 | Tech Talk - China's Offshore Oil | The Oil Drum | Isaac Halts Petroleum Production and Refining: Open Thread |  |
A Few Insights Regarding Today's Nuclear Situation
Posted by Gail the Actuary on August 27, 2012 - 2:43pm
The issue of nuclear electricity is a complex one. In this post, I offer a few insights into the nuclear electric situation based on recent reports and statistical data.
Nuclear Electric Production Is Already Declining
According to BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy, the highest year of nuclear electric production was 2006.
There are really two trends taking place, however.
1. The countries that adopted nuclear first, that is the United States, Europe, Japan, and Russia, have been experiencing flat to declining nuclear electricity production. The countries with actual declines in generation are Japan and some of the countries in Europe outside of France.
2. The countries that began adopting nuclear later, particularly the developing countries, are continuing to show growth. China and India in particular are adding nuclear production.
The long-term trend depends on how these two opposite trends balance out. There may also be new facilities built, and some “uprates” of old facilities, among existing large users of nuclear. Russia, in particular, has been mentioned as being interested in adding more nuclear.
Role of Nuclear in World Electricity
Nuclear provides a significant share of world electricity production, far more than any new alternative, making a change from nuclear to wind or solar PV difficult. If nuclear electricity use is reduced, the most likely outcome would seem to be a reduction in overall electricity supply or an increase in fossil fuel usage.
Nuclear is the largest source of world electricity after fossil fuels and hydroelectric, comprising about 12% of total world electricity. Wind amounts to about 2% of world electric supply, and solar (which is not visible on Figure 2) amounts to one-quarter of one percent (0.25%). “Other renewable” includes electricity from a variety of sources, including geothermal and wood burned to produce electricity. Limits on wood supply and geographical limits on “hot” geothermal limit how far these can be scaled up. With respect to wood and other biological products, there is also concern that we are reaching a tipping point with respect to man’s interference with ecosystems. See Approaching a State Shift in the Earth’s Biosphere, coauthored by 20 internationally known scientists and recently published in Nature.
Note that even with the growth of renewables, there is still very substantial growth in fossil fuel use in recent years. If nuclear electricity use is reduced, fossil fuel use may grow by even a greater amount.
Role of Nuclear in Countries that Use Nuclear
The world situation shown in Figure 1 includes many countries that do not use nuclear at all, so the countries that do use nuclear tend to generate more than 12% of their electricity from nuclear. This means that if a decision is made to move away from nuclear, an even larger share of electricity must be replaced (or “be done without”).
For example, in the United States (Figure 3), nuclear now amounts to about 19% of US electricity production, and is second only to fossil fuels as an electricity source. US nuclear production tends to be concentrated in the Eastern part of the US, so that nuclear amounts to 30% to 35% of electric production along the US East Coast. This would be very difficult to replace by generation from another source, other than possibly fossil fuels. Some argue that with sufficient investment, solar PV and wind energy, together with long distance transmission lines and battery backup could be a replacement, but this has yet to be proven to be possible in practice. Germany, discussed below, is really the first test case for this. In some views, this is not working well.
For countries that are planning to reduce their nuclear generation, nuclear electricity as a percentage of total electric production in 2010 are as follows:
- Germany, 22%;
- Switzerland, 37%;
- Belgium, 52%; and
- Japan 25%.
Unless these countries can count on imports from elsewhere, it will be difficult to make up the entire amount of electricity lost through demand reduction, or through a shift to renewables.
Nuclear Electric Plants that are “Paid for” Generate Electricity Very Cheaply
Nuclear power plants for which the capital costs are already “sunk” are very inexpensive to operate, with operating costs estimated at 2 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh). Any kind of change away from nuclear is likely to require the substitution of more expensive generation of some other type.
The electrical rates in place today in Europe and the United States today take into account the favorable cost structure for nuclear, and thus help keep electrical rates low, especially for commercial users (since they usually get the best rates).
If new generation is added to substitute for the paid off nuclear, it almost certainly will raise electricity rates. These higher rates will be considered by businesses in their decisions regarding where to locate new facilities, and perhaps result in more of a shift in manufacturing to developing nations.
Germany’s Experience in Leaving Nuclear
It is too early to know exactly what Germany’s experience will be in leaving nuclear, but its early experiences provide some insights.
One cost is decommissioning. According to Reuters, German nuclear companies have made a total of $30 billion euros ($36.7 billion) in provision for costs related to the cost of dismantling the plants and disposing of radioactive materials. According to the same article, Greenpeace expects the cost may exceed 44 billion euros ($53.8 billion). If the amount of installed nuclear capacity in Germany is 20.48 million kilowatts (kW), the direct cost of dismantling the nuclear reactors and handling the spent fuel ranges from $1,792 to $2,627 per kW. This cost is greater than the Chinese and Indian cost of building a comparable amount of new reactor capacity (discussed later in this article).
David Buchanan of the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies did an analysis of some of the issues Germany is facing in making the change. Germany was in an unusually favorable situation because it had a cushion of spare capacity when it decided to close its reactors. When Germany closed its oldest eight reactors, one issue it discovered was lack of transmission capacity to transfer wind energy from the North to areas in the South and Southwest of Germany, where the closed reactors were located. In addition, the system needs additional balancing capability, either through more natural gas generation (because gas generators can ramp up and down quickly), or more electric storage, or both.
In Germany, natural gas is an expensive imported source of energy. The economics of the situation are not such that private companies are willing to build natural gas generation facilities, because the economics don’t work: (a) renewables get first priority in electricity purchases and (b) electricity from locally produced coal also gets priority over electricity from gas, because it is cheaper. If new gas generation is to be built, it appears that these plants may need to be subsidized as well.
Increased efficiency and demand response programs are also expected to play a role in balancing demand with supply.
Not All Countries Have the Same High Nuclear Electricity Costs
We don’t really know the cost of new nuclear electricity plants in the United States, because it has been so long since a new plants were built. The new reactors which are now under construction in the state of Georgia will provide a total of 2,200 MW of generation capacity at a cost estimated at $14.9 billion, which means an average cost of $6,773/kW.
In China and India, costs are lower, and may drop even lower in the future, as the Chinese apply their techniques and low-cost labor to bring costs down. The World Nuclear Association (WNA) in its section on China makes the statement,
Standard construction time is 52 months, and the claimed unit cost is under CNY 10,000 (US$ 1500) per kilowatt (kW), though other estimates put it at about $2000/kW.
In the section on nuclear power for India, the WNA quotes construction costs ranging from $1,200/kW to $1,700/kW, using its own technology.
If we compare the cost of US planned plants in Georgia to the Chinese and Indian plants, the cost seems to be three or four times as high.
These cost differences also appear in comparisons on a “Levelized Cost” basis. The EIA in its 2012 Annual Energy Outlook quotes an US expected levelized cost of nuclear of 11 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh), anticipated for facilities being constructed now. The section on the Economics of Nuclear Power of the WNA quotes levelized costs in the 3 to 5 cents per kWh range for China, depending on the interest rate assumed. A cost in the 3 to 5 cents range is very good, competitive with coal and with natural gas, when they are inexpensive, as they are now in the United States.
Some of China’s nuclear reactors were purchased from the United States, and thus will be higher in cost because of the purchased components. But knowing that China has a reputation for “reverse engineering” products it buys, and figuring out how to make cheap imitations, I expect that it will be able to figure out ways to create low-cost reactors in the near future, whether or not it can do so today. So the expectation is that China and India will be able to make cheap reactors (probably without all the safety devices that some other countries currently require) for itself, and quite likely, eventually for sale to others. Sales of such reactors may eventually undercut sales by American and French companies.
Interest in Purchasing Reactors
The interest in purchasing electricity generation of all kinds is likely to be greater in developing countries where the economy is growing and the need for electricity generation is growing, than in the stagnant economies of the United States, Europe, and Japan. If we look at a graph of electricity production of Asia-Pacific excluding Japan, we see a very rapid growth in electricity use.
The Middle East (Figure 5, below) is another area with an interest in nuclear. It too has shown rapid growth in electricity use, and a historical base of mostly fossil use for electricity generation.
Use of Thorium Instead of Uranium Would Seem to be a Better Choice, if It Can be Made to Work
I have not tried to research this subject, except to note that research in this area is currently being done that may eventually lead to its use.
Uranium Production is a Problem
World uranium production fell a bit in 2011, relative to 2010, according to the World Nuclear Association.
Production from Kazakhstan is becoming an increasingly large share of the total. Production in both the US and Canada declined in 2011. Spot prices have tended to stay low, in spite of the fact that an agreement that allowed the US to buy recycled Russian bomb material reaches an end in 2013. There are no doubt some stockpiles, but the WNA estimates 2011 production to equal to only 85% of current demand (including military demand).
A person would think that prices would rise higher, to incentivize increased production, but this doesn’t seem to be happening yet, at least. The uranium consulting firm Ux Consulting offers the following comment on its website:
The market that we now find ourselves in is like no other in the history of uranium. Production is far below requirements, which are growing. HEU [highly enriched uranium] supplies and the enrichment of tails material make up a large portion of supply, but the fate of these supply sources is uncertain. Supply has become more concentrated, making the market more vulnerable to disruptions if there are any problems with a particular supply source. Another source of market vulnerability is the relatively low level of inventory held by buyers and sellers alike.
The consulting firm ends the section with a pitch for its $5,000 report on the situation.
A person would like to think that additional production will be ramped up quickly, or that the US military would find some inventory. Markets don’t always work well at incentivizing a need for future production, especially when more or less adequate current supplies are available when Russian recycled bomb material is included. The discontinuity comes when those extra supplies disappear.
This post originally appeared on Our Finite World.
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.
What really needs to be addressed is the reality that BAU can no longer be supported. As a society we need, at the very least, to have a discussion as to how we are going to cope (meaning that we are going to have less of many things) as energy, et.al. ramp down.
To date society has played a game that it can substitute new "technology" for declining resources. One example are EVs to keep the motoring world going. What is needed are demonstration projects clearly showing that alternatives are possible. In a way, many of us on TOD are doing that today with our PV systems, gardens, choosing not to have kids and increasingly sustainable lifestyles.
Unfortunately, as I look at the world, I see the opposite occurring. Society is in for a world of hurt.
Todd
I think bigger-scale demonstrations are what shows what the real situation is. Bottlenecks are generally economic at the consumer level. They also consist of huge spending requirements by businesses, governments, or through higher rate structure for supporting infrastructure. People who look at the situation only at the level of an individual (well-off) consumer, invariably find that the proposed innovation will work. The question is at the societal level through.
Actually, Gail, the scale I was thinking of for demonstration projects was like Tom Murphy's. Tom hasn't spent a lot of money on his system but it sure shows how savings can add up. As far as cost for the individual is concerned, call me the old fart that I am, but it seems to me that people have a choice; they can spend money on 200 channels of TV and 4 cell phones or they can take that money to begin to establish a more self-reliant lifestyle. And, for those who question me, we haven't gotten TV for 15 years or so. I do have a cell phone; it costs $9 a month and I get 10 minutes. It's for emergencies since I'm in the boondocks, not chatting.
But let's look at business. It's really more a matter of "seeing the light". Look at the work Paul has done with his lighting retrofits. And, in industry, there are lots of ways to reduce power such as getting a higher power factor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_factor. I was once a chemical plant manager and I know that there are real savings as a result.
I fully agree that society is a problem which is why I said that there needed to be a discussion. However, I don't expect this to take place. To do so would require that society develop a new story/meme that you can live happily on less. At the least, this flies in the face of American exceptionalism.
Todd
I question the LEC numbers given for nuclear, because decommissioning costs, and transuranic disposal/sequestration costs are not
clearly shown.
From the one example mentioned, WRT Germany, it would seem that those costs equal or exceed construction costs.
This means the new NUC plant in Georgia actually costs $13,000/kwe and it is anticipated that the Chinese/Indian plants will cost $3,500-4,000 / Kwe.
Left out of the above discussion is THMSR technology, which the Chinese are pursuing at the highest level.
May I also mention that MSR technology was shown to work by the US in the Aircraft Reactor Experiment some 60 years ago.
Regarding the assertions that great savings are possible through more efficient use of electrical power, one need but look at the EU for concrete examples of this. Actually, I assert that US electrical power is priced below the fully loaded cost of production, and the author mentions this when he asserts old nuclear plants produce power for $0.02/kwh, but new ones would produce power at $0.11/kwh. He does not mention whether this "cost" includes decommissioning and sequestration of spent fuel, or is simply operating cost.
Our work with dispatchable PV systems using LiIon 7000 cycle battery technology, showed this power can be delivered at an equivalent $0.11/kwh, assuming no subsidies whatever. It would seem that it is preferable to install 6kw of PV on every south facing roof, batteries in the cellar of such dwellings, inverters at the main breaker box, refrigerators with thermal storage and insulation R values of 40 (twice current practice), triple glazing, wall insulation R values > 25 and ceiling insulation values > 50 ( thrice current practice). As I mentioned elsewhere this program would install 72 Gwe of capacity producing ~430 Gwh daily, assuming 12 million roofs (10%) are suitable. Installed on each roof would be 20 - 300 watt mono crystalline panels each 1m X 2 m, organized into a 2 row array 10m X 4 m. This is equivalent to 24 Gwe of nuclear, or about 10 plants. Total installed costs of the two technologies are equivalent when NUC plants cost $6900/kwe. The new Georgia plant costs are close to this, not including decommissioning and fuel sequestration costs.
INDY
Considered in the above, are the reduced transmission losses of the dispatchable PV system, given most of the power will be consumed within the structure where it is produced. The reference location is Dayton, OH, and NASA solar insolation data was used. It is assumed that the panels lie in the plane of the roof and are fastened to the subroof with pads, caulked in place. Were PV shingles used instead, costs would be lower.
INDY
On any of these proposals, full costs need to be considered, including all of the replacement costs of batteries over the time-horizon planned, the cost of installation of solar panels in addition to the cost of the panels themselves, and the cost of upgrading insulation and windows in homes.
The long term life of any proposed solution is likely determined by Liebig's Law of the Minimum. We don't at this point know what this will be, or when it will hit. It may hit at different times with different technologies. The limiting factor could be financing arrangements, or ability to make needed repairs, or ability of buyers to afford the electricity being sold. All of this adds more question marks.
"On any of these proposals, full costs need to be considered, including all of the replacement costs of batteries over the time-horizon planned, the cost of installation of solar panels in addition to the cost of the panels themselves, and the cost of upgrading insulation and windows in homes."
...but folks won't think twice about 'modernizing' a perfectly good bathroom or kitchen. Swimming pool?
I presented some of my math here, including battery replacement costs. I calculated a $100/mo deferred grid electricity cost over an 84 month battery lifespan (7 years) = $8400; less than what we paid for our 52 kWH battery bank. These are modest figures, and don't even account for the taxes I don't pay on income I don't need to pay my power bill, and I fully expect my battery to last much longer than 84 months with good care. For the most part, the high costs of PV for residential installations are a myth, especially for new construction. Problem is, Americans don't want to live in a home very long, and have an aversion to paying things forward.
I've also presented some figures regarding the costs of integrating the solar systems into our new construction over a decade ago. Our home's per square foot cost was comparable to (actually less than) the average cost for homes in the area, including super insulating and other RE considerations such as passive solar heating and cooling. Fact is, Americans use some seriously dumb criteria when designing and building homes and businesses. Much of these things could be codified (like the 200 amp service requirement in our area, or minimum R values). Building integrated solar (solar roofs), over the long term are likely more cost effective than asphalt roofs; last longer and keep the house cooler. Again, we have a society that is penny wise, pound foolish. Meanwhile, I worry about hundreds of tons of nuclear waste a few miles upwind of us, and the oxides, ozone, heavy metals, and CO2 that the coal plants upwind of me produce, filth that I do my best to not contribute to, and that the EPA is now largely banned from regulating.
"All of this adds more question marks." ??!
Not for me. It's the cost of not forcing my neighbors to live with my choices or lifestyle.
Just a shout out here: How can we discuss the costs of nuclear power without a discussion and determination of the costs of dealing with the wastes. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THESE COSTS WILL BE; NOT A CLUE. So we ignore them...
The US certainly has better insolation, but Germany has to have €0.2/kWh in FIT to get solar PV built. So your figures including battery backup doesn't really seem plausible. Also, I guess even your figures are much more expensive than nuclear power costs.
We don't know because we haven't decided. We can decide that it shall be really cheap, or we can decide that it shall be really expensive. We seem to do the latter, since that's the politicians' ways of showing determination and responsibility. It makes no practical difference in terms of performance or safety, though.
Completely unsubstantiated assertions.
Which leads to the big un-discussed in the above article----what is happening with all the wastes in the third world, now they are so intent on nuclear power? Our methods here in the developed world gravitate between drum storage and shipping them off to the third world--outa sight, outa mind.
My assertions are simply true.
I know most of you will freak out (even more) now, but deep sea disposal is proven and safe. But lets do the luxury geological thing. Not that expensive anyway, if done reasonably.
My assertions are simply true.
Didn't you also assert that there was no need to worry about the reactors at Fukushima shortly after the Earthquake?
How's that 'truth' working out?
?
No I didn't.
The IAEA does not agree with you about the safety of deep-sea disposal.
Do you have a link? All I find is some article that says it seems to be fine but they have agreed not to do it anyway since more research is needed (it always is, isn't it?).
Can you provide a breakdown of your figures for the purposes of comparison? Do you know of a means of keeping the waste safe for a period of 100,000 years that is cheaper than what is portrayed in the movie I linked to?
I'm sure we can, however can we just wave a magic wand and decide that it will be both safe for 100,000 years and cheap?
I would sincerely like to hear your thoughts on this.
Magic wands are not in short supply among the pro-nukers. They use them constantly when confronted with an issue.
Alan
Well, let's say $5 billion overnight construction costs (UAE example), 5 years build time, 10% interest, fuel+O&M 2 cents/kWh (including funding for waste handling and decommisioning), power rating 1400 MW, 90% capacity factor, 60 years design life. I get a LEC of 8 cents or so. Solar PV from a fairly recent Italian example is about 5 times that.
I won't look at your movie as movies with bad arguments are much slower to handle than text with bad arguments. However, the Swedish KBS-3 geological repository method is cheap enough and could be relaxed and made even cheaper since it is too ambitious. More than enough info on it can be found in English on the official SKB website.
100,000 years is a blink of an eye for bedrock. Also, oil, for instance, is oil precisely because it has been trapped and kept from the biosphere for many millions of years. And many uranium mines had no contamination above ground before prospecting begun. Burying waste is easy and simple.
It's a film documentary about the Finish nuclear waste disposal project called Onkala, it's being dug in bedrock that they expect to be stable for another couple of million years at least, though it won't be completed until the 22nd century. I was just suggesting that the cost might be representative of disposal costs and could be used as a basis for calculating total costs if we are to do whole cost accounting of nuclear energy. BTW, I found the Fins attitudes to be quite realistic about what they were doing. They seem a rather sane and down to earth group of people with a rather well developed sense of ethics and responsibility. Too bad more people don't act like them.
The Finns do really well with nuclear, yes, although they are partly responsible for the botched project of their fifth reactor. Not discouraged, however, they are planning for a couple more.
Here in the US DOE has gone ahead with WIPP -- Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. This project sequesters and/or disposes only DoD related waste. But its a start, a pilot that suggests one possibility for commercial waste.
