually, an amorphous silicon PV-module has a silicon layer thickness of 200 to 300 nm:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110506165312.htm
That's about 0.6 gram silicon per m2 (for a 100 W thinfilm panel).
At 1500 sunhours and 30 years lifetime, that's 7500 kWh/gram silicon which is significantly more than one can get electric energy from one gram of uranium from a conventional reactor.
And It's different whether someone gets most of his/her household power from a roof or a nuclear power plant. Silicon is non-toxic and available in abundance and doesn't need to be transformed to produce electricity.
Carbon is at 0.03% and Uranium235 at 0.0000013%
By the way, thinfilm PV-modules can be obtained for less than $1 per Watt:
http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/285944071/solar_photovoltaic_panel.html
And PV on existing roofs (and there's no lack of roof area) reduces the load on the grid, do not create expensive decommissioning costs, do not require expensive ultimate repositories, do not require lengthy construction times and do not require cooling water.
I call this “WISHFULL DOOMERISM”, an attitude that pervades this site.
For example, the cost of zirconium, corrected for inflation, has dropped by a factor of 3 since the beginning of the nuclear age.
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/zirconium/730798.pdf
Hafnium by 3.5
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/zirconium/731798.pdf
Niobium by 30%
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/niobium/230798.pdf
Beryllium is used in very small amounts in neutron sources, not as a reflector in power reactors.
The correct statement is that if a nuclear reactor is built every day, thousands fewer windmills, solar panels, batteries, pumped storage facilities and long distance transmission lines need to be built every day, resulting in a massive reduction in mining and manufacturing requirements.
I do not think they will ever get fusion power to work. Think about this you have a magnetic mechanism trying to hold together something that is hotter then the sun. I think its a big waste of money.
Fusion power with magnetic containment already 'works' as in there being a sustained (albeit) short lived power producing reaction. ITER should produce net power output (which has not been the aim of research reactors tothis point). I agree that it's far from economic yet but fusion does have significant promise.
So how many megawatt-hours of electricity did this "working" reaction produce?
Saying fusion is "far from economic" is way beyond understatement. There are major unsolved problems. (Scroll down to "Dr. Briscoe summarised the challenges ahead with the following table:".)
And those are only the technical problems. The easy ones to solve.
Fusion is so far from economic that no-one alive today will pay for fusion-produced electricity on the utility bill. Not just my opinion: see this comment on that post.
Fusion's promise is a mirage. Let it go.
There are always at least 27 ways of doing something.
Inertial confinement is reaching fluxes of 300,000,000,000,000 neutrons per shot at the National Ignition Facility:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-laser-neutron-yield-energy.html
Psysorg is a fun site: -science news-
http://www.physorg.com
It is necessary to NOT power down.
Based on?
That's why the future of humanity likely will be powered by nuclear breeder reactors.
Based on?
Another commenter mentioned that the answer should depend on the definition of "power down". It does - we have been "powering down" for many decades, in that the energy required to produce a dollar of real GDP has declined by some 2% per year. However, we are going to have to sustain 9-10 billion people and we should do it at first-world lifestyles, in democratic societies with computers, TV-sets, smart-phones and so on for all. This means more energy consumption, not less.
The only alternative to this, I believe, involves death to most, more environmental harm, and a roll-back of not only material wealth but the basic freedoms of modern, democratic society. For me, that's not appreciably better than total extinction. For me, I rather shoot for BAU, no matter how unlikely it is to be sustainable.
Breeder reactors, why? Well, they represent the only option that fulfills all of the desired properties of electricity production: sustainable, unlimited scalability, low cost, low space footprint, low environmental impact, baseload or even load following production and virtually no carbon emissions. Renewables and fossils all fail one or more of these criteria.
The only alternative to this, I believe, involves death to most, more environmental harm, and a roll-back of not only material wealth but the basic freedoms of modern, democratic society. For me, that's not appreciably better than total extinction.
Say - how's the jousting with the US of A's Military Industrial Congressional Complex coming Mr. Quixote?
Breeder reactors, why? Well, they represent the only option that fulfills all of the desired properties of electricity production: sustainable, unlimited scalability, low cost, low space footprint, low environmental impact, baseload or even load following production and virtually no carbon emissions.
"unlimited scalability" - not true. Limited just like photons -> capture energy processes are by trace atomic matter.
"virtually no carbon emissions" - once you get to an operation status, fine. Except for the whole operating part. Breeders are experimental - you can't point to a group of 'em working, just like one can't point to a group of Thorium reactors or traveling wave reactors or polywell reactors or that Rossi thing.
"low cost, low space footprint, low environmental impact, baseload or even load following production" - really? What's the cost of failure of the fission plant? When it fails is it still all of the above? Union Carbine's Bhopol plant failure hasn't made a 10's of kilometers radius a "no go" zone, nor has it required the world's largest steel structure needing to be built to contain the damage. Your "low" claims smack of the claims of the 1950's of "safe, clean, to cheap to meter" - how well did those claims work out?
I've *YET* to see the pro-nuke posters come up with an answer to the failure problems, nor address the issue of Corporations doing things like placing known flawed equipment into service to avoid a financial loss. But perhaps you'll be the 1st.
Meanwhile
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/09/ipcc-renewable-energy-...
As an appeal to authority argument - the readers can go with your position, relying on a technology that has never been used commercially and commercial use of similar technology has shown unacceptable failure modes OR one can decide the IPCC study based on commercially successful technologies with failure modes which are low impact.
Hrmmmm.....
Sorry, I don't get that comment.
I don't really get this either. What I was talking about was fuel availability.
Depends on your definition. We know they work, we have tried them and they have a fair amount of operating years behind them. However, traditional nukes have a head start and as fuel availability is no issue even for them, breeders are not necessary in the short- to medium term.
Yes, really.
Not the particular failing reactor, but the technology as a whole, yes, I think so.
Perhaps the victims would have preferred having to move to being killed? A pity we can't ask them. We can ask the hundreds of thousands Bhopal victims with permanent injuries, though.
Too cheap to meter needs a friendly regulatory framework and the corresponding full-scale build-out. Assuming low penetration, no tech alone can make electricity cheap. Clean and safe it is. With the lessons from Fukushima applied, even safer.
I simply don't think nuclear failure is unthinkable, just as I don't see plane crashes as proof that we should not fly. I am also of the "markets are flawed - use markets" crowd. There are no better alternatives.
They are not/should not be unacceptable.
The public opinion is with you, and let me be the first to congratulate you on that win. However, renewables won't cut it. Intermittence and cost are too big barriers to high renewable penetrations. That's why coal is still expanding, and will keep expanding for decades to come with large sacrifices on the renewables' altar as alibis. If you ever start doubting the renewables' narrative, and if you ever wonder why wind and solar doesn't seem to have been able to rid any country of fossil electricity, please remember France. In 19 years, from 1973 to 1992, they went from almost nil nuclear to 75%.
If you are so fond of markets, let the nuclear power plants purchase their insurance on the free market.
They can't, can they? Too much risk. Insurance companies understand risk.
actually I think they could buy insurance now. However,The government likes the control price/Andersen gives them over the nuke plants.
AFAIK, industries aren't typically required to fully insure against extreme scale accidents. To require this of nuclear constitutes a double standard. What if CJD (the mad cow stuff) had been a bit more aggressive and made mush out of 50 million brains? Had the meat industry covered this? What about GOM insurance - was there enough insurance to ensure BP (or the subcontractor, for that matter) wouldn't ever have to go bankrupt and leave the costs with taxpayers? Do you know some LNG ships are almost like small nukes in destructive power? Are they insured for the worst case accidents in harbour? Are all hydro installations fully insured against consequences of dam failure? Is every plane insured to cover the fallout of every imaginable terrorist attack? (Was 9/11 fully covered? Did the payout include the Afghanistan war?)
industries aren't typically required to fully insure against extreme scale accidents.
Industrial/commercial insurance isn't required by government, it's required by other private sector partners: investors, shareholders who don't like the idea of bankruptyc, etc.
No commercial nuclear plants would have been built in the US without P/A.
Why not? Other industries goes bankrupt once in a while due to insufficient or nonapplicable insurance, and that doesn't seem to deter investors.
You're suggesting that P/A wasn't needed?
Do you happen to have any links to any serious discussions by serious analysts who express that point of view?
Yes. No.
Alas, the dominant electricity fuel, i.e. coal, has been allowed to externalize enormous costs. Had it not, nuclear would have had a field day. The reward would be more than adequate in relation to the risk of bankruptcy.
Alas, the dominant electricity fuel, i.e. coal, has been allowed to externalize enormous costs. Had it not, nuclear would have had a field day. The reward would be more than adequate in relation to the risk of bankruptcy.
Chernobyl and now Fukushima sure look to me like there is externalizing of operational costs going on.
Yes, but relatively little.
You are correct. The negative externalities of coal-generated electricity are far far greater than the negative externalities of nuclear-generated electricity.
Coal is the greater evil. We should choose the lesser of two evils, and that is nuclear, hands down.
You are correct. The negative externalities of coal-generated electricity are far far greater than the negative externalities of nuclear-generated electricity.
Coal is the greater evil.
I believe you advocated that one should "show the math" to be a credible economist.
So show the math.
How do you compute the costs of anthropogenic climate change caused by burning coal. I don't know how to do that--and neither does anybody else. What are the costs of frying the planet? Beyond all reason. That is why I oppose burning coal: It is the far, far greater evil, compared to nuclear.
With nuclear we get accidents every twenty years. With coal we get guaranteed global catastrophe. Not much calculation needed beyond that observation.
I believe that the British Stern report tackled this question.
That caused a large debate about the proper discount rate.
Correction: "Big, attention-getting accidents every twenty years..." ...which kill somewhere between one (or 48) and one million people each.
Hard to calculate, impossible to prove, stochastic effects being... stochastic.
And then there's all that pesky spent fuel.
What you fail to recognize is that, if that is true (it almost certainly is) the global catastrophe is largely already baked into the cake. Stop burning the coal (and oil) tomorrow, and the AGW will progress apace for decades, nevertheless.
So, you are promoting a false binary choice. Neither is acceptable, and others are available (although continuing cheap, abundant energy is not).
I think the system is in positive feedback already; The tundra is warmed, the warmed tundra releases CO2, the CO2 warms the tundra...
Shishi odoshi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhDrwvoKVFA&feature=related
That period could decrease as the operation of more and more nuclear plants are extended beyond their design lifetimes, regulators are captured by industry and economic growth falters from peak oil or climate change. The magnitude of a major nuclear accident is rather severe: Russia contaminated many people, halted the construction of new nuclear power plants and Ukraine is left with a financial burden it can not handle. It is unclear whether Japan will be able to recover from the combined problems of a sluggish economy, earthquake, tsunami, nuclear disaster and high price/scarcity of crude oil. Radioactive fallout is cumulative.
Coal does not result in guaranteed global catastrophe because it is technically possible to remove anthropic carbon from the atmosphere and sequester it. One way to compute the cost of anthropic climate change is the cost of sequestering the fossil carbon to restore the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to about 300 ppm and keep it there.
Both nuclear and coal are bad. Get rid of both of them.
With nuclear we get accidents every twenty years. With coal we get guaranteed global catastrophe.
Chernobyl was able to effect German wild pigs 20+ years later and they are separated by an entire country and would be considered upwind by most.
If coal is such an issue in your mind, what have you personally done to sequester Carbon from the air?
Todd is making teraperta via his brush burning and burying the Charcoal. So are a couple of other posters.
I'm taking a 6 inch pipe and mounting it in 2 head/bottomless old propane tanks in an anila configuration (to go with my tluds) http://www.biochar-international.org/technology/stoves The char goes into a CS Bell #60 mill.
Have you put solar PV and hot water on your home to take your coal consumption out of the picture?
Incredible! Do you really see no difference in someone taking a calculated risk (albeit a very low risk) when getting on an airplane as compared to the consequences of nuclear failure (however low that might be as well)?
This is the apple. If I decide to fly and my plane crashes I and my fellow passengers will probably die, perhaps our families and friends will be impacted, Insurance companies may have to foot the bill for the loss, etc. but there are no widespread long term consequences.
This is not an orange. If there is a nuclear failure such as what is happening at Fuk-D the long term environmental consequences can't even be measured yet. However even despite the deliberate obfuscation and withholding of critical information from the general public we already have pretty good evidence that no one is going to be able to return to living anywhere near those plants for a very very long time to come. How many people do you think will be impacted and for how many future generations? What is the value of the environment? Perhaps you are one of those who think radioactive run off into the ocean is Ok because because the ocean is so huge?
I'm sorry Jeppen, I don't think nuclear failure is inevitable but I do think the consequences are totally unacceptable! If there are truly no better alternatives, then its time to close up shop...
In a word: No. Actually, in a cost-benefit perspective, the nuclear risk is likely smaller.
Eventually, they will be.
I read something about 80,000 people and a 20 kilometer radius (half circle due to coastline). This should shrink some before the decay (and sedimentation) of Cesium-137 starts dominating improvements. That will play out for about 6-8 generations before the Cesium can be regarded as gone. To me, that's not very much in the grand scheme of things.
Let's say a million per inhabitant? $80 billion, then.
I guess so. And because fisheries would thrive with a little radiation that protects them from humans.
I disagree. I think nuclear failure is inevitable. We need to accept that and take calculated risks. To me, consequences of AGW are potentially unacceptable. Nuclear accidents doesn't even come close.
Six to eight generation eh? I'm sure our great, great, great, great, great, great grandchildren will appreciate fully just how important it was that we split that atom so we could watch American Idle.
Seemingly, Chancellor Merkel's dramatic about face on German nuclear policy, was brought about by a new recognition that the risks cannot be calculated, or as she phrased it: “Fukushima has forever changed the way we define risk in Germany.”
Here's a great article about it at: http://e360.yale.edu/feature/germanys_unlikely_champion_of_a_radical_gre...
It's really just a black swan crapshoot. Fukishima happens to be the crises de jour, but what if it were Indian Point instead? 17 million people live within a 50 mile radius of that plant. How could you even begin to account for the costs of an abandoned Tokyo or NYC?
I know. I know. If we burn the coal those coastal towns will be underwater for a thousand years.
Well, call me cynical, but I find the probability to be quite low that we will leave a single ton of accessible coal in the ground regardless of how many new nukes we wager to build.
And when the seas do rise, and our nation states collapse, who will tend the nuclear fires then? Who will do under hardship and duress what we have failed to do thus far while we are rich, and stable, and powerful? What corporate entity will re-mediate the mines, safely retire and decommission the plants, and safely transport and sequester the toxic wastes, when no profit lies in the margin?
Merkel's about-face seems like more of the usual political stuff you get anywhere. When it comes time actually to turn out the lights, there'll be an about-about-face by whoever has replaced her. Of course, this ever-vacillating approach is why we've got so many plants all over the world that seem to be well past their prime. Building new ones instead of extending obsolete ones would require a degree of commitment, and commitment seems to be ruled out except, just possibly, in France. Maybe there's a little something positive to say for dirigisme after all.
I thought most on this site recognise that energy is important. It seems you are of another opinion?
Was it? That's quite a stupid "recognition".
Quite easily. I'm good at math.
I'd rather bet that you're wrong, as if you are right, we're dead anyway. Also, France's nuclear power constitutes a win over fossil electricity. Wind and solar has not managed to get such a win in any country. Not even close, actually.
I don't care what happens if we're doomed anyway. Either we make it, or we don't. Nuclear power increase the chances that we will make it.
Yes, I think it's important, but I don't subscribe to the notion that an industrial human life is the only human life worth living, and I don't believe that our present form of industrial/technical civilization is the only possible way of doing it.
Great. Then let's see your calc's and conclusions, but in so doing you must assume that all life, human and otherwise, its purpose, its meaning, its experiential value can be monetized, and quantified.
And I would rather bet that you are wrong, and that it is possible for us to have a high standard of life, and a high quality of life, using renewable sources of energy alone, without the use of either coal or nuclear. Would this look like what we now have? No. Why would we want it to?
You don't define what it means to 'make it', but for the kind of sustainable human civilization that I would like to see arise, I believe that it decreases the chances.
Hypothetically, if we had three identical continents, with identical resources, we could run an experiment. One continent could pursue b.a.u., one could make a radical commitment to the pursuit of nuclear power, and the third could pursue a radical commitment to using only renewable energy sources.
Only one of these three imaginary continents, pursuing their agenda, could make any kind of claim that they could possibly contain their experiment to their own borders. The emissions of the first would of course continue to pollute globally, and the inevitable reactor meltdowns would of course scatter radioactive isotopes, globally as well. So, let's adopt imaginary planets then. Three identical Earths at this point in history, with the current conditions. Each pursues one of the above strategies. The question then, is which planet would you choose to join? Planet Burn, Planet Nuke, or Planet Harvest? Twenty years in the future? Fifty years in the future? Two hundred years in the future?
I'd choose the third of course, and I assume, Jeppen, that you'd leap for P.N. It's a philosophical difference as much as anything.
But we don't have three planets. We have just this one. Consequently those of us who would prefer to accommodate nature, live within a budget, and harvest in perpetuaty, must, not by choice, breath the smoke and ingest the spewed isotopes of those who prefer to burn. Even if they are on a different continent.
And so must our children, and our children's children. For want of an electron that long ago did its useful work, and as the photons stream by, freely.
Above is the human development index trends for different regions. This is enabled by abundant energy, of which 90% is fossil or nuclear. The lines in the graph represent enormous human progress, even though much of is not even captured. We need that progress to continue. We are in a critical time in human history, a period, the first and probably only period, in which we are all linked to a common fate in a common global civilization. We need to keep combating poverty and liberating women. We need to keep having fertility rates drop and improving education. All countries need to become democratic, stop fighting wars and stop resorting to terrorism. We need to keep improving environmental regulation and stop global warming.
With "a critical time", I mean that it is not only that we live better and longer lives when we progress in the areas stated above. The global civilization's stability is at risk if we don't progress in a timely manner. And a collapse would mean the overwhelming majority of humans would die during a period of untold suffering.
Are you telling me that nuclear power is a threat grave enough that it takes precedence over all this? Or do you just think that we could make a switch to renewables without losing pace?
Or are you, as many here seem, indifferent to the human mass death and suffering during a transition to your "harvesting" society, as that society, in your mind, fits some romantic notions of how humanity should live, with simple lifes in harmony with each others and nature?
The scattering of radioactive isotopes to other continents would be detectable, but not significant. In your harvesting society, they would likely not be noticed at all. I worry about some of you guys' environmental purism. Again, is real, tangible human progress really secondary to avoiding pollution that is so diluted that it does no harm?
I would, and yes, I agree. I'm taking a utilitarian stance and you seem to be guided by a set of hard-line green principles.
This ending of yours is excellent, rhetorically. But I would, less eloquently argue, again, that the work that is useful today also benefits our descendants. Their education builds on our education. Their economy builds on ours. Their well-being builds on ours.
Either we make it, or we don't. Nuclear power increase the chances that we will make it.
Actually, current commercially available nuclear reactor decrease these chances.
If you are honestly concerned about CO2 emissions 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 over 50% arrived to a similar conclusion:
http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/ccsi/pdf/us_ghg_final_report.pdf
Cost and speed is the same thing. Your cherry-picking of misleading stats is a bit frustrating, so I'll leave it at that. For nuclear vs wind cost estimates, see my discussion on LEC in another part of this thread.
the nuclear risk is likely smaller.
Huh. An interesting claim. How many km of land are uninhabitable via airplane failure?
Right now 800 km of Japan is due to the failure of fission nuclear power and will be for many years.
I read something about 80,000 people and a 20 kilometer radius
This is problem with the pro nuke people. 1/2 truths.
Because the exclusion zone is 50 km. But note the wiggle words on the truth - "I read something" With such a low standard I've read that witchcraft can cure the sick, therefore witchcraft must cure the sick.
I would hope the debate would have higher standards than discussing witchcraft.
I don't know if it constitutes high debating standards to talk of other's arguments as witchcraft.
I was talking about risks to human lifes, but it seems your priority is land.
Is it? My google karma fails me in that case. I still get 20 kilometer. Link?
I was talking about risks to human lifes, but it seems your priority is land.
Funny that. The reason the land is no-go for humans is the threat to life.
But elsewhere you've claimed:
Radiological impact is rare, very localised and even there not very significant for eco-system wealth and stability. so you don't see it that way.
I'm guessing you'd be able to get some really swank places in the exclusion zone cheap.