Several other points: Uranium is (currently) so cheap and proliferation fears so... cogent that U.S. does not reprocess solid Uranium feul. That, and reprocessing is really expensive relative to cost of fresh uranium and a once-through fuel cycle, by a factor of perhaps 5. Result is we will end up sequestering "spent" feul that has burned only about 10% of its Uranium. Got Plutonum? Just Bury It. ("Sequester" as opposed to "dispose". Sequester means its not buried so deep or so permamently you can't within a reasonable amount of time retrieve it and reprocess should economics change. You'd sequester for a time anyway, just to let the shorter-lived decay products cool to the point you can pack the rest together tightly for permament disposal.) We've got something like 64,000 tons of commercial waste fuel sitting on site at our nuclear plants as it is, that will eventually need disposal. In the scheme of things, thats a lot to leave sitting around on the surface, but but a bucket compared to what we can safely bury. As Gail alludes, the rest of the world is going to deal with their uranium fuel waste problems whether the U.S. leads the safest way or not.
Uranium is likely to remain cheap. Sure, there will be price blips as the market figures out how to transition from recycled bombs (yeah!) to a hopefully more sustainable supply. Uranium is plentiful, easy to prospect and mine. Can also be cheaply extracted from seawater. So we probably got at least another 3 millenia of the stuff, even without reprocessing.
Which pales in comparison with Thorium Molten Salt Reactor technology. (aka LFTR -- liquid feul thorium reactor or lithium fluoride thorium reactor -- same diff). But only one of these has ever been built, and was decommissioned forty years ago. ThMSR has numerous attractions, the abundance of natural thorium being but one. The liquid feul makes reprocessing (removal of heavy by-products) an easy, integral, and required part of the reactor design; their prompt removal means reducing the total amount of transuranic actinide waste by a factor of fifty to a hundred over solid Uranium fueled reactors. Thorium reactors are inherently safe, the design trick being how to keep enough neutrons in the core to sustain the reaction at all. Emergency shutdown is one or more simple passive failsafe freeze plugs. See Reintroducing Thorium and Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (pdf).
More at the Thorium Energy Alliance.
The referenced article explains how a material to absorb U can be made relatively inexpensively. No mention if processing sea water, which contains many dissolved metals and other elements, then extracting the U from the subject media is economical.
Often one element of an industrial process can be made more cheaply, but it requires other proceedures that increase overall costs. No indication that the overall cost for getting seawater is economic even if today's mined U cost rises 10 times.
Gold is also a heavy metal present in seawater and has a value 10,000 times greater than U. Yet we have not been able to extract gold from seawater. I would not hold much hope for ever getting U from seawater at a cost that can compeat with mines.
All you are really arguing is, as a practical matter, we will never run out of cheap Uranium. With which I whole-heartedly agree.
In Australia, high diesel prices have contributed to shelve plans to expand a uranium and copper mine
24/8/2012
BHP Billiton's Australian oil reserves in long term decline
http://crudeoilpeak.info/bhp-billitons-australian-oil-reserves-in-decline
WIPP is not being used for high-level reactor waste. It's not meant to provide recoverable sequestration; the design is for the waste to be completely sealed in by the flow of the salt that surrounds it.
in fact it's onkalo (not onkala). according to the company website they will start putting waste there 2020, and then continue to do so next 100 years
http://www.posiva.fi/en/final_disposal/
Sweden has the same attitude and planning and Finlands solution is based on Swedish research wich is a good choice since we have identical bedrock.
As pro nuclear I often recommend this movie "Into enternity" since it shows the correct attitude for handling nuclear power.
I assume Norway would have the same attitude and Denmark would probably try to ship the waste to Norway, Sweden or Finland since they lack realy good bedrock.
One of the main reasons I'm anti nuclear is because I have encountered very few pro nuclear proponents who have the attitude of the Fins, especially when it comes to accepting responsibility for the long term safe disposal of nuclear waste.
Facile and superficial statements about the safety of nuclear just don't cut it with me. The earth's biosphere is a very complex and rather fragile system. The average human doesn't seem very well equipped to understand it let alone understand the long term consequences of how we interact with it.
Maybe in some distant future when Homo sapiens grows up and reaches a new level of maturity we can have responsible adults dealing with these issues, for now all I see is a bunch of spoiled immature greedy little apes running around with the attitude that they are god's gift to the planet. There is no way I feel I can trust them at this point...
Yes and no. Depends on type of shock. Evolution makes the biosphere extraordinarily resilient in the face of, for example, radiation. However, AGW is worse.
It seems misanthropy is closely connected to the doomster mindset. I wonder which comes first?
Your PV numbers are nonsense:
1) In Germany you can produce as consumer a kWh for 15 cent (1000 FLH), in Italy it should be less than 12 cent.
2) In southern US states with 1800 FLH you are under 9 cent if you can get good (i.e. German prices) for installation.
Your assumption of 60 years design life for nuclaer power plants is optimistic as the Swiss examples show. If you calculate with 40 years and 35 for first tier PV you have a difference of about 1.5 for daytime production, no that impressive anymore.
The killer for PV is NG, not nuclaer power.
What kind of cents? The current FIT is 25 USD-cents.
But I guess you get US prices? My calculations were standard LEC ones with 10% interest. Yours?
Swiss examples? Have they had AP-1000 reactors that they had to decommission earlier?
Don't they lose a percent per year or so, or have they improved?
If NG didn't kill PV, then I guess price structures, taxes and so on would eventually have to be adjusted so grid parity won't be as easy to reach. Competing with grid parity is to sub-optimize.
The FIT are too high, that is exactly the problem why Germany will burn at least 30 billion EUR with PV. In the last two years a private investor got a return with PV that was in the range of 10-14%.
I calculate with 9% p.a., this includes 8% for financing and 1% for converter replacement and insurance.
With dropping module prices the other factors like installtion costs, efficient usage of roofage etc. become more important and a lot of optimization and changing of priorities happened in Germany the last two years. Other can use this without paying the "R/D" costs, i.e. can get German low prices.
In Switzerland there are discussion about switching off more nuclear power plants after 40 years instead of paying for upgrades that allow 60 years usage.
According to the Fraunhofer Institut, which is a very good source for PV, the degradation of crystalline PV modules is less than 0.5% per year, they expect that most modules will produce with much more than 80% after 20 years. Life span of good modules > 35 years.
Grid parity was reached in Germany last year, FIT will end 2015/2016 with 53 GW installed PV. We see already the first projects which do not apply for FITs; with kWh prices of 22-25 Cent and production costs of 15 cent, PV for households and small business PV will be a no-brainer in future even without FIT, here increased availability of affordable small battery storage systems will help a lot. For large supermarket chains with a very high electricity demand for cooling during daytime (and which own the buildings the markets are in) PV will be a very good investment. The bet is that we will see 50 GW installed PV in Germany in 2015, 75 GW around 2020 and 100 GW before 2030.
Ok, sounds good, we'll see if that PV longevity holds up in the harsh reality.
I think the Swiss reactors were designed for 30-40 years life. New reactors such as AP-1000 have a design life of 60 years. It seems reasonable to assume they will deliver on this.
German electricity prices are just absurd and grid parity is a great suboptimization. Of course, if you block everything else, then prices will be so high that some solar PV might come without subsidies. But I'm skeptical, as not even wind power, that is much, much cheaper, will stand on its own.
You make it sound as though Nuclear stands on its own.
It is the source that appears to be the MOST dependent upon stable inputs and environment, climatic, political and economic, grid, roads, highly refined fuel, high standards replacement parts and trained staff. That's a lot of bottlenecks to get through on a continual basis.
Facing a potentially very stumbly road ahead with many of those factors, I still haven't heard anyone suggest how nuclear power can weather such 'intermittent' stability.
The intermittency that we get from renewables, that they are precisely designed to work within, is the very same set of conditions that we'll have to be ready for. Nuclear only provides stability if it is PROVIDED with stability, something which we won't be able to offer without this historic abundance of 'The Great Lubricant'.
Nuclear is a Thorobred that can run beautifully, if you give it a clean stable and a groomed track. (and have someone else scoop up the 'Unthorobredly' smelly trailings for you..)
I kind of agree on the requirements of nuclear power. But I also think that our road ahead is not very stumbly. And also, I think the need for stability and responsibility helps creating such responsibility and stability. Yes, I know a few of you will jump up and down and shout that I'm dreaming. We'll have to agree on not agreeing.
If we look at the number of nuclear reactors under construction then I get an effective production rate of ten per year, with around 450 reactors on earth and 50 years life span, the 10 builds per year only secure the status quo, they are no gain!
OTOH we will see very likely before 2020 a global PV installation of 50 GW p.a., with 5GW PV = 1 GW reactor we would have parity around 2020, in the following years my bet is clarly on PV. The dynamic of PV is incredible.
"OTOH we will see very likely before 2020 a global PV installation of 50 GW p.a., with 5GW PV = 1 GW reactor we would have parity around 2020, in the following years my bet is clarly on PV."
??? !!!
Check your math, my friend!
Nuclear has generated, it's written above, 12% of the electricity of the planet (22 thousand TWh according to the graph posted), PV almost 50 times less (0.25%)... in order to generate 12% of 22,000 TWh one would need of the order of 1700 GWp installed (at ~18% CF), i.e. 34 years at 50 GWp/year, not 8!... we'll talk about that again around 2045-2050, OK? :-)
"The dynamic of PV is incredible."
So are it's spin and PR department... it seems they got a hold of you real easy! :-)
Roberto
Since my family has been living off-grid on solar (about 95%) for 16 years, yes we think that "The dynamic of PV is incredible." Before you insist that (as jeppen has) we must be living some insufferable existence, deprived of life's finer accoutriments, let me assure you it isn't the case, nor are we wealthy by US standards. In fact, it was our PV that kept our lights on when my wife and I both became unemployed in 2008; one less bill to worry about. That's when my wife realized how "incredible" PV is. In fact, testimonials from folks like us, who ACTUALLY HAVE FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE living on PV are excellent PR. So what? It's clear to me that many PV detractors have little or no first hand experience, or live in climates that are poor candidates for PV implementation (Sweden?). I don't waste others' time insisting that snowmobiles or ice skates are a lousy form of transportation because it rarely snows or freezes here.
Or maybe, somehow, I'm more resourceful than the next guy, making something work (quite well indeed) that you folks insist isn't worthy of consideration. In some parts of the world, PV is scalable and can be a reliable, important part of the energy mix. Iran should consider maxing out it's solar potential before committing to a highly complex, expensive path (nuclear) that is fraught with liabilities. From my point of view, there are two conclusions: They are really dumb,, or they want to build nuclear weapons and/or leverage their nuclear potential.
Enjoy having that nuclear monkey on your back.
"Enjoy having that nuclear monkey on your back."
Well... I have written a clear (and simple) mathematical analisys of the official numbers... you reply is wishful thinking, your personal life's stories, etc... I gather that you acknowledge that getting to the same level of delivered electricity of nuclear (12% of 22,000 TWh/year) will be impossible by relying on PV.
I rest my case, thanks.
Roberto
P.S.: I've being enjoying that nuclear monkey quite a lot in the past 15 years, i.e. since I moved to France, don't worry. Very low-cost electricity, flawless dependable service, almost zero particulate and heavy metals emissions, etc...
Please come down and simply try to answer the foloowing question:
Which technology will provide in the next decades, when we face a
increasing demand of energy and at the same time a decreasing amount
of cheap fossil fuel, a higher net impact, i.e. INCREASE of
production?
1) Nuclear power is bitten by the fact that it is a matured and
widespread technology, you need around 10 power plants p.a. to
maintain the status quo, the excess production of only 2-3 plants p.a.
is your gain.
2) PV is not widespread, so the installed power is a net gain during
the next two decades!
3) With 50-100 GW p.a. PV (10 nuclaer power plants p.a.) in the next
decades we will see a much higher impact of PV compared to nuclear.
4) Add wind and you get almost one order of magnitude. Please see the
global demand and the realistic restriction of nuclaer power to a
relatively small number of coutries.
5) Upscaling of low-tech PV production is much easier than increasing
of high-tech reactor production.
6) PV and Wind can be installed on the local level and are much better
products in many countries than nuclear power.
Conclusion, in contrast to nuclear power the renewable energy
technologies PV and wind have the chance to become a game changer.
Personally, I would of course still use nuclear power, would even spend
money on the developement of better reactor types and really hope
that fusion will become commercially avaiable, however, I do not
believe that these technologies will deliver in the next two or three
decades a high percentage of the increased electricity demand.
"Please come down and simply try to answer the foloowing question:
Which technology will provide in the next decades, when we face a
increasing demand of energy and at the same time a decreasing amount
of cheap fossil fuel, a higher net impact, i.e. INCREASE of
production?"
The answer is : natural gas as number one, and coal as number two. Wind and PV are, from the point of view of the "real", "effective" energy generated, in the "also ran" category.
Nuclear installations may be low, and they may even be uncapable of offsetting the plants being shut down... I have no problem to admit that... but the FACT remains that nuclear has produced tens of thousands of terawatts over the past 50 years, in a very dependable and clean way (accidents included, demonstrably).
A technology which has a 15-20% capacity factor, a factor of 2~3 less energy produced in winter vs summer, by definition 12 hours/day with ZERO, ZILCH, NADA, production will never ever be capable of taking the place of dispatchable thermal units... no way.
Take the German example: they have installed more than 50 GW of wind/PV... and the price of electricity to German customers have not stopped going up, more than 11 BILLION Euros have been paid in 2011 alone (all renewables included, but PV gets the most of it)... in 2011 the GHG emissions in the electricity sector have gone up by 1% with respect to 2010, in spite of 20 GW (or more, can't retrieve the data now) of new PV and wind.
Roberto
This is a fallacy. The type of generation decommissioning is fairly independent of the type of new builds.
Your argument boils down to preferring (+2% PV and -6% nuclear) before (+1% nuclear and +0% PV). That is not rational and not good for the climate.
That small number of countries are EXACTLY the ones that matter in terms of GHG emissions.
The only good way of measuring ease is money. The costs reveal that PV is very hard to scale.
I don't either. Nobody does. The latest projection (IEA 2011) has fossils at +8000 TWh/year, renewables at +4000 TWh/year and nuclear at +2000 TWh/year in 2035. But we should be aware that this is a choice we are making. France decided to replace fossils with nuclear in 1973. 19 years later, they had 75% nuclear.
I'm not one to argue the IEA projections, but I would refer to a 2010 Bloomberg article suggesting that China's nuclear planners alone are a bit more aggressive:
One question (mentioned in the article) is whether the world's nuclear industry can ramp up that much reactor production. The Chinese, of course, intend to bootstrap...
The above Bloomberg article was previously referenced in this transitory comment:
j wrote: "This is a fallacy. The type of generation decommissioning is fairly independent of the type of new builds.
Your argument boils down to preferring (+2% PV and -6% nuclear) before (+1% nuclear and +0% PV). That is not rational and not good for the climate."
We are talking about net effects, here new installtions in PV capacity are net gains in the next 20 years. 80% of added nuclear power is replacement. If we consider the losses in Germany and Japan, the next decade could become a lost decade for nuclear power.
You second and third argument miss one important point: In most countries there is no competion between nuclear and renewables. Only the USA and China (?) may be the exceptions. PV/Wind does not require complex infrastructure, is lowtech and perfectly scalable, i.e. works from village scale to industrial scale, in many countries it boils down for the people between no energy/ very expensive energy from diesel generators or affordable PV/wind.
j wrote: "That small number of countries are EXACTLY the ones that matter in terms of GHG emissions." Here the solution for China and the USA is most importantly to increase efficiency of energy use, not the futile attempts to maintain BAU by replacing fossil production with nuclaer or renewables!
j wrote: "The only good way of measuring ease is money. The costs reveal that PV is very hard to scale."
Sorry with 5-10% reduction of costs per year we are still on the learning curve and what should be the constraints of up-scaling PV? Workforce, production lines for production facilities are available, Si production can easily be up-scaled. One order of magnitude until 2030-2035 is the bet for PV. Wind with 9 cent/kWh already is competitive in coutries with high NG prices, ~7% p.a. decrease of production costs are still quite common for on-shore wind.
j wrote: "The latest projection (IEA 2011) has fossils at +8000 TWh/year, renewables at +4000 TWh/year and nuclear at +2000 TWh/year in 2035. But we should be aware that this is a choice we are making. France decided to replace fossils with nuclear in 1973. 19 years later, they had 75% nuclear." With current kW prices for nuclaer reactors (5000 USSD per kW)it is not unlikely that renewables will become cheaper than nuclear before a new, saver and cheaper reactor design will be "mass" produced, therfore, your observation may become correct for renewables.:-)
You are talking about net effects and I'm pointing out that this is not very bright. Gross additions is what's important.
Absolutely, but each dollar spent on new generation still gives many times more with nuclear than with PV. This is not a struggle about who can present positive percentages. The struggle is to replace as much coal as possible with the resources that are available to us.
No, but it should be.
I would disagree. PV/Wind is rather high-tech as well, and they are intermittent and expensive so doesn't scale well.
No, not at all. Increased efficiency is far from enough to stop AGW. They need carbon-free energy production, and quite a lot of it.
But still very far from competitiveness. Here is the current German feed-in tariffs.
Which is nice, but far too little to make much of an impact.
What does "quite common" mean here?
Cost of production is just one parameter. The price you can get for what you produce is another. Since solar and wind power output is concentrated in time, they tend to destroy their own average spot prices. In other words, the average value per kWh of intermittent production is far less then the average value of baseload production, and the disparity rises with increasing penetration of intermittent sources. They also give rise to large external costs in the form of investments in grids, storage and so on.
Please, do not repeat again and again the German FITs, they do not represent production costs!
The decrease of production costs of wind turbines (per kWh) depends on producer and types, I have not found detailled data yet, in some interesting cases you do not get the price of the turbine. Some (avarage) data include off-shore, which is still very expensive (19 cent/kWh), while on-shore is at 9 cent/kWh.
PV production is concentrated in time, therefore, larger increase of installed power either requires much lower module prices, i.e. we can afford wast in form of thermal storage, or availability of storage technologies, most simple would be transmission to Norway to cover some of their summer demand and re-import of Norwegian electricity from hydro power during winter; possible but too expensive storage as hydrogen or methane. The storage concepts esp. for PV is the most challenging aspect when reaching 40% renewables in Germany.
In case of wind the situation is much better, you can convert windpower in reliable power ("baseproduction") by building the turbines in larger areas or simply by connecting the production of many smaller countries (and Germany with its cluster of wind turbines is stilll small), so more cross-border transmission lines are essential.
In Germany you get at maximum 75% of installed wind power, so you can build 135% power without loosing production, 200% power leads to 20% excess/"waste" production, so IMHO much room for economic and technological solutions for relatively flat production.
Another cheap solution is the developement of turbines which are optimized for weak wind, i.e. would increase FLH.
The current generation of on-shore 6MW turbines have around 3000-3300 FLH, ~4500 should be possibel. Off-shore is with modern types already >4000 FLH, some people in the business claim, we will see > 5000 FLH off-shore, let's see what the next generation brings. To get a fast transition to higher FLH the reduction of FITs or even better varable prices helps a lot in case of wind. Bright spot is that most German turbines are old, have small power and low FLH, repowering could provide 4 times the elctricity with flatter production curve.
It is correct that you have less than 10% reliable power in the current configuration of German wind power, i.e. you have to maintain back-up for around 90% power, something which could be reduced by more cross-border transmission capacities, main issue is politics, not science. :-)
I think they do map fairly well. Germany have been lowering FITs from year to year, and even in mid year, to mirror costs.
When I've looked into this, I've felt this effect has been overrated. But sure it does help some.
135% of minimum demand. And minimum demand is what, 60% of average? 60% minus any baseload power that you don't want to turn on and off.