It isn't a threat to life, since it's no-go. No link on 50 km exclusion?
No link on 50 km exclusion?
To what end? Would it change your mind?
Will you admit "hey I was wrong" by posting it?
Nick proved me wrong on the economics of wind. My beliefs and conclusions are data driven.
The voluntary exclusion zone around Fukushima Daiichi was initially 10 km.
About an hour later it was expanded to 20 km. Evacuation area expanded to 20km radius, NHK World News, March 12, 2011.
U.S., U.K., and Australia recommend a 50 mile (80 kilometer) exclusion zone around Fukushima Daiichi, U.K. URGES CITIZENS TO CONSIDER LEAVING TOKYO AS FOREIGN PESSIMISM CLIMBS, by Terje Langeland, March 16, 2011:
By March 25, Japan widened the recommendation to leave to 30 km. Earlier Japan recommended people between a 20 and 30 km radius stay indoors. Exclusion zone around stricken Japanese nuclear plant widened over fears reactor core may be cracked March 25, 2011.
Japan makes the 20 km exclusion zone mandatory, Japan legally enforces Fukushima exclusion zone, April 20, 2011.
Japan advises some areas within a radius of 20 to 30 km to evacuate within the next month, Japan Expands Evacuation Zone Around Nuclear Plant, April 22, 2011.
Japan expands the exclusion zone slightly beyond 30 km. by evacuating several towns, Japan Expands Nuclear Plant Exclusion Zone, Global Security Newswire, Monday, May 16, 2011:
Japan is expanding the exclusion zone little by little probably because the authorities can not handle a full scale evacuation within an 80 km. radius. They are preparing for the wind to shift westward in the summer. Logistics trumps health in Japan.
Regarding land, one could ask about oil and coal ash spills. They are technically cleanable, but I doubt they are always cleaned. Beside we have lots of them and only 2 nuclear accident.
I would like to get the numbers.
Land destroyed by : coal ash spills, mountaintop removal, uranium mining, oil spills, nuclear accidents, relative to power generated.
Everything takes more space than we realize:
The US has 70,000 coal mines, mostly abandoned. 500,000 oil wells, plus millions of dry or capped holes.
Nuclear power plants can take up many square km:
Clinton power plant - "a a 14,300 acres (57.9 km2) site with an adjacent 5,000 acres (20.2 km2) cooling reservoir, Clinton Lake."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Nuclear_Generating_Station
Sorry, I don't get that comment.
Then I'm not sure explaining to you that the US Military has impacted each of your concerns in the manner you have stated will be understandable to you then.
(and I'm not sure how one can wage war that does not spread toxins across the land, but a start sure sounds like not using the heavy metal Uranium which results in the material being broken down into an aerosol)
"low cost, low space footprint, low environmental impact, baseload or even load following production" - really?
Yes, really.
Saying yes really isn't proof. Provide proof.
And proof that can overcome the history of cost overruns and the demonstrated environmental impact which has taken over 800 km of Japan.
Too cheap to meter needs a friendly regulatory framework
Like in America where the regulators allowed sleeping security guards and the issue was only addressed once videos were placed on youtube?
They are not/should not be unacceptable.
they are (negative) (negative)
A double negative - so you are claiming incidents like Fukashima are to be considered ACCEPTABLE.
However, renewables won't cut it.
And yet, the IPCC says yes.
So whom should readers believe? A position that Fukishima is acceptable from someone who is otherwise unknown OR a known group of scientists?
No, sorry.
Footprint: According to my calculations, a forest contains somewhere around 0.05 TWht per km^2. A single nuke produce somewhere around 25 TWht/year, or 25/0.05 = 500 km^2 worth of forest.
Costs: please see my discussion regarding wind/nuclear and the UAE deal in this thread.
Low environmental impact: The energy density and low footprint also means little environmental impact. Radiological impact is rare, very localised and even there not very significant for eco-system wealth and stability.
Baseload: Hope I don't have to prove this.
I think this is a detail that should not be on regulators table at all.
In a sense, yes. It's a tradeoff, and in tradeoffs, we accept the negative with the positive.
The IPCC report (actually, just a press-release so far) would be the rational choice. But it would be wrong.
Too cheap to meter needs a friendly regulatory framework and the corresponding full-scale build-out.
China has by far the most aggressive nuclear subsidy program in the world and in 2009 and 2010 combined China added:
33 GW of wind power and 1.6 GW of nuclear power:
http://bit.ly/jBviG5
http://www.ren21.net/REN21Activities/Publications/GlobalStatusReport/GSR...
And probably about 70 GW of new solar hot water capacity in the same time period.
http://amazingdata.com/chinas-solar-hot-water-capacity-will-soon-be-equi...
It is cheaper to heat water on the roof directly than the use nuclear power to do the same as France does.
Nowadays roofs protect from wind and rain and more and more they also provide some of the energy and reduce the load on the grid.
Solar hot water is a good thing in many areas.
Regarding China, they had 5 GWe nuclear under construction in 2008, 11 GWe in 2009, 22 GWe in 2010 and 30 GWe in 2011. That's extreme ramping, but it hasn't started to become visible in completion rates until just about now.
Actually, significant completion rates haven't really been visible so far.
And relevant is not the total number under construction but the actual completion rate.
Besides according to IAEA China initiated 10.92 GW nuclear power projects last year, but this year none so far.
Well, I think the extreme ramping in construction is interesting. If you don't that's fine by me. It isn't very atypical for you to prefer some figures to others.
As I said: China hasn't initiated any new construction of nuclear power plants according to IAEA this year. (We are already in May).
This is the opposite of what you claim it to be.
You found a stat that paints another picture and disregard everything else. How very surprising.
IAEA is the official tax-payer paid international authority regarding nuclear power and to promote nuclear power.
Are you suggesting that they lie?
Eh, no, the factoid is correct, this time. It's just your far-reaching conclusions that I oppose. I claimed that China is ramping nuclear fast and gave you some stats on that from the last few years. You say that no new nuclear builds have been started in the last five months, and that this disproves my claim. To me, this just shows your bias.
<< first-world lifestyles, in democratic societies with computers, TV-sets, smart-phones and so on for all. >>
I might concede that a decent word processor, spreadsheet applications, and maybe-- maybe-- a phone with some kind of text interface provide some modest increase in human comfort and efficiency.
But in my opinion, the current obsession with gratuitous applications and disposable gadgets has taken a terrible toll on the economy and productivity. Let's be honest-- we all know that writing a letter in Word 2007 takes three times as long as it did on in Wordperfect 5.1 circa 1989, and probably twice as long as it did on a typewriter. And television-- from the dithered, pixelated "Hi-Def" image to the low-budget, inane programming-- has been getting steadily worse in the past 10 or 20 years as well.
Please, God, can't we just move on already? Find a new paradigm, a new way of thinking? Because from where I'm sitting, most technology for small businesses and consumers-- it's been moving backward for about a quarter century. I do think this is a very big elephant in the room when we start making assumptions about energy consumption in the future.
writing a letter in Word 2007 takes three times as long as it did on in Wordperfect 5.1 circa 1989, and probably twice as long as it did on a typewriter.
You had me when you were criticizing Word, but when you suggested going back to a typewriter....you lost me completely.
Typewriters are a nightmare. Remember corrassable paper? ugh.......
I simply don't agree. From where I'm sitting, progress has been tremendeous.
Nick-- Guilty as charged. The bit about the typewriter was terrible hyperbole, I meant to go back and edit it. And I am glad I do not have to edit it with correction tape!
Jeppen-- I'm not buying what you're selling, either metaphorically or literally. My 45-MPG '91 CRX outhandles most production cars built today in its price range (adjusted for inflation), and it's the hell of a lot more fun to drive, too. I was a fool to recycle my 1975 Pioneer stereo amp-- I wish I knew then what I know now about its design and production specs. My FM car stereo gets a more reliable signal than my friend's satellite radio, too.
I'm not saying powering down will be easy, just that there's a lot of it that I won't miss. It seems that lots of technology reached the peak of its evolution a while ago and has been getting worse ever since.
I have a very hard time believing that market forces tend to just generally make things better, and new reactor designs will be safer than old ones. It seems to me that if current technology is any example, future reactors will probably be more complicated, more unstable, and harder to maintain.
It will be very hard to convince me otherwise.
Using a typewriter meant investing in the words and taking care in their execution.
No, it meant agonizing about organizing one's ideas before one sat down to write, and then hesitating to edit as much as was needed.
Writing is editing, and editing with a typewriter is terrible.
I learned to type on a manual typewriter, back in the 1950s. I got fast (67 net words per minute--subtracting off ten words for each error) and accurate, and I also learned to work comfortably at a keyboard for eight or more hours per day. We edited with liquid paper--and scissors and paste, sometimes. I wrote good manuscripts with a manual typewriter, but I do admit that it is much much easier to edit and revise with a word processing program. But if I had to go back to a manual machine, I could do it without much trouble.
If push comes to shove, we could go back to manual typewriters without losing huge amounts of productivity. They are sure a lot better and faster than longhand. I doubt that civilization is going to collapse to the point where we have to go back to longhand.
We edited with liquid paper--and scissors and paste, sometimes.
But not well. Not multiple times.
I wrote good manuscripts with a manual typewriter
Of course. You made it work. That doesn't make it a good way of doing things.
I used to write software in machine language for a machine with 4K, 4000 bytes, of memory. It was interfaced to a Frieden Flexowriter. The punchings would float to the top of the bath at night. A person had to think about what they were doing. That is all I'm saying. There was more care taken to craft. Like the ornate decoration of early scientific instruments.
I like my HP210 netbook. However, all the software is so full of holes and loose-ends that breaking into it has become a child's game.
The people living closer to the land are not sad. A friend of mine went to Nepal and was greatly affected by the open, happy faces. They seem to have more connection to eachother and to the world.
Flexowriter at 3:10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlDVzKFXb5U
A person had to think about what they were doing. That is all I'm saying. There was more care taken to craft.
I know what you mean, but....don't take it too far.
Slide rules enforced a certain discipline, because you had to know where the decimal point went, and you had to estimate things to do so. That kind of skill at rough estimation is enormously valuable.
Still...I'd never suggest forcing everyone back to slide rules.
Many older pilots have kept their slide-rule type of analog computers to figure out time, distance, and fuel problems. When your plane is struck by lightning and all the electronics are fried it is nice to still be able to navigate. We also carried pencils with erasers and paper (usually ruled and with headings for relevant columns and rows of numbers). I also learned celestial sea navigation the old fashioned way, using a sextant and a chronometer.
One never knows when old skills might be called upon. I distrust anything electrically powered, because electricity can fail. I even advocate using kerosene to provide lights on sailboats, because salt water just corrodes out the wiring and contacts on electric navigation and riding lights.
One night in England some years ago the flashlight batteries inside my bicycle light failed (long before they were due to wear out), and as a result I hit a curb and went flying over the handlebars. Since then I've always carried spare batteries when biking at night.
Your experience does not fit data on car pricing and affordability. Also, my take is that cars have improved quite a bit regarding acceleration, fuel economy, safety and so on.
As there is wasteful use all over the place, some "power down" can be managed. But as I have understood the scale of the "power down" many here talk about, it would be truly devastating to the global society and it would reverse the improvements we have seen in birth rates, environmental regulation, democratic institutions, poverty, health and so on.
Then you don't understand the evolutionary nature of economy, and neither the technological improvements we are making.
The newest designs are markedly better in these areas. I see no reason why this would not continue. However, of course any radically different reactor technology (such as LFTR) will have initial problems.
That I believe.
<< experience does not fit data >>
Cool blog on automotive engineering, Jepp! Thanks for the link, and I am not being sarcastic. I look forward to reviewing it in more detail over the weekend. What I did not see was data on skidpad, 0-60, turning radius, etc. Is it not there, or are you dodging and weaving around my point without really addressing it, as is your habit in many (though not all) of your posts on this forum?
I am sorry your experience is not the same as mine. My experiencing is watching other drivers' jaws drop as I blow the doors off their overpriced, overweight gas guzzlers on winding canyon roads. It is a great experience and I feel sorrow that you cannot share it.
Concluding that I do not understand technology because I hold a position you disagree with is not sound reasoning. And no, economies do not evolve. Evolution is the means by which organisms change; the idea that a similar set of rules applies to human artifacts is a complete and utter fantasy. We are not gods. The machines and cultural institutions built by mankind do not behave the same way as living things created by nature, and it is foolish to expect them to.
I do appreciate your conceding that some powering down, at least, can be accomplished without devastating global society. Thanks for the honest response.
And guys-- I loved everyone's riffs on the typewriter vs. word processor. It is a delightful debate, and I discover new ideas every time it is repeated by intelligent people. It's like a favorite movie that you enjoy more with repeated viewing.
One reason I cannot is perhaps that I live in Sweden, and although our vehicle fleet consists of fairly large vehicles by European standards, we don't have very many gas-guzzlers. Myself, I drive a 2008 Citroën C3 diesel packing 110 hp at a weight of 1050 kg. It has a highway cycle fuel rating of 62 MPG (or 3.8 litres per 100 km, if you prefer sane units).
I think that in Europe, where fuel economy is a real priority even for many expensive status cars, improvements are more noticeable than in countries without fuel taxes, where residents opt for bigger cars and engines instead.
Is it? I think it is very similar. A number of products and companies compete on the markets. The ones who sell the most and makes the most profits increase in influence, outcompeting the others. This evolutionary mechanism is at the core of what has made capitalist economies more successful than communist ones.
I would recommend the rest of the world to use European sized fuel taxes. In the first world, especially in North America, there is some substantial energy savings to be had. Also, the amount of energy per GDP dollar will continue shrinking just by tech progress and the pressure of oil depletion. However, globally, I think it would be quite risky to force a global power down in an absolute sense. The population is still growing and the economies of the world are improving, and rapidly enough to offset first-world savings.
That is quite impressive horsepower and mileage for a 1050 kg automobile; my CRX is lighter and was only 72 horsepower stock.
I expect that vehicles like your Citroen would be available in the US if we had sensible fuel taxes, as Europe does. Good point.
It is unusual to meet someone who supports fuel taxes and also believes that the markets behave by a set of rules, very interesting.
Again, my experience has been very different from yours with respect to technology... I have seen too many of my friends pounding their dashboards because they lose their mobile signals or can't negotiate a service contract for their navigation systems. Two of my (very capable) production managers required psychiatric hospitalization (partly) because technical upgrades which used to be routine have become totally unmanageable.
I do feel like something changed in the last 10 or 20 years. God, I loved my Toshiba T-1000SE. And DOS. And my first Nokia phone.
It is unusual to meet someone who supports fuel taxes and also believes that the markets behave by a set of rules, very interesting.
Someone who really believes in markets will also believe in Pigovian taxes (taxes that internalize costs like pollution).
A very, very cursory review of this tax strategy suggests that philosophically, this holds up a lot better than most free-market theories. Not that my opinion means anything in the larger scheme of things, but I applaud the sentiment. In the US, my free-market friends are total fanatics and are operating from a totally different belief system from me.
My first reaction is that where things start getting screwy is the metrics. This is a problem very familiar to those of us in psychology, where many of my colleagues try to measure all kinds of crazy shit that cannot be measured at all, IMHO.
As an ex-executive, I generally believe that imperfect numbers are better than no numbers at all. I worked in a department where I invented metrics and had designers write software to track them just because it kind of seemed to make sense to me, and the officers of the company kept me on a pretty long leash. We did damn well with that, but we're a small business, and I have no idea how calculating this kind of tax would play out on a larger stage over an extended period of time. Seems like it would require constant tweaking, maintenance, and oversight.
I agree with Nick. I consider myself a free-market fanatic, and I think internalization of costs is very "free-market". If you like free markets for ideological reasons, you should appreciate that you aren't allowed to heap costs on others without compensating them. If you like free markets for their abilities to create value, you should appreciate the internalization because it optimizes total value creation. Sure, there is the problem of the state using the money badly, and the problem of agreeing on the costs, but this can be solved well enough for internalization to be an improvement.
I don't think our regulations for new cars permit diesels anymore. (The old, high-sulfur diesel was pretty awful).
If we double the price of fuel here, we would need to channel a lot of the tax revenue into public transportation, as well as into general public assistance, since the poor would be hit the hardest by the massive price increases (in the price of pretty much everything). I would support such a move as long as these things are done.
Perhaps you need to get up and go outside for a walk in some of the places I've been to... Oh, and perhaps leave your rose colored glasses at home.
Hint, industrial parks in the third world, that produce consumer goods that people don't really need, unless brainwashed by corporate funded ad agencies, and then sold in shopping malls lit by 24/7 neon lights and surrounded by acres of parking lots, don't exactly constitute tremendous progress, at least in my book. But heck, what do I know?
That's one aspect, and one very negative way to look at it all. There's so much more to it. Why not take a look at a Ted Talk by Hans Rosling to widen your perspective a bit?
This particular talk has already been dissected here at TOD. Basically Mr. Rosling, very much like yourself, fails to make the connection between all that wonderful growth and longer lifespans, better health statistics, etc.. etc.. and the availability of cheap energy dense fossil fuel. Guess what, his projections for the future cannot be sustained without that cheap fossil fuel. Past performance is no guarantee of future results especially when you no longer have cheap energy. It's over! Jeppen, for the record, I'm not a pessimist, I'm just a realist.
Guess what, his projections for the future cannot be sustained without that cheap fossil fuel. Past performance is no guarantee of future results especially when you no longer have cheap energy.
We don't need cheap fossil fuel. Moderately priced renewable energy will do just fine.
For starters, simply the paradigm shift of turning off the lights when one leaves a room, or during daytime hours, or putting a computer to sleep when it is not in use, et cetera.
How much fuel would we save simply by having all ICE cars shut off when stopped, as a Prius does?
The enormous potential gains to be had from energy mindfulness, let alone efficiency engineering, is one of the things that actually gives me some small measure of hope. It's a huge buffer, waiting to be tapped.
nice thought but look up "jevon's paradox"
not knocking conservation at all, just saying.
Doesn't apply when fuel prices are rising.
If you want to get a bit of hope up there is nothing like reading the work that put the term 'Jevon's paradox' on the map.
The Coal Question
It is most instructive but you have to get all the way through it to learn the lesson.
I'd trade rising levels of energy intensity for wasteful consumption any day! The idea that we should go back to using inefficient refrigerators to use up a resource more quickly and get to the next big thing is really stupid. If you're worried about Joven's Paradox, tax energy to keep prices high when energy efficiency does its job and creates more supply and lowers costs. Joven's paradox is only a problem if you are arguing for deregulated energy markets and a free market for energy choices (and we are very far from that ever becoming a reality). If that were the case, coal is a hand's down winner every time, and we're going to be stuck with acid rain, mercury, and carbon pollution ruining our environments and food systems for the next 30-60 years.
Have you ever read 'The Coal Question'? You apparently have no idea why I suggested every doomer give it a thorough read. I really don't care that much about Jevon's much bantered about paradox. It has places where it describes economic results well enough, and places it just doesn't apply regardless how many bloggers try to apply it. I'm far more interested in just how cloudy Jevon's crystal ball was--he was a well informed man of his day. Read the book, it's free at the link I posted.
People might need clean air, shelter, clothing (protection from injury, sunburn and cold), heat in colder climates and tools to realize those necessities. It is not so simple to provide for 7 billion people.
Making babies is not necessary to the survival of the individual. It is necessary for the survival of a mortal species. This is a want, not a need.
Art and entertainment?
Seriously?
Oh no, i can't watch 80's re-runs on my 60 inch plazma, the entertainment world has crumbled...
The only thing on that list that would cause trouble is Science. But then you arrange for the people that need it to get more stable power. Don't forget Oil and gas are still going to be available.
We live immersed in more art and culture than anyone has ever been able to experience in history. If you can't find anything out there other than bad television, it's your fault for not digging deeper than "pop."
Art, like all human endeavors, requires energy. It's not just the energy requires to produce the art itself, which is often small. It's the total embodied energy, which has to include the energy required to create the artist's experiences that went into producing the art.
We DO have a lot of arts around us today, yet only the best funded (ie, Crass Television) is the cheapest form of art, quality-wise, and it certainly seems to mirror the cheap and easy forms of energy that this age has offered us.. not only for 'painting the sets and striking the Kliegl lights', but also enough spare power for allowing vast numbers of people to sit on their growing butts playing these endless old reruns and massive, multiplayer online games, etc. Garbage In, Garbage Out.