Again, if you don't have baseload that you don't want to turn off, or else the waste is much higher. I agree that you can do what you suggest, but it requires regulating prices or providing almost full cost coverage by FITs (almost the same thing with that high penetration), since it cannot be done for market prices. With 200% wind, you won't get paid for the wind, as the spot price will be zero or negative for most of the wind production.
If with reduced FIT people made a lot of money, the FITs did not refect production costs. You have to check actual prices for build PV, I gave you a really good link.
Sorry, you should again look into the stuff (good source is the "Windmonitor" of the Fraunhofer Institut), from thei real world data we get:
a) You want a maximum of let's say of 70 GW, at the moment with avarage capacity factor of around 25% and relatively poor destibution of wind turbines in Germany you can install 90 GW without loosing energy (= 20 GW excess power), with these 90 GW you would cover 33% of the electricity demand defined by maximum of 70 GW with 100% capacity factor.
b) If you add additional 40 GW (=60 GW excess power), then you will have an excess of 20 % of the produced electricity from wind, i.e. 20% of the produced electricity can not be used in-time. You would now cover around 40% of the electricity demand. The 20 % excess has to be stored for short time or converted into thermal energy, which is often a low value product, produce costs.
Each improvement of the capacity factor (FLH) will very slightly decrease your possible excess power but proportionally increase the production, i.e. is a real gain.
Better distribution of wind turbines will increase your possible excess power and allow installation of more turbines without losses.
Therefore, combination of increased FLH (capacity factor) and better distribution is the way to go. Better distribution is a solvable political problem, higher FLH a technological problem which is being addressed.
In a system with high percentage of renewables like PV and wind there is no room for high conventional base load! You have to combine renewables with fast storage facilities or with fast conventional power plants (NG, coal) which run with low FLH, here other business models are necessary. The maximum conventional power is defined by the reliable power of wind and hydro (~11% in Germany). Tolerable amount of "waste" of renewable energy is a function of production costs and costs of storage technologies, i.e. will change each year.
The worst case in Germany are 10-14 consecutive days during winter without PV and only 10% wind, this requires about 1.7 TWh energy per day from storage. Biomass and esp. biogas cover already 5% of the German electricity production (equivalent of ~17 days of demand), therefore, they would already provide enough energy. Here the current FITs (politics) are the major obstacle, because they support (base load) production of electricity, not production of NG from biomass or creation of peak production.
" That's a lot of bottlenecks to get through on a continual basis."
Excuse me... have you ever visited a state-of-the art PV factory?
How do you think they make ultrapure Si, ppb doping with exotic (and toxic) materials like Cd and Te, or arsenic?...
Roberto
Sure.. fully acknowledged. Pretty much entirely through the bottlenecks once it leaves the factory. And then after that, what?
They don't require water, cooling, backup generators (for any safety consideration), an evacuation plan, if you want to plant some missiles into the middle of them, so what? You could take the remaining shards and use them as a lean-to roof to sleep under..
You can carry them on bicycles and mules, or float them on kayaks, even dunking them probably won't have any effect at all, if you rinse them off after.
They might have a debt-load, but they don't care.. they don't have to stop producing power when the ratepayers all rush off and and buy 2-cent NG generators next month.. they have NO CHOICE but to generate power when there is sunlight hitting them.. Once the investment is made, they have nothing to do but sit there and knock electrons from conductor one to conductor two.. and if there's no bird-poo on them, your kid could lick a drop of ice-cream off of it.
Boring as hell, no security detachment or credentialed entry required (at least for the ones on my rooftop, or across the way at the Dairy Company, there.), if your inverter has up and died, you can twist a cigarette lighter plug to the wires and run any of your Automotive Accessories from it.
The National guard will never have to bring you sandbags or shovel broiled poagies out of your cooling inlets for you.. but they might appreciate a hot shower, if your tank is the only one on the block being fed by some silly little homemade flatpanels, while everyone nearby is making do trying to heat up just a little dishwater over the last embers of the dining room chair legs..
.. So, what happens when a cooling pump freezes up? and like at El Diablo, they have to admit that the backup gensets have been offline for the last year.. or if the necessary laborpool suddenly becomes unavailable, or if another Key mine gets flooded out and the Uranium supply gets a hiccup, or if there is a protracted diesel shortage, and even getting a truck with a key replacement part or a refill can't help prevent the present gennie from running down or burning out, and for once, there aren't even any helicopters around to help through the pinch, since they're all helping with the Hurricane somewhere..?
You're right. Couldn't happen, and multiple pinch-points is nothing to get the bundies in a bunch over..
German energy prices are high, but OTOH expensive energy was always a driving force for technological developement. The last thing we need in Germany are low energy prices. Buying energy must hurt you,however should not kill the economy. Then we will develope all the fancy stuff you want to buy in 15 years :-)
"Your PV numbers are nonsense:
1) In Germany you can produce as consumer a kWh for 15 cent (1000 FLH), in Italy it should be less than 12 cent."
What???
For the record:
1) German PV delivers electricity at a mere 10% capacity factor... in order to produce electricity at 15 cEuro/kWh the capital cost of each kWp should be 1500 Euro/kWp averaged over the total power installed... which will NEVER happen... because there are tens of GWp already installed which have cost way more than that;
2) Notwithstanding no.1... how can you possibly say "in Germany can produce for 15 cent" when the average cost of each kWh from PV has been MORE than 30 cEuro, in 2011?
3) Same considerations for Italy... more than 30 cEuro/kWh in 2011... and with 15 GWp installed the average cost over the lifetime of the systems will never go down to 12 cEuro/kWh... it's simply IMPOSSIBLE!... simple math my friend.
Roberto
Please, make at least a reality check with wikipedia numbers, which are quite good for German renewables, if it is too much work for you to get serious academic publications (Fraunhofer Institut publishes in English). BTW these publications and the compilation of Wiki data prove you of course wrong:
1) Germany's gross production of electricity is 600 TWh per year.
2) 30 GW wind with 2000 FLH give 60 TWh, so wind provides already 10% of the electricity.
3) ~30 GW PV with 1000 FLh give 30 TWh, so additional 5%.
4) biogas plus hydro power give more than 5%
Conclusion: 2011 we had already >20% gross electricity production by renewables, this equals to 25% of net production! 2012 we will see an further increase of PV and wind which will add 1.5%.
The old PV installions are relatively small, the newer ones which made up a large percentage of the installed PV power cost 1800-2000 EUR /kWh for consumer projects, much less for industry. In Germany the annual installation of PV is in the range of 8 GW for 2010-2012, the installed power 2011 was "only" around 27-30 GW, so a rapid increase of "cheap" PV.
Really good data for actual installations costs can be found here:
http://www.photovoltaikforum.com/portal.php
Some of the people who post there have companies and do the actual PV-work, you could dramatically improve the quality of your arguments. :-)
Please, do not confuse actual production costs of PV electricity with stupid FITs (in Germany, Italy and Spain), the latter have created a mess that costs only the German consumers at least 30 billion EUR until 2030.
On-shore wind is in the range of 9 cent/kWh.
Your net vs gross percentages ... where is the difference consumed, mainly?
Well... one day one of the acquaintances of yours in the PV blogs/forums will explain to you the concept of "capacity credit"... you can get as much wind and PV you want, at some points 1 Wp starts being worth less and less, until it becomes useless.
The day you'll have 100 GW of combined wind and PV, what will you do with the surplus around summers' midday? How will you possibly make up the 100 GW and more necessary to keep the factories and the hospitals going past sunset?
Just give a look at this (I'm sure you know it already):
http://www.sma.de/en/company/pv-electricity-produced-in-germany.html
Go back to any day between Nov 1st and Feb 28th... during this period the PV installations monitored by SMA have grown from 21.17 GWp to 26.99 GWp... and the highest power generated at peak (a couple of hours) has been less than 6.5 GW... during the week with the highest electricity consumption (before Christmas) it has never exceeded 2 GW, with a minimum on 22/12 at a whoppy 0.5 GW, for a total daily production "too small to meter"... (10 GWh or so)... all this at times when the country probably needs 1.5-2 TWh/day.
Wind is too variable and difficult to foresee, so please don't say the usual "environmental mantra" "wind and PV are complementary", because it is nonsense... wind blows at less than 10% of the nominal power during more than 30% of the time.
How can you possibly think of being able to run a modern, industrialized country, which must rely on timely, on-demand generation of electricity, if you want to rely on two sources which are inherently intermittent and seasonally uneven?
Please note that these are indisputable facts, easy to prove, not my personal opinions... and we simply have to wait a bit longer to see who among the two of us is right and who's wrong.
Roberto
PV: Sell the electricity to neighbour countries without PV, try to store as much as you can, produce hydrogen, convert the rest to thermal energy, but most importantly reduce the inverter power to 50% of PV-power, i.e. encourage the developement of eletric storage systems. No FIT any longer for PV.
Wind: a) Connect the grids of all European countries with sufficient cross-border transmission capacity and you have very likely around 15% reliable wind power, for 85% you need back-up in form of pump storages or conventional power plants with biogas, however, with (very)low FLH. b) Increase the FLH of the wind turbines, that helps a lot in combination with a. c) Think more about other economic solutions, e.g. where is the optimum between excess production, waste and storage as function of production price. d) Accept that renewables in Germany will "only" deliver 90% of the energy e) Import the rest (Desertec).
Yeah, nice try Ulenspiegel!... in case you didn't notice Germany's neighbors are Denmark (who will have more per-capita wind than Germany), France (who doesn't need to import electricity other than on afew days/weeks/year ONLY in case of lower-than-average temperatures (each degC less requires 2,1 GWe extra)... Czech republic exports constantly towards Germany, Poland is trying toget energetically independent... if Europe goes on like this EVERYBODY will have to export the peak surplus electricity generated by PVand wind!... nobody will be ever capable nor willing to buy PV electricity, highly unreliable and difficult to forecast even on a 24-hour notice... Germany will have to literally give it away for free... or dump it... and the net result will be that the ALREADY abysmal average capacity factor of 10% will get smaller! Same if you include the INEVITABLE losses related to H2 generation and storage, transmission to different countries for pumped hydro storage, etc...do an LCOE calculation with 8% cap.factor, and then tell me what you get, OK?
"No FIT any longer for PV" will mean No new PV installations any longer... end of the game... once the 50 or so GWp will be reached you'll have 40 GW peak power (never above 80% of installed power, even on sunny days, it's physically impossible) between noon and 2:00pm, and then what?... I tell you what, look at this:
http://www.power-technology.com/projects/rwe-neurath/
2.2 GWe ("e", not the fake "p"), just put on line by RWE... equivalent to 2/3 of the electricity which will be generated by the present total PV installations of 27 GWp... burning LIGNITE, 1 ton of CO2 per MWhe... this is the real "green economy" that some people/organizations with vested interests are foolishly dreaming about?... tell me! Germany is going to stabilize the INEVITABLE fluctuations in power, reactive power, etc... caused by PV and wind by putting on line lignite-burning monsters with an expected lifetime of 40 years?... excuse me???
Desertec? Ahahaahahaha... you are joking, right? Desertec is DEAD... killed by its cousin PV... just give a look at the mega-project in Blythe, US... same will happen for Desertec... not to mention the political turmoil gone and yet to come in the african and middle east "sun belt" countries... please!
Roberto
You confuse wind and PV, Denmark, UK, Scandinavia have a peak demand in summer, but limited PV potential, therefore, export potential. Long-term Storage potential in Norway is also large. Or do not confuse politics with science.
We will not give it away for free, worst case is to replace thermal energy.
Wind will become flat in future with more transmission capacity and higher FLH.
Forecast for PV and wind is already quite good. See available on-line predictions and actual production.
Your lignite example is stupid, the new plant replaces 14 old ones with lower efficiency, i.e. clear gain.
Desertec with PV (instead of pure CSP)is well and alive, get real :-)
Are you nuts!? In Sweden, jan+dec in 2011 consumed 27 TWh, while june+july consumed 18 TWh.
Not really. They have 124 TWh total yearly production, which is only 4% of EU production. Also, while hydro is flexible, you can't use it however you want. To not hurt river beds and ecosystems too much, you'll have to have some flow at all times, and you can't have too high flow either because you'll cause floods. Also, dams shouldn't be too full nor too depleted, and water inflow to dams is changing with seasons.
No, it won't.
If they really believed in high penetration wind, they wouldn't build lignite, would they? Actually, wind construction has been very slow in Germany the last 5 years. They are not ramping either - they have added 1500-1800 MW each of these years.
"You confuse wind and PV, Denmark, UK, Scandinavia have a peak demand in summer, but limited PV potential, therefore, export potential."
What??? This is utter nonsense! DK, UK and Scandinavia DO NOT HAVE peak demand in summer, summer is the HOT season, and the countries you mention do not have heat waves...maybe you want to try with Italy, Spain and Portugal?
And, by the way, talking about potential... Germany is not a sunny country either, 10% overall capacity factor from its PV, remember!
"We will not give it away for free, worst case is to replace thermal energy."
Actually you do, if it is PV power you are talking about: just look at the import/export figures on ENTSOE's web site... when the sum shines your export increases, this means that the PV power DOES NOT replace the power from the thermal units, these are left running constantly, sun or not sun... so in the end you sell MWh generated by thermal units (cough! cough!) at home (for how much?) while consuming homemade PV costing 30+ cEuro/kWh... smart guys, uh? :-) ... maybe that's why emissions have increased by 1% in 2011? Mmmmhhh...
"Your lignite example is stupid, the new plant replaces 14 old ones with lower efficiency, i.e. clear gain. "
No, the stupid thing is the analysis of the news you give... it is true that the new lignite-fired power station has a 43% efficiency compared to the older units which are stopped, but nevertheless it will run for the next 40 years (40!) producing alone the equivalent of 18 GWp of PV. How can you possibly not realize that? Jeeez...
"Desertec with PV (instead of pure CSP)is well and alive, get real :-)"
Sure... and Santa brings toys to the good kids... any other fantasy story to spare with us today, ulenspiegel? Seriously: tell me/us where the first Desertech power station (any type) has been installed or is going to be installed. Thanks.
Roberto
Ghung, have you seen this movie, "Into Eternity"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oy6GRQN63gg
I enjoyed the movie, it's well done and the project is fascinating. Thanks for sharing.
"WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THESE COSTS WILL BE; NOT A CLUE. So we ignore them..."
Actually, someone who's taken the thing seriously seems to know pretty well...
http://www.posiva.fi/en/final_disposal
... last item on the menu... "Total costs and funding for final dispostal"
"Cost Distribution for the Repository
The total cost of the repository is approximately 3,000 million euro, of which the investment costs are around 650 million, the operating costs until the year 2118 around 2,100 million and the decommissioning and closure costs around 250 million."
"Due to the fund collecting, the total costs of nuclear waste management are estimated each year and the amount of accumulated nuclear waste taken into account in the calculations. In 2007, the total cost of nuclear waste management was estimated to be 1.6 billion euro. This covers the management of all nuclear waste accumulated so far as well as the costs of nuclear power plant decommissioning until final disposal."
Roberto
Considering the ~270,000 tonnes of spent fuel worldwide, and the addition of another ~12,000 tonnes annually, and the failure of virtually all previous attempts to quantify costs, or make any real progress concerning dealing with these wastes, I feel quite safe filing this estimate in my WAG folder. I stand by my statement; NOT A CLUE...
Are they really expecting to put all of the worlds high level wastes in this one repository, somewhere around 360 kilotons by the end of this decade?
Again, it's not about having a clue. It's not something you calculate or find. It's something you choose.
"Are they really expecting to put all of the worlds high level wastes in this one repository, somewhere around 360 kilotons by the end of this decade?"
See? You haven't even given a look at the link of Posiva's... they are going to store ONLY the waste of their reactors, present ones (4, I believe) and the couple more that will come soon... all this charging 1/1000 Euro/kWh, all included.
Anyway, should for some reason nuclear power be banned tomorrow, the "problem" of dealing with its waste would stay, so we better move on and do it.
Roberto
Oh, I read the link, Roberto (my friend). I just felt it would be better if you, or someone besides myself, confirmed my point: Globally, WE DON'T HAVE A CLUE how much it's going to cost to sequester/convert/store/etc. all of this high level waste. Meantime, 12,000 tonnes a year are being added to the backlog, costs of dealing with it are rising, and the best we can do in the US is put it in big swimming pools or leave it scattered around in giant multi-million dollar thermos bottles. Some industry you've got going there.
"I just felt it would be better if you, or someone besides myself, confirmed my point: Globally, WE DON'T HAVE A CLUE how much it's going to cost to sequester/convert/store/etc. all of this high level waste. "
... exactly like nobody has a clue about how much a barrel of oil will be worth in 1, 5 or 10 years, you can find all possible price figures on the net...even among soit-disant "experts"... just keep an eye on the discussions on this blog. :-)
Anyway, if you prefer to live in a fantasy world and avoid looking at the FACTS for what they are, it's your problem... right now there are countries like (but not limited to) Spain, France, Sweden, Finland, Germany who are actively working on preparing deep sites for storage of high-activity level nuclear waste from civil reactors.
The figures are in the billions, simply because nuclear reactors produce incredible amounts of electricity... it's the cost per kWh that matters!... and that is in the mils/kWh... i.e. almost "too cheap to meter"...
The costs are rising as for almost anything else on the planet, my friend... only things which are worth nothing or close to it have diminishing sticker price... most notably PV modules, since they produce close to ZERO electricity... look at Germany!... the "role model country" in greenish speak... 10% capacity factor from their PV installations, 3-4% during winter months globally... isn't that a PATHETIC performance or what?
Roberto
Yair . . . I get really annoyed when some halfsmart highly educated folks get on here talking crap with a hollier than thou attitude!!
I don't give a damn about any one's opinion and supposedly "learned discourse" i.e. bullshite . . . the facts are that we have all this bloody waste stacking up and no one is doing anything about it NOW right now at this moment . . . and if they do get it sorted what about the NIMBY problems with transportation and such? You blokes want to get real and think through a failed technology.
There's a problem with nukes and no amount of smart arse dissertations makes one scrap of difference . . . my friends.
Cheers.
Well... then keep on burning coal and NG, my friend... I have no problem whatsoever with that, if you like breathing all kinds of s... and polluting the environment much more than the nuclear waste will ever do then you will have it.
Roberto
"From the one example mentioned, WRT Germany, it would seem that those costs equal or exceed construction costs."
No way! Who said that? Just a couple of weeks ago EnBW, one of the big utilities operating nuclear reactors in Germany, has announced the intention to start as soon as possible the decommissioning of the 2 reactors which Mrs Merkel has decided to stop on March 15, 2011.
The company claims that the sums accumulated during the decades-long operation of the 4 reactors are sufficient to cover decommissioning and storage/transport of the spent fuel, plus final storage.
Here is the link:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR_Quick_decommissioning_in_Germany_03...
I can't really see how a couple of mils (Euros, that is) per kWh could result in almost doubling the cost of the two reactors, which have generatedso far 373 billion kWh (almost 16 years of the production of 27 GWp installed now)... this means of the order of 1/2 billion Euros accumulated in the funds.
Roberto
Todd, getting a higher electrical power factor will have little impact on your power usage but will reduce your volt-amp-reactive (VAR) usage. The power company generally charges large businesses for VAR usage. As a side note, a residential customer is generally not billed for VAR usage so there would be no cost savings for improving your home's power factor.