Dropping power consumption doesn't mean an end to the arts or the sciences.. in fact, it will force a rebirth of both. I was in a house full of cast/crew on an Indy Short Film years ago, and a blackout turned a building full of 'Art Consumers', facing their glowing, yapping boxes in every corner of the Living Room, into Humans again, singing songs, telling stories, creating ways of filling up the evening with real activity, and not passive reception of Photons.
Personally, I don't want my MTV.
Just ran across this.. I feel it's salient.
It harkens to Goethe's (?) ..
"One ought every day at least to hear a little song, read a good poem, see a fine picture, and, if it were possible, to speak a few reasonable words."
the total embodied energy, which has to include the energy required to create the artist's experiences that went into producing the art.
I think the artist might reply that his/her life experiences had intrinsic value that doesn't require justification by subsequent creation of art.
It sounds like he's saying that their 'Experiences require oil'.
Seems to me that seeing the oil culture burn itself out will be an inspiring experience.. and then learning to live afterwards..
I believe he's making the mistake of drawing the boundaries of an E-ROI analysis in the wrong place. The fact is, a society exists to support it's citizens, so the basics of living (food, housing, etc) are not allocatable as an expense/input to their work.
learning to live afterwards
It doesn't have to be hard. EVs, electric trains, electric HVAC, etc....all very nice ways to live.
I think this issue of quality of life with lower power consumption needs to be investigate more thoughtfully -- right now the "no power down, electricity at any cost" position seems to be driven by a cartoon image of how nasty life was in some previous historical epoch, identifying that image with any reduction in power consumption. "Shivering in the dark," "living in mud huts," "scrabbling in the dirt for a living," "anarchy and cannibalism" are some of the scary memes emitted when powering down is discussed. [I note in passing the extreme and imho unwarranted contempt for nomads, indigenes, and peasants implicit in some of these cartoons.]
Sharon Astyk can be relied on among Doomers for a reasonable, considered discussion and her recent post at Casaubon's Book is timely:
Sharon raises an urgent and troubling question here. I agree with her analysis that the public or shared consumption of energy to provide amenity is a stronger indicator of happiness and life quality than individual consumption. But the doctrine of radical individualism and business-ocracy known as neoliberalism is currently triumphant in politics, and one of its central tenets is privatisation of everything, elimination of public resources or any "commons". This agenda is fuelled by both ideological theory and self-interest, a powerful combination: the process of Enclosure is always profitable to those doing the Enclosing :-) However, this C19 philosophical trend collides head-on with a contemporary rapid depletion of resources, specifically cheap easily-accessible energy. If we are living in an energy-scarce era, I believe Astyk's analysis is correct: the highest quality of life on a tight energy budget is to devote scarce resources to maintaining shared amenities such as public transport, basic medical care, water pumping systems, etc. But the neoliberal project aims explicitly at dismantling shared amenities, forcing those who wish for amenity in their lives to provide it individually in a much less efficient way, at higher total energy cost.
The private enclosure of energy and amenity as luxury goods for the "successful" few would indeed condemn large numbers of people to the "shivering in the dark" scenario (this is already happening or has happened in many places). A strategic semi-equitable investment of scarce energy resources into public amenity would support a quite decent, even pleasant and fairly secure lifestyle for the majority, but reduce the opportunities for massive wealth accumulation and monumental consumption. In other words, democracy and other public amenities are compatible with aristocracy (an elite lifestyle of extreme luxury and hyperconsumption) when energy and other resources are plentiful. When resources are scarce, we have to choose between concentrating those resources at the top and immiserating the peons, or investing in a baseline of support for a decent quality of life for the peons by lowering the ceiling on consumption for the barons, dukes, and royal family. Finite pie means that slice size matters.
I suspect that the "no power down" ("The American Way of Life is not negotiable") cornucopian story is at least in part an attempt to avoid this uncomfortable choice. So long as we think resources are infinite, we need not face our own moral responsibility for sharing or not sharing with others. We can pretend that those needier others just need to get out there and work harder to "generate" more wealth. But if we admit that the pie is limited, then we have to admit that our larger slice makes someone else's slice smaller. Then we have to face the moral responsibility issue: if we don't share, others suffer for our intransigent insistence on private conveniences and comforts (luxuries really).
So just at the moment when private austerities might best be eased and softened by public amenities and luxuries (libraries, good schools, parks, civic security), we are in the process of dismantling the public infrastructure, hence making it harder (and people less willing) to accept or even contemplate a private life of lower energy consumption. The more joyless and barren public life becomes, the more people want to feather their private nests, hoarding and grabbing.
Astyk:
Recap: powerdown does not have to be a nightmare scenario. It just makes aristocracy unaffordable without mass immiseration, which is what aristocracy always was before cheap energy. If someone kidnapped me and sentenced me, tomorrow, to live in Kerala for the rest of my life, I would be disoriented and upset at such an arbitrary derailment of my plans; but I wouldn't consider it a dreadful fate -- not at all comparable to going to prison or "back to the stone age". Life in Kerala would be less luxurious than what I'm used to, but not miserable. Life after powerdown could be like life in Kerala or Gaviotas or Bogota. I'd happily settle for that. I'd far rather live in Kerala than next to a nuke plant, let's put it that way. I suspect the refugees from Fukushima would too, in hindsight, if they had only been given the choice.
Powerdown is only a nightmare scenario imho if we think of ourselves as aristocrats divinely entitled to a level of consumption whose reduction would leave us "ordinary" and dethroned. If we think of ourselves as ordinary humans with ordinary and reasonable needs for a happy life, there are ways to organise such a life without grotesque overconsumption of energy, while still maintaining many of the advances and amenities of the industrial era and modern science and technology. And I actually do believe it can be done without any more Fukushimas or Chernobyls (or Tar Sands or MTR or Deepwater Horizons or fracking).
forcing those who wish for amenity in their lives to provide it individually in a much less efficient way, at higher total energy cost.....we will lack the time, energy and resources to provide every household with private renewable energy sources - this has been established. We cannot survive on a planet where everyone has a private car - we know this.
Actually, I haven't seen any evidence for this. For one very big example, electric vehicles don't use more power than public transport. Public laundry machines don't use less power than private ones. Existing apartment buildings in the US are actually less efficient than single family homes, on average, and new ones can be net-zero. etc, etc.
Public laundry machines don't use less power than private ones...
I think use during operation represents only one aspect of net energy cost. There is also the cost of manufacturing, say, 50 times more laundry machines than are actually needed to do everyone's laundry. Most of these machines sit idle 6 days out of 7, except in wasteful households where people have become accustomed to doing constant small loads. Any factory owner could attest that keeping physical plant running and useful for a greater number of hours out of each month is called "efficiency" and leverages the investment in the plant better than letting it sit idle much of the time. Which is one perverse incentive for overproduction and aggressive marketing of unnecessary industrial output...
IIRC 20 percent or so of any private passenger vehicle's lifetime emissions (carbon plus pollutants) are generated during the manufacturing process. So again, making 100x as many cars as we need to move people around is wasteful.
There is also the cost of manufacturing...IIRC 20 percent or so of any private passenger vehicle's lifetime emissions
That's a fair point, but:
1) that 20% premium really isn't very large to begin with,
2) that 20% premium will decline with greater recycling. Recycled metals and plastics use far less energy, and
3) manufacturing uses electricity, which is very easy to produce cleanly and renewable, if we choose.
Which is one perverse incentive for overproduction and aggressive marketing of unnecessary industrial output...
It's one, but fixed labor costs are a much larger component.
The washing machines at the laundromat will wear out quite a bit sooner than the lightly-used home one,
so that should be factored in too.
Add in all those trips to the laundromat and the many hours sitting around there waiting for laundry
which could be put to much better use if doing the laundry at home, and the washing machine doesn't
look so bad.
It does not qualifie as nasty and I could actually return to old times on the now livestock less farm but I realy like having running water for both household and barn, milking cows by hand is tough work, cooling the milk with electricity instead of stored winter ice is very practical, a fan with thermostat makes wonders for the livestock ventilation, electrical lights are extremely practical during the long winter with short days, a mill for crushing cereals is a realy good tool, fans for drying cereals and hay makes it much easier to handle bad weather, all kind of electrified hand tools including the welder makes life easier. A deep freezer is easier to use and preserves nutrients better then canning and last, running hot water, internet, an electrical stove and a microwave oven is also quite nice to have.
It is possible to survive with far less tools but such a farm would not net as much food for the rest of society.
Then try to run industries, replenish soil nutrients and run the logistics withouth electricity, especially when oil is running out.
Well said! +10
This is my sister's passive solar hot water heater atop her 250 year old house in Germany.
http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll225/Fmagyar/Germany%20Solar%20and%2...
It is one of the newer houses in her village. It has been in her husband's family for its entire existence and has been continually updated for most of that time. Germany and Germans may not be perfect but they certainly waste a lot less than most Americans and they seem to enjoy a pretty high standard of living.
Unappetizing visions of cannibalism arise, for want of a comma.
it's the people that need to readjust their expectations and redefine what their needs are, meaning they need to scale down.
They won't really have to scale their expectations down very much - wind and solar are scalable, affordable and it won't be that that hard to manage their intermittency.
Maybe they'll have to cope with power prices that rise by 25-100% above average at certain times of the day or year, and cut their power consumption at those times by 10-30%. The flip side: half the time prices will be well below average (shades of Lake Wobegon....)
Not a big deal.
Scalability hinges on the issues of affordability and management of intermittency. This has yet to be solved.
.. and how many externalities you can get the society to pay for, no?
Yes. It is very unfortunate that politicians find it so much easier to deal in arbitrary subsidies of the "good" instead of in internalization of the "bad". This leads to overconsumption and other suboptimizations.
Absolutely.
Taxing fuel and carbon would be more effective in creating change, and therefore are fiercely resisted by the industries that would be hurt.
Subsidies are much less effective at creating change, so they're more aceptable.
Wind power is already affordable: if we assume $2/W (including transmission); 7% cost of funds; and 30 year life (average of components); and 30% capacity factor: we get $.061/kWh. That's very affordable.
Intermittency isn't that hard: demand side management is very powerful and underutilized, geographic diversity will reduce variance, and we have lots of NG for balancing. In the very, very long run we can use DSM and storage for daily variation, combined with overbuilding and some modest backup from biomass for seasonal variation.
Some other thoughts:
Variance isn't the same thing as unpredictability/unreliability. Wind output can be predicted to a large degree, which allows planning, and reduces or eliminates a need for spinning reserves.
As we add multiple windfarms, presumably with output either non-correlated or only partly correlated, the ratio of variance to mean output falls sharply. Also, many windfarms are negatively correlated, so that careful site selection reduces system variance.
Geographic balancing between parts of the grid only requires transmitting balancing amounts, not the whole load. A cost optimized grid will not have world-girdling, massive transmission lines.
Only a small % of a region's wind power would need to be transferred between regions in order to provide balancing, and possibly not as far as one might think. Sometimes it's just a matter of a number of sub-regions getting their power, on average, 100 miles from their west, rather than 100 miles from their east, and in effect you've transferred power from the western edge of the overall region to the eastern.
We really don't need much more peak capacity - perhaps none at all for many years, with good time-of-day pricing and DSM. That renders most of this argument moot, at least as a boundary: we can use existing generation if we have to as a backup.
Wind farm peak capacity credits are a little like getting a dog to talk: the interesting thing isn't how well the dog talks, but that it talks at all. The fact that even a small cluster of wind farms can have a 1/3 of average capacity credit, or wind at a regional level have an average 55% credit, is important.
I see local wind capacity credit as solving roughly 40% of the diurnal intermittency problem; long-distance transmission solving about 30%, and DSM solving the rest. DSM alone could make an enormous contribution: think 220M EV's (with 2.2TW peak demand or output) doing a dance of load balancing with the grid. This doesn't even touch the legacy peak capacity which could provide backup - this we'd want to minimize to minimize CO2 emissions, but that wouldn't be hard with DSM as a short-term factor: we'd only need it for very unusual, long-term lulls.
Biomass would be enormously useful for grid stability. Biomass is the obvious, and workable, candidate for the job of providing backup for seasonal lulls in wind & solar production. OTOH, it's not necessary.
Solutions for seasonal lulls in renewable production include overbuilding; production of ammonia or other synthetic hydrocarbons with surplus electricity; compressed air storage; pumped storage; nuclear; overbuilt geothermal; etc, etc, etc.
There are a number of workable solutions to intermittency. Some are cheaper than others, some combinations are more optimal than others, but there are wide variety of ways to skin this cat.
You see your glass as almost full when I consider it half empty. When wind penetrations reach over 20%, the power it produces gets more or less worthless. You suggest a heck of a lot of mitigating stuff that, while being technologically feasible in a sense, is costly. I'd like it if wind would pan out as you envision, but as I have mentioned before, I see it more as a psychological barrier to realizing that we need to go large-scale nuclear. For you, that barrier has grown insurmountable.
It seems you'll have it your way, with Fukushima and all, as I think many countries will try maximizing wind, and I hope it succeeds far beyond my expectations or that it fails fast and decisively enough for us to have time to switch to nuclear before we reach climate tipping points.
Btw, biomass, except for CO2, has external cost similar (i.e. very high) to coal.
When wind penetrations reach over 20%, the power it produces gets more or less worthless.
Well.....you might want to give specific justifcations, like I did.
You suggest a heck of a lot of mitigating stuff that, while being technologically feasible in a sense, is costly.
Nah. Please re-read what I wrote.
For you, that barrier has grown insurmountable.
No, I just don't think it's our best choice. Heck, we're just finishing a $2T war that was justified by preventing WMD, and yet there's Iran next door, enriching to it's heart content.
biomass, except for CO2, has external cost similar (i.e. very high) to coal.
That depends on scale. If we expand biomass too much it has large external costs. OTOH, 5% of electricity from biomass wouldn't take much land - maybe 20M acres.
I'm sure you have been shown the impact of high wind penetrations on the spot price on windy days in, for instance, Denmark?
And yes, the intermittency mitigation is costly. You write otherwise, and you have the stamina and the factoid collection to extensively support that view. I have read so much to the contrary that I believe you cherry pick and sugar coat, but have neither the stamina nor the structured collection to make the opposite case myself. I rather wait and see.
No, I just don't think it's our best choice.
Strange that you begin that with a "no". It should have been a "yes".
If we let Iran's enrichment stop us from pursuing nuclear power, we could just as well stop using explosives in mines due to other nations' military ordnance.
No, it doesn't depend on scale. TWh for TWh, coal and biomass has about the same external costs, except for CO2-related costs.
the impact of high wind penetrations on the spot price on windy days in, for instance, Denmark?
Sure. Price allocation working as it should. Markets are good.
I have read so much to the contrary that I believe you cherry pick and sugar coat, but have neither the stamina nor the structured collection to make the opposite case myself.
So you'd rather just make general claims, and never support them? Why not address just a few specifics, like the value of DSM?
Strange that you begin that with a "no". It should have been a "yes".
No, just because someone is confident of an idea, or argues for it assertively, doesn't mean that there's a "psychological barrier to realizing". That's just a silly ad hominem. Instead, take the time to make a real argument.
If we let Iran's enrichment stop us from pursuing nuclear power, we could just as well stop using explosives in mines due to other nations' military ordnance.
So, you don't believe in trying to stop nuclear weapons proliferation? Nuclear weapons are just another weapon, that should be in every country's arsenal?
TWh for TWh, coal and biomass has about the same external costs
What are the "Lots of pollution and environmental harm in harvesting and transporting"?
Price allocation working as it should. Markets are good.
Yes, they are. But this also means wind can't get very far unsubsidised. As I said, the wind gets worthless pretty fast.
So you'd rather just make general claims, and never support them?
I wouldn't say never... But you are correct, I won't get very deep this time, and so you'll win the argument.
Why not address just a few specifics, like the value of DSM?
No wonder you chose DSM - that's quite fluffy. Just as wind, it has not been proven to scale, and what has been implemented is the low-hanging fruit that is easy and cheap.
doesn't mean that there's a "psychological barrier to realizing". That's just a silly ad hominem.
As you might have noticed, I don't care much about me being silly. I just state what I see as true, regardless.
So, you don't believe in trying to stop nuclear weapons proliferation? Nuclear weapons are just another weapon, that should be in every country's arsenal?
Lousy answer. Reread what I wrote again and perhaps you'll understand.
the wind gets worthless pretty fast.
Give markets time to work. People will find ways to make use of that low-cost power.
No wonder you chose DSM - that's quite fluffy. Just as wind, it has not been proven to scale, and what has been implemented is the low-hanging fruit that is easy and cheap.
DSM is time tested, and is very widely used. I'm not sure what you mean by "not proven to scale", but I would agree that it's underused. US utilities have an incentive to over-build generation, because of the guaranteed ROI regulatory model.
Reread what I wrote again
As best I can tell, you're suggesting we give up on controlling proliferation. I'd say weapons proliferation is the elephant in the corner - a forgotten, extremely important problem.
I find the idea that all of Iran's neighbors want to build nuclear plants alarming. I'd prefer that we could offer them proven alternative technology - KSA is, after all, the KSA of sun...
Give markets time to work. People will find ways
They will, but the question is how much it will be worth. Not enough, I'd guess.
About DSM being widely used, perhaps, but AFAIK not a very large percentage of generation.
As best I can tell, you're suggesting we give up on controlling proliferation.
*sigh* I just said that one particular way of "controlling proliferation" is futile.
the question is how much it will be worth. Not enough, I'd guess.
Stranded resources have a way of migrating. It's the essence of trading, and market economies. Eventually arbitrage dramatically reduces price differences.
AFAIK not a very large percentage of generation.
Sure. There's no incentive when your utility only makes money if you invest in new plant.
I just said that one particular way of "controlling proliferation" is futile.
I'd say we need to work on it a lot harder. That includes looking at things that may seem frustrating, like investing in alternatives, like wind, sun, wave. Maybe thorium, if it really is dramatically more resistant to weapons production, as some have suggested. The fact that thorium is being ignored tells me that either 1) proliferation is being greatly under-prioritized, or 2) that thorium's promise in this area is overstated.
Stranded resources have a way of migrating. It's the essence of trading, and market economies.
Yes, but again, we'll see how much those stranded resources will be worth, per kWh. Negative spot prices for electricity has been known to happen, and this is with relatively low wind penetrations. (A wind producer that gets a feed in tariff won't shut down even if the price is moderately negative.)
That includes looking at things that may seem frustrating, like investing in alternatives, like wind, sun, wave.
Again, that is futile. The countries seeking nuclear weapons will produce them anyway. Regarding thorium, it is more proliferation resistant, but I don't feel that matters. You don't use commercial reactor tech anyway. North Korea, for instance, made plutonium the traditional way, using a small purpose-built military 5 MW heavy water reactor.
we'll see how much those stranded resources will be worth, per kWh.
Transmission is cheap. DSM is powerful. Build it, and they will come...
The countries seeking nuclear weapons will produce them anyway.
Imagine if, 40 years ago, when the Shah of Iran came to the US for nuclear tech: if we had had cost effective solar plant tech to offer how different would the politics of the ME be now?
North Korea, for instance, made plutonium the traditional way, using a small purpose-built military 5 MW heavy water reactor.
I'm thinking of Iran, and enrichment.
If countries want nukes, they build secret enrichment plants. Like North Korea and Iran.
So, how would things have been different if, 40 years ago, when the Shah of Iran came to the US for nuclear tech: if there had been cost effective solar plant tech to offer. How different would the politics of the ME be now?
Not different at all. It would be the same, only Iran would secretly enrich if they want nukes. Israel would still have them. The mullahs would still be a problem. Iraq would be the same mess. And so on.
Do you happen to have any links to any serious discussions by serious analysts who express that point of view?
Do you?
I find it laughable to think that the political dynamics of the ME would have been very different. The current nuclear debacle with Iran is simply a bit of icing on the cake. The fundamental problems we have with the ME are not about nukes at all. This should be self-evident, so the burden of proof is on you.
Do you?
Well, I've seen some good discussions that supported what I'm suggesting here, including from writers at the Nuclear Energy Institute, but this is what I can lay my hands on:
"U.S. and Jordanian officials are negotiating a nuclear-cooperation agreement that would allow American firms to export nuclear components and know-how to the Mideast country, America's closest Arab ally in the volatile region.
The Obama administration views Jordan as a key potential partner in its global program to promote the nonmilitary use of atomic energy—part of a broader plan to increase pressure on other Middle East countries, particularly Iran and Syria, to bring transparency to their own nuclear programs.
"I believe nuclear energy in Jordan will be done in such a way where it is a public-private partnership so everyone can see exactly what's going on," Jordan's King Abdullah II said in an interview. "If we can be the model of transparency, it will push others."
But it's a partnership that puts the Obama administration in a bind: It is trying to make good on its pledge to promote greater civilian use of atomic energy, without angering Israel and risking a Mideast arms race.
The deal has catches for the Jordanians, too: The U.S. is demanding that Amman not produce its own nuclear fuel. That's a right Jordan enjoys as a signatory to the United Nations key nonproliferation treaty—and is reluctant to surrender, thanks to its recent discoveries of big deposits of uranium ore."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870441450457524471237565764...
-----------------------------------------
The Shah of Iran planned to build 23 nuclear reactors by 2000, with the first two ordered, construction started and scheduled for completion by 1981. When work stopped in January, 1979, one reactor was 85% complete and the other 50% complete.
At the same time Iran had a 10% share in a EU uranium enrichment program. All blessed by the USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran#1970s
-------------------------------------------------------
I find it laughable to think that the political dynamics of the ME would have been very different.
Of course, but the resources at hand would be different. Consider the difference it makes in the middle of a really heated domestic fight whether guns are in the house.
The fundamental problems we have with the ME are not about nukes at all. This should be self-evident, so the burden of proof is on you.
We're just winding up a $2T war that was justified on the basis of WMD, right? I'd say that the idea that nukes are important is supported by quite a few UN resolutions, and quite a bit of US (and Iraqi) blood and treasure.
We're just winding up a $2T war that was justified on the basis of WMD, right
After a fashion--two and a half, three years into the war after multiple detailed intelligence reports showed the facts to be to the contrary Bush/Cheney were still linking Sadam Hussein to Bin Laden and the World Trade Center in the same sentence. Joe and Jill sixpack were still buying that linkage two and a half, three years into the war as well. It grated the heck out me so I'm pretty sure I have time line right. I will make no bones about it, the Osama/Sadam linkage is what allowed GW to run headlong into Iraq with the bulk of the American public cheering him on.
The WMD were the excuse used but Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz wanted to invade Iraq by from before day one of getting sworn in. They were going there by hook or by crook.
Sure.
The point here is that WMD was considered sufficient justification for war (thus it was used instead of the real reasons). This supports my argument that nuclear weapons proliferation in the ME is considered to be an extremely important problem by the world community.
The point here is that WMD was considered sufficient justification for war
As I said after a fashion
Bush steamrolled Congress after doing all he could in the aftermath of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks to make media scrutiny of his actions seem like terrorist acts. The WMD angle would not have been near enough for a Congressional and public opinion go ahead to invade Iraq without the events of September 11. That linkage is not fictitious unlike the big linkages we attributed to Sadam.
I'm not certain the entire world community does not want Iran to have nuclear weapons--I doubt China would feel any more threatened by Iranian nukes than we feel threatened by Israel's invisible nukes. Good luck figuring out any of the major player's real positions on that issue.
When we attacked a made up bogeyman in one house we probably insured a real one coming to life next door.
That all sounds pretty accurate to me.
What doesn't make sense: people being casual about countries acquiring nuclear weapons, just because they don't happen to be pointed at them...this week.
Nuclear weapons are very much beyond what most want to think about. Their shadow lay on some people my age pretty heavily. Under the desk drills with warning sirens blaring clearly from miles off drove the dark in deep. My kids have been reminded of the weapons power from time to time but for better or worse never had that shadow etch their psyche.
I really don't worry about domestic nuclear power plants enabling fission or fusion weapons development--that really hasn't happened to date. However having more even less secure fuel and spent fuel locations than we have now does increase chances of the dirty bomb scenario.
as for
just because they don't happen to be pointed at them...this week.
well I don't know where you live but with over the horizon and phased array radar about 80 miles one direction and the antiballistic missile system a bit farther off in another not even mentioning having TAPS almost in view from my porch, I'm betting at least a couple weapons are aimed my way every week. So in a way--to more or less quote Mick Dundee--'no more worries mate'
I really don't worry about domestic nuclear power plants enabling fission or fusion weapons development--that really hasn't happened to date.
Iran?
Kind of like having an elephant in the living room, I was so busy trying to see around it I forgot it was there?- ( For what its is worth I find Iran's possession of nuclear weapons less troubling than North Korea and Pakistan's--not very much comfort at all.
1945-USA
1949-USSR
1952-UK
1960-France
1964-China
1974-India
1979-Israel
1998-Pakistan
2006-North Korea
and the beat goes on...
and the beat goes on
South Africa had nukes during the 1980-ies.
Iran has no nukes and we don't know if it will get them.
My wild guess: Iran wants to be in a position similar to Japan: able to honestly deny that they have a weapon, but able to put together a weapon in a very short time if needed.
If I were making the decision for Iran, I'd want nuclear weapons, ASAP.
Sanctions, constant threats from a superpower that occupies neighbors on both sides, regional hostility rooted in centuries-old religious conflict, large oil reserves that the big players desperately need to secure...
And I'll bet they haven't failed to notice that the world handles North Korea rather more carefully than it used to.
Of course.
What makes sense for Iran isn't what makes sense for the world.
And, of course, rational US energy and foreign policy would help...
None of your quotations make any sense in the current context. It would be great if Iran had 23 nuclear reactors!
Yes, and Iraq had no civilian nuclear program, which proves my point.
None of your quotations make any sense in the current context.
Doesn't the following say that there is US and international concern about a ME arms race??
"...it's a partnership that puts the Obama administration in a bind: It is trying to make good on its pledge to promote greater civilian use of atomic energy, without angering Israel and risking a Mideast arms race."
Iraq had no civilian nuclear program, which proves my point.
We were lucky. I'd prefer not to gamble with nuclear weapons.
"Doesn't the following say that there is US and international concern about a ME arms race??"
Yes, we don't want that. But that doesn't change the politics much, which was what your orginal question was about.
"We were lucky. I'd prefer not to gamble with nuclear weapons."
You're still not making sense. Did you really read what I wrote? "No CIVILIAN program." In my view, Iraq weakens your argument.
that doesn't change the politics much
I'm not sure what you mean. Maybe we need to clarify what we're debating. I'm not talking about ME politics, I'm talking about weapons: I'd compare nuclear weapons to hand guns - having them handy can turn relatively minor conflicts into potential armageddon. Nuclear war is still the best route to TEOTWAWKI, regardless of PO and AGW.
"No CIVILIAN program." In my view, Iraq weakens your argument.
Iraq is an example of the importance of preventing proliferation. I agree that civilian nuclear programs are not the only path to proliferation. OTOH, I think it's important that we block all paths.
Or prevent just that by terror balance.
Perhaps the simplest route, but that is if Russia, China and US really pounds each other. If Israel and Iran nukes each other then that will be terrible, but not anywhere near TEOTWAWKI.
Or an example of when worry is worse than what that which you worry about. You seem to worry a lot about proliferation. I don't. If it is more important to you than AGW, and you believe the risk is heightened very much by civilian nuclear power, then I probably can't convince you otherwise.
terror balance.
Seriously? MAD as a longterm, low risk conflict resolution strategy? Have you noticed the kind of thing that happens with that kind of "nobody's that insane" kind of system? For instance, US Republicans pretending to be insane enough to deliberately cause the US to default on it's T-bills, just to score political points...
If Israel and Iran nukes each other then that will be terrible, but not anywhere near TEOTWAWKI.
How about Pakistan's 100 (and counting) weapons? There's India, right next door to China and Russia...
You seem to worry a lot about proliferation. I don't.
A lot of people think that way. Baffles me.
Seriously? MAD as a longterm, low risk conflict resolution strategy?
Well that is only choice we left out there after invading a crippled, contained Iraq while leaving North Korea bluster about its neighborhood at will. Get your nuclear weapons operational (preferably quietly) or risk getting occupied. That is the lesson we taught and it will be remembered by the rest of the world's nations, particularly by Iran, for long time to come. When you use a fictitious bogeyman to herd public opinion you can end up creating the real thing. I doubt the US could have done more to encourage nuclear proliferation than we did when we invaded Iraq in 2003.
Sounds accurate. I don't think you and I are disagreeing...
Yeah, 'MAD' , as this revealing Acrinym suggests, perhaps unintentionally, seems to have been an INCENTIVE program, not a Deterrent.
'I'll just keep the guns out and cocked until everybody relaxes, ok?'
It's 2011. You may have noticed this yourself. The paths to proliferation are not blockable in the way that you imagine.
[1] In 2012 or 2013, in Wilmington, North Carolina the world’s first commercial plant for uranium-enrichment via LIS, or laser isotope separation will go into commercial operation. LIS promises to produce fuel for nuclear reactors at radically lower costs and with far lower tail assays – the measure of how much unenriched U-233 remains in the process’s waste stream – than do the current centrifuge and diffusion-based enrichment techniques.
The likeliest route for nations to covertly achieve nuclear breakout capability – which is the ability to produce weapons-grade fissile material, usually highly-enriched uranium (HEU) at least 85 percent composed of U235 – is going to become LIS. The technology is technically tricky, but very infrastructure-lite, potentially requiring only a mid-sized warehouse and drawing no more electricity than a dozen suburban homes. Thus, a LIS plant might in principle operate unnoticed in a suburb of Los Angeles or Islamabad.
[2] LIS is just the front end of the trend. The good news is that industrial nuclear transmutation looks about two decades away, and it could eliminate nuclear waste and rationalize nuclear energy. The bad news is that industrial nuclear transmutation looks about two decades away and we stand now potentially at the dawn of the golden age of nuclear arms proliferation.
In 2012 or 2013, in Wilmington, North Carolina the world’s first commercial plant for uranium-enrichment via LIS, or laser isotope separation will go into commercial operation.
Is this Silex?
Nick, we do not have cost effective sources of reliable dispatchable affordable solar power now, except hydro.
I agree about cost - there's no question that PV is still too expensive, and CSP's claims for recent cost reductions need proving.
My point: there's enormous value to developing cost-effective alternatives to nuclear power. I think wind is there, and we ought to persist in getting solar there as well - wind doesn't work for some countries, and everybody is obsessed with energy security...
I'm a big fan of CSP. It can be built using nineteenth-century technology and materials. It is relatively easy to scale up. It is also relatively easy to fix.
I agree - it's very promising.
Mirror, mirror, on the floor
Who is the hottest of them all?
NAOM
That's simply untrue!
Jeppen's point is that solar isn't competitive. I agree - wind makes the most sense for the bulk of our power for the near future. Solar, at the moment, is an investment in the future.
Your point is that solar is viable, if necessary, which is also true.
Is it really viable? The existence of pick-ups doesn't prove that. Could you give us a calculation of the cost of replacing the world's fossil and nuclear electricity with PV + storage/grid improvements, as a percentage of global nominal GDP?
I could, but it's not really worth it. We agree that wind is much cheaper, and doesn't have any problems that solar doesn't also have, so why bother?
You're right.
You also need to take into account that PV does reduce the load on the grid, can be installed in areas with a small/weak grid, is silent, requires no additional area, competes at household electricity prices, only produces power at day time when demand and electricity costs are always higher.
And PV costs are still dropping rapidly and if some countries wouldn't have initiated this process, PV wouldn't have reached current cost-levels.
Besides PV-systems are meanwhile really much cheaper than a few years ago:
Here's an inverter for €0.19 /W:
http://cgi.ebay.de/Wechselrichter-SMA-SMC-10000TL-10-NEU-SONDERPREIS-/18...
And here are polycrystalline PV-modules starting at €1.05 /W:
http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/392113563/280w_solar_photovoltaic_pane...
Thinfilm PV-modules can be get for less than $1 /W:
http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/285944071/solar_photovoltaic_panel.html
And PV owners are also more aware regarding efficient appliances and this further reduces the load on the grid.
(The usage of efficient appliances can reduce the household electricity demand easily by 50%.)
And PV systems also serve as useful sun shade (reduce initial AC power demand):
Good points.
Still, wind costs about $6/average W in the US, while the very cheapest solar costs about $15/average W ($3/Wp installed / 20% capacity factor).
Solar is the future, no doubt about it, but we're not quite there yet.
We are definitely not far away.
PV-modules can meanwhile be obtained for $1 /W and inverters for $0.2 /W.
In countries where labor costs are low, installation costs won't add to these costs significantly.
China may have installed 40 GW of solar hot water capacity 2009:
http://amazingdata.com/chinas-solar-hot-water-capacity-will-soon-be-equi...
(And China already installed 29 GW of solar hot water capacity 2010:
http://www.ren21.net/Portals/97/documents/GSR/REN21_GSR_2010_full_revise... )
40 GW solar hot water capacity corresponds to about 8 GW of PV (same area).
Chinese PV installation targets are (unsurprisingly) at 50 GW by 2020 :
http://www.pv-tech.org/news/china_revises_pv_installations_targets
PV-modules can meanwhile be obtained for $1 /W and inverters for $0.2 /W.
Those modules tend to be lower efficiency, right? Thus needing more space, mounting structure, wiring, etc.
In countries where labor costs are low, installation costs won't add to these costs significantly.
How about in the US?
Do we have any total system costs for either US or China?
In 2009 alone, China started construction of 11 GW nuclear, which gives about the same amount of electricity, but baseload instead of intermittent. If PV was so great, China would ramp faster.
FM, most likely that home has a grid connection with a net metering contract. The utility is forced to provide free backup and power conditioning to subsidize the wealthy homeowner who dabbles in solar power in order to brag about how green he is at cocktail parties. The big truck is probably in the garage because the solar cost was subsidized.
The utility charges less wealthy customers more per kWh to provide the free backup to wealthy customers.
Well meaning energy laws written by politically astute law school graduates often conflict with the laws of nature, resulting in distortions and inefficiencies that ultimately do more harm than good.
Homes account for only 1/3 of the electricity consumption that supports our lives. Where does the other 2/3 of reliable dispatchable electricity come from, what does it cost and who pays for it?
Bill, no offense but you are really out of touch with what has been happening... Here's an example of how we have to fight the poor powerless utilities, at least in the lovely Sunshine State where I live! My personal view is that there is much more of a need for unsubsidized solar for the poor and disenfranchised of the world who live off grid but that's a discussion for another day.
FM, the devil is in the details. Where are the details? All I can find is this;
I support a level playing field with no subsidies. Let energy prices float to their true value in a free market.
FARE wants to move in the opposite direction, providing favored industries with guaranteed unlimited markets at guaranteed prices independent of free market conditions. This creates more distortion, less efficiency, higher energy prices and a lower average standard of living.
I am in touch with what is happening, and more importantly what is not happening. We are not investing in a massive R&D program to develop new sources of abundant, cheap, reliable, dispatchable energy.
The key to ending the fossil fuel age is to develop new energy sources better and cheaper than fossil fuel; the FARE approach is not going to do that.
A 'level playing field' would tend to support burning coal and trees, etc, since the threshhold for initiating cleaner sources is a burden the market will clearly scoot away from.
A level playing field would have external costs monetized.
I have the impression that when people say things like "I support a level playing field with no subsidies." they really mean "don't pester fossil fuel industries with annoying problems like taxes, or competition from subsidized competitors.".
I guess the question to Bill H is: Do you agree that there are significant external costs to fossil fuels that should be internalized through taxation in order to optimize market allocation and economic efficiency?
Absolutely Nick. I have said that repeatedly. See #2.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7275#comment-755200
See#5.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4961#comment-459021
See pages 1, 15, 16 and 25 of my energy paper. Notice how little things have changed since the paper was last edited in 2006.
http://coal2nuclear.com/ENERGY%20REV%20X1.pdf
Also note page 28 where I recommend pursuing MSR technology long before it became fashionable.
Sounds pretty good. If the Pigovian taxes are large enough, that will push change pretty fast.
You might want to stress that a bit more - very often people who propose R&D are just doing it as a smokescreen for inaction, and you don't want your audience to be confused.
Well let's see who agrees with which externality, and how they are willing to accept these valuations .. but it's a bit of a sidetrack to the idea that we as societies need to pool our strength to bring forward the useful and safe energy systems, and make sure we're not inadvertently allowing the unsafe ones to gain a foothold at our peril. As with Carbon Trading, it's clear that the market is happy enough to keep polluting, if the price is right.
You and I clearly disagree about the dangers of Fission, but nonetheless, it is still in the interest of societies to apply consensual pressure (subsidies) in order to bring forward systems that are just too costly to manage in smaller groups.
The Market's interest is not 'Humanitarian', and will not push forward programs that call for it to make sacrifices for the benefit of 'the people'. Think of what Mothers do in comparison to this.
Yes, the valuations are subject to debate, but assuming the internalization is correct, and an industrial player keeps polluting, then he likely should, because there is a net benefit of his activity.
I disagree. On a free market, big private industrial players should have ample incentives and ample economic muscles to innovate and create economies of scale.
If the corporate players can't bring forth an innovation and profit in a free market, then government beaurocrats can't make society profit from it either.
If the Pigovian taxes are large enough, that will push change as fast as we need, at least for most industrial/commercial consumers.
That's a big if.
Of course, some regulation will still be needed, as some market failures do exist: excessively high discounting of operational costs by consumers, the split between landlords and tenants, inefficient decision making for large products in highly competitive markets where energy costs are only a minor factor (e.g., real estate, where the big factors are location, location, location)...
I see a number of market failures, but none of those you mention qualify. Rent control, for instance, is really, really bad. Mmmkay? A Swedish heavy-weight economist quipped that it is the most efficient means of destroying cities, next to bombing.
And operational costs, at least around here, often has too large emphasis, and the problem is that the investment is not discounted. Solar PV is a prime example where people waste money and resources to lower operational costs and believe they'll make a profit after 10 years of operation when the sum of their nominal yearly savings equals the investment.
none of those you mention qualify
Why? Rent control is an example of regulatory failure, not market failure.
operational costs, at least around here, often has too large emphasis
Sure, but most people don't make that mistake. Most recognize that they're responding to more than direct market pricing when they buy something like PV. Even if they don't realize it, it's still the case...
Ok, didn't understand then. Explain the "split between landlords and tenants" and how you propose to fix it by regulation.
Landlords don't pay utilities, and tenants don't know utility costs when they sign a lease.
So, landlords have no incentive to reduce energy waste/consumption, and tenants usually can't (e.g., they can't buy a new boiler) or will only get the benefit during their relatively short lease.
Regulatory solutions:
1) mandated disclosure of utility costs to new tenants, and
2) efficiency standards for boilers, A/C, windows, appliances, etc.
The idea that incentives will drive innovation is something of a free-market mantra, but here in the humanities, it doesn't pass the smell test. How often is this actually the case? Gandhi, Einstein, Freud, and Schweitzer were not motivated by incentive, or not material incentive anyway. Certainly, they needed funding and a place to work, but that wasn't what drove their achievement.
There are exceptions-- Edison, Ford, I'm sure there were others, and I don't claim an exhaustive knowledge of industrial history. But wasn't their reign was pretty brief? When I think of people motivated by incentive, I start coming up with names like Trump and L. Ron Hubbard. (No disrespect to anyone's religion intended, no reason theoretically why a religion shouldn't be profitable, etc.)
Compensation may be part of what drives innovation, I just don't think it's central.
The idea that incentives will drive innovation is something of a free-market mantra, but here in the humanities, it doesn't pass the smell test.
Of course - we're talking about energy, not the humanities.
Edison, Ford, I'm sure there were others, and I don't claim an exhaustive knowledge of industrial history. But wasn't their reign was pretty brief?
No, it really, really wasn't. Edison, for instance: think of General Electric and most of the electric utilities in the US - Commonwealth Edison, Consolidated Edison, etc....
I'm actually with you here. This piece on motivation is nice. On the individual level, stuff like autonomy and purpose is important.
What I was talking about, however, was resource allocation and the context was a reply to a call for subsidies. If wind power costs are going to improve, companies needs to pay engineers salaries and provide them with environments in which they can innovate. Also, companies needs to invest to get economies of scale going. Decisions to do these things are ultimately driven by profit motives, and thus the investments are done in a rational fashion.
Subsidies, in the context of energy, I guess, aims to reverse the order of things. First get mass production and economies of scale going, and hope that this spurs innovation that eventually makes the technology viable on its own. So here politicians and government beaurocrats try to pick winners and mandate arbitrary large-scale money-wasting based on dreams, political opportunities and input from industry lobbyists. At the same time, they are actually hampering private investment and research in other areas that for some reason doesn't get money. This includes end-user waste that gets automatic support by energy subsidies.