Thanks for the tip of the hat, Todd. I'm juggling several projects at the moment and have made note of the latest one here: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9461#comment-915744 This one was going to be dropped from our list because the campus had previously undergone a lighting retrofit sometime ago and was thought to be in pretty good shape energy-wise, and yet there are clearly opportunities to do better.
The cost per kWh saved can often be quite low when amortized over the life of the investment -- sometimes less than half a cent, but two to five cents is a reasonable rule of thumb. This is why I feel the demand side of the equation deserves more attention. Conservation and energy efficiency may not solve all our problems, but they do help to make them more manageable.
One more example if I may... the student cafeteria is illuminated by twenty 6-lamp T8 pendants that operate 24/7, each consuming 177-watts. And yet there's a large skylight and clerestory windows that provide sufficient daylight during the times when this space is normally occupied (http://i362.photobucket.com/albums/oo69/HereinHalifax/Img_1757.jpg). Why do we do this sort of thing? [The recommended replacements draw 42-watts. I'd like to add a daylight sensor as well, but I'm reluctant to mess-around with the existing low-voltage control system.]
Cheers,
Paul
Why? Perhaps because we don't teach critical thinking skills anymore... and this at an institute for higher learning, eh? SAD!
Re messing with the control system and adding a daylight sensor shouldn't be all that hard.
Maybe you can find something among these companies which fits your needs and is easy to implement as well, probably no need to try and reinvent the wheel by yourself...
http://www.lightfair.com/lightfair/V40/innovativeAwards2012/Controls%20I...
Cheers!
Fred
Todd
I agree that BAU can not longer be supported but I feel that it has much more to do with mindset limitations than physical limits. Sure we have serious and greatly increasing physical resources limits but I see this as an effect not a cause.
Maybe I've watched to much Star Trek but I feel that a clean safe nuclear power technology is likely to be within the ream of physical possibilities. What I am less convinced of is whether or not mankind can develop the maturity to handle the responsibilities that this would entail.
It does look like we are in for a world of hurt and that our overall trend does seem to be in the wrong direction. The overall dysfunction of our group mindset seems to be getting worse. Our aggregate ego drivers and sub-consensus mindset issues are creating the building blocks for a destroyed planet.
A pathway to a sustainable/peaceful society seems clear, how to teach a substantial majority about this possible pathway is much less clear.
clean safe nuclear power technology is likely to be within the ream of physical possibilities.
Clean is all relative - Fukushima was 'clean' for a number of years and now - not so much.
The issue with "safe" nuclear power is you have to rely on the flawed human beings to do things 'correctly' and 'by the book' to make it "safe". While the pro-nukers talk about safety measures - they can not explain sleeping security guards posted to YouTube.
So how does one take flawed Humans and have them run fission plants with the need for 'no flaws' in their operation?
I agree this is a really bad idea. The first step is to fix the flawed human. It looks like we had a better option for nuclear power but the U-235 fission process produced nuclear warhead material so we took that path. This provides good evidence that we lack the maturity to handle the responsibility of any high energy yield technology.
My assumption was that if we can grow beyond the adult child dominated society we are presently in and develop a society of mature adults, then safe nuclear power might be possible. Or course in a society of mature adults that understand the value of, "live simple so that all life can simply live" we might find we have little need for high energy yield technology.
Regarding widespread use of nuclear, there is one view that says that even with melt-downs and not being able to store nuclear fuel, nuclear reactors are far less of a problem than most people have made them out to be. People live quite successfully with fairly high levels radiation in Denver and parts of Iran. They willingly subject themselves to all kinds of medical procedures using high levels of radiation. (Of course, they don't generally have to breath or eat the stuff, but hopefully the eating/drinking issue would be fairly short term.) In their view, the long-term evacuation around Fukushima and Chernobyl was an over-reaction.
Even if the above view could be shown to be true, the issue I see is that nuclear power plants deteriorate with age and need to be replaced. Replacing the power plants requires the use of a lot of fossil fuels. So does decommissioning them and sequestering the spent fuel, to the extent this is deemed necessary. Somehow, someone needs to pay for all of this, at the current high price for oil and other materials. If debt defaults become a problem, the funds set aside to do this may not be available.
At one point in my life, when 3 mile island accident happened, I was at NC State Univ. in the Nuclear Engineering program. The math required to deal with 3D neutron flows in reactors cores was more than my Aspie right dominated brain could handle so I changed majors. But from what I learned from that experience it leads me to somewhat agree with this. But again it is not so much the basic technology but our lack of maturity to safely handle it that most concerns me.
And yes, if you including the entire life cycle cost our present nuclear power plants do seem to fail the sharp pencil test. Sure there will be a tendency to default and walk away, this is what "adult children" do and this provides another example for why I feel that we are not mature enough to be playing with this technology.
"I feel that we are not mature enough to be playing with this technology."
It's societal attention span and continuity I'm most concerned about, as are many others. Stoneleigh:
This is a torch that will be passed down for generations, whether or not our descendants benefit from it. The pro-nuke folks like DaveW cleverly and conveniently ignore this and assume a societal longevity and functionality that is entirely faith-based; a selfish assumption at that. This my-evil-is-less-evil-than-your-evil debate is simplistic and tedious, and indicative of the many traps we've set for ourselves, the planet, and a future that we don't own but certainly take possession of.
You simply repeatedly compare renewables, which do not power any society in the world, with nuclear, which for electricity at least does power 80% of French needs.
What you imagine to be the waste from renewables is irrelevant since we can't do that.
So you are comparing non-existent perfect resources to real resources with their limitations.
Back in the real world coal wastes is hugely voluminous and contains goodies like arsenic and mercury with a half life of forever.
Since we would still be dependent for around 70% of our energy on fossil fuels in any renewables system we can remotely build it would seem that advocates as in Germany are building in this waste and pollution for decades to come, not to mention the potentially catastrophic effects of CO2 emissions.
Due to their dependence on fossil fuels renewables imply huge and lethal pollution.
As for the hugely hyped 'problem' of nuclear 'waste', here is France:
'High-level waste (HLW), accounting for just 0.2% of the total waste volume in 2010 (2700 m3), represents 96% of its radioactivity.'
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-France_details_nuclear_waste_invent...
That is for a country which has got most of it's electricity from nuclear for decades.
As for the fantasy that after the doomer's breakdown of civilisation, this will kill everyone or whatever for thousands of years, the waste at La Hague would stay pretty well where it is, decreasing in radioactivity every year, and the more dangerous the waste the faster the decay as it is the energy that makes it dangerous.
Unless these stone-age post apocalypse people duly trek across Europe to make sure they eat their own share of nuclear waste, then it is unlikely to affect them much, unlike the coal waste which renewables necessitate and which will be distributed conveniently to kill people right where they live.
You can't compare the risks of a way of powering society in a way which we can't actually engineer with those of real engineering.
Congratulations, Dave, you've surpassed your previous strawman record, IMO.
"You can't compare the risks of a way of powering society in a way which we can't actually engineer with those of real engineering."
Not at all sure of what you're talking about here. If you're talking about powering society on renewables, I fully expect "society" to deploy and adapt to renewables, and find ways to pay for them. I ask nothing of "society" that I don't ask from myself, including adjusting to planetary and natural limits, and eliminating superficial, wasteful, discretionary uses of planet fouling energy. Excuuuuuuse me for holding "society" to the same standards I hold myself to. I'm holding YOU to those standards.
"As for the fantasy that after the doomer's breakdown of civilisation, this will kill everyone or whatever for thousands of years,..."
Just another DaveW strawman. I've never said "this will kill everyone". Ever. Attempting to deflect my assertion that it is selfish and immoral to dump our long-lived detritus on future generations who will likely be ill-equipped to deal with it won't change the fact that that is exactly what we're doing.
"You simply repeatedly compare renewables, which do not power any society in the world, with nuclear, which for electricity at least does power 80% of French needs."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Iceland
"As for the hugely hyped 'problem' of nuclear 'waste', here is France:
'High-level waste (HLW), accounting for just 0.2% of the total waste volume in 2010 (2700 m3), represents 96% of its radioactivity.'"
That's not even funny. A little cadmium with your fish? Anyone?
I'm not certain your citing Iceland as a counterexample to DaveW's "strawman" is not itself a strawman that tends more to "prove" Dave's point than to refute it. Usable geothermal does exist (Iceland), but is hard to come by (where else?) Sustainable wind exists (U.S. and South American East Coast) but is hard to come by (where else?)
Arguments that "society is not mature enough to handle nuclear technology" or "we could power the country on wind alone if we but built out our power grid" are purely philosophical and immaterial. All that is material is price. Globally, where WWS is cheaper than coal, WWS will be deployed. Where nukes are cheaper than coal, nukes will be deployed. We here in the safety and comfort of Western Democracy can argue the pros and cons all we want. Kyoto, Copenhagen, Duban -- these all look nice on paper. But when the rubber hits the global road, Adam Smith rules.
This attitude is more evidence for me that we are not mature enough to handle nuclear technology. We are talking philosophy here, we are talking public support and why nuclear does not have much.
Nuclear to be safe has to been done with a extremely mature attitude. The bad accidents that we have had were caused by an Adam Smith attitude. Mostly by cutting corners to make the numbers look good but in the case of why we did not go with the much safer Thorium salt reactor it looks like it came down to military spending creates greater profits...
My bias is that I want to see a peaceful sustainable world, what is yours?
Are you sure it is mature to be irrationally safety-addicted and anti-capitalist? Are you sure Chernobyl was due to Adam Smith-attitude?
With Chernobyl, it was easy to pretend TMI had been a non-issue or a one-off and the real faults could be blamed on the Dreaded Russkies, not some deepseated threats within nuclear power itself, for which any number of combinations of human faults could trigger a disastrous failure.. but the real upset with Japan, and as importantly, their reactions to the disaster as much as the things TEPCO and the Govt did in the decades leading up to the meltdowns there, was that this is an Industrialized, Modern Capitalist Democracy, and makes it clear as day that it could soon be any one of 'Us'..
Adam Smith is just one of the forms of willfull blindness and shirking of real responsibility that will get our remaining and pending reactors into serious trouble.
Give me any Tsuname, Blackout, Depression, War or Drought that knocks down a bunch of PV and Wind farms, and I can still sit and eat my lunch right on top of their rubble that same day. (and still get useful power from some of the PV.. )
The problem is that if you rely on solar and wind for fossil replacement, you will get those blackouts, depressions, wars and droughts. With nuclear, you stand a good chance of avoiding most of them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A
And another problem is the perception that nuclear disasters are somehow in a different, non-acceptable, class from other disasters. They are not.
I'm sure the others watching this amusing thread will have no problem seeing how silly and odd it would be for someone to claim that Renewables could cause Droughts, much less Wars and Depressions. But during blackouts that might come as part of any of these, there are MANY levels of Wind, PV and Solar Heating gear that will be functional, and there to help us. How many available Nuclear tools could you say the same thing for?
As for how different these disasters are.. maybe you could show us how much beachfront after the Tsuname in the Indian Ocean people were able to get basically immediate access to, so they could start to rebuild again. Now, how about that apartment in Pripyat?
Seems like a pretty accurate perception to me. Why would you disagree?
Why I would disagree? Because I'm a boring, Spock-like bean counter of an engineer, that's why.
The problem is that if you rely on solar and wind for fossil replacement, you will get those blackouts, depressions, wars and droughts
Solar and wind power will bring about *droughts*? You're theory being they'll end up keeping fossil fuels in use via CAWG?
I guess so, even though I don't know what CAWG is. California Association of Winegrape Growers?
Arg, sorry, I keep doing that: C-AGW
According to - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_sLt5gNAQs. 1.5% of Reactors built to date have ... OPPS ... Core melt. anyone have a Scorecard?
Even though I feel your comment has some inappropriate aspects it does bring up some good discussion points. I am however going to answer your question with the following changes. Instead of "irrationally safety-addicted" I will answer as if you had said "hyper safety concerned".
I do feel that it is a sign of maturity to be on the conservative side of safety but I agree that you can get to point that you are hyper safety concerned and this can creates negative consequences. What I see is that our lack of maturity and our Adam Smith approach creates both extremes. We go overboard in some areas and are flippant in others.
The underlying goal of our capitalist system seems to be to concentrate the most wealth/power in the fewest hands, and I do not support that and I do think it is a sign of immaturity. It is also a major driving force causing the ecological destruction of the earth which makes it grossly immature.
Chernobyl, inherently unstable reactor design in a containment building with the structural integrity of an aircraft hanger, dumb and dumber. Does show what happens when there are inadequate safety regulations and the cost containment component runs amuck. Looks like an Adam Smith attitude to me.
Thanks for your reply. However, last time I commented here - a year or so ago, I was censored for replying, very reasonably, to leftist rants. So I'll just mention that the one thing we agree on is that it's possible to get very negative consequences by asking for too much security.
I think there may be a difference of opinion on what is "reasonable". To claim, up-thread, that solar and wind energy cause drought, depression, and war, and then to assert that you figure these things out because you are an engineer, makes me wonder exactly what assumptions you are working from and how you logically connect them.
Shorter, and less diplomatically, "are you sure you're not crazy?"
Being the one who brought him up, its probably not out of place for me to remind that Adam Smith (Professor of Moral Philosophy, Edinburgh) himself was accutely aware of the shortcomings of the marketplace, and the necessity of open and informed regulation. The market's tendency toward monopoly was but one of his topics.
No secret meetings. No backroom deals. All government regulations will impact someone's profit negatively, so keep them under regular review to ensure they are doing what was intended.
Safety regulations are a critical part of that. EPA, OSHA, NHTSA, FDA, USDA, NRC, all have crucial roles. And if the informed conclusion is that some 45 or 50 year old reactor designs are inherently -- including human factors -- unsafe, then sure, decommission them.
But the costs associated with their replacement are themselves a crucial consideration. Here are a few TOD links from a few years back:
The 3-part view of power generation
Nate Hagans had a five-part piece, the last (with links to the earlier) being
Revisiting the Fake Fire Brigade Part 2: Biomass - A Panacea?
Rush to Renewable Energy Generates Big Financial Questions in Europe
The bottom line being the society, the country, with the cheapest reliable electricity will have the competitive advantage in almost all manufacturing, and indeed most other industry as well. It just can't be ignored. The "developing world" certainly isn't ignoring it. And they are deploying the cheapest, greatest ROI, fastest-to-get-online technologies available. And should those technologies be "green", fine. But the reason Kyoto and Copenhagen failed is because they are not.
I certainly wish they were. But see The Chinese Coal Monster here and here and here.
Contrary evidence notwithstanding, I do consider myself an environmentalist. But as far as climate and the environment are concerned, uranium is not the enemy. The enemy is coal. And any "clean" technology that does not meet coal's cost advantages head on, on a global scale is not engaged in the battle.
"I'm not certain your citing Iceland as a counterexample to DaveW's "strawman" is not itself a strawman that tends more to "prove" Dave's point than to refute it."
Bullsh@t. Dave made the absolute, incorrect statement: "You simply repeatedly compare renewables, which do not power any society in the world,.."...and I provided an example of one. Further, it's clear that virtually every society until the industrial age was powered by renewables, and some still exist today. It baffles me that so many here continue to speak in absolutes when it's clear things don't work that way, when societies and their energy needs are considered.
I suppose some folks are incapable of thinking outside of their little boxes, their constructs of how the world should be. Touting Adam Smith is ironic since it's clear to many that he would despise what some here refer to as 'capitalism'.
I don't expect that all current societies in the world can run on 100% renewables, but do expect that those societies that fail to utilize whatever renewables they have available, as Iceland has done, and adjust to their local carrying capacity, are basically screwed. This isn't some green dream, it's purely pragmatic. I, for one, refuse to be a slave to, nor divorced from, my energy sources, and refuse to enslave my get to the consequences of my shortsightedness. The more I read some of these pro-complexity, pro-capitalist, pro-growth comments, the more convinced I am that my choices are the correct ones.
That's a good point, I'm using the basic term "Adam Smith attitude" with the imply meaning of how it seems to be presently interpreted not necessarily how he really meant it. I hope that was clear if not, my bad.
That primitive societies can run on wood is well known. That sparsely populated countries with ample hydro or geothermal resources can run on that is also known to all. Thus, the charitable interpretation of "society" in this context exclude precisely those "lucky" exceptions. Of course, it's valid to point out that his comment was a bit sloppily formulated, or even wrong even though "I know what you mean". However, to trigger like you do is a bit, well, inflexible.
Sorry to jump into the discussion with Dave... but this is too much...
"Renewable energy provides 100 percent of electricity production, with about 70 percent coming from hydropower and 30 percent from geothermal power."
... WOW!... the sheer power of renewables!... powering 100% of a country which hosts... let me check... "as of Jan 1st 2012, 319,575 inhabitants"... a whoppy 0.0045% of the population of the earth.
Way to go, man!
Renewables PR: un-bea-ta-ble!
Roberto
Jeez, Roberto, if you insist on subjectively changing the intent of the thread, you won't be my friend anymore :-(
I was responding to Dave's claim that no society runs on renewables. Iceland is a society. It runs on renewables. If you posit that either of these isn't factual, make your case. Or would you rather join Dave at his strawman festival?
Iceland doesn't use FF's?
I doubt they've perfected the hydrogen powered ships for their fishing fleet. And Keflavik International Airport probably offers refueling with conventional jet fuel.
"strawman festival":
Synonim: "Iceland is a society"... you made my point man!
I can even help you give a better example, since you are my friend: at least cite Norway, a country of what?... 8-9 million citizens, who produces 98% of its electricity via hydro... Iceland is a joke (in terms of mere numerical size, that is).
Roberto
I haven't bothered with this thread for a few days, but reading this will simply point out that Iceland, although it gets most of it's power from it's unequalled access to geothermal power and most countries do not happen to be located on a rift, actually the last time I looked powers it's transport, including it's fishing fleet which is vital for them to eat, on diesel and petrol.
So it is not an example of a country being run on renewables, even a very silly one.
One further point, the dreaded 'precautionary principle' has also raised it's hoary head in this thread.
This is even more nonsensical than linear no threshold, an is a anti-scientific piece of rhetoric, not a rational argument.
Applying the precautionary principle would mean that every aircraft would have to be encased in lead, to guard against cosmic rays.
On second thoughts, it would still be possible for an aircraft to crash into a chemical factory, rendering huge areas 'uninhabitable' according to the weird and wonderful standards of the hysterics.
ie considerable areas would have some enhanced level hazard from the chemicals, and any breach of current standards is regarded as a death-ray.
In reality no one would be able to go outside their house, or alternatively to stay in it, according to the 'precautionary principle', as each requires a level of risk.
Any engineering project, including air transport, would be utterly impossible.
The anti-nuclear movement argues from absurdities like this, advocates a solution of renewables for everything which is impossible to build, and in practise builds in CO2 emissions for decades to come, in their fossil fuel 'back-ups'
Anyone who thinks that global warming is a reality would see that that could cause billions of deaths.
So where is the 'precautionary principle' gone when it might actually do some good?
BTW for the record I have been a supporter of solar for 40 years, but have the strange idea that you should put it in where it is sunny, not waste hundreds of billions in farcical installations in countries where it produces a tenth of it's peak output in the depths of winter where it is most needed.
Here in the UK alone up to 50,000 people die every year in 'excess winter deaths'.
These correlate, unsurprisingly, with fuel costs.
On top of the toll from air pollution, the 'renewables as an ideology' movement in coercing the financing of absurdly expensive renewables in solar and off-shore wind not only risks the killing of billions from global warming but contributes to the routine deaths of thousands.
Gosh, Dave, as usual you keep moving the bar when it suits you. This post is on NUCLEAR GENERATED ELECTRICAL POWER, not fossil fueled transportation.