So, my recommendation is to deregulate so that companies can invest, and to de-subsidise and internalise costs so that they invest in the right stuff. Some $300 billion in subsidies are reported to go to fossil fuels each year in the world. And if you tax CO2 at $0.03/kg, that would amount to $900 billion per year, world-wide. So there is $1.2 trillion there to change the dynamics with. And the best of all - we would all benefit from this being done. It is an optimization that would leave the global economy significantly richer, while subsidies does the opposite.
"and an industrial player keeps polluting, then he likely should, because there is a net benefit of his activity..."
I'm not going to let you be Swedish any more. You should go to your room without your supper.
That was spoken like a true industialist. "Net Benefit" my eye! It gets to 'look' like a net benefit precisely BECAUSE the unappraised negative externalities of that pollution are borne by others, most of them not even human, and so completely invisible to the accountant. But I know, those are acceptable costs to you.
You get to be a Martian now. A Tomte will escort you to your spaceship.
He's assuming that all externalities are appraised and included...
<< We're talking about energy, not the humanities >>
Well, sort of-- I take your general point, I'm not a hard-science guy, and I don't want to get in the way. But when I-131 has hit 4 pCi/l in food that's on the shelf in your local grocery store, do you really want this to be a purely economic or technical conversation?
This is the point where guys like me start wandering into your field and tipping a few sacred cows, and hope we will not be shot for trespassing. To us, this looks like paralysis, nothing's happening. We wonder what would happen if we just completely abandoned the free-market paradigm for a moment-- and considered precisely what conditions really would drive innovation, particularly in a crisis (or a bottleneck). Maybe it's not just subsidies, incentives or taxation... I think there is something nobody's thought of yet, and it's keeping me awake at night.
<< You get to be a Martian now. >> This made me laugh out loud, until I realized just how badly I want to wake up tomorrow morning, flip on CNN, and see a giant starship hovering over Fukushima Daiichi. And no, Jeppen absolutely does not get to go to Mars, unless he takes Rootless, KD, Martin, JB, or one of the Twilights with him. And no, they can't go in the starship, they have to draft it in the Citroen.
About DSM being widely used, perhaps, but AFAIK not a very large percentage of generation.
Depends on where you are. Continental N. America, you are right- not many people do it. In England, Australia, NZ, lots of people do it. Haven't lived on continental Europe so can't comment there, but I'd assume there is a decent amount going on.
DSM potential in N America is huge - it is just that electricity has been to cheap to bother.
As wind power tends to make peaks more expensive and off peak cheaper, it will increase incentives for DSM, and for opportunistic consumption of off peak power - those ideas are still being developed, but they will come.
A comment about Germany and solar/wind. this is a good example of nationalism/personalism trumping efficiency, as it often does. Given the average capacity factor of solar in G is 0.11, they could have put the panels to somewhere in Spain, and get twice the power. Give them 1/4 of the power, for free, and send the other 3/4 back to Germany. But people want panels on their own roof and so it goes - I can't blame them for not wanting to trust Spain.
Overall, I just can't see how they can power themselves on self generated renewable electricity. I have not seen a wind potential study for Germany but there must be one, and I doubt it looks good. There isn't enough solar, they can't grow enough biomass (without starving). I just can't see them supporting their current economy on self generated renewables. David MacKay showed what would be needed for Britain, and Germany would be no easier. Maybe it's time to do a deal with Norway for offshore wind, or something.
I have not seen a wind potential study for Germany but there must be one, and I doubt it looks good. There isn't enough solar
There's lots of wind and sun potential, it's just too expensive to be competitive. Germany is a reasonably large place with lots of built surfaces on which to put PV, and it does have access to the N. Sea.
off shore wind is ridiculously expensive. compare the costs and speed of a repair pickup to a repair boat and you see why.
It is more expensive than land, but most of the difference is compensated by stronger and steadier wind.
I don't see any company planning nuclear reactors without massive subsidies (and neglect of insurance). As I see it, we will benefit from not having so much excess capacity. Solar thermal and geothermal are probably the best suited tech here is Australia. But any money spen. On nuclear should be squarely focused on waste and risk mitigation. If the nuclear industry can get a the waste out of spen fuel pools in 20 years then they can have he privilege of building another reactor.
Aren't Australia's electricity 90% fossil? You have made your prioritization, and you have chosen to be part of the problem.
Btw, biomass, except for CO2, has external cost similar (i.e. very high) to coal.
Just how do you arrive at that conclusion?
Some biomass, like corn ethanol, or growing palm oil on cleared rainforest, does have large external costs, but that does not mean all biomass (which includes municipal waste, IMO) does.
I'm talking about electricity, and the source of my belief is life cycle assessments. Lots of pollution and environmental harm in harvesting and transporting (and, when applicable, cultivating) the biomass, and quite a bit in particulates and ash pollution.
Sounds like the places you are thinking of just aren't managing their biomass properly. Just because it can be done in bad ways does not always mean it is.
This 66MW biomass power plant , in British Columbia, uses wood wastes sourced from the five lumber mills that are in the same town. They used to just burn the waste in beehive burners, creating the pollution and stuff you talk about, but no electricity. Now it is burnt in a state of the art plant, and creates electricity and no pollution.
Fortunately, here in BC we have about 60 million hectares of forest - more area then France - lots of biomass available, even if we only use one tenth of it. (current annual harvest is less than 1% of it). And, unlike a coal mine, forest biomass re-grows itself
Biomass has many great niche opportunities - but that is no excuse for poor environmental management - we can do it properly.
http://www.energy-northwest.com/generation/documents/Nine_Canyon_Facts_0...
http://www.energy-northwest.com/who/documents/2010Budget/Final%202010%20...
But they only charge 57.18/mwh. Who pays the rest?
Nick, if you want to load balance the electric grid with electric vehicle batteries, you do not do it with the batteries installed in the automobiles. Cycling those expensive portable batteries reduces their lifetime. When EV batteries are no longer suitable for the vehicles, they will still be good enough for a power company to purchase, install in a stationary location and load balance the grid.
1) Li-ion batteries have much longer cycle life than they used to.
2) you're thinking of V2G. I'm mostly thinking of managing charging.
Ok, managing charging is a better idea because it can be done locally by detecting a low voltage or shifting the frequency of the grid power.
I really wonder about the source of these concerns because I have done fine with my off-grid photovoltaic system for the last 20 years. I do all sorts of things to minimize the cost and smooth out the intermittency. Energy efficiency, using high powered equipment only on sunny days, batteries, substituting mechanical devices for electric ones (like a windup alarm clock) and using thermal mass in the refrigerator/freezer. Other ideas that I personally do not use but could be implemented easily enough to store energy for later use: pump water to an uphill water tank and use gravity to pressurize the plumbing, heat a hot water tank and store heat underground for later use in a ground source heat pump. Photovoltaic panels output some power on cloudy days, and humans consume less power at night than during the day.
For larger scale power consumption consider locating the commercial plants near a power source such as hydroelectric, geothermal and solar thermal. Add some pumped hydroelectric and long distance interconnects, like Alan Drake's electrification of long distance freight railroads. The only real barrier is the can-not-do attitude prevalent in humans.
I think the issues are comfort, costs and cross-border coordination and trust.
Comfort: You seem to have electric self-reliance as a hobby. All cannot, will not and should not. Some should, for instance, play the guitar instead.
Costs: If we are going to build pumped hydro capacity backup and extreme interconnects in addition to PV that is several times the cost of more traditional energy, then the costs will be hard to bear.
Cross-border coordination and trust: Lots of countries are small and are at a disadvantage when it comes to wind and solar. Managing intermittence and using cost-efficient locations typically requires continent-wide coordination. We are obviously not there yet.
You're doing a lot of conflating here, Jeppen.
1) He's ACTUALLY powering his house with Solar. Calling it a hobby is sort of like calling 'Chopping Firewood' a hobby. It's a personal effort, and even a passion, perhaps, but that doesn't make it the equivalent of growing Prize Begonias. It's a common refrain to deride EV's as Toys, also, even if they're getting the same job done for someone as a Gas car would have.
2) 'All Cannot, will not should not' .. there are a great many who CAN, and they SHOULD be informed of the advantages, plus the uncertainties of the future energy supplies, and they WILL simply make up their own minds.. but you're making an extreme Strawman Argument, easily toppled, when you expand it to ALL. He's clearly looking at 'Increased' self-sufficiency, with the examples of other things that could be applied to his situation.. but isn't saying ALL his dependencies, or ALL people.
Yes, and kWh for kWh, I think he does this with worse environmental consequences than using the ordinary grid. I don't want to deride anyone or anything, but I think we should improve the properties and consequences of large-scale energy production. Small-scale should not be encouraged.
Yes, and kWh for kWh, I think he does this with worse environmental consequences than using the ordinary grid
This actually becomes a fairly complicated calculation. If the person who installs the PV would have otherwise spent the same money on fly-in vacations halfway around the world--I could have used buying high speed yachts or off road monster vehicles but the profile wouldn't match the PV user as well?- )--the personal income spent on PV may well have the lower environmental consequence.
The tax subsidy portion of a homeowner PV system is open to much greater debate which, of course, includes the issue of early users providing the critical mass to allow the PV manufacturing to progress to the point where real efficiencies occur.
The debate always tends toward emotion and the real numbers including a full accounting of embedded energy and externalized costs of both centralized and individualized power generation have yet to be worked up to anyones' satifaction.
All we have is what the market tells us imperfect as that is.
So you're saying the increased environmental burden of PV+batteries is mitigated by the waste of money?
I think wasting money on physical industrial stuff such as PV+batteries is worse than wasting money on average. The reason is that we live in an economy dominated by services which should have a lower environmental impact than industry.
However, I agree that the market gives us useful information here. If it's cheaper, it's likely less resource demanding. What the market tells us can be improved by internalising external costs.
I didn't properly interpret your use of the term ordinary grid first time through. I was referring to homeowner PV and inverters supplementing the grid--there are environmentally worse ways to spend private money but the cost/value of public expenditure on private systems is open to debate . Circumstances justifying the environmental cost of battery backup where the grid is easily accessible would be very rare in the US.
And these are to be directly compared with health, safety/insurance, and global environmental issues of the (nuclear) alternative? I am just asking.
I was thinking that far more "cross border trust" is involved in knowing that the nation next door has built a nuke plant anywhere upwind of you, than in doing a bit of electricity trading :-) The radioactivity from the Fukushima disaster is hardly going to be limited neatly to Japanese borders. Already it has impacted populations speaking other languages. No agreement was reached on this nor is there any quid pro quo. The cost of the decision to gamble heavily on a highly lethal technology -- relying on almighty human ingenuity and perfect probity to manage it safely -- is being widely shared in a way that the benefits were not. The contamination, as with many reckless technologies, cannot be neatly contained. Containment is imaginary; hence "trust" (or helpless victimhood) is being imposed on neighbours.
All the choices we make at this scale of energy use have cross-border impacts and involve either trust and negotiation, or force and fraud.
By choosing nuclear, we impose consequences and risks on populations distant from us both in space and time. Same is of course true of choosing to expand fossil fuel use -- or choosing to expand, period.
A democratic/equitable approach would be to make choices whose consequences fall first and foremost on those doing the choosing (execs should live on or near the facilities they manage, generals should lead charges in battle); next on those benefitting directly from the endeavour (if nuke plants mostly support dense high-tech urban populations then they should be situated in the heart of urban areas, not out in the countryside where the brunt of failure will be borne by peasants and fishermen); and last but least -- or not at all -- on innocent bystanders who neither decided nor benefitted. (Obviously this is not the way that things are done, but the degree to which things are not done this way is symptomatic of injustice or lack of democracy or whatever you want to call hierarchical human social dysfunction, abuse of power, etc.)
Whenever the group making the decisions is not the group bearing the risk *and* the group mostly (by the numbers) benefitting from the decisions is not the group bearing the risk, the decisions are more likely to be risky, reckless, and deeply selfish. (I believe the insurance industry calls the connection between recklessness and perceived immunity "moral hazard.") Shoving off the risks onto our descendants may be most selfish of all (aren't we supposed to care for our kids, not use them as clean-up crew for our many errors?).
Power generation by minimally harmful means, as local as possible, so that risks and benefits are borne by the same population that is making the choices and decisions, is the only equitable or democratic model. Unfortunately even a nuke plant scaled down to power a village would contain enough lethality to poison the village plus several neighbouring villages, so the inherent potential lethality keeps violating the radius of benefit. Chernobyl continues to impact non-Russian-speaking populations all over Europe, who never used even one mW of power from that plant. If a wind farm succeeds or fails, if a tidal turbine is poorly installed and comes loose and is lost, the radius of impact of that event should not exceed the community who benefitted from the electricity generated.
Or perhaps it is symptomatic of a practical viewpoint you seem to lack.
Our descendants will benefit greatly from us using nuclear power. In part because new designs last three generations, in part because they'll build upon our growth, in part because other large-scale technologies pollute more.
Says you. Fortunately, democracy is larger than you.
"a practical viewpoint.. "
"Our descendants will benefit greatly from us using nuclear power."
I think I can get you a great deal on an apartment in Pripyat. Hell, you can have the whole building, the whole block. And if you order before midnight tonight, I can also reserve you a luxury Country Getaway on the coast of Japan.
The number of massive Radioactive No-Man's Lands are growing and growing, and affecting their neighbors downstream and downwind. Oh, I WISH our descendants would have a chance to thank you personally for lobbying to keep this plan on the 'Can-do' list. You get the power, they get the leftovers. Thanks, Dad.
So, how do you compare the evacuation of the city of Pripyat to 2500 TWh/year of carbon free, coal particulates free electricity? That's like all the electricity of Russia, Japan and India combined.
We have two now. I don't think that qualifies as a number that is "growing and growing". Also, the radioactivity in those no-man's lands is diminishing. If we keep up the failure rate of every 25 years, then we might have perhaps eight such zones in a stable state, as in 200 years, the first exclusion zone (Chernobyl) will be back to normal.
Eight circles with 30 kilometers radius = 22600 km^2, that's like New Hampshire, or half the size of Denmark. Not much. I think you may choose to get worked up about me saying this, but you guys need to get down to Earth and put things in perspective.
I do too.
I take the costs. I get power, my child gets power, his child gets power and the grandkid also builds a new plant with the knowledge and economic growth the nuke has provided him with. The easily handled waste is nothing in comparison to that.
You can add Hanford to that, plus a section of the Irish Sea, just to name a couple..
but back to your most arrogant claim, that a 'New Hampshire' or 'Half of Denmark' is an acceptable (to you) land cost for the first 50 years of fission power.
There seems to be a confident assumption that none among this prospective chain of descendants (my child, his child etc) will be the one born with brain outside skull -- or other less spectacular but quite severe side effects and syndromes of radiation exposure during gestation, infancy, or early childhood. Is that the assumption that makes it all work?
Next question then -- and it's a doozy -- would be this: suppose it *were* your kid. Suppose you were the one who lost the roulette game, happened to be living in the sacrifice zone, and it really was *your* kid who was born defective, sentenced to institutional support for life, like the kids in the well-known documentary photo essay from Ukraine. Seriously, would the answer still be the same? "It's worth the cost in order for industrial consumerism and Progress to march on"? What if it was *your* home that you were never allowed to return to, your business that you'd spent a lifetime building up and then were forced to abandon? What if it was someone else's kids who would get the golden high-energy-consumption future at the expense of your own kid being born defective or never born at all? Still quite an acceptable sacrifice for 24x7 electricity, widescreen TV and so on? Even if the sacrifice was not someone else's, but way closer to home?
This is getting a bit Biblical here :-) the parable of Abraham and Isaac springs to mind. Or perhaps more along the lines of Moloch :-) Or is the more appropriate ref "The Lottery" short story by S Jackson? However we slice it, we seem to have reached the point where human sacrifice can be considered (openly, that is) an appropriate assumption for power generation planning, and the only remaining question is quantity -- "if our carefully cooked figures suggest that we only have to sacrifice N lives for nuclear power, but N*3 lives for coal, then coal is bad and nuclear is good".
I had this strange old-fashioned idea that Progress meant moving further away from that kind of thing (disposing casually of "unimportant" human lives) and more towards equal rights, empathy for others, respect for the individual, and so on. That real Progress might mean seeking energy generation technologies that don't involve random human sacrifice.
If providing luxurious levels of electricity consumption requires a baseline assumption of N random deaths per TWH, then sign me up for far less luxurious levels. I just don't feel quite comfortable consuming humans. It's that cannibalism kapu, ya know? Impractical, I'm sure, and old-fashioned, but there it is.
Yeah,
With you on that.. the flippant attitude about what has already been poisoned and all the lands that hang under the threat of the same if 'some other' old reactor has a bad day, or God forbid, one of these Unsinkable new reactors..
.. and these guys think we should have more of them? They think it SECURES our energy future, and doesn't just hang a greater INsecurity on our kids necks.
Well.. I'm off to work in the rain.
No, there is no such assumption. Shit happens. I deal with the statistically best option here. It happens to be nuclear.
Every once in a while, an ambulance is involved in a traffic accident. How would you feel if your kid was run over by an ambulance? Wouldn't you demand ambulances were abolished? It is self evident that urgently transporting ill people must lead to accidents! Irresponsible, is it not?
Not surprisingly, it's mainly spoilt first-worlders that talk about their own lives in those terms. For a third worlder, going to where we are is literally a matter of life and death. That's because our well-off technological societies give us so much more than the nice gadgets we enjoy. It gives us stellar health care, education, long life spans, freedom in so many aspects, democracy and so on.
Yes, because having neither coal nor nuclear will mean a sacrifice of N*20 lives. To get up in the morning means some of us dies in accidents, disease and stuff. If nobody went up, all would die. Living means accepting the risk of dying.
Good luck with having that without electricity.
Please feel free to be minimalistic for ethical reasons. But please don't think it saves the global societies from needing nuclear power. It is still the best option for those non-luxurious needs we do have. Also, I find "luxuries" a good driving force for human progress. Would the Arab Spring have happened without the luxuries of modern cell phones, the Internet and Facebook?
A nice sentiment, but let's carry it to its logical conclusion. No electricity at all, since generation and consumption by any method whatsoever will still incur some number N of random deaths per TWH. No cars, trains, or planes either, because those too incur various numbers N of random deaths per unit of consumption (passenger miles instead of TWH.) No bicycles or walking either, since someone somewhere will sooner or later fall over and hit their head in a fatal way. No farming either, since that incurs various numbers N of random deaths per unit of production. Ditto for the foolishly romanticized hunting/gathering, which has its hazards too. And indeed no living at all anywhere on planet Earth, since all locations incur some rate N of random deaths owing to one or more of tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunami, extreme heat or cold, drownings, lightning, etc.
In the real world zero risk is unattainable: for any significant physical activity there will always be a calculation of lives per unit of production/consumption, regardless of anyone's glandular, emotional, irrational, tearjerking reaction that a Universe in which such a thing is the case is so unjust that it ought to be torn down. Now, if nuclear related deaths push your personal fear-and-terror buttons much much harder than other deaths, that's fine. Just don't expect others to agree unanimously that their buttons are selectively pushed the same way. (And if we insist on worrying ourselves over defective mutants, then it would be unjust not to worry just as much about the far larger numbers created by natural causes, including background radiation. But that subject is strictly taboo, so we must leave it aside.)
I should perhaps have clarified that I was talking about random deaths of innocent bystanders who do not benefit directly from the risky activity. I am talking about the "externalisation of costs," otherwise known as dumping the toxicity on someone else while pocketing the profits.
For example, I would in fact like to see the demise of the private automobile (among other reasons) because of its externalisation of risk onto others (directly via collision, indirectly via tailpipe emissions, climate change etc). However, the risks of bicycle riding fall squarely on the bicycle rider (it is extremely rare for a cyclist to strike and injure someone else) so I find bicycle riding a quite democratic form of risk. There are risks involved in farming, fishing, hunting; but many people undertake those risks willingly, even gladly. So long as they are not enslaved or coerced, but benefit directly from the risks they take, I don't have an issue with people pursuing hazardous professions (like tree-falling, or firefighting, or commercial diving).
The problem with the kind of human sacrifice I am talking about is typified by the siting of lethal technology flashpoints in the neighbourhoods and/or countries of relatively poorer people who do not get to make the decision about the cost (to them) and the benefits (to others): keeping the benefits of the technology for the favoured few (core) and exporting the risks to those who benefit least and/or have the least political clout (periphery). (All the poison industries -- nuke, fossil, chem -- routinely do this, but we're talking nukes here.)