"So it is not an example of a country being run on renewables, even a very silly one.
Electrically, it is. Your obtuse rationalizations can't change that. Other countries have other renewable options, some more than others, options that will likely get considerably more social support than nuclear. This is the reality that the pro-nuke group is faced with. Most people don't care that you don't like it, or that you think you know better what is best for them , no more or less than who care what I think.
You simply repeatedly compare renewables, which do not power any society in the world,
And yet "we" got from Lucy and her merry band to here on the backs of renewables.
And if it wasn't for taking gathered photons from the past after time had made them into oil and coal - one would not be taking atoms and making them smaller to boil water to make power - the same way one takes oil/coal to make electrical power 100+ years ago.
we can't actually engineer with those of real engineering.
Which is why I keep pointing to sleeping security guards.
But if you want to make it a specious engineering argument - boiling water to make steam to rotate a generator is 100+ years old.
PV - now that is the new engineering stuff.
If fossil fuel use were that major an input into nuclear plant construction, running and decommissioning it would show up in the lifecycle CO2 emissions.
Fortunately such lifecycle costs have been calculated:
'Vattenfall finds that averaged over the entire lifecycle of their Nuclear Plant including Uranium mining, milling, enrichment, plant construction, operating, decommissioning and waste disposal, the total amount CO2 emitted per KW-Hr of electricity produced is 3.3 grams per KW-Hr of produced power. Vattenfall measures its CO2 output from Natural Gas to be 400 grams per KW-Hr and from coal to be 700 grams per KW-Hr. Thus nuclear power generated by Vattenfall, which may constitute World's best practice, emits less than one hundredth the CO2 of Fossil-Fuel based generation. In fact Vattenfall finds its Nuclear Plants to emit less CO2 than any of its other energy production mechanisms including Hydro, Wind, Solar and Biomass although all of these processes emit much less than fossil fuel generation of electricity.'
http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeGreenhouseEmissionsOfNuclearP...
Such use is clearly trivial, and could not only be easily met from fossil fuel use, which after all are getting scarcer and more expensive, not vanishing, or by the use of nuclear power itself to produce hydrogen and it's products such as DME, a very decent diesel substitute but cleaner.
According to the DOE the production of hydrogen by electrolysis is a bit dearer than by reforming natural gas, but nowhere near expensive enough to render it impractical.
Taking the needed input of fossil fuels as 1% of the output of the plant over it's lifetime, and allowing nothing at all for the fact that you can often use electricity directly without going to fossil fuels, then using fuel cells at 60% efficiency, well within current practise and allowing 10% for compression losses you might use 2% of the output over it's lifetime of the plant to provide all the fuel for it.
2% energy cost is not a show stopper.
In fact it is easily possible to do far better.
The PSBR design that the Chinese are building can be adapted to high temperature operation, which would be far more efficient at hydrogen production.
People live quite successfully with fairly high levels radiation in Denver and parts of Iran.
Yet Radiation VS taking in Radioactive Strontium like it is Calcium and making it part of your body are two different things, aren’t they?
Of course "we" understand this - (Of course, they don't generally have to breath or eat the stuff)
But the 1/2 life of Strontium-90 is not 'short term' - it is a concern for a human lifetime.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-alvarez/radioactive-fallout-from_b_...
But as noted here: http://www.naturalpedia.com/Nuclear_testing.html
They willingly subject themselves to all kinds of medical procedures using high levels of radiation.
And some people willingly go to clean up after Chernoybl and Fukushima.
Medical x-rays are a very brief dose at very high energies.
Their high energies are orders of magnitude more than the body can cope with by hormesis.
Their results in no way correspond to sustained doses at lower rates such as living around Fukushima or in areas of high natural radiation.
Per the pro-nuclear analysis.
A conclusion that I think is not supported by the consensus of good science. Just the pro-nukers and perhaps a few random others.
Alan
If by 'consensus of good science' you mean something you happen to fancy.
Linear no threshold remains an assumption, and is not evidential.
So the ONLY proper assumption to make regarding public health is the conservative choice.
Linear it is ! :-)
Which BTW, also conforms much better to our understanding of cell biology. Hormesis is something made up/promoted by the pro-nukers.
Alan
Alan, have you read either of the two books by T. D. Luckey (both with over 1,000 references) or any of the articles on the Linear No-Threshold Model presented at meetings of the Health Physics Society over the past 30 years?
Edit to add
http://ts-si.org/horizons/30988-edward-calabrese-alleges-hermann-muller-...
WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 18 Mar 2011 Washington, DC
2. HORMESIS: THE LINEAR NO-THRESHOLD MODEL MUST BE WRONG.
Airline crews experience a high total-radiation exposure. But the exposure
of airline crews is spread over many years, while Chernobyl survivors got a
concentrated dose. Statistically they are not distinguished. Do the
derivatives matter? According to a story in the news this week, Chernobyl
survivors today suffer cancer at about the same rate as others their age.
The same is true of Hiroshima survivors. If true, it would seem to support
the radiation-hormesis thesis. "Hormesis" refers to things that are toxic
in large doses, but harmless or even beneficial in small doses. Trace
amounts of selenium, for example, are essential for cell function of
animals. But selenium salts in larger doses, are highly toxic. Airline
pilots or not, we are all exposed to background levels of ionizing
radiation every day of our lives. We do not all succumb to cancer. It
seems there is a repair mechanism that compares neighboring strands of DNA
and patches up damage. The comparison can work only if damaged strands are
isolated. If the damage rate is very high, the same repair mechanism could
multiply the damage.
Don't take aspirins then!
According to this nuts 'theory' since taking a hundred aspirins will kill you, then just as surely taking one a day for a hundred days will.
If you want linear no threshold though, that is fine.
So apply the same principle consistently.
Jacobson and Stanford claimed:
'Stanford University released a study that projected 130 people, primarily in Japan, will die from cancer over the next 50 years as the result of the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.'
Using the same framework:
'So using the same lazy reasoning, back-of-the-envelope estimation, and LNT assumption that Ten Hoeve and Jacobson use in their paper (e.g., on page 12 of the PDF), I conclude that their methodology predicts that, since March 2011, the date of the Fukushima earthquake and tsunami, JAL has been responsible for an additional 240 passenger cancers and 120 eventual cancer deaths'
http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/07/jacobson-fukushima-analysis-applied-to....
if the correct response to any claimed risk is to ban or heavily restrict the industry involved, then a lot of industries are going to go before nuclear.
The standard against which anti-nuclear people wish to judge the industry is wholly absurd, and a polemic, not a rational stance.
http://thyroid.about.com/b/2012/08/06/fukushimas-children-facing-high-ra...
Are you going to propose that the radiation is causing their thyroid to grow "big and strong"?
AFAIK, this was also bad research. A big percentage of thyroids have these kinds of growths. What differed here is probably only the thresholds of what constitutes such a growth.
Indeed, that study was misleading.
www.japanprobe.com/2012/07/21/more-anti-nuclear-fearmongering-thyroid-gr...
I guess we'll see in the coming years if the growths are benign or not.
Thanks for looking it up!
Radiation doses to the thyroid of the kind which has been measured in almost 10 thousand japanese citizens (approx 8000 adults and 1500 children) can't possibly be the cause of thyroid nodules and cists!... modern epidemiology knows that there is a latency factor of 3-4 years between exposure to I-131 and the occurrence of thyroid problems (Chernobyl).
"Are you going to propose that the radiation is causing their thyroid to grow "big and strong"?"
WOW, that is a good one! ... and other than jokes can you point to some serious references or studies to back up your statements?
"Radioiodine (131-I) therapy has been used in the management of patients with well-differentiated (papillary or follicular) thyroid cancer since the 1940s."
... or...
"CONCLUSIONS: The use of rhTSH for the preparation of low-risk patients to ablation therapy with low activities of (131)I (2 GBq; 54 mCi) is safe and effective and avoids hypothyroidism. The presence of thyroid remnants smaller than 1 ml at US evaluation had no effect on the ablation rate. "
http://www.uptodate.com/contents/radioiodine-treatment-of-differentiated...
Roberto
Roberto
"Which BTW, also conforms much better to our understanding of cell biology. Hormesis is something made up/promoted by the pro-nukers."
Really?
"The Linear No-Threshold Relationship Is Inconsistent with Radiation Biologic and Experimental Data"
http://radiology.rsna.org/content/251/1/13.full
... and references therein (167 papers).
Have a nice reading.
Roberto
For another article from the peer reviewed radiology literature see The Cancer Risk from Low-Level Radiation by the late Bernard Cohen
http://www.ajronline.org/content/179/5/1137.full
Thanks for the great links. This topic seems to generate a lot of hysteria. I made one comment quite a while back about how the risks of nuclear accidents seem to be overblown compared to other types of industrial accidents and I was declared a pro-nuker. I think nuclear energy, along with all other forms of energy generation has its flaws.
The high levels of radiation at elevation are cosmic background radiation that critters are adapted to. Man-made strontium and cesium, not so much. Medical radiation is low level, finite, and external, so it is negligible in comparison to internalized radioisotopes. Eating and drinking issues are not short term, as the half lives of strontium, cesium, and other isotopes now in our food chain are 30, 90, or 24,000 years. No hope for "fairly short term" there. And biomagnification makes humans very vulnerable, much more so than the butterflies showing unusual mutations in Japan this summer.
http://prosperouswaydown.com/taboo-topics-nuclear-waste/
Sheesh Iaato, damn it!
Next thing you know you will be trying to convince us that humans are at the apex of certain food chains, that ecosystems are interconnected, things like chaos theory, non linear dynamics have real effects and that tipping points can actually have permanent and deleterious impacts on the relatively stable environment that we evolved in.
Seriously now, do you really believe that we humans depend on the environment?! Come on, you know better than that, we have absolute complete control over all living things, We are Homo sapiens, we rule! Right?!
People like you make me depressed! Biomagnification? Pfft, really!
I'm done having babies, and I'm old. What, me worry?
(from EP Odum, 1983 at link in first post, showing that mammals are a magnitude or two more vulnerable than insects, which are more vulnerable than bacteria to radioisotopes)
Here's what radioisotopes do to insects, 18% of mutated butterflies in the second generation went to 34% in the third generation. We just don't have babies quick enough to see results. "No immediate health effects" is right. If you're not mad, you're not paying attention, and if you're not paying attention, you're about to become part of our grand genetics experiment. Cause and effect, only with generational lag times. Photo from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/9474312/Fukushima-c...
Hey that butterfly might be perfectly adapted to these new mutant canola plants. It's all part of god's intelligent design...
http://fukushima-diary.com/2012/05/mutated-canola-looking-like-a-new-kin...
Can't wait to see the mutant humans in a decade or so, they'll probably have wings like angels. It's all good!
I half-watched the X-Men Last Stand movie on TV last night--one of the mutants had angel's wings Maybe its not such a fantasy after all. Since ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, maybe it will be gills, instead?
It's beginning to look a lot like fish-men
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTJ_eQbBtls
I was taught the same thing. It's not considered to be true, anymore.
... taken from the references in Wikipedia article on Recapitulation Theory:
Blechschmidt, Erich (1977) The Beginnings of Human Life. Springer-Verlag Inc., pg. 32: "The so-called basic law of biogenetics is wrong. No buts or ifs can mitigate this fact. It is not even a tiny bit correct or correct in a different form, making it valid in a certain percentage. It is totally wrong."
Ehrlich, Paul; Richard Holm; Dennis Parnell (1963) The Process of Evolution. New York: McGraw–Hill, pg. 66: "Its shortcomings have been almost universally pointed out by modern authors, but the idea still has a prominent place in biological mythology. The resemblance of early vertebrate embryos is readily explained without resort to mysterious forces compelling each individual to reclimb its phylogenetic tree."
Scott F Gilbert (2006). Ernst Haeckel and the Biogenetic Law. Developmental Biology, 8th edition. Sinauer Associates. Retrieved 2008-05-03. "Eventually, the Biogenetic Law had become scientifically untenable."
Ever wonder how many other things you learned in High School are consider to be in error now?
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC6aOntogeny.shtml
Human embryos have gills early on. And tails. "History may not repeat itself but it does rhyme, and every gloss by a deconstructionist need not be a loss, pushing us further into an abyss of skepticism and indeterminacy" (Wittreich). And Darwin recanted on survival of the fittest, but he had a point that fits into the whole, depending on where you are in the cycle of life.
Actually... if you'd read the paper/study instead of just being happy reading the sloppy article on the Guardian... you'd have seen that the butterflies were forced (in a way) to reproduce, i.e. the scientists took the sperm from the males and artificially seminated the females... these were no naturally reproducing butterflies! Mutations rarely are fertile, this is a very well known scientific fact.
If you want to see, with your very eyes, (among other things) what 40+ generations of mice living in the Red Forest enjoy, just around the Chernobyl reactor, you only need to look at this, was aired on French/German TV a week ago or so.
Very interesting, indeed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_C7KF4H8Jk
Roberto
Thanks for the link, Roberto, I had not seen that one. Cherries were OK, but not the pits. Resinous pines were hard hit, while birch with less dense DNA were not. I appreciated the scientist from Texas Tech who made an error and then corrected himself. On the mice, they used mice since mice's biology is like human biology. But mice are vegetarians, lower on the food chain. So they are unlike humans, who are top level predators, subject to more biomagnification. In contrast, the swallows, who eat the mice, worms, etc. have tumors, dwarf eggs, and many different mutations. (See my food chain figure above). Swallows had poor sperm, premature aging, high mortality, and other serious problems. It takes several trophic levels for the biomagnification to occur; perhaps the wolves would be a better comparison given their trophic level. I did not read the mouse study either, but I can think of several limitations to that study: researchers only sampled live mice, not accounting for stillbirths, early mortality, and predation due to vulnerability. Also, after 40 generations, I would imagine that the radiation hardy variants of mice have become dominant?
The final point of the documentary was that the ecosystems were generally thriving and better off with man's withdrawal. The irony is that unprecedented loads of radiation are contrasted by withdrawal of organic pesticides and metals and man's monkeying in the food chain, allowing the ecosystem to regain its previous balance. Our machinations have created a human-free natural zone; ironies abound.
http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/studies/air_toxics/docs/2008FinalReport/08...
And no, Roberto, I did not read the study on the butterflies. There are enough convincing, suppressed, anecdotal reports coming out of Fukushima already, including the findings from the butterfly study.
Robert Wilson, we are adapted to cosmic ionizing radiation, but not man-made unstable isotopes such as strontium, cesium, and plutonium. They are not the same.
Robert Wilson, we are adapted to cosmic ionizing radiation, but not man-made unstable isotopes such as strontium, cesium, and plutonium. They are not the same.
Iaato
What evidence do you have to indicate that we are adapted to cosmic ionizing radiation but not to the other?
"we are adapted to cosmic ionizing radiation, but not man-made unstable isotopes such as strontium, cesium, and plutonium. They are not the same."
Who said that?... some anti-nuke organization?
That's absolutely wrong as a statement: human cells can't possibly tell the difference between a gamma ray emitted by K-40 contained in a banana and a gamma ray emitted by Cs-137 in/on the same banana.
Both potassium and cesium have a biological half-life of the order of 30-100 days, depending on age, sex, body mass, and probably few other metabolic functions... I keep on reading here and elsewhere people claiming things of the sort "once radioactive cesium or strontium enter your body they lodge inside your muscles and bones and generate tumors"... as if they stayed in there forever and ever... nothing is more distant from reality... radioisotopes are WEAK carcinogens, there are literally thousands of chemical agents, many of them used for everyday life, which are much more likely to generate mutations, and they are continously excreted by our methabolic functions.
Roberto
P.S.: no need on your part to specify that you rely on anecdotal evidence... that was clear already!... but anecdotes are anecdotes, good for smalltalk at the dentist's office, I think we should stick to factual and scientifically proved information on a subject as important as energy production and energy policy.
A gamma ray, one, not a cascade of daughter products with a wide range of energies. There's a great diagram at the link for anyone interested in educating themselves on the difference.
http://ipims.com/data/fe11/G4406.asp?UserID=&Code=30001
Not to mention the alpha and beta emission found with bigger, heavier elements, that becomes really destructive when taken internally. . . .
There are so many ways to get lost in the complexity of this argument that I can see why nuclear proponents have such an easy go of it. If you truly want to promote that bananas and SR-90 laced cucumbers are similarly benign, have at it. The heirs of people who believe you may become dead ends on the tree of life. I said I didn't read an article, not that I base my evidence on anecdotes. I'm done; I will not be prey to character assassination.
" I said I didn't read an article, not that I base my evidence on anecdotes. I'm done; I will not be prey to character assassination."
Well, may be that is what you WANTED to do, but in fact, read above you have written...
"There are enough convincing, suppressed, anecdotal reports coming out of Fukushima already"
...so, the anecdotes are convinging or not?
More than "character assassination" seems to be a "character suicide".
Roberto
P.S.: and, yes, I confirm that human (and other animals' as well) cells and DNA have no means whatsoever of discriminating between a gamma ray emitted by a natural isotope vs a gamma ray emitted by a man-made isotope. And, also, I would like to point to your attention the FACT that each square kilometer of earth's land emits, on average, 6 Curies of radiation, and each Curie corresponds to 37 giga Bequerels, i.e. 37 billion decays per second. That means that the "average garden" emits 220 kilo Bq.... 220 thousand decays per second, most of them coming from uranium/thorium series, alfa, beta and gamma rays... naturally dispersed in the environment.
Radiofobia is a dreadful thing, more damaging than radiation itself.
Ionizing radiation is ionizing radiation whether it comes from cosmic rays, computed tomography or the radioactive P40 in your own blood.
K40?
Right, I should slow down
Can you show this? As far as I have seen, nuclear power plants require very little fossil fuels and have an extraordinarily short energy payback period.
It has displaced what, 20000 people for a few years? The renewable project Three Gorges Dam displaced 1.2 million for a far longer time, but producing only half as much per year as Japan's nuclear fleet.
Fission plants does not need "no flaws" to be worthwile, just as automobiles and airplanes and their operators don't need "no flaws" for the risk to be acceptable. Fukushima showed that even triple meltdowns are far milder than coal pollution. George Monbiot, for instance, became a nuclear advocate after Fukushima. He was able to see the "disaster" for what it was.
And if the winds had blown differently, 30 million people and one of the great cities of the world would have been displaced.
Alan
Not to mention the effects on the local food chain.
Seems the local cod is too radioactive to eat.
But that isn't an externality per the pro-nuke crowd.
As far as I have seen, nuclear power plants require very little fossil fuels and have an extraordinarily short energy payback period.
And what of the fossil fuel used to clean up Chernobyl or Fukushima? The FF used for the Moving of the 20,000?
And as you state, the FF used if Toyko had been upwind....would that not been part of the As far as I have seen?
.. and then there's the lost Farm Produce that has to be procured from elsewhere, and the homes and livelihoods lost.
But never mind, that's all acceptable.. or else we can just compare it to Coal to make it look more acceptable.
And lets look back to 1st principles for this 'slugfest' - Gail wrote a thoughtful article about what the NON RENEWABLE supply of heavy atoms to split to make power is and what that supply would cost into the future.
Old captured photons and old heavy elements from exploded stars are NOT RENEWABLE energy sources.
Capturing and using photons is how this is whole thing is going to be powered (unless majik happens WRT fusion or the even more out there zero point stuff)
And not a one of the pro-nukes shows how places like Iran or North Korea is supposed to be internationally accepted as operators of fission plants. I'm rather sure the use of PV in both locations would be internationally acceptable.