My preference is not for a zero-risk world, since I'm as aware as anyone else that such a world is impossible (and actually undesirable -- how utterly boring it would be). My preference is for a world in which calculated risk is taken by the same persons who profit from it, not imposed by them on others against their will or without their knowledge.
For urban dwellers to demand nuclear power and then site nuclear plants in rural locations, imposing the risk on an "expendable" population, is in my book unacceptable. If urbanites want nuclear power, let them build their nuke plants downtown. Right next to the Statehouse and the Chamber of Commerce offices. Or perhaps within the defensible perimeters of the best gated communities, where the decision makers reside who set nuclear policy :-) If they are not willing to site the plants in such places, then the "people who matter" obviously do not feel that the risk is acceptable *for them*. If it is not acceptable for them, then it is not imho acceptable to impose it on others. If industrialised nations want to build out nuclear plants, let them keep the waste and figure out what to do with it, not ship it around the world to a relatively poor nation like Mongolia to be dumped as Someone Else's Problem.
The problem with nuclear plants (and to a lesser degree with other poison-industry facilities) is that some group of people always gets designated as expendable, some zone is declared a "sacrifice" zone; for some reason it never seems to be the people or the neighbourhood where the real decision making power resides or the money gets banked; and some greater good is invoked that is supposed to make this chicanery acceptable. I don't find it acceptable. To me it seems a lingering symptom of barbarism, making a mockery of all our bold claims about "progress."
How large areas there are off-limits to humans?
Yes, what about it? Please read more carefully, btw. Those areas were the land cost for 200+ years of fission power, i.e. the steady state cost where growth of newly contaminated areas equals the re-opening of old ones.
Eight circles with 30 kilometers radius = 22600 km^2, that's like New Hampshire, or half the size of Denmark. Not much.
By the way, if this not-much-area was covered with PV-modules with an efficiency of 15%, 4157 TWh would be produced at a capacity factor of only 14% (over 160% as much electric energy as all nuclear power plants worldwide produce today).
It's a lot of area if you are going to cover it with PV.
Just with the slight difference that this roof area is actually available and inhabitable.
As opposed to this:
http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Fukushima:-evacuation-area-extended.-Powe...
Right, footprint isn't the main problem of PV. Costs and intermittence is.
Actually, PV does reduce the load on the grid, can be installed in areas with a small/weak grid, is built quickly, competes at household electricity prices, requires no uranium, no cooling water, reduces transmission losses, only produces power at day time when demand and electricity costs are always higher.
In addition, modern photovoltaic modules are meanwhile at €0.50 /W production costs:
http://www.oerlikon.com/ecomaXL/index.php?site=OERLIKON_EN_press_release...
If you include inverters (also dropping in prices) and installation costs you are not far away from €1 /W soon:
http://www.solarserver.com/solar-magazine/solar-news/current/kw35/photon...
And also explains why China has revised its PV installation targets to 50 GW by 2020:
http://www.pv-tech.org/news/china_revises_pv_installations_targets
Of course, new nuclear has a higher capacity factor, but compare this to the new nuclear power pre-Fukushima-offers in North America close to $8/W:
www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/665644
www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1869203,00.html
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89169837
www.ocala.com/article/20101026/ARTICLES/101029758?p=2&tc=pg
I hope inexpensive PV modules somday will be a common roof tiling material.
An illustration of what I mean by antidemocratic decision making:
[Emphasis mine].
Negotiations were kept secret in case people whose lives would be put at risk might get annoyed and demand a part in the decision making, or refuse to have other people's risks arbitrarily dumped on them.
Any technology -- *any* technology, nuclear being just one -- which must keept its dealings, waste management, etc. secret because its profiteers/beneficiaries are attempting to export its lethality to the periphery while reserving its benefits for the core, is an antidemocratic technology. With filthy, potentially lethal technologies this secrecy and dumping is almost guaranteed to happen. Cleaner technologies are inherently more democratic as there is no dirty secret to keep and no multigenerational cleanup burden to slough off onto "someone else somewhere else": they can be deployed and maintained openly, with democratic rather than authoritarian process.
The kinds of energy generation we choose define the social organisation we want to live under, and vice versa. Nuclear power is deeply tied to authoritarian and autocratic (military) structures and traditions, and requires same traditions in order to remain profitable.
They won't really have to scale their expectations down very much - wind and solar are scalable, affordable and it won't be that that hard to manage their intermittency.
True:
http://www.ieee-pes.org/images/pdf/open-access-milligan.pdf
http://www.awea.org/blog/index.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1699=7942
Besides, no power plants produce power all the time:
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=47909
And wind always produces more power in the winter when Europe requires more electricity and France is forced to import electricity: http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFLDE6B119W20101202
Last march Spain produced more electric energy from wind than from nuclear, coal and gas:
http://www.windpowermonthly.com/news/rss/1063600/Spanish-wind-record-mon...
And Spain has relatively little pumping power and little power exchange with neighboring countries as opposed to France.
More importantly:
Fact is that significantly more energy is needed for heating, hot water and cooling than direct electric energy and heat energy can be stored cheaply (in fact France stores nuclear energy in millions of hot water tanks every single night). In order to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, hot water and heat generation will eventually need to be electrified (e.g. heat pumps), which will significantly increase the flexibility of the grid.
In fact this house stores the hot water collected on the roof during the summer month to heat and provide hot water for the building during the entire winter: http://www.jenni.ch/pdf/Mediendokumentation_Einweihung%20Solar-MFH%2031....
But this enormous storage capacity would obviously never be necessary with a renewable grid and heat pumps, because there are no dead calm periods which last 6 months.
Fossil fuel plants which are replaced by CHP plants and heat pumps easily reduce the CO2 emissions by over 50% and are significantly cheaper and built faster than new nuclear power plants.
Heat pumps as well as district heating accumulators increase the flexibility of the grid tremendously.
This single water tank has already a storage capacity of 2 GWh:
which is why they reflect that useless and odious color
I suggest you try living in a place where the landscape is white seven months a year before calling green an odious color!!! ?- ) I can't tell you how good it is for our souls to see the hills green up-a massive one or two day event that we really hope happens within ten days--but yeh as a tech/political term green is soiled, badly.
Methinks you got the drift of it...been there done that. >;^)
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhSrvZ4m4NC6OE_FCtEQm_jGM5RU9Hg...
A local coral reef?
I was fully entranced by the outer part of the Tunnels Beach reef last fall, my first encounter with mile/s of healthy coral. Better snorkel gear and a destination with its use in mind is certainly floating around in my list bucket.
Back to the thread at hand sort of. Lots of radiation dosing of reefs during the atmospheric nuke weapon test days--is there much good data on how live coral communities responded?
Renewables already are reliable intermittent and cost more,a lot more, then nuclear and fossil fuel.
Assuming you don't count the costs of little glitches like Deepwater Horizon and Fuk-D.
I think if you figure in those costs then renewables start looking pretty darn cheap.
The consequences of environmental degradation are not without costs.
A bit O/T here but there's a theory about why (virtually all) plants are green that I find quite convincing:
It doesn't makes sense that plants would reflect the most common wavelengths of light and use those on the margins (red/purple), unless.....
The plants populating the landmasses today began as underwater plants; the earliest algae, on the surface of the primordial seas, used the most available wavelengths, in the "green zone," and reflected the purples/blues/reds, which these ancestor plants then adapted to absorb.
It's an elegant explanation of an otherwise counter-intuitive phenomenon.
So if things hadn't evolved in this way, the great outdoors would be a tutti-fruiti mix of purples and reds rather than mostly uniform green.
If that were the case then you would think that any subsequent mutation that allowed plants to use the more plentiful wavelengths would be wildly successful. Seems like there must be more to it.
Water absorbs wavelengths of visible light in the following manner:
Your explanation does make sense for algae living at some depth but not for algae living on or near the surface. At a depth of only about 3 meters the reds are already pretty much gone and there isn't a whole lot for any algae living there to absorb. There are many different colors of algae living in shallow waters but I'll bet they all absorb well in the 450 nm range.
Japan is mountainous, and has high precipitation. Doesn't that sound like prime hydropower country? Also could be useful for pumped storage. It seems to me that geographically Japan could be like Denmark and Norway combined (minus Northsea oil/gas). The powerdown threat is more immediate, as so much nuclear capacity has been brought offline.
If Japan were not an island perhaps they would have catch basins large enough to make large rivers for hydro power.
Dire Fukushima progress and prognosis report
posted by Steve from Virginia at his blog:
http://economic-undertow.blogspot.com/2011/05/be-very-afraid-fukushima-e...
Comments?
Uhh... Oh, yeah!
"Don't worry!"
That's damn disappointing!
They got some strange respirators there. a mask like that has a protection factor of maybe 50 where as the respirators used in the nuke industry here in the US is more like a protection factor of 1000.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42945618/ns/world_news-disaster_in_japan/t/r...
Radiation drops at Japan nuclear plant
I live in Japan. About the strange sudden rise since may 1 of the temperatures in Reactor 3, the news here about this suddenly disappeared about 3 days ago. So for about a week, there was news about it, now nothing.
In general, it is getting hard to find out anything at all about the condition of the Reactors. News seems to have slowed to a trickle...I am not sure why.
I do appreciate Steve from Virginia's efforts to provide better information.
I wonder if people at the top are starting to panic and getting ready for the worst? On the other hand, I hope this is not the case.
yeah, i'm in Tokyo too. near news blackout except for small bits of TEPCO propaganda. no hard questions by any MSM that i have seen lately. Steve from Virginia's blog and a handful of other blogs is what we are down to. there is one community forum on Mixi i haven't looked at much lately. maybe it has more info. i'll check tomorrow.
Also in Tokyo and very frustrated by Japanese Fukushima MSM coverage which seems to be in “mustn’t frighten the children” mode as is the Japanese government.
Agree completely that Steve at Economic Undertow blog has been doing stellar work that never fails to set my hair on fire. One can only hope that he is not being unduly (gleefully?) alarmist. Arnie Gundersen, in his invaluable videos, Will Davis (Atomic Power Review blog) and Prof. Kunihiko Takeda of Chuo University on his blog (Japanese) have been rather more measured in their assessments. Now the most timely coverage of the ongoing crisis seems to by the EX-SKF blog which is presented in a suitably cynical tone. （It is a pity that Chris Martenson has stopped writing about Fukushima; his work in the first few weeks was invaluable.） Time will tell who has got it right.
The earthquake and tsunami Japan could probably have overcome. I fear, though, that Fukushima has changed everything and the prospects of this country are not good. Very sad stuff. Or perhaps I am being unduly alarmist myself…
Hi fellow Japan expats;
I was on my way back when the disaster occurred, changed plans and stayed away for a month, went back end of April but decided not to stay, just because I don't absolutely need to (no family, self-employed), and it just felt creepy, especially when I checked the fallout .gifs and saw that spring winds were carrying it past where I live(d), all the way to about Okayama.
The friends I got together with while there were worried, I could see it on their faces even before they told me, and all asked me for links to info on the web. I'm sure most folks here are up to speed but here are a few I've found useful (again, sorry if I'm being redundant):
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=480200&page=412
(it's a very active thread, tech-oriented). Other threads on the same forum discuss the political/social aspects:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=486089&page=5
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=493101&page=10
This forum was a good source but has nearly ground to a halt recently:
http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=1139141&start=3040
TOD was an invaluable resource during the Macondo disaster, but I realize this nuke problem's a little O/T so I've had to look elsewhere for frequent news/updates.
Writing from mainland China at the moment, the economic-undertow blog is blocked here--interesting, that. I'm now very curious to read it, if anyone can give me an idea how to access it (anonymz.com is also blocked) I'd be grateful.
I look forward to returning but can't bring myself to do that until (if/when) they get things stabilized.
I feel for you folks who are unable to leave due to family/work etc. Hang tight and keep yourselves informed best you can.
Watching the Fukushima news, government distrust is common. Many Japanese, Koreans, and Americans do not fully believe what they are being told. There is fear and anger.
"Information given to the public regarding the radiation emergency must not only
be accurate but must also be delivered promptly."
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/sudnik.pdf Page 50 "Event Fear Management"
The delay and empty reassurances worked against the government's credibility. Withholding of information continues:
"The government continues to face criticism after the resignation of a key nuclear adviser Saturday over disagreements on information disclosure and radiation exposure limits.
Mr. Hosono admitted that as many as 5,000 calculations on radiation-dispersion forecasts from a government forecast model haven't been disclosed to the public."
"Japanese plant starts on installation of filters"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870456940457629895019815060...
"Japan kept secret on radiation measurements"
http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=127874
Prior to these dates, it was admitted that daily data was shared between the Japanese Government and the IAEA, but not released to the public. I do not have the reference right now.
The levels of radiation deemed "acceptable" were raised. This is a standard response to a transient event. The EPA and FDA have similar plans in place. They are called RPGs, Radiation Protection Guidelines, and PAGs, Protective Action Guidelines. Here is an introduction. It froths a bit...
http://www.davistownmuseum.org/cbm/Rad3a.html
These things were done for a variety of reasons. Keeping up appearances is one. Preventing panic, another.
Avoiding further disruption to society is most important. The link above references the lines: "consideration of the appropriate range of costs for avoiding a statistical death" and Estimating incremental societal costs per day per person relocated". It is a moral question. There are a psychological "instruments" used to divine the level of morality a subject operates at. here is an early one, "Heinz Dilemma":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development
Delays in the flow of information, empty assurances, withholding information, and changing the game so that the game can continue anyway erodes and defies belief. Conspiracy theories rush in to fill the vacuum.
From Steve from Virginia's blog in figure 9 on May 10, 2011, the temperature of reactors 1, 2 and 3 have greatly increased.
Although Steve speculates that the core in reactor 3 has become a critical masses, it is also possible there is a reduction in coolant flow into the reactor. All three undergoing a temperature increase simultaneously suggests a problem with coolant or something that TEPCO is intentionally doing.
Here is a link to Tepcos temperature and pressure data over time of Daiichi:
http://www.gengikyo.jp/english/shokai/Tohoku_Jishin/parameter1F.pdf
"something TEPCO is intentionally doing". As in running out of places to store the
dirty water and are willing to let the injected water boil off and start venting steam ?
JulesBurn,
I've got something of a tin ear for sarcasm and understatement. Did you really intend the first sentence under the fold to be:
"Things at Fukushima are still somewhat unclean." ???
Rule #1 when posting on nuclear topics: never reveal your true feelings.
Stoneleigh at the Automatic Earth has a lengthy article on this today:
NHK:
Radiation high at No.3 reactor pool
The operator of the troubled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant has detected high levels of radioactive materials in the spent fuel pool of the No.3 reactor at the plant.
Tokyo Electric Power Company examined a water sample from the pool on Sunday. The sample contained 140,000 becquerels of radioactive cesium-134 per cubic centimeter, 150,000 becquerels of cesium-137, and 11,000 becquerels of iodine-131.
None of these substances were detected during an inspection on March 2nd, before the accident triggered by the March 11th disaster.
TEPCO says these substances may have come from damaged fuel rods in the reactor rather than the damaged spent fuel rods in the pool, because it has detected radioactive iodine, which has a short half-life. Radioactive substances such as iodine are generated during nuclear fission inside a reactor.
The company says the radioactive substances may have become attached to debris and entered the pool together.
Footage from the pool at the No.3 reactor on Sunday showed debris, believed to have been caused by a hydrogen explosion, scattered all over the interior of the reactor building.
The levels of radiation detected are almost the same as those detected in April in water samples in the fuel pool of the No.2 reactor.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011 20:22 +0900 (JST)
NHK:
TEPCO slipping behind schedule to contain accident
Nearly one month has passed since the operator of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant announced a schedule to contain the accident. But Tokyo Electric Power Company is finding it difficult to stick to the plan.
TEPCO announced the schedule on April 17th, detailing 51 measures to be implemented over the next 3 months for the 1st stage.
The most important steps involve the cooling of the reactors. These include pumping water into the reactors, injecting nitrogen into the containment vessels to prevent a hydrogen blast and filling them with water, as well as a study on the possible installation of heat exchangers.
Workers have entered the No.1 reactor building to prepare to inject water into the containment vessel. On Tuesday, they started calibrating the water gauges, and a plan has been drawn up to install a heat exchanger.
However, none of these measures have been carried out at the other reactors, apart from pumping water into them.
The high levels of radiation detected inside the No.1 building could force TEPCO to change its work plan.
A clear strategy for containing the problem is yet to be seen 2 months after the nuclear accident occurred.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011 04:28 +0900 (JST)
*A clear strategy for containing the problem is yet to be seen 2 months after the nuclear accident occurred.*
Time may very well be running out. What has been done about sea walls, protective covering?
Hey, maybe it's time they tried a 'junk shot'. On the other hand look on the bright side. At least BP doesn't stand for British Plutonium... Can you imagine Tony saying he'd like his life back after a Fuk D type incident?
Sure Tony in about 20,000 years or so.
I took a short look at Stoneleigh's article, but immediately I saw a lot of problems. Not as much with the nuclear analysis, but rather with Stoneleigh's blatant stereotyping of the Japanese and Japanese society. This may seem peripheral to the disscussion, but a realistic assesement is neccessary if we're going to speculate on what could happen in Japan.
First off, she brings up the tired cliche of "the nail that sticks up gets hammered down". It seems she's unfamilar with a much more common saying in Japan, 十人十色 - "Jyuunin toiro" which translates literally as "Ten people, ten colors" and is recognition of individuality and variety. To say that Japanese society does not reward "Originality, initiative, freedom of expression and openness to outside influences" is not only a stereotype but a very odd characterization of a country that went from a tightly closed system to a modern, westernized society in less than a century. Perhaps she should consider how a country like that could become a leader in auto manufacturing, which she may not view as requiring creativity and originality but certainly does. Or she could look at the anime and manga boom for more examples.
Her overview of the corporate system is not bad, but she neglects to mention that the system has recieved quite a shock over the last 20 years and is in no way as common or healthy as it was before. Her characterization of Japanese corporate hierarchy as "feudal" is true of all corporate hierarchy, everywhere. The tendency of corporations to hide things? Exists in the US too. Industries tend to be insular - is this news? Is this "Japanese" in any sense?
The problems that she's trying to describe are more complicated than that. Japan is an aging society, and older people tend to be much more conservative. For example, in the recent Tokyo election, the racist far-right governor Ishikawa won (again), but looking at the polls he won on the backs of people 40 and older, with his support increasing with the age of the voters. Japanese society IS more "collectivist" and in-group oriented than America, but most of what she's talking about has much in common with any other modern society.
On the issues with the accident, the problem is not simply TEPCO but the close collusion with the government, which she points out. I am reminded of how, in the US, the finanical system crashed and yet all the people brought in to fix it are incestuously tied to the banks... Perhaps even worse, as energy policy = destiny. The Japanese government tied itself to nuclear due to a belief in the techno-fix, but at least Kan is getting the courage to change direction. That's something rare to see anywhere.
adamx you make some very good points. I have been involved with Japan for about 20 years, nearly 10 living there, and expect to be perplexed and confounded by the place and it's people for as long as I continue my involvement. I don't mean that derogatorily, it's just a very complex and often paradoxical/contradictory place. I've lived in other countries where I also speak the language but Japan really is the mystery inside an enigma.
I think in part it's due to the many serious social dislocations it has experienced since the Meiji restoration and opening of the country to the West. As a result, IMO, most commentary about Japan from people who haven't lived there and don't speak the language, no matter what their academic bona fides (meaning there are scholars who speak Japanese but maybe only spent 1-2-3 years living there), tends to be like the five blind men and the elephant, or affected by a kind of cognitive Heisenberg principle. Of course every country's like that, especially populous ones (any American living abroad can attest to the monolithic view of the USA most people have), but Japan I dare say is particularly hard to unravel.
So your comparisons, to me, seem mostly apt, yet there is still an unusually great degree of these qualities pointed to in the article in Japan: getting information, getting people to speak out, or commit to an opinion, or getting higher-ups to listen to you, is unusually difficult. The Japanese knee-jerk reaction to a request for information is generally "no." Some of us call it a 禁止社会 (kinshishakai--prohibition society)--if you live there you see that all the time, right? Kinshi this, kinshi that. And inflexible and resistant to spontaneous actions of any kind. This is a major problem IMO in the current situation.