"Renewable" is a meaningless property. It says nothing of sustainability, environmental compatibility, costs or anything else that is useful. Renewable, just as green, is fashion.
Iran should absolutely have fission plants, and I think there's a fair amount of agreement on that. They should simply abide by the non-proliferation treaty as well - that's the issue. North Korea should be stone-walled until after regime collapse, however.
If the local cod is too radioactive to eat, that seems great. Overfishing is a big problem and this might give some respite to the ocean. Also, a little bit less farming and more food imports to Japan should be a big win for them. They are far too protectionistic.
If you can show transportation spikes in Japan or Ukraine, that would be interesting. I can't imagine (nuclear) cleanup or evacuation efforts being significant, but obviously, your intuition is very different from mine. However, the dominating increase in fossil use is no doubt the closure of the nuclear plants and the increased imports of fuel oil, coal and NG. We should be able to agree on that much.
"Seems the local cod is too radioactive to eat."
This is plainly wrong. The dilution of the radioisotopes (the Ocean has a 640 million cubic kilometers volume) combined with the biological half-life of Cs-137 results in what can be called "barely measurable contamination", even using state-of-the-art detectors.
Beware radiofobia!... each cubic meter of ocean water emits 12 kiloBq of natural potassium-40, a powerful gamma emitter.
Roberto
Coal is the really big problem that needs to go away much sooner rather than later.
Nuclear still needs to reduce the potential of its "worst case" accidents as has been evidenced by Fukishima and Chernobly. Murphy's Law and all that. At face value, the thorium MSR seems to have inherently much less potential for bad accidents. We should be actively helping along the technology to see if that pans out.
Unfortunately, as I look at the world, I see the opposite occurring. Society is in for a world of hurt.
For 'everyone' to seem to gain in a fiat money system with interest the overall system has to 'growing' to 'cover' the interest.
Thus a BAU of 'growth'.
Fission power has 2 'seductive' messages from the succubi and incubi who whisper in your ears. The 1st is the power to mass equations. The second takes those equations and packages them up in things that make a very big BOOM. And sometimes the imps will talk like Henry K and note that a centralized electrical system like one has with fission power means you have control over the masses. Making a bigger BOOM is how empires are formed and the 'age of empires' has brought much to the empires themselves. Being the one who can control the electrical power allows for the tenting of fingers and saying 'excellent'. So for reasons of control - no one is going to give up on fission power even if fission power is a bad plan. Control and the ability to make big booms are the historical path to 'growth' even if the 'growth' is to stunt others.
Many of the alternatives (most are some variant of harvest Photons from the Sun) ask people to assume responsibility for their own actions - another 'unpopular' position. So I'm not hopeful in change.
And at least this comment has pointed out the 'known known':
Use of Thorium Instead of Uranium Would Seem to be a Better Choice, if It Can be Made to Work
And no where in this analysis is the effect of Man on Man violence WRT Fission reactors. When one is asking for Mankind to change, here is yet another area where change could work out quite well.
One of the appeals of thorium (as I understand the cheerleaders) is that it is far more difficult to convert it to an atomic bomb. The conspiracy-minded assert that this is why we pursued uranium reactors instead.
There are two reasons why it is difficult to convert. First, the waste products contain U-233, which is fissionable by itself, but it is mixed with other isotopes of similar weight (Th-233, U-232, protactinium-233) that are difficult to separate. Second, one of those other isotopes (U-232) decays into powerful gamma emitters. The gamma radiation makes the waste products immediately dangerous to humans even with moderate amounts of shielding, harmful to electronics, and easy to detect.
>>One example are EVs to keep the motoring world going.<<
If you have people living in the country side and they grow and raise the food for the folks in the city, how does that food reach those folks in the city? EVs with a 120 mile range can be built economically and powered using PV indirectly by feeding the grid during the day and recharging at night. I know one of our association members built such a vehicle using Lithium Ion batteries. He spent $11K on his pack with BMS while such a pack in 1995 would have been $155K and with a shorter cycle life.
This is not so much as "keep[ing] the motoring world going" as addressing the problem of food distribution which has a direct bearing on societal stability.
Horse and buggy is also a solution to food distribution but it presents its own problems including not enough horses, not enough land set aside to grow their feed, and the release of methane gas.
Peter
If you consider safety while there are problems with nuclear; on the other hand it is clear that coal kills tens of thousands of people each year across the world.
http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/coal-pollution-will-kill-1320...
It may well turn out that nuclear was "safer" than coal. However, this only confirms the depth of the predicament that we find ourselves in.
I think it simply confirms the paleolithic mind makes wrongs decisions about complex risk analysis. Looked at in terms of real risk nuclear isn't all that scary. Looked at with an emotional overtone dominating your perception and it looks so bad.
Whether or not it really works out cheap all things considered I don't know. The thorium and some other reactors look promising. But they all come under the dreaded nuclear umbrella and get little attention. Imagine if the recent oil refinery fire cause a whole country like Japan to swear off any further oil based plants in the future. Instead you would try and make it safer, and work out the kinks. Due to bombs for some reason everyone jumps to say lets ditch nuclear when something happens. In the US no new plants permitted after Three Mile Island. Yet, how many issues have there been in the generation and a half since that time?
My response to this is, "yes, but you know, we may actually need to farm that land someday." When an oil refinery goes up in flames, it can be put out and the surrounding area is not contaminated for 30+ years. You don't have to cover it in concrete for the rest of eternity (Chernobyl). It's not because of bombs that we fear nuclear, it's because it has the potential to render areas uninhabitable for decades at a time. The reason the "risk" seems so low is partly because every country that has had an accident has moved everyone out of the way as soon as it happened rather than just pretending everything is hunky dory.
I understand the allure. When things go right, nobody gets sick, a lot of energy is produced, and everyone is happy. But things don't always go as planned, and unlike other energy sources it leaves a welt that literally is impossible to clean up in any meaningful sense and which must simply be waited out for decades.
All things considered, the only sensible sources of energy are wind, sun and water. Coal is incredibly stupid. I am still not sure if nuclear is better or worse.
The meme is that nuclear is uniquely dangerous.
That is just untrue.
Any sensible risk assessment is comparative.
Coal and chemical accidents release large amounts of carcinogens, for instance the vast clouds from the oil and gas installations after the tsunami in Japan.
Their releases are comparatively ignored.
The story which is told is that a major nuclear incident would render huge areas uninhabitable for decades.
These are based on the notion of linear no threshold, which is an assumption lacking evidence.
The release of radiation at Fukushima, for instance, is in no way comparable to the continual deaths in every urban area of the world from air pollution, and that is every year with no accident needed.
It would have made a lot more medical sense to evacuate Tokyo due to pollution from automobiles than most of the area around Fukushima due to radiation.
The notion that there is another alternative in renewables is utterly false.
With anything like present technology they are utterly dependent on fossil fuels to function.
That is why Germany is has just opened a new 2.2GW coal plant, and is building many more.
Those plants will be pumping out CO2 for the next 50 years.
I'd point out that I have been a supporter of solar power for the last 40 years, but that is for places where it is sunny, and it is utterly impossible to run society on renewables.
Fossil fuels are both incredibly dangerous, and going to get a lot more expensive.
Flannel about renewables is making them a big part of our future for decades.
Gosh, Dave, would you move to Fukushima or Chernobyl? Just askin'..
That nuclear isn't "uniquely" dangerous doesn't mean it isn't dangerous. Debating who's Faustian bargain is the lesser evil is a sad discussion, IMO.
The answer to your question is yes.
I actually live within a few miles of a nuclear power plant, and in the event of an incident would not be going anywhere, as the risks of evacuation are far higher than staying put.
Doses above 100mSv, and then in comparatively short delivery times, are where the actual medical effects of radiation start to kick in, and even then only if you were outdoors 24/7
It does not bother me at all.
What does bother me, and affects my health since I have a weak chest, is air pollution from burning fossil fuels.
Since there is more chance of using a unicorn to commute to work than there is any reasonable technological prospect of running society on renewables without massive input from fossil fuels then I am pretty annoyed that vast sums of money are being thrown away on them.
Germany has just completed a 2.2GW coal power plant because there is no way at all of actually running society on renewables.
It is a fantasy.
A fraction of the money could power our society on nuclear power, slash CO2 emissions to a tiny fraction of present use, and save hundreds of thousands of lives a year.
Dave,
Your conclusions above simply do not conform to reality on a number of levels.
Alan
Have you an argument, or just an assertion?
Apologies if I have missed your thoughts on other threads, as I often stop following when no new arguments arise.
I have made compelling & detailed arguments before - but you prefer your prejudices to facts and analysis.
And I have other issues to deal with ATM in New Orleans. No fact# I present will alter your conclusions one bit
For example, I see you ignored destroying Tokyo once again in your cost-benefit analysis of nuclear power. ALL it would have taken is steady wind towards the South instead of the East, with a few showers, and Tokyo would have been LESS inhabitable than the exclusion zone around Chernobyl.
I stated it before, but you ignore it.
So why waste time ?
Alan
PS: I do support building new nukes in the USA, but only in areas we are willing to do without for half a century to two centuries. And only after we have resolved the waste disposal issue properly.
Destroying Tokyo?
On what planet is that?
The routine emissions from cars and trucks etc kill hundreds or thousands in every metropolitan area in the world every year.
Do you seriously imagine that some of the radiation from Fukushima blowing over Tokyo would produce remotely the same death toll?
Coal and fossil fuels quite routinely kill more people than even the rare major incident at a nuclear plant.
For waste disposal after a couple of decades in water, you stick in in dry casks, and it is fine.
You are perfectly correct, there seems to be no basis for discussion, as you have apparently confused the film 'The China Syndrome' with a documentary.
FACT:
If the winds over Fukushima been to the south, rather than to the East and out to sea, and there had been some showers, the levels of cesium 131 deposited on much of Tokyo would have exceeded the levels deposited in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. After all, Fukushima released 430% of the Cs 131 that Chernobyl did into the air.
Now, you appear to think the Ukrainians should be growing potatoes a kilometer away from the sarcophagus and that elevated radionuclides are no problem (see your "benefits of radiation" theories in earlier threads). I do not.
Add to that the trauma an entire nation has had to endure because of nuclear power. It is VERY real pain and suffering - even if you discount it.
As I said build US nuclear plants in places we are willing to do without - and AFTER the waste disposal is properly taken care of. It has been over 50 years and NO SOLUTION IS IN SIGHT for the USA.
Alan
Full stop. You don't get to post "FACT" in front of a string of hypotheticals and actually be factual, not even if you do so in bold face.
"If the winds over Fukushima been to the south, rather than to the East and out to sea, and there had been some showers, the levels of cesium 131 deposited on much of Tokyo would have exceeded the levels deposited in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. After all, Fukushima released 430% of the Cs 131 that Chernobyl did into the air."
Citations needed.
Fun Fact: 65% of all Mercury released into the environment is due to burning coal. [1] (See how I did that citation? That way you can check my source and tell if I'm just making stuff up). Coal ash is significantly radioactive (due to the concentration of heavy transuranic elements), but yet remain unregulated. [2]. We still dispose of coal waste in landfills and coal waste is not treated as hazardous or radioactive waste. [3] Does coal use make acres of land unusable for farming? Coal produces more waste, which is just as harmful and less well regulated than nuclear waste. [4]
So given the facts that I cited in the above paragraph, moving from coal power to nuclear power would overall reduce the total land area rendered unusable for habitation and agriculture (using your own logic). It also reduces the risk potential from global warming due to the negligible carbon footprint of nuclear power. On these two counts alone we should support nuclear power, the fact that it is so inexpensive is icing on the cake.
And even the concept that somehow radiation would render land unusable forever is frankly absurd. In Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for example, where there was significant radiation delivery 2nd generation cancer rates have recovered to background in longitudinal studies. [5] On the other hand, lack of clean water[6] and access to refrigeration or affordable food[6] kill huge numbers of people each year. If its a choice between the boogeyman of radiation, and the very real and quantifiable threats from coal, I'll take the radiation.
http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2012/05/23/tepco-fukushima-cesium-relea...
However, you present a false (and least economic) choice, nuclear or coal.
Faster and better (including economics) would be a major push for efficiency (negawatts) plus renewables plus pumped storage and HV DC transmission.
Once we get to 60+% renewables, and half the per capita consumption of electricity, then some new nukes (in Idaho, south central Georgia, West Texas, etc.) should be built along with even more renewables.
Alan
Why do you think 60% renewables is even feasible? No, don't answer that, you read it in some report, right? But why doesn't it happen. Why does country after country stop at or below 20% wind?
The cost of integration goes up a bit, in some grids, around 20% wind. But that cost is still less than what new nukes cost (and UAE nukes that have just started construction without developed world standards are not a comparable).
And the worst that can happen with a wind turbine is it kills a couple of birds, a worker falls to his death and the turbine falls over in a wind storm. The worst that a nuke can do is kill a million people, empty a major capital and leave thousands of tons of waste above ground when the SHTF and society collapses.
Alan
No, cost of integration goes up immensely, especially if you consider that good wind spot prices goes to zero or negative when penetration goes above 20%.
A nuke can't reasonably kill a million. However, wind may kill billions, as wind is THE psychological hurdle for real anti-AGW action. As long as people believe the way you do, CO2 levels will keep rising rapidly. It might spell the end for humanity.
UAE nukes are built with fresh South Korean standards and are better than most of the nukes in the developed countries' fleets.
Wind blows south from Fukushima to Tokyo. Light rain to bring the maximum radiation to ground. 30 million people trapped and no where to go. Power goes out, food runs short, dangerous levels of radiation.
I could see 1 million dead from that scenario. Add, say 300,000 later deaths from radiation (1% of exposed population) and another 2 million deaths from dislocation, fear, economic impacts.
Total 3.3 million dead from nuclear power.
Just shift the winds.
-------
So wind goes for free for 10% of the time. Still MUCH cheaper than nukes. And a use (say produce hydrogen > ammonia) will develop from free power.
-------
Nukes built with semi-slave Indian labor will be safer than most US nukes today ?
The Finns cannot do it at home, but the South Koreans supervising a multi-ethnic and language work force in 46 C heat, occasional sand storms and 11,000 km from home in an alien culture can ?
You are not comforting !
Alan
Our reality is obviously not the same.
You're not serious. If you don't get paid for expensively produced power...
Yes, they will and yes they can. And the Finns can do it as well, with their French friends.
Neither are you. But hey, we don't get anywhere in this discussion. Let's do as you say - revisit in 2030 or 2040 or something. Perhaps wind has high penetration then. If not, we'll just give it another 20-30 years, right?
The Finns, with their French friends (the Germans pulled out) had a very over budget and long delayed nuclear power plant built. I call their project a failure.
I will bet a euro that the South Koreans do not build the UAE nukes on time or on budget. And a few years later some quality problems surface.
Renewables are more than wind. Solar PV is gaining ground fast. Add solar thermal, some biomass, more hydro, geothermal, a little tidal, some day waves plus pumped storage and HV DC. And many include negawatts as renewables.
Alan
Sure, but another type of failure than we were talking about here.
There are always quality problems. Again, your absolutist view betrays your agenda.
It is worrying that when wind is shown to be a dead end, then pv will provide the false promise, and then wave power, then kite power, then solar pv in space, then ... AGW dieoff due to coal.
What you call the 'absolutist view' was the AEC and then NRC official regulatory view since I first became aware of nuke power, in the mid-1960s. Endorsed by GE, Westinghouse, B&W, CE and all the utilities.
Going to bed now.
Alan
A nuke can't reasonably kill a million
And by the same metric of 'insta death' coal doesn't kill anyone nor do car emissions.
However, wind may kill billions, as wind is THE psychological hurdle for real anti-AGW action
Really? Because here *I*'ve been saying the show stopper is the greed of the investment banker class when backed by the power of Government.
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/12/08/uk-report-just-30-of-carbo...
(Every time you actually reduce Carbon that same amount of money is paid to investment bankers)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/09/world/asia/incentive-to-slow-climate-c...
I was talking about cumulative effects.
A good argument for GHG taxation instead of making stuff more complex by having credits. Generally, the more government regulation, the more corruption and the more strange sub-optimizations you get.
CO2 levels will keep rising rapidly. It might spell the end for humanity.
I agree with many of the nuclear arguments you've presented, but claiming AWG might "spell the end for humanity" is pure hyperbole, Hollywood high drama, with no scientific basis. There's plenty of possible severe harm arguments in the IPCC reports to discuss without resorting to this.
How do you think we would cope with an anoxic event?
More Hollywood. The Permian was 10C warmer, almost 2000ppm CO2, i.e. as relevant as a giant meteor impact or a super volcano eruption. All very scary in the cinema but not valid arguments for nuclear power.
I hope you're right. To me, we're in somewhat uncharted territory here. There are parallels, but we cannot really be sure where any tipping points are and so on.
And this is where you do not seem to hear yourself, and weigh your own conclusions..
With AGW, we sure are in Uncharted Territory.. and when I say we are heading into rough terrain that nuclear seems in no way stable enough to endure, you shrug it off? We're ALREADY seeing the increased level of conditions that will make it very difficult to place a reactor and be able to keep it's environment (political, economic and geographic) safe for its operation.
This isn't where nuclear saves the day, its where we end up pouring emergency resources, when we're getting beset by a whole new scale of other emergencies to boot.
We have a Swedish saying - if I try to translate it would be something like "If you start going uphill, you can't brake your way over it". Kind of reflects my all-in position. Nuclear power enhances our chances of pulling through in one piece to a Star Trek future. I don't care about nuances of a Mad Max future like you guys seem to do.
Interesting...
I am not sure what you mean by a star trek future. If you mean unlimited economic growth, then you are out of your mind. 2% growth for 10,000 years (a mere flicker of time in evolutionary terms) represents eighty-six orders of magnitude increase in economic output. Or to be somewhat more precise 1.00396E+86. But what is an error of 396 billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion times the earth's current economic output between friends? No matter how cheap fission energy or any other energy technology proves to be, the human race sooner or later has to learn live within the ecological limits of the biosphere. If you say that you are not really promoting infinite growth, then explain your vision of how our economic system is going to function in a way that will make such respect for physical limits an essential part of its SOP.
This comment is not intended as a criticism of nuclear power. It is intended as a criticism of the view that engineering prowess and capitalistic greed are sufficient mechanisms for solving the crisis currently faced by humanity.
The end of economic growth is a luxury problem that won't affect anyone that I will ever get to know. The same goes for energy growth, if we start relying on nuclear power.
Respect for physical limits can be smartly implemented by ownership of resources and/or internalizing taxes.
Anything else?
The man who complains that the purpose of government is to be big and provide jobs to worthless bureaucrats is going to fix the destructive tendencies of our economic system by internalizing taxes !!? Give me break. A economic system based on competitive wealth accumulation will always be growth oriented. Adam Smith understood this point perfectly well. He speculated that periodic spectacular collapses Chinese society were due to limits to growth being reached with the technology available to them. Like you he hoped that limits to growth would not be reached until some distant time so that he would not be personally inconvienced by it. His hope was justified, while yours is likely to prove chimerical.
To me, internalizing taxes is fairly libertarian in nature.
When it can't grow, it can't grow. And no, growth isn't needed for the system to function. But let's agree to disagree and keep talking nuclear power.
How can internalizing taxes be libertarian? To control environmental impacts by this method someone has to understand the dirty details of how each and every industry functions and make quantitative decisions about how to limit direct (resource depletion) and indirect (pollution, and other negative externalities) environmental costs.
You are right that there is no physical reasons why an economic system needs to grow to function in a healthy manner, but there are very good reasons why a system of competitive accumulation cannot maintain social stability under such conditions.