Consider also the phrase 仕方がない／しょうがない (shikataganai--nothing can be done). In Chinese (never mind probably any other Western language at least), for example, one can also say "something can be done," but only the negative exists in Japanese. I've tested that and if you say 仕方が有る (shikataga aru--something can be done) you'll get incomrehending looks, laughter, or, rarely, a correction--"sorry you can't say that." To me that says a lot about the mentality--and it's a particularly distressing fact in the current situation.
In any case, Japan is less "exotic" and different than most people think, but then, at the same time, it's the most unique and unusual place I've ever been.
A paradox inside a conundrum inside a contradiction.
PS so as not to offend I'll make clear the translations of the Japanese weren't aimed at you.
nan to ka naru sa? (We'll make it somehow, according to Google?)
Kobayashi Maru?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobayashi_Maru
I do find it rather baffling/frustrating that Stoneleigh keeps talking about all this "atomic village" guild loyalty, omerta, clannishness, etc. as if it were somehow specific to Japanese culture -- when the exact same social mechanisms exist in all complex organised cultures, particularly those with strong hierarchies. Surely the cosy culture of coverup, Old Boys' networks, revolving doors and the like is no less egregious, scary, and deeply, ineluctably human in the US or UK, Soviet Union (that was), or anywhere else with a fully functional mandarinocracy?
And surely that ineluctable human trifecta of carelessness, venality and cliquishness is why we really are not mature enough (as a species) to run with scissors? imho anyway.
Re: all this "atomic village"
It did make for an interesting association with where TEPCO located its "disaster headquarters": at J-Village.
thanks
Whichever way you look at it, Japan's handling of this nuclear incident is a disgrace.
Children Don Masks, Hats in Fukushima as Radiation Looms
Can somebody respond as to what I understand is a false coupling of external and internal exposure?
The 20 ms/year is not good, of course, but isn't the much greater danger that any one of these young people can be ingesting radiation? And that such exposure is something nearly impossible to quantify (by which I mean regardless of the general amount in an area you may or may not ingest radiation depending on your luck) so that one should act on worst-case-scenario calculations?
I'm seeing this "being this close to FDI= so many chest x-rays/airplane flights" etc equivalency being drawn in official Japanese/US reports and it seems like disinformation to me. No?
Yes, it is disinformation because they are only referring to exposure to nuclear radiation generated externally. There is no mention of ingestion of radionuclides and internal exposure. They are inhaling, drinking and eating the radionuclides. With readings of 3.3 microsieverts per hour, people should evacuate. The Americans lied, the Soviets lied and now the Japanese are lying with disregard for the health of people because the scale of the disasters are overwhelming. This is how all nuclear disasters will be handled by governments and corporations.
It is unclear whether Kan has the support to actually change the long-term energy policy of Japan. His support in his own party is shaky, and the LDP and New Komeito in the opposition would just as soon see him fall. At least that is what seems to be the sentiment in the Japanese press.
Gov't to financially support Chubu Electric over Hamaoka suspension
Kan, economic ministry differ over future energy policy
Kan faces pressure to quit from 60 DPJ lawmakers, opposition
"More efficient"! I think Japan is already the most efficient. How much further can they go?
I have been waiting a long time for the Japanese to finally use their technical know-how to do something in the field of energy. I like their solar power satellite program.
Department of Atmospheric and Climate Research, The Norwegian Institute for Air Research: Fukushima Potential Released, Cs-137 Total Column from May 11 to May 13, 2011, forecasts the fallout to blow somewhere other than the U.S. for a change. For Japan the forecast is around 10,000 Bq / m2 total column of Cs-137 within the evacuation zone.
I've never understood that Japan has even thought about nuclear energy or solar or wind. The country sits on a wealth of geothermal energy which almost nobody seems to have thought about. Somehow the right person in the right place decided that this was not an option and that they had to import expensive nuclear technology from the USA to Japan and build nuclear power stations.
Geothermal is expensive, hard to scale and has been known to provoke earth quakes. Even Iceland relies mainly on hydro.
MIT has quite a different perspective than you do;
MIT-led panel backs 'heat mining' as key U.S. energy source (link to 400 page document);
Ah, so all of MIT has, with single minded unity, agreed that if they get reasonable R&D money, geothermal "could" provide as much as the current nuclear fleet in 2060? Great news.
EGS alone could replace almost half of the coal-burning electricity (actual capacity) in the US, so yes, that is indeed great news.
My sarcasm was lost. Oh well.
No, just put in a proper context, which nullified it.
well you hardly nullified it when the first paragraph of the linked article
includes
could supply a substantial portion of the electricity the United States will need in the future, probably at competitive prices (my emphasis) but it is good to see us looking at geothermal again.
One of the panels recommendations bulleted in the article jumped out at me.
Other geothermal resources such as co-produced hot water associated with oil and gas production and geopressured resources should also be pursued as short-term options.
I haven't read about this actually happening anywhere yet--any links to oil and gas fields that harvest their geothermal? These days burning natural gas seems the oil/gas patch preferred method for generating power or heat when it needs it.
There are some other red flags in that article too;
Yes, water "may be an issue" - there sure are a lot of coulds, may, potential in tis story. The geothermal system at The Geysers in California had to build a 29 mile pipeline to bring in treated sewage effluent from the city of Santa Rosa. They get 11 million gallons per day, and from the website, only 25% of this is recycled, the rest being evaporated.
The geothermal industry will need to do better than that as no many places have a large source of unwanted water hanging around. They will have to go to closed loop/dry air cooling, which has a further cost and efficiency penalty.
And then this, which sounds vaguely familiar;
Hmm, fracking rocks - that is proving to be very popular at the moment, so lets do a whole lot more.
The problem with mild temp geothermal is that there just is not a lot of energy in that water, and it costs a lot to get at it. A better approach, to start with, might be to look for geothermal that is near existing power stations, or build a station at the geothermal site. Use the geothermal to boil the water, and then your fossil fuel for the superheat. Not completely carbon neutral, but you could actually get back more electricity than fossil fuel input, so it would be very efficient.
I'm sure MIT will love to get lots of federal funding to study this more, that is after all, what they do.
Actually my question any links to oil and gas fields that harvest their geothermal? was just that.
Locally the owner of a hot springs resort that uses low temp hot spring water for both refrigeration and electrical generation at his end of the road off grid establishment has suggested tapping into the geothermal potential of gas and oil fields.
I really do want to know if anyone at TOD knows if that is actually being done anywhere in the world.
Luke, there is a bit of a summary here, but it lots of "potential for" and only one company has actually done anything,and there is no mention of that on their website.
You would have to think there is lots of opportunity for Chena type systems out there - as long as you can out the water back down somewhere.
as long as you can out the water back down somewhere.
I'm not sure I quite followed you there. I think your talking about reinjecting the cooled water into the buried system to have it heated again--which certainly affects the ERoEI and capital costs of such projects.
Oil and gas companies though risk takers, are still very tied to burning fuel for power and heat when they need to generate either. It has always been done that way and everyone knows how to do it.
Harvesting the geothermal is venturing into entirely new terrain where the risks(cost/benefit which has myriad unquantified components until tried) are not yet well understood. Of course enough grant and/or tax credit money might push the tech along...but then there is never any waste, graft, outright theft or other downsides connected with that approach is there...right
Actually the MIT reports states that the US geothermal resource is estimated to exceed 100,000 times total US energy consumption. The relatively small number quoted above was their projection of implementation given regulations, bureaucratic inertia, etc.
If we really wanted it, we could power the whole country just from geothermal.
In many countries, Geothermal already provides more energy than their current Nuclear fleet.
Geothermal is showing good growth.
http://geotermia.org.mx/geotermia/pdf/WorldUpdate2010-Ruggero.pdf
Given the current state of the Nuclear industry, Geothermal is likely adding more GWh to grids globaly, than Nuclear is.
Nuclear is in red ink, on the GWh-added ledger.
Great link JG!
That is a much better report, IMO than the MIT one. They are predicting a 50% increase in the next five years, but another recession might slows that down.
Even though geothermal is increasing, it is only at 10,000MW world wide - the current world nuclear fleet is 370,000MW, so there is a lot of catching up to do! More importantly, with the new ORC systems, geothermal can be done with low temp (60C) waters, though not at great efficiency, but if the water is there, then, hey!
I think we will see more smaller plants - but I can't see a lot of big ones (>100MW) being done, still, every bit helps.
The low temp ORC systems are also suited for low temp, low cost concentrating solar too.
According to your document, production went up from 56 to 67 TWh from 2005 to 2010. That is the equivalent of adding a single large nuclear reactor in five years, and the growth rate is bad, some 4% per year.
you can only transport so much power up that borehole.
One of my friends is painting his house and decides he needs some more paint so he goes back to the paint shop and gets told: "Sorry no more of that colour available", seems that the pigment comes from a factory in the exclusion zone round Fukushima, and it may never reopen.
Has anyone else heard of similar problems?
Maybe they should just switch to a nice rich cadmium red or cobalt blue and just wait for it to fall on their house from the sky with the next rain... See, no problem!
BRIEF-Merck KGaA says resumed production of effect pigments in Japan
Merck produced titanium oxide in flake form at a plant on the coast north of Fukushima Daiichi. This plant was shut down, but it appears to have at least partially resumed production. It is a little north of the exclusion zone.
The pigment is used to give auto paints a "metal flake" appearance, especially reds and blacks. Since the Japanese plant was the only one making this particular pigment, those colors of cars would be unavailable unless production resumed.
I'd doubt that is is used in house paint, unless it is in some specialty paint used for metal work or trim.
In Sweden the traditonal colour is "Falu Red", wich is based on a waste product from mining copper ore. Wich we did in the city of Falun for about 1000 years. The supply of that stuff will last for centuries to come. And the est part is;it is already mined andprocessed, lieing on the ground in piles wating for usage.
Is that why all those Dala Horses are red?
Is it an Iron Oxide?
I doubt there is that copper ore waste product in the paint on those horses. Falu Red is used for painting wooden walls,and have a very special musty red tone to it. The horses are painted in a shining sparkly kind of red. It must be another pigment.
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26738/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dxbm7iJTT8U
Reactor #4 is "leaning" - worry about collapse and the stored rods being tossed 'bout the landscape.
TEPCO Suspects Full Core Meltdown At Unit 1
Read it and weep. This is amazingly bad news. They say the fuel is still in the reactor pressure vessel. For now.
(Sorry, I hit the wrong reply button. I didn't mean to reply to the message above.)
Are they totally encrusted in salt by now, and that is why the water no longer helps?
Don't worry folks!
Now you can't go see another nations work on modeling the radioactive isotopes in the air. And if you can't see it it doesn't exist, right?
http://transport.nilu.no/products/fukushima
Followup: Now found at
http://zardoz.nilu.no/~flexpart/fpinteractive/plots/?C=M;O=D
Wonder why they picked the movie Zardoz? Perhaps the line about the gun being good?
Thanks for the tease.
Been wondering about this and hope answers can be povided to the questions
raised by viewing this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haMePBnkJhY
Some guy playing with the simulator and going "Oh Noooooooooooooo!"?
Zardoz site has been around for years?
Here is a more productive simulation?
http://www.mostfungames.com/bush-ragdoll.htm
And some new leak is talked about today the 12th:
TEPCO has struggled to stop spills into the Pacific Ocean but reported another one on Thursday, saying water had leaked into the sea from a concrete pit near reactor three, one of the plant's six units.
Samples of seawater taken near the plant contained caesium-134 at a concentration 18,000 times the permitted level, the utility said, adding that the spill had been stopped by filling the pit with concrete.
TEPCO spokesman Yoshinori Mori said: "Today we have continued to investigate the route of the leakage into sea and why it happened."
Top government spokesman Yukio Edano called the leak "deplorable" and apologised to the fishing industry and to neighbouring countries.
See, for instance: http://www.peopleforum.cn/redirect.php?tid=93759&goto=newpost
water had leaked into the sea from a concrete pit
Bad water come from pit. Right. Got it.
the spill had been stopped by filling the pit with concrete.
Now pit filled. No more bad water come from pit. Pit problem solved.
(errr, no where do these Captains of Industry who are here to save us all by providing goods and services at affordable prices address HOW the pit got filled and if that pit-filling source has stopped emitting. Public Relations score +1.)
Can anyone understand and explain this article, which is in Japanese?
Can you translate the diagrams?
Google Translate says the second drawing shows how the power was restored: "Drawing power restored house Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant"
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout...
Here is a larger version of the first drawing:
http://astand.asahi.com/S2001/upload/2011031900004_4.jpg
--> use the magnify.
Second drawing, larger:
http://astand.asahi.com/S2001/upload/2011031900004_5.jpg
Yes I can use Google translate, and I can also see larger versions. But what are they doing? What do you see when you use the magnifier? Any idea? What does it tell us about the nature of the failure, or at least the nature of the solution?
People here have all levels of computer skills.
Power distribution is not one of my things. Pulsed power, but not applicable.
These images have things coming in from the edge that are not shown.
The green arrows on the first were explaining the situation.
The red lines on the second are external power sources.
There were several other images, but not used in the article.
Has Google instituted the "similar image search" yet?
The second is a "Single Line Diagram". It seems confused. There is a mix of formal symbols and explanatory pictographs.
They cut-up the 275KV and 500KV distribution.
They cut 5 and 6 free from the 275 and 500KV lines.
They brought in power to 5 and 6 ( "5(dot)6" )from outside.
Possibly a tower-mounted transformer to get 6KV or so?
They brought in a transformer to feed 3 and 4 from outside.
It is a rectangular symbol, but marked "Tr": 66KV in, 6KV output.
They connected lines together in the towers to get the power over.
They brought in power to 1 and 2.
There is another, existing transformer there: 66KV to 6.9KV.
It looks like the 275KV and 500KV distribution was useless.
It looks like 66KV was brought in and transformed down to 6KV.
This happens in two or three places.
Now that I've replied in detail, perhaps somebody who actually knows will save you from my ramblings...
"The Engineering Symbology, Prints, and Drawings Handbook was developed to assist nuclear facility operating contractors in providing operators, maintenance personnel, and technical staff with the necessary fundamentals training to ensure a basic understanding of engineering prints, their use, and their function."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/7711916/Engineering-Symbols
http://www.scribd.com/doc/49848397/19/BLOCK-DIAGRAMS
http://xnet.rrc.mb.ca/janaj/E602%20Power%20Systems/Single%20Line%20Diagr...
Regarding diagram 2011031900004_5.jpg:
That would put the plant at the bottom then, the 6kV side of the transformers? What is at the top? The transmission substation? There would be a 500 kV bus at the substation and a 275 bus there as well since the Futaba lines to 5&6 are 500 kv and the Ookuma lines to 123&4 are 275 kV. The "capacitors" between them could be switched transformers, some of which were possibly disabled. There was a report of damage at the substation.
If the red diagonal lines are electrical breaks in the lines, then
Units 5&6 They connected to both 5&6 using line 6, skipping around "pylon #27" close to the plant and doing the last leg on line 5 to the mains line (M) for 5&6.
Units 3&4 They used line 5 part of the way, switching it over onto line 3 (probably on the plant site) ?at pylon 27? to line 3 and onto the 3&4 mains line. (at 6kv)
Units 1&2 Lines 1&2 (marked G1+G2) ... what ... were not energized, as built, for some reason but something off to the right happened. The circle x and circle and equal sign and circle on a triangle (in the substation?) were bypassed. Very not so clear.
大隈線 translates to Ookuma line.
双葉線 translates to Futaba line (or Hutaba line?)
線 is Line.
Yes, the generators, G1 G2 G3 G4 plus 5 and 6, are at the bottom.
The red slashes and X's are cuts and eliminations.
The thing mounted to the tower on the left might be a "pole-mounted sub-station".
I'm taking circle-X to be a "TR"ansformer 66KV to 6.9KV 4500MVA.
I don't think it is bypassed: there would be slashes.
Maybe 1B 2B 3B 4B ARE transformers:
Becomes just two lines?
In a single line drawing, the top and bottom ears would not bee there and neither would the core, the two parallel lines. There would just be the two coils facing each-other with a single line to/from the center of each.
The drawing is strange.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22391891/Essential-Parts-of-Substation
http://albertaelectricityfuture.com/alberta/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/a...
whatever
The "capacitor" symbols don't make sense as capacitors in those positions. They look like industrial drawing relay contacts and even have a "control line" in one position... but make no real sense as such, either, especially the "control" line.
I replied because I know this is a quest of yours: what happened to the power feeds to Fukushima.
_______________________
No bother!
Won't bother again.
John
it's an article about a TEPCO press conference on 19 March. mainly about how they were restoring external power to the site by stringing up new cables.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but how?
On the 4_5 diagram, the 500 kV line must be a Futaba line, the normal connection to Unit 5&6. Is that 275 kV line an Okuma line or is that the plant switch yard? Is the "capacitor" symbol a switching device?
Can you translate the Japanese, at least?
I would consider it highly valuable if we could have a thread that discusses what is happening (has happened) at Fukushima concerning radioactive contamination of the environment. How does the situation look right now (concerning contamination) and most of all what happens at the plant right now and what developments at the plant could be foreseen that could possibly result in further release of radioactive substances to the environment.
If the editors at TOD could give us such a thread I would appreciate it very much. If further it would then be possible to constrain the contents to just about that, i.e. if it would be possible to not turn it into a discussion of the pros and cons of nuclear power and other power sources in general, I would be very happy.
Would it be possible to have such a thread and also renew it when it becomes to long to be practical?
Second this request.
Japanese Officials Admit Fukushima Reactor No. 1 in Meltdown
Now the company is worried that the molten pool of radioactive fuel may have burned a hole through the bottom of the containment vessel, causing water to leak.
“We will have to revise our plans,” said Junichi Matsumoto, a spokesman for Tepco. “We cannot deny the possibility that a hole in the pressure vessel caused water to leak”.
Tepco has not clarified what other barriers there are to stop radioactive fuel leaking if the steel containment vessel has been breached. Greenpeace said the situation could escalate rapidly if “the lava melts through the vessel”.
Underwater video from unit 3 spent fuel pool shows a big mess with lots of debris. Underwater video from unit 4 spent fuel pool appears to show intact fuel assemblies in their racks.
http://www.tepco.co.jp/tepconews/pressroom/110311/index-j.html
> This will be an interesting experiment. ... Japan is taking a different road.
It seems to me that a national project like this would be very positive for Japan, psychologically. It's been lost in a slump ever since the crash of 1989 -- according to Paul Krugman and the economic statistics, anyway.
A clearly articulated, positive national vision is a great thing for a nation, and for the individuals in it. Compared to that, electricity blackouts are trifles.
You are asking Jeppen to cough up links to support his views ... Now ... what about yourself?
Do you expect anyone to understand anything form this "collection of words"?
Ah, yes, yet another trope on the hive-mind paradigm of imposed national visions, which set such a fine example in not only Japan but also Europe over the course of the first half of the 20th century.
More defensive hostility from the delusional faction that stubbornly, and ridiculously, insists that human beings, and human minds, are individual and independent.
Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't NEED to follow ME, You don't NEED to follow ANYBODY! You've got to think for your selves! You're ALL individuals!
The Crowd: Yes! We're all individuals!
Brian: You're all different!
The Crowd: Yes, we ARE all different!
Man in crowd: I'm not...
The Crowd: Sch!
Absolutely. I guess you have all seen the Daily Show piece on energy independence?
"you have all seen"
The crowd changes here often.
They look at specific kinds of posts.
Even Gail seemed to have missed it.
The piece is a gem.
Bring it up at whim.
Then again, most every Christmas Card goes out saying 'Peace on Earth, Goodwill Towards Men'.. it seems to me to be about the same thing. I don't think most people sending out that message are doing so cynically or hypocritically.. it's an ideal, but one we're usually unprepared to accomplish.
It's not really the 'Vision', it's more like a description of the Problem that we mostly agree on.
The 'Vision' is what outlines the PATH for actually moving in that hoped-for direction.
Who Bells the Cat?