Libertarianism is about liberty, but only for as long as you don't hurt others. If stuff is uninternalized, you hurt others. Minarchists (a branch of libertarianism) emphasise property rights. To my mind, those aren't fully enforced, for instance, if you can pollute others' property from a distance at will.
Yes, and that introduces unwanted complexity in the government machinery. Likely, one would like to have a threshold so that small externalities are ignored and would have to be pursued in court, if at all. Simplicity over perfection and details.
Disagree.
The point of view that as long as an individual's actions are not harming other people government should keep leave them alone is one that I agree with. However, the additional assumption usually made by libertarians, that deciding what constitutes harm is a relativley simple and straightforward matter that requires a minimum of bureaucracy, can be true only if human economic activity is limited to a scale that is a comfortable distance away from ecological limits will damage the support functions of the biosphere. The real problem which has to be solved in order to create an industrial society with long term stability (on a time scale of millenia) is to develop some kind social agreement which will approriately limit the scale of the economy. I have never seen a proposal for accomplishing this goal in the context of an economic system based on private debt markets and acquistive greed which is even remotely believable.
A large economy is good. Damaging the support functions of the biosphere sounds bad, although I'm not sure what it means. I suggest we would be wiser to limit "damaging support functions" instead of limiting the size of the economy.
Also, putting an extra tax on electricity would be unwise, since electricity is good. However, putting an extra tax on CO2 emissions, particulate emissions and so on is wise.
I agree with the idea of being cautious, of asking how could my set of assumptions be wrong, but that does not mean one gets to pick and choose its application.
Jokuhl's response above used the same kind of argument you presented with the anoxic event: very bad things might occur as a result of a given approach though there is no scientific argument for such scenarios as a consequence of said approach. I reject the argument in both cases. Once opening that door (uncharted territory) anyone can walk through it: in a world with 3000 reactors maybe the atmosphere will ignite (ala Strangelove and Teller), or the mutations in a ten fold increase in uranium miners or high level waste handlers will lead to a new race of mutants because, hey, that's uncharted territory.
Yes, I agree.
However, more "ordinary" AGW consequences are disruptive enough, and they should be internalized by carbon taxes.
However, more "ordinary" AGW consequences are disruptive enough
Agreed, though in my view that's a longer term disruption. To my mind the more immediate consequences of fossil fuel use are i) 'ordinary' toxic emissions (ie particulates, heavy metals, oxides, etc), ii) the support of rogue states via oil sales, and iii) the economic bottlenecks caused by spending ever increasing amounts on harder to get fossil fuels.
I'd go for the carbon tax because there has to be someway to account for the externalities of burning fossil fuels. I have some caveats: i) offset a carbon tax by reductions in income or other taxes, ii) some accommodation was made for those with meager resources and who depend heavily on cheap energy (eg truck drivers, residents of remote areas, etc). But then my caveats are unlikely I think ...
And yes I *cautiously* think a slow expansion of nuclear power is a viable solution. My primary objection in the US is high capital cost of new plants. I think these costs are inflated primarily because of the NRC regulatory environment and its cozy relationship with existing big nuclear, and the bogus litigation challenges in the US. These costs are not the fault of nuclear technology per se and the low cost to build in China is the evidence. Meanwhile the cost is what it is and as a ratepayer I choose otherwise until the situation improves.
I strongly favor the continuation of at least in-place nuclear power as its cheap, and as that territory has been entered and the risks are known.
BTW, the US bumped its nuclear output 4-5 GWe over the last 15-20 years without turning over a new spade of dirt. This was done by uprating existing plants and modernizing the turbines.
We agree on almost everything, then. The ordinary toxic/cancerogenous emissions should also be internalized.
Yes, unless there is a big government deficit.
Truck drivers will pass on costs to customers. That will reduce demand for trucking a little bit, and then some truck drivers will have to get some other job. This is normal economic readjustment when price of inputs change, not something that should be fixed by subsidies. Especially since the price becomes more correct with internalization.
Residents of remote areas should also accept correct costs for living there. I don't understand why remote living should be subsidised.
I think availability was improved as well, right? From memory, I think they exceed 90% uptime now.
US nuclear started out 50-70% available in the ~60s, and yes now it exceeds 90%.
Residents of remote areas should also accept correct costs for living there. I don't understand why remote living should be subsidised.
Eventually perhaps a gas tax could be applied evenly. But people settled in remote areas long ago with the valid assumption that the price of driving to work would not be doubled suddenly by their own government. Anyway the only practical chance a gas/carbon tax has of becoming law in big countries like the US or Canada is to provide some accommodation to people in those areas, at least initially.
Your argument would be valid also for everyone who has bought a car with less-than-optimal fuel economy and everyone that lives far from work in general. But all these categories should be a bit ashamed that they have been able to push their costs onto everybody else for so long, and be grateful they won't have to pay back retroactively.
One offset in the other direction would be that those in the urban areas have pushed their coal, gas, hydro, and nuclear power plants, their ore mines out into the hinter lands where the people out there must deal with them. The urban areas would not be so urban if they all had a couple GW of coal power or some iron ore mines in their midst.
"The cost of integration goes up a bit, in some grids, around 20% wind. But that cost is still less than what new nukes cost "
Readd this! "up a bit"?
http://en.rwi-essen.de/media/content/pages/publikationen/ruhr-economic-p...
... how about 110 billion Euros? Does that qualify as "a bit"?
How about the 180 billions necessary for the construction of the (not so)smart grid, to help integrate "just a bit" of German wind?
Roberto
The renewable industry in Germany pay more in taxes than what they indirectly receive in feed-in tariffs (which btw are not paid by the tax payer) - not to mention that they also reduced the unemployment rate: http://lohnsteuer-kompakt.de/redaktion/steuereinnahmen-der-solarindustri...
And the German wind power industry not only generated over 90,000 sustainable, tax-paying jobs and Germany exports 83% of its wind-turbines with a tax-paying profit, renewable power also lowers electricity prices in Germany:
http://www.windfair.net/press/5604.html
http://www.tagesspiegel.de/wirtschaft/art271,2147183
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...
And by the way, the profits of the two German utilities RWE and EON are higher than all the German feed-in tariffs:
http://www.iwr.de/news.php?id=21810
Last but not least: RWI got its funding for your linked study from the Institute for Energy Research (IER) which is funded by the oil and coal lobby:
http://www.verivox.de/nachrichten/kampf-der-lobbyisten-oeko-energie-vers...
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/26/opinion/la-ed-0525-mileage-20100526
Why does country after country stop at or below 20% wind?
Actually, Denmark is already above 30% wind power in 2012 (Data from January up to July):
http://www.ens.dk/da-DK/Info/TalOgKort/Statistik_og_noegletal/Maanedssta...
Even though Denmark hasn't even built its largest wind farm yet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anholt_Offshore_Wind_Farm
Which is invisible from shore and cooling water free and doesn't require uranium imports and nuclear waste repositories.
By the way: Denmark's Offshore Windfarms have typically a capacity factor of close to 50%:
http://www.4coffshore.com/windfarms/horns-rev-2-denmark-dk10.html
Which means these windfarms produces power over 70% of the time (since capacity factor refers to full power capacity).
Large parts of that zone is quite inhabitable, so that does not say much. Sure, Tokyo might have needed decontamination, but so what - such a decontamination, or even evacuation, is not very expensive in relation to the alternatives. If there is an alternative, even. Fossils threaten the whole world, not just a city. Renewables doesn't cut it. Going without power isn't an option.
Seems disingenuous to state that you support it and then set the bar so that it is impossible. Regarding waste, it is purely a political problem.
Sure, Tokyo might have needed decontamination, but so what - such a decontamination, or even evacuation, is not very expensive in relation to the alternatives.
Amazing !! You actually think that ?
And if taking care of waste is"just a political problem" then solve it.
I agree with the NRC - no license extensions or new nuke operating permits until solved.
Waste is the nuke industries problem, not "ours" (except nuke weapons waste). Nuke power is so cost effective - just do it !
Alan
And new US nukes get MUCH more gov't subsidies than new wind or solar here. One sire, two reactors underway and another two probable.
Yes, what's your calculation? So you are an AGW denier?
I and my fellow countrymen have, in Sweden.
Very, very revealing, I would say. As I said, you pretend to be reasonable, but in reality... No.
You stop the industry from moving by regulation, and then you fault it for not moving. Very common tactic.
Complete hogwash. You can't back that up with numbers.
"Complete hogwash. You can't back that up with numbers."
Pot paints kettle black...
This whole thread is filled with nuke numbers that back this up. You jut need to click a few links my friend.
No it is not. Gail points out the fuel issue and the whole volume of responses point out how fuel is NOT at all the limiting issue.
I've pointed out the limiting issue is flawed human beings - and a simple example is sleeping security guards. Where is the defense of these guards by the pro-nukers?
Why do we need to defend them? Doesn't every commercial operation have guards that sometimes are sloppy? (Again, remember that we generally don't agree that nuclear is a special industry that needs some kind of perfection.)
The newbie assumes I don't check other's links, and that I have time to respond to each one.
Unfortunately a high nuclear share doesn't necessarily mean low CO2 emissions.
Belgium with over 50 % of nuclear power emits more CO2 per capita than Denmark with over 25% wind power:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissio...
Also, industrial electricity prices in Denmark before tax (2007) are lower than in Belgium:
Denmark (20% wind power): 7.06 cents/kWh
Belgium (55% nuclear power): 9.69 cents/kWh
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-DK-07-001/EN/KS-DK-...
If one was honestly concerned about CO2 emissions the more judiciously one would 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
And this was already the case before Fukushima:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/05/17/missing-the-market-melt...
Meanwhile costs for PV and Wind have dropped and costs for new nuclear have continued to increase.
A study from McKinsey which underestimated new nuclear capital costs by 50% is arriving to a similar conclusion:
http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/ccsi/pdf/us_ghg_final_report.pdf
And is also why more Nuclear Socialism would be needed for a nuclear build-out:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/nuclear-socialism_508830.html
"Renewables doesn't cut it."
Works fine for me. I suppose you, and society at large, just aren't adaptable (or are spoiled, soft gridweenies) and don't have the imagination or morality to modify your behaviors sufficiently. The problem here is that those who have choices are limiting the choices of billions of others, many yet to be born. Sociopathic, that.
Those of you who think it's perfectly OK to use far more than your share of the world's resources, raise your hands.... Go ahead, don't be shy. It's really that simple. Once you decide that it's not ok, once that feeling hits you in the gut, that's when the changes come.
[edit]
You choose an arbitrary fashion dogma - renewable energy - and then you couldn't care less who suffers and dies in the process of getting there. People who want something more is "spoiled", "non-adaptable" and immoral to you. For you, as for most green people, suffering is a virtue to be imposed on others.
I hope you all know that "green", "environmentally sound" and "sustainable" are three independent properties. Ghung's thinking here is only green. Nuclear is environmentally sound and sustainable, but not green. Green is just fashion, or a selling point.
Nuclear power is not environmental sound, and current technology is certainly not sustainable.
And nuclear power has worse economics than renewables today. See the massive subsidies new US nukes get, several times what renewables get as proof of that.
You are the one that needs to open themself to reality.
Alan
It is both.
You don't believe any of that.
Jeppen is right - the Technology works.
So long as you have no Humans around to screw up and no failures of the technology due to the ground moving and shaking or rocks from space or all those non technology issues.
But worry not - I'm sure sure techno9logy will provide.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9480372/Genetically-engi...
Again, people WILL screw up. New plants are much safer, so the accident frequency will go down, but we'll still have the occasional meltdown. That's not good, but something that should be accepted. Living is dangerous, and has to be for life to be worthwile. Safety should not be absolute, nor maximal. It's just a variable among others, and should be tuned with many other variables to create an optimal whole. (Most variables can be priced, and then tuning is done by the market.)
New plants are much safer, so the accident frequency will go down, ...
New plants are safer, but there's a complication. To mitigate fossil fuel pollution with nuclear it has to be done everywhere, especially in developing countries. As that happens we'll see both lower levels of expertise in operation and falling levels of security to keep out lunatics and rogues. New light water plants are safer, but they are not walk away safe (and they could be I believe). At the world's current level of ~4-500 reactors I agree the safety record will likely improve with better reactors replacing the old, but how about with 4-5000 reactors distributed across Burma or Haiti or Afghanistan?
It doesn't have to be done in the real anarchistic hellholes, actually. They use so little fossils anyway.
Nigeria and Pakistan, for instance, both have rapidly growing populations over a hundred million. I don't know about their fossil fuel consumption but if it is small it will not stay that way. Also large developing world populations that don't use fossil fuels tend to obliterate the biology on top of the ground, which is itself an emissions source *and* a loss of a carbon sink.
Pakistan has 3 commercial reactors in operation and 2 more under construction. And Nigeria has plans to start a nuclear program. Today they have 0.5% and 0.3% of world carbon emissions, respectively.
The 11 largest CO2 emitters in order are China, US, EU, India, Russia, Japan, Canada, Iran, Korea, Mexico and South Africa. They have some 80% of all emissions, and they all have commercial nuclear reactors. It's simply the case that CO2 emissions correlate very well with the ability to establish a nuclear operation.
Thinking that a solution must solve all of the problem to be meaningfull makes it impossible to replace fossil fuels.
May those who can manage nuclear power well build more of it, every CO2 free TWh helps a little.
An *effective* solution does not have to perfect but it does need to be practical which at minimum includes the realization that US and European emissions are rapidly becoming a small part of the emissions issue. China, India, the BRICS and elsewhere will come to dominate emissions on the current course. Furthermore "every CO2 free TWh" requires effort and money, the point being that policies like a nuclear one that intends reactors only for a select club will have little impact on global emissions.
This is nonsense. Nuclear is not for a select club.
Declaring nonsense doesn't change the observed behavior that Nuclear is a "selected" club.
The Iranian people were all set to get fission power installed back in the 1970's and then they weren't. Its almost like something happened that made 'em uncool or sumthin
But now they have nuclear power. AFAIK, abiding by the non-proliferation treaty makes countries eligible for nuclear power. I would say the access is open. Even North Korea has been getting help from the US in constructing light water nuclear reactors, but then they showed that they've been cheating on NPT adherence all along, so now they are out in the cold again. To me, this does not make nuclear for a select club, but of course, if NPT adherence is the definition, then you might be right.
I was referring to your suggestion that "real anarchistic hellholes" be ruled out for nuclear.
Yeah, yeah, but it still doesn't matter. How hard is that to understand, really? Look at their emission figures?
Yes of course, but we're talking about the future, when instead of 400 nuclear plants we night have 4000. Look at the birth rates of Nigeria and Pakistan. Their emissions are not going to stay small.
One Nigerian person has, on average, 3% of the emissions of an average American. So, their emissions can't become significant without maturing their economy. If they mature their economy, they can build a nuclear fleet.
"And nuclear power has worse economics than renewables today. See the massive subsidies new US nukes get, several times what renewables get as proof of that."
That's, plainly, a big lie.
Nuclear gets, will get, if at all, in the USA, only "subsidies" under the form of "loan guarantees", which is exactly what practically ALL big solar projects in the SW of the country get, tens and tens of them... just go to the web page of the State of California as I have done recently, you'll find a complete list.
Roberto
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://www.n-tv.de/politik/Atom-Rueckbau-kostet-Milliarden-article113352...
UK taxpayers are going to pay for decommissioning of nuclear power plants:
http://www.n-tv.de/politik/Atom-Rueckbau-kostet-Milliarden-article113352...
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 industry:
www.sonntagszeitung.ch/wirtschaft/artikel-detailseite/?newsid=174501
International tax-payers have to pay for IAEA and Euratom. Even though efficiency measures and renewables are faster and cheaper than new nuclear:
http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-Center/Library/E09-01_NuclearPowerClimateFi...
Which also why an order of magnitude more renewable energy is added per year than new nuclear.
http://www.map.ren21.net/GSR/GSR2012_low.pdf
And of course: Japanese tax payers have to pay for Fukushima.
[recognizes jeppen, who just raised his hand; heck, he's jumping up and down, waving]
Yes, I am!
"Nuclear is environmentally sound and sustainable, but not green. Green is just fashion, or a selling point."
The point you missed up above is that nuclear is not economic.
I spent time in Rickover's navy, and yes the technology is fine. If a bunch of high-shool graduates and a befuddled officer can run a nuclear reactor in and out of a busy harbor day in and day out, it's obvious the technology is manageable.
Whether the currently in vogue government and management systems are up to the task of managing it is an open question. Democracies have short attention spans. Corporations obviously are not up to it. If Japanese management, supposedly the poster boys for long term thinking, managed Tepco into multiple smoking craters, so much for that notion. Hereditary Monarchies in principle have the long attention spans to deal with nuclear, but historically they devolve into simple looting exercises, then end up beheaded. Who is left, The Church? Long time horizons, fairly stable, even a tradition of scholarship. But not known for technology.
The real killer though is the economics. 10 or 12 billion dollars tied up for a decade or more before you get the first dollar of return kills the economics. Solar and wind can come on a section at a time, and start generating power while the rest of the units are still under construction. If the sodium-sulfur battery in Texas works out, storage may become much easier too, especially for those places too flat for pumped hydro.
Yes, posted after trips to the grocer in your electric or biofueled car or bus, as you type on your computer made of straw from the backyard, connected to an internet powered 100% by solar? People here have not said there's no place for renewables, on the contrary, instead the criticism is of the idea of trying to power the entire world with *all* renewables alone in the near future (a decade or two) though in some distant future it may well happen.
"Going without power isn't an option."
I'm gonna stop you right there. Going without power is always an option. Not an option you may like or would choose freely, but let me remind you that human use of electrical power on any scale is only about 100 years old. For the rest of human history we lived without it. And the natural progess of whatever is coming our way in the future may mean that we will have to do without, or with much less, one day too.
It's a technological artifact that can be lost like any other. The Minoans had flush toilets thousands of years ago (at least in the palace) and the Romans took that technology up on a large scale, but after the fall of Rome nobody sat on flush toilets for a thousand years, not even kings and queens. Even now many people don't have flush toilets, which along with sewage control and treatment could be said to be a much more desirable and useful technology than electricity.
Nature does not grant us the right to these things.
Meh,
ourjeppen's way of life is non-negotiable.If so, I would like to add this to my list of reasons that we lack the maturity to safety use nuclear technology.
Yes, my way of life is non-negotiable, at least central parts of it. I feel technology and modern society is so superior to previous ways of life, and also that a loss of that tech would create so much suffering and death, that the option of going without is to be avoided at all costs. That is, I don't put any value on a remnant of humanity withstanding a full blown societal collapse and regressing to a tribal society. I'm all in.
"I'm all in."... planet be damned.
The planet has come back from extinction events before with more interesting life every time - it's kind of presumptuous that we could make lasting damage. I'm more worried about humanity. And btw, at societal collapse, environmental regulation will break down and people will act more short-sighted. That would be bad for the planet.
Life will previl but it is not all ok until cultures survive and the population contraction is done by people dying after long and happy lives.
I feel technology and modern society is so superior to previous ways of life ...
Modern developed society is also far better for the planet. Its the yet undeveloped subsistence societies that do the great harm to the environment: wood and forests for fuel, hunting to extinction, high fertility rates, slash and burn agriculture ...
Yair . . . Falstaff. What nonsense you write
"Modern developed society is also far better for the planet. Its the yet undeveloped subsistence societies that do the great harm to the environment: wood and forests for fuel, hunting to extinction, high fertility rates, slash and burn agriculture ..."