This site keeps up with the news coming from Fukushima, with a short summary headline and link to the source:
http://enenews.com/
These are a few of the headline/links for the past couple of days
Off the Scale: Radiation in No. 1 reactor building exceeds 1,000 millisieverts per hour — Levels too high for Geiger counter to measure
May 13th, 2011 at 07:51 PM
Primary 1 Fukushima: 1000 2nd Floor Unit 1 mSv, Mainichi, May …Read More
“Highly dangerous” levels of radiation detected in No. 3 reactor building — Double amount from April
May 13th, 2011 at 07:04 PM
Robot finds high radiation at No. 3 reactor bldg, The Yomiuri Shimbun, May 14, 2011 …Read More
Top DOE official: US “had difficulty grasping what was actually happening” at Fukushima (VIDEO)
May 13th, 2011 at 04:59 PM
Energy Dept: US will help contain Fukushima crisis, NHK, May 13, …Read More
Japanese nuclear expert says meltdown has now made cooling “very difficult” (AUDIO)
May 13th, 2011 at 12:56 PM
Japanese authorities admit nuclear reactor had meltdown, ABC Radio, May 13, …Read More
TEPCO admits “multiple holes” found in bottom of No. 1 reactor’s pressure vessel
May 13th, 2011 at 11:09 AM
Nuclear fuel at Fukushima No. 1 unit melted after full exposure, …Read More
Most likely ‘solution’ to fuel melting through reactor is a concrete wall around Unit No. 1 — “Could now take years” to encapsulate because of high radiation
May 13th, 2011 at 06:29 AM
UPDATE 2-Fukushima reactor has a hole, leading to leakage, Reuters …Read More
NYT: TEPCO had hoped that Reactor No. 1 was the “easiest to bring under control” as No. 2 and 3 are believed to be breached and leaking
May 13th, 2011 at 05:33 AM
Japanese Reactor Damage Is Worse Than Expected, New York Times, May …Read More
etc
Here is a clear status summary from "Where Barflies Get Together"
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2011/05/fukushima-update-may-11.html
enenews is a good source for some things -- like Japanese news reports in translation -- but also seems to be a kind of vanity press for Gunderson. I am somewhat wary of Gunderson who seems to be a bit of a sensationaliser. The situation is disturbing/scary enough without spinning it for even bigger scare factor.
I don't think enenews.com has any direct relation with Gundersen. I see enenews as an extremely useful repository of news that come out about the evolving situation, mostly from Japanese sources. Of course when Gundersen puts out an update, they mention it and give a link to it, just as they do with everything else. But the Gundersen updates are a minuscule fraction of the total articles and reports posted at enenews.
Oh, didn't mean to slander the site -- perhaps I just hit it on a non-typical couple of days. On two or more of my visits I found that about one half of the posted links were Gundersen-related, so I figured it was some kind of vanity blog. More Japanese sources at GreenAction Japan.
Gundersen has been banging this drum for a long time. He's finally been getting a bit of attention, and is linked to sites that may have had a poor approach or reputation, but I don't see anything so far that suggests that he is off-base in his analysis or position.
With his experience within the industry, he seems to be a reliable source, which is why I think he's been such a sought-after source.. But it's easy to charge him guilty by association with groups who are glad to have his message to share, while they may have been seen as Screamers in the past.
I haven't seen a reasonable challenge to his bona fides so far.
Information abhors a vacuum - perhaps if there were information coming out of Fukushima directly then we would have better means to judge. As it is I'm glad he's providing what information he is. For those who say his reports as biased, well maybe, but then put up or....
http://www.asianweek.com/2011/04/30/nuclear-cloud-over-fukushima/#commen...
The comment is expanded by the host, to include all the referenced videos, in the space just above the comment.
Cesium contamination spreading to neighbouring Tochigi Prefecture
"Tochigi Prefecture requested farmers in the area where the radioactive substance was detected not to feed pasture grass to livestock."
Prohibitions on pasture fed beef means reverting to inefficient grain-fed and/or CAFO style meat production, which in turn means higher fossil fuel costs per kg of edible meat and lower quality meat -- at a time when fossil fuel prices are set to rise sharply. The knock-on costs of persistent contamination really are incalculable.
This engineer, Arthur Hu, who describes himself as a conservative, has some strong words to all sides of this issue, and makes the case that intervention is needed. TEPCO is completely out of its depth. The situation is very grave, and the emergency is not limited to Japan. The stuff does not stop at the border, and it’s coming out at an alarming rate, with no end in sight. I will just copy the last few relevant paragraphs of his article:
http://www.asianweek.com/2011/05/13/fukushima-deadlier-than-chernobyl/
The entire north corner of building 3 is collapsed to BELOW the top refueling floor, which is inconsistent with the biggest boom coming from the pool acting as a mortar. I think you can see the crane on 3 across the middle of the building which explains why that part of the roof is still there, while the green refueling platform is on the north side shattered. The big square opening in the SW corner is the vertical shaft where fuel casks are moved from the truck to the top floor by the overhead crane. I’ve seen a youtube comment (hell, that’s more reliable than what we get from TEPCO) report that the concrete reactor top plugs (like a big manhole cover) are blown out like coins. Keep in mind, TEPCO didn’t have any of this stuff because the GE manual said they’ll NEVER have to worry about working around radiation or blown up buildings. I’ll bet dollars to donuts the American plants with BWRs don’t have any toys like this either or contingency plans otherwise they could go over there and say “just use our plans we figure out years ago” instead of looking across the pond with a gaping OMG and then signing off on a NRC study saying we’re fine.
[…]
All General Electic has to say, the guys who built the thing and the instruction book is that “it’s their reactor now, we built that thing a LoNNNNNG time ago” and “oh, that’s wayyyyyy beyond design basis, we’re proud it held up as well as it did” never mind that their design study still says in Wikipedia that it’s not supposed to melt down in a bazillion reactor years, and every safety cooling system either failed, blew up or both spilling enough radioactivity to be measured in milk and rainwater across the planet, and huge chunks up to 2 miles away.
[…]
Apollo 13 or the good sailors of Taffy 3 in the Battle Off Samar / Leyte are models of how this needs to be handled. You lose the service module, and follow the manual, and you won’t get home. Taffy 3 found themselves armed with spit wads against the mighty battleship Yamato, but fought on and won. The Japanese followed the book, but Americans know when the book says “end of game” but figure out how to keep playing. At least the Japanese were inventive enough to survive as well as they did without really killing many people at all. Fukushima is still a ticking bomb, and we’re downwind. Never mind the moms in the rest of Asia next door rinsing out their spinach to get the radioactive particles out. The president needs to call up GE and apologize at least as much to the Japanese for selling them such a dangerous piece of equipment as for US crimes against Islam. Then call up their experts (assuming they haven’t died, been laid-off or retired by now) or call back the retirees, put all the broken parts on a table, and tell them FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION. None of this “we offer help”. We do whatever it takes to secure the place if it takes sending in the Marines. If we can go into Pakistan whether they like it or not, isn’t this at least as important? Dr. Michio Kaku had it right in that once the cooling system fails, THERE IS NO SAFE WAY TO OPERATE THE PLANT. You look at all the specs and it’s never supposed to leak any radioactive anything, let alone blow up with the same effect as an airliner crash or a small nuke. It doesn’t matter that we’re getting radiation in “safe levels”, we’re all on the same planet and we can’t just sit back and look at pictures of TEPCO playing with the robots, remote controlled dumper and crane or T-Hawk drone like executive toys on Christmas day. Everybody in US plants: this is like the day the gave out the answer to the test. In the 80s they used computers to discovered a gob of cases they never thought of in the 1950s and came up with fixes like explosion proof exhaust vents to prevent hydrogen explosions. STILL don’t know if the Japanese ever installed those (heck somebody outthere ought to be able to look at the shattered vent hanging in the air next to #3 and see if that’s a hard one), or if they failed because the fans had no power.
[…]
Update 5/14: Ugh, it’s worse. Measured radiation levels are worse than the levels that mandated evacuation around Chernobyl, which never had an explosion that scattered radioactive debris miles away horizontally. Nothing to worry about, it’s just a harmless hydrogen explosion my arse: “levels of radioactive cesium137 (30 year half-life) registering between 3 million and 30 million Becquerel per square meter (Bq/m2)….populations in Ukraine were ordered out of areas contaminated at 550,000 Bq/m”
US/Japan release radiological readings around Fukushima: Hot zones higher than those prompting 1986 Chernobyl evacuations
New radiological monitoring data jointly collected and published on May 6, 2011 by Japanese and US authorities reveal ground level radioactive cesium contamination beyond Japan’s declared twelve (12) mile no entry zone higher than radiation levels that prompted the mandatory evacuation of populations from around the Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986. Radiation readings taken by helicopter and plane found levels of radioactive cesium137 (30 year half-life) registering between 3 million and 30 million Becquerel per square meter (Bq/m2). Following the Chernobyl nuclear accident in Ukraine, populations in Ukraine were ordered out of areas contaminated at 550,000 Bq/m2. Those areas are still officially declared to be an uninhabitable zone now more than twenty five years later.
Gee, the stories pro-nuclear faction tells about what happened at Fukushima keep getting wronger and wronger! First "no meltdown", then "it withstood the quake fine, it was the tsunami that caused the problem." Data now shows that most of the fuel rods had dropped to the bottom of the pressure vessel in reactor 1 within 16 hours of the quake.
Rapid meltdown in No.1 reactor
Quake hurt reactors before tsunami: data Radiation seen as too high immediately after temblor
Is it the Hindenberg Moment yet?
In some places, almost certainly. As the realization of "what really happened" at Fukushima Daiichi filters through political and community consciousness, the chances of anyone succeeding in building a new reactor in, say, California or Vermont, for decades, become vanishingly small. After that, there will be insufficient FF surplus to do it, even if it becomes politically feasible.
I think the more pressing question, in the West, is whether communities and regulators are going to allow these dirty-bomb BWR's to keep operating in their back yards, and to continue receiving license extensions.
OTOH, I doubt that China, for instance, is going to be much deterred. It's also unlikely that it will develop a serious safety culture. And we are all down-wind.
More to come... It just gets worse... Those still arguing here that the risks from nuclear power are "acceptable" and "preferable to coal" had better shut up soon. When the damaged area reaches the size of entire countries, they will be seen by all for what they are. Shills. There are no words to express my disgust for them.
Two Other Reactors Suffer Serious Damage
This doesn't sound good... Remember, the government had to tell them to shut down. They hadn't discovered this problem before shutting down.
Seawater found in coolant at Hamaoka plant
How does that much seawater get somewhere that you should have very pure water? And nobody noticed?
I don't care how "theoretically" safe nuke power is said to be, in practice it's a world destroying time bomb! And some want to massively unleash it in addition to coal! They know there will never be one coal plant actually replaced by nuclear. I guess they think it's better to die from cancer than warming.
Wait....what? If there is seawater in the cooling water at Hamaoka, the ones they shut down supposedly because they're located in an insane place in regards to earthquake faults but not due to any immediate problems, then you have to conclude that we really have no idea what is happening there.
Right! And just how many other giant screw-ups are sitting around un-noticed? I get real tired of the proclamations on how safe nuclear power is, when the fact is that the plants are built and run by humans who will cut any corner to make/save more money. Safety be damned!
And this is in Japan, a country where you'd think they know how to do things right. China, the Czech Republic, India, Mexico, Pakistan, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, etc. Any thoughts? Your life and health depend on it.
Nuclear power cannot be made safe or cost effective, neither by the Japanese or anyone else. Our lives and health are dependent on shutting them down and concentrating the waste somewhere away from population centers, but more importantly so is that of generations to come.
I think we have to conclude that our ignorance is being deliberately maintained, to the maximum extent possible.
This really is mind-boggling information.
Any Japanese-reading TOD members able to translate this?
enenews says that this article says that they've detected 2 sieverts/hr in Unit 1 as of May 13.
if this is true then it sounds (to this literate layperson) like major bad.
TEPCO now says their timeframe for removal of spent fuel and other clean up is "years". I'm thinking of all the labour, all the ingenuity, all the human health, all the fossil fuel, all the resources being sucked into this bottomless pit for years, maybe decades. Incidents like this and Chernobyl are like a leech or parasite on a culture/nation/civilisation/economy, a constant baseline load of makework; a long hard price to pay for "cheap" electricity in the past (and just at the moment when general resource crunches worldwide are making all such industrial efforts more and more relatively costly). As has been said here often, at least when a PV array or a wind turbine fails, you can walk away from it, cut your losses, move on; you don't have to spend the next 10 or 20 years trying to bury it, diverting some of your most ingenious people from working on other things that might be urgently useful as you approach Peak Oil with a destabilised climate. Sorry to restate what has been said before, but it struck me with renewed force this morning that the Japanese -- hell, the world, if foreign intervention is eventually called for -- are going to be paying for this for years and years, both biophysically and financially.
Put it this way, if I were buying a car (let's say) and this car was going to be very fast and comfortable and would need no maintenance and get fantastic gas mileage and so forth -- a really cool car... but it was quite expensive to purchase... I might say, "well, you have to pay for quality," and invest in a high-quality tool that would not impose a high maintenance load on me.
But if I then found out (due to an airtight full-disclosure contract) that when this car failed or got to the end of its service lifetime, it would become so toxic and unstable that I would not be allowed to give it away, sell it, transport it, or in any other way get rid of the thing *and* I would then have to spend an hour out of each day -- for years -- tinkering with it (at considerable personal risk, dressed in an encounter suit) in order to prevent it from poisoning my entire neighbourhood... well, I wouldn't buy that car. Would anyone? Would my neighbours want me to buy such a car, knowing that their and their children's health and safety would depend on my conscientiously undertaking this long costly post-user tinkering process, without fail, for years and years? Would they trust me that much, given that the long human tradition is to walk away from sunk costs?
There was no full-disclosure contract. We are all collectively stuck with these cars that seemed really cool, but require lengthly and costly counterproductive babysitting and tinkering in the event of failure or obsolescence -- work that accomplishes nothing, produces nothing, other than to prevent disaster. Would we have bought them if we had known in advance what the end of product lifecycle was going to look like?
Oh well, I suppose it's a full-employment programme for nuclear technicians. You need 'em to build the plants and then you need 'em even more to decommission them. Win/win, if you're the nuke industry... talk about a captive market.
Yes, EX-SKF was reporting the same thing yesterday. 2,000 mSv/h at the door:
http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/05/fukushima-i-nuke-plant-reactor-1-bldg...
I bet even TEPCO, with its supply of contract, slave-labor gamma sponges, is finding it difficult to find workers for tasks at that location. ;^(
I can't recommend that EX-SKF blog enough. I was going cross eyed trying to read this stuff in Japanese. That site does a bang up job of reporting the news as it breaks.
Thinking over my car analogy, I'm realising that in practise I'd probably choose a bicycle :-) Low externalised risk, low purchase price, low maintenance load, nearly infinite lifetime with refurb and basic repair, minimal impact at end of life. That choice imposes certain limits, it's true, but they are limits within which a good life can be lived without imposing a bad life on someone else. And the expensive choice imposes its limits too (as we've seen): high maintenance is a burden, like debt, and limits our freedom and our resources in future. If we believe our resources in future are ever-expanding, we don't worry (future cost discounting). But those of us on this forum are uncomfortably aware that our resources in future are levelling off and contracting. Undertaking long costly high-maintenance obligations feels pretty risky.
So the car-toon may be a pretty good analogy for the industrial human predicament at this point. We are used to cars (a metaphor for many industrial-era luxuries), but we are increasingly uncomfortable with the maintenance costs and end-of-life costs. OTOH, we are convinced that cars are high-status and only losers ride bicycles. What does A do now?
Do we make like the famous Norse settlement in Greenland -- stick to our high horse, refuse to eat seafood and other "dirty heathen" subsistence fare (ride bicycles, use electricity sparingly), insist that we are high-status people who eat beef (drive cars, burn many KWH 24x7) dammit -- and die off because our sense of status was more important than our survival? Or do we accept that survival means changing our ideas and practises and start expressing status in other ways less constraining of our future freedom?
When Hirohito, the emperor of Japan, finally knew that his empire was in danger of falling, his only concern was to save the magic mirror, the iron sword, and the crooked rock... the symbols of his power, representing Truth Wisdom and Kindness. The people were expendable and of no concern. He capitulated when given the understanding that he could retain his title.
That is one's leadership. The people are irrational, too.
Be kind to the ants.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86zPFR4R0Ko
However, like ants, they will run to a new resource if it is spilled on the table.
_____________________________________
http://www.phschool.com/atschool/california/webcodes/itext_samples/medie...
*However, like ants, they will run to a new resource if it is spilled on the table.*
THE ANTS
The ants have built their mansion in a pile of sand,
Are we not better, wiser, larger,
The cities of our comforts better planned?
Clever, they misconceive the great backhoe
The concrete mixer and the dredge,
For at their scale how is an ant to know?
The mall was in the blueprint long before
The ants began to dig a nest
Beneath the threshold of the automatic door
Do you see the parable and simile in this,
The larger scale invisible to them,
The over-riding enterprise they miss?
Like them, like them we reckon out of scale
Come other-world construction
When we least expect our enterprise to fail
Construction, not destruction, that collision
Of two competing plans
Beyond their comprehension or their vision
Pavel
May 15, 2011
"Like them, like them we reckon out of scale"
Indeed . Indeed
Good words
_____________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4_e3xG6N9M
It's so simple, isn't it? And obvious... 40 friggin' years ago it was obvious to everyone who was paying the slightest attention: We need to scale back, power down, do less with less, stop chasing our tails.
If it wasn't already clear, a few years after that we had a clear demonstration of the fragility of fission power generation, at TMI.
Indeed, we've had nothing but warnings, demonstrations, explanations, signs and portents. But we can't bring ourselves to stop chasing illusory wealth, status, consumption, power.
It isn't everyone. Not even close. Most folks are just getting by, going along to get along, doing what they think they are supposed to. But the greediest, most power-mad and most ruthless among us are making the rules, setting the standards, steering the ship. Because it is the greediest and most power-hungry who want and pursue "leadership."
And so, they ignored and covered up the mega-disaster of Chernobyl, and they kept running the ancient BWR dirty bombs. Before Fukushima, they were poised for a "renaissance" and they really, really don't want to give that up.
So, officialdom goes into info-control mode, while the shills and apologists pose false binary choices ("coal is worse") and insist that radiation really isn't that dangerous. Hell, it might even be good for us.
And hardly anyone is paying attention.
What a sad, ugly state of affairs.
The actual choice they are presenting is coal or coal+nuclear with coal+nuclear as the worse by far option. All these apologists know and won't admit that we will use all the coal we can whether or not nuclear plants are built.
Let's see, TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima, in increasing order by both time and scope. I really don't want to see what comes next, but I'm afraid that when it happens, the apologists will be out with the same platitudes. Once the worst possible finally happens, then they'll be saying the same crap that the financial industry said a couple years ago and will say again... "No one could have predicted this. No one saw it coming."
You're right, it truly is ugly.
We can make it more foolproof.. but the fools are evolving faster, it seems. (and they have bigger piles of fuel and waste to fool with.)
You build a better mousetrap,
To better fill with Mouse,
And soon old Mother Nature,
Will Build a better Mouse!
Here's my 'escape music' tonight.. anyone remember Gentle Giant?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrZ0TLX7L7Q&feature=related
As an "apologist", I would disagree. France became almost all-nuclear in 19 years. Coal reserves we have for hundreds of years. Of course nuclear power can replace coal.
"Can" and "Will" are two very different words. Very different meanings. Sort of like the theoretical vs practiced version of safety in the plants of today. Especially in the "I need all the energy I can get" world of today.
You can rob a bank vs You will rob a bank.
.. or to extend the 'Can' into Bill Cosby's classic NOAH sketch,
"How long CAN you tread water?" - France's experiment is intense, and young. I don't see these convoluted behemoths as being likely to age well.
Blade Runner, "The candle that burns twice as brightly burns half as long, and you have burned so very brightly, Roy." -Tyrell
Or to use a slightly more applicable example:
A nuclear power plant can be designed and built that won't self-destruct and create a dead zone if it looses access to power from another generator (coal, nuke, diesel, etc.) vs a nuclear power plant will be designed and built that won't self-destruct and create a dead zone if it looses access to power from another generator (coal, nuke, diesel, etc.)
We're living with many examples of the difference today. At least 35 in the US alone. These will be around for decades to come.
Does anybody except those in the industry know if we have more with the same huge designed-in flaw? I don't. I guess we'll eventually find out.
The idea that a nuclear plant CAN be created that won't self-destruct and create a dead zone is only an illusion based on our relatively short lifetimes. Compare the worst and best case scenarios of a plant that fails catastrophically, spreading its poison and destroying the surrounding land with one that is shut down and all its waste is sealed in the best storage system we can build. From our perspective now there is a vast difference, but from the point of view of someone a couple of thousand years from now there is no difference - the stuff gets out and destroys the land anyway.
Why would the waste get out and get scattered a thousand years from now?