I have lived in PNG and the islands, if you are going to post don't post utter crap. Do you even know what slash and burn is? Take a reality check mate.
Scrub you don't write anything on point at all so why bother? Where you lived? Give it a rest. Species destruction and deforrestation occurs overwhelmingly in the undeveloped world. Forrest cover in the developed world is *increasing*, after being obliterated back in its subsistence days centuries ago.
Remember the US meddling in Bananas and Coke Factories in South America? Rice Plantations in Haiti? Do you recognize how many 'perennially-developing-countries' are stuck in constant restart BECAUSE of our neo-colonial manipulations? THEY'RE not the primitives in this game, truly.
Did you know that Iran was a democracy in the early 1950's, and they opted to nationalize their oil supplies, apparently displeased in how the English (and Americans) had absconded with their treasure? How did that all work out, and who's holding the bag?
Of course they are. The blame game isn't that interesting, the important thing here is that developed nations have a lot to cherish and defend. We live fairly rich lives, cure diseases, are educated, more peaceful, have open access for women and minorities, seldomly die before old age, are happier, are well past-peak on the environmental Kuznets curve and so on. A societal collapse and a regression to tribal societies would unravel all of this.
"Species destruction and deforrestation occurs overwhelmingly in the undeveloped world. "
Sure :
http://conservationreport.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/anim_area-of-virgi...
http://conservationreport.com/2012/01/09/maps-history-of-deforestation-i...
And ever heard of the passenger pigeon for instance ?
You're kidding.
What feeds our Suburbias and nice, neat modern surroundings and pretty possessions is huge volumes of slash and burn that you and I don't HAVE TO look at.. but I bet you know it's out there.. you do have to take some share of responsibility for it.
We are what we are DUE to the offshoring of responsibility. (Key to this topic in no small way!)
Slash and burn supports subsistence agriculture not exports to western suburbs.
"Not an option you may like or would choose freely, but let me remind you that human use of electrical power on any scale is only about 100 years old. For the rest of human history we lived without it. "
Yeah... right... it happened at the time when life expectancy was a couple of decades less than it is today in modern countries where electrification has been introduced... if you don't mind I'd rather take that and, if you like, leave the 50 year life expectancy to you...
Roberto
A lot of things have been added to this mix in the same timeframe..
Boy, between the logical jumps and the generousity of spirit, you're doing your side of the argument no great favors, M.
I know what you mean, truth sometimes is hard to take.
Roberto
Have you an argument, or just an assertion?
Good point Sir.
The meme is that nuclear is uniquely dangerous.
That is just untrue.
You actually have any facts Sir? Or are you just asserting?
Fukushima and Chernobyl are proof enough that nuclear is not uniquely dangerous.
Alan, there is the problem that if you infer a "rational" response to risk from our given irrational and/or uninformed behavior, you can justify all sorts of crazy stuff. Epidemiological studies implicate insufficient exercise as a huge risk to life, yet we here in this country (and many others) cheerfully choose to live in ways that deprive us of exercise (not bicycling to work, correlated with a 39% higher mortality rate). Nonetheless, look at us (U.S.) -- we make that choice in overwhelming numbers, and many people go so far as to assert that choosing otherwise would be impractical, unrealistic, impossible, or insane.
Roughly speaking, give the assumption that this behavior reflects our own rational and well-informed preferences, we can justify all sorts of nutty stuff. 39% is a big deal. I'm pretty sure that it's worse than living in the most dangerous cities in the US, and worse than working the most dangerous jobs in the US. It's probably worse than living in the less-radioactive half of the Chernobyl exclusion zone.
Wise words. What Germany has committed to in FIT for the previous decade (some 220-250 billion euros) is enough money to rid their electricity production of fossils using nuclear power. Instead, they have made virtually no progress. It is very sad and dangerous indeed.
@ Jeppen, Do you have a reference for that figure? €250bn in renewable FITs?
You claim that budget would solve all problems. But, with the figures in the article:
A modern plant in a developed country costs $32bn! (or $14,500/kW installed and operated!!)
(this is a lower bound as I have not included insurance, probability of cleanup paid by tax-payers, etc)
As a conclusion, you can overdesign your solar system by a factor of 4 and still make it cheaper. Not even in the future. today!
The price of nuclear should also include a 1% probability of cleanup. There have been about 500 reactors built. 35 have failed. 6 have totally failed. So that's an 8% failure rate and a 1% catastrophe rate. Pretty poor performance in my book (see list of failures). Could that be the reason private insurance refuses to pay the whole cost?
German reference: http://www.germanenergyblog.de/?p=9919
All the costs you state for nuclear are not "a developed country" costs, but American NRC-inflated worst-case costs for first build, including high interest.
Nuclear produce four times the energy per installed W compared to solar PV. I hope you know that.
Exact costs can be debated, but the German experience is quite clear-cut.
Sure, put some fraction of the electricity sale price in a fund. I'd guess 0.1 cents/kWh would be more than sufficient. (Although, as usual, you can make disasters as expensive as you like by doing more mitigation than necessary.)
Who decides what the whole cost is? Name an industry that is insured for everything and without limit?
Name an industry that needs to be insured without limit ?
Nuclear and ... ?
Alan
Well, everything if nuclear needs it, I guess. Take chemicals and nanomaterials industry. Take pharmaceuticals - lots of stuff that can harm lots of people. Agriculture - GMO. Take the food industry - what if CJD had been a bit more contagious - we'd all be crazy cows now. Or hydro - many dams can flush cities into the ocean. Fossils in general due to AGW.
Fossil fuels have no legal liability for AGW.
And the rest cannot easily go past $100 or so billion.
Alan
Boy, Alan.. I'm wondering how far this is going to go.
I think you'll have better luck escaping NOLA than this discussion! I don't have the wiggle room to take it up with these guys.
Nuclear doesn't have a chance. They can put "renewables" in quotes all they want..
I fully agree nuclear doesn't have a chance. At least for two decades more in the West. Far too many that can't count the beans. I'll pin my hopes on China and India.
The Indians have not made plans to decommission their nukes. Not part of the culture apparently.
Your hopes will likely see a major disaster there I am afraid.
Alan
You hope, you mean?
NO !!!
I do NOT hope that!!
I was astonished and grieve for the Japanese @ Fukushima.
I scaled back by prior nuke support by an order of magnitude (as others here can attest) due to the reality I saw unfolding.
I have lost patience regarding nuke waste.
Best Hopes for the Chinese, Indians, Turks, Arabs and others,
Alan
I'm sorry you were traumatised. Best hopes for recovery and a return to a clearer vision.
In the meantime, google: "Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power".
I scaled back by prior nuke support by an order of magnitude (as others here can attest)
I'm going to support this comment - at one point Alan was claiming we'd see nuke powered trans-oceanic shipping vessels to keep global trade going.
And I don't remember seeing such claims post-Fukushima.
No legal liability for AGW? How convenient.
Food can easily go above $100 billion. Again, see CJD. Could've been much worse. Pharma - they are close to being able to create civilization-killer-pathogens on their coffee breaks.
@Jeppen, thank you for the link.
However I have followed your reference and it doesn't say what you claim:
However, when I go to the original RWI report Germany’s Solar Cell Promotion: An Unfolding Disaster the EUR 220bn to 250 bn figure is nowhere to be found!
So overall, with all that has been spent on the FITs you could build, operate, and decommission two or three nuclear plants. Granted they have a much larger capacity factor than solar (x4 or x6 depending on the sun, location, tracking, etc) ... but they are much more expensive too. So buy 4 times as many solar panels as you need + storage and you'll have similar performance, a similar price but a much simpler and safer system (without 100,000 year planing required), nuclear proliferation, and all the associated problems.
Yes, it's the silly 'murricans who are overpaying for nuclear. Of course the experienced Europeans like Areva and Siemens wouldn't do anything so expensive! Oh wait. Their Olkiluoto-3 Finnish reactor costs $5bn for 1.6GW and is 6 years delayed. [ref: p60 of report].
Concerning insurance let me make it very easy to understand.
Reactor operators only cover a symbolic sum. So if you buy a cheap $2bn nuclear reactor, private insurance is forced to cover $200m. This varies from country to country, from company to company, etc, etc ... but they are never required to take insurance for the price of the reactor (in Germany for example all generating companies pool €1bn). The rest is subsidized by the tax payer. If you want the details read the Joint Protocol-88. But the figure above is the right order of magnitude.
This is equivalent to a car costing $20,000 and the private insurance covering accidents up to $1,000!!
Everything else will be paid by the tax payers. So yes, I can think of an industry or two, where you buy a product for X (say a factory), and you are covered for 100*X (factory + injuries to others).
But Germany has committed to paying those 85 billion in FITs on solar PV that has already been built. It is government liabilities for the current measly solar PV base!
They don't say where they found it, exactly. But since 110 billion is for solar alone, and much of the FIT has gone to wind and biomass, and there is also costs for transmission and so on, 220-250 billion seems in the right ballpark, don't you agree?
You have to include the liabilities on the installed base. Again, we're talking about 50 reactors displacing almost all of the fossil fuel for electricity.
How can you say the price is similar when it is obvious from the numbers we have just discussed that it is five times more expensive even without storage? Storage that cannot even be had, since it isn't short-term fluctuations that's the problem, but fluctuations on the order of several weeks.
Strange that one build out of 500 is the only relevant one in anti-nukers' argumentation. Even the Finns don't take that botched project as something predictive of
I don't know what you are talking about. Vattenfall is owning nuclear plants in Germany, and the unlimited liability is said to mean that Sweden risks losing its hydro capacity to Germany in the event of a nuclear disaster in one of its German plants.
As in all industries, only the government can take on responsibility for big disasters. Actually, it's more or less what we have states for! Also, in many/most countries, nuclear has special taxes that far exceed the "insurance subsidy". Also, positive externalities, especially compared to alternatives, far exceed the "insurance subsidy".
They don't say where they found it, exactly.
At what point in this discussion will you be finding this report or saying "seems I can't meet my own burden of proof"?
Try this:
http://www.unendlich-viel-energie.de/uploads/media/WI_Gutachten_eng_01.pdf
... table 1, poage 19 of 29... it's a pro-renewables source... 46 billion Euros just for PV subsidies to 2010... opposition claims 66 billions... add to that the 25+ billion which will go into the mandatory expansion of the distribution network (a bottleneck already now), and add wind and all the rest... I would say that the grand total at the end of the TWENTY YEARS of subsidies will exceed easily 200 billions.
Roberto
I would say that the grand total at the end of the TWENTY YEARS of subsidies will exceed easily 200 billions.
And how much is being spent fix the failure of Fission plants - which based on real life data have a 10+% failure rate?
Scale by production and you'll see that nuclear disaster costs are quite low. Btw, your 10%+ failure rate makes you look unreasonable, at least in the eyes of most. 500+ civilian nuclear reactors - are you saying 50+ have failed? What's your definition of failure then?
As jeppen as already said, it is the cost/kWh generated by the whole fleet of reactors that counts, if you want to estimate the costs.... and these are peanuts compared to what would have cost the generation of the same amount of electricity by using wind and PV (which would have been impossible, of course, no wind turbines and solar panels back then in the 60s!... just a "what if?" scenario).
Just think about this: what if Japan had not started and implemented the nuclear program back then? What would have replaced nuke? The answer is easy: mostly coal (for the reactors built in the 60s, 70s, and partly 80s, with NG taking up from there...
- Would have this avoided Fukushima? Of course YES.
- Would have this meant less damage to the environment and the people of Japan? Of course, INDISPUTABLY, NO!
In 2011 alone the 290 TWh of electricity generated by the 54 reactors have avoided the emission 150-200 million tons CO2, tens of thousands tons of particulates, arsenic, heavy metals, nitrous and sulfur oxides, etc.... all things which cost lives, many lives.
"Electricity generation and health", The Lancet, 2007... coal combustion is responsible, in OECD countries, of about 25 deaths/TWhe, 10x as many cronic illnesses, and ~30x temporary illnesses.
That means that in 2011 alone there has been of the order of 15x290 avoided deaths (43500), and 150x290 (435000) avoided chronic illnesses... even taking half this value to account to any particular "lucky" configuration of wind dispersal, or massive use of NG vs coal (which doesn't seem the way after Fukushima, Japanese imports of coal have skyrocketed) the figures are impressive, aren't they?
So... coming back to the monetary costs... at 2-3 million $ for each death (sadly, this is what actuarial tables say), and "in the 100s"k$ per each chronic illness... and leaving out the tens of millions of working days lost by the mildly ill citizens... how much "external" cost has the civil nuclear program of Japan saved?
This was just for 2011, you then have to multiply by ~20 in order to include all of the previous ~40 years of the nuclear program... (when, actually, emissions standards by fossil units were much less stringent, with attendant increased effect on public's health).
I'll let you do the math.
Roberto
Good argument, but you did a mistake in "15x290 avoided deaths (43500)". It's just 4350. And I'll do the math: $174-261 billion. US savings are on the order of $480-$720 billion then.
"15x290=4350"... sure!... thanks... same for illnesses... damn little keys on the cellphone.
R.
OK, the source tells me that Germany will pay 110 billion until 2030 for PV. It is correct that a small number of installed GW in the past causes this burden, however, new installtions will not add much more! BTW the source got a lot of flak because it forgot some savings by PV and used wrong FITs (10 billion difference, peanuts). So if Germany pays around 100 billion and brought down the PV price to competitive levels, then this was well spent money IMHO on the global level. What is the price tag for OIF, better investment? :-)
The number of 250 billion EUR includes other renewable, esp. wind, biogas, and changes of the transmission line system until 2040-50 (!!). Your statement that this sum was committed in the last decade is of course nonsense. BTW some of these costs would occur also in a conventional scenario, e.g. parts of the tranmission system have to be replaced after 70 years anyway.
In 2011 more than 25% of the net electricity production or 20% of the gross electricity production already came from renewables, this percentage will increase at least 1.5% per year. Serious studies, here again search for the stuff of the Fraunhofer Institut which usually publish an English version, expect that around 2022 the economic benefits of renewables are greater than their costs. 5 to 10 billion EUR per year until 2050 for this transition is not too much for an economy of Germany's size.
The source says: "In real terms, for all those PV modules that were installed in Germany between April 2000 and the end of 2011, electricity consumers, who ultimately have to bear the burden of this alleged boom, are obliged to pay some 100 Bn € in the form of higher electricity bills. Only a small fraction, about 16%, of this huge amount has already been paid".
Also, the source says solar FIT is 38.6% of total FIT in 2010. 100/0.386 = 259 billion, just as a rough estimate. I conclude that you are mistaken, and that the 250 billion is indeed already committed FIT costs, and that transmission upgrade costs comes on top of this. If you think otherwise, please quote the relevant text.
€100 billion for a lifetime electricity production close to the new Finnish reactor that is considered enormously expensive at €6 billion or so... Is that a good investment? For the same money put into severely cost-overrun nuclear power, they could easily have closed all of their lignite plants, displacing a significant amount of carbon. AFAIK, solar PV is far from competitive still, and it's very unclear that it will be. This is demonstrated by wind FIT being much, much lower, if nothing else.
Very slow, but even that remains to be seen. For the next 5-6 years, sure. After that, I would be surprised.
Note that they don't say "cheaper than coal, ng or nuclear". Just some fluffy statement that's open for interpretation.
Plaese get correct data, here the academic publications of the Fraunhofer Institut are highly recommended, they of course do not support your numbers:-)
Other approach would be to get data on German electricity production (wikipedia is your friend) and do some calculations; again, these would prove you wrong.
However, you prefer some half-baked calculations (better for your ego?) with data you obviously do not understand: The total FITs in 2010 were of course not 100 billion! (80-110 billion will be the sum for PV until 2030.)
According to the German government for 2011 the total FITs (German: Gesamt EE) are around 14 billion EUR, these include PV, wind, bio gas:
http://erneuerbare-energien.de/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/pdf/knee...
Correct is that of these total FITs PV gets the lion's share without providing the lion's share of electricity, that would be wind turbins.
BTW a macroeconomic discussion of the costs include aspects like added value, tax revenue etc. and would very likely offer you the distinction between billig (cheap) and preiswert (worth the money). :-)
I'm completely sure I responded to that, and I'm a bit miffed if it got censored. OTOH, there seemed to be problems with the website yesterday.
I don't have time to craft a good response again, so I'll just mention that you need to upgrade your reading comprehension. Again, the 100 billion PV FIT is already paid or committed for existing PV. It is very clearly stated. My swift back-of-the-envelope calculation showed 250 billion was reasonable as a commitment for all existing renewables in Germany.
I don't agree. Tax revenue is completely irrelevant and can only serve to block vision.
New coal fired power plant in Germany while not running existing nuclear power plants up to the end of their normal life. That is unwise.I have calculated how much capacity is thrown away:
http://crudeoilpeak.info/germany-energy-transition
By the way the storms and floods we have seen in this year's typhoon season will get worse. The heat is already in the ocean
http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Earth-continues-to-build-up-heat.html
Denver residents receive a higher radiation dose than the rest of the US, 0.3 rem/year higher or 50% higher than the .6 rem/year average US background dose, because of the natural uranium deposits in the area. And unlike those close to Fukushima where the dose level continues to fall, Denver residents will continue to receive that dose as long as they live there. Does that mean Denver is dangerous, contaminated with 'filth'? Is living in Denver a Faustian bargain?
This map ... and these levels (in rem) are not correct. 2 rem is equal to 20 mSv (millisieverts). This is the level mandating evacuation by the Japanese government. IRSN has the latest radiation estimates (based on MEXT sampling in the region).
http://www.irsn.fr/EN/newsroom/News/Pages/20120611_IRSN-report-Fukushima...
They state the following regarding estimated full-body gamma doses from cs-137 inside the evacuation zone (emphasis in the original)
The background radiation level in Colorado Plateau is 90 mrem/year on average (75-140 mrem/year). This is less than 1 mSv/year (and well under the 20 mSv/year guideline established by the Japanese Government for the Fukushima region). The effective dose limit established by the Japanese government is 20 times that of Denver, Colorado.
The background radiation level in Colorado Plateau is 90 mrem/year on average (75-140 mrem/year).
Perhaps, but the Plateau does not contain Denver, which conservatively sees at least .3 rem due to radon alone, with other sources like the NRC stating the Denver annual dose is a full rem (10 mSv/year), i.e. just half the Japanese Fukushima guideline.
What level of radiation would be required to reduce the Japanese population to 30 million and the life expectancy to 40 years?
At the end of the Edo period, after 250 years of isolation, Japan's population was about 30 million and life expectancy at birth was about 40 years. These figures are 1/4 and 1/2 of their current respective values. Given the length of isolation, the 1850 population was probably in balance with what their pre-industrial economy could support.
Since then, farmland has probably been destroyed by industrialization and urbanization, and their fisheries near shore have been depleted. Offsetting this are current scientific knowledge about plant genetics and agricultural methods. Nonetheless, in the absence of energy supplies a significant fraction of BAU in Japan and elsewhere, their decline to pre-industrial levels would be very sharp.
So Japan can afford to take very big risks to maintain energy supplies. They will probably do so as their economic situation deteriorates and they are unable to import hydrocarbons. After all, they went to war with the United States to maintain their access to oil in 1941.
There's some seriously disturbing xenophobic and race based projection in this post. Are you perhaps from a Great War generation, or stuck on an Island in the pacific somewhere? The Japanese are very far from reverting to a pre-industrial economy because of a shuttering of 1/3 of their electricity supply (i.e., nuclear). If you think this is likely or possible, I'm not sure you can be helped, and may need a great deal of rehabilitation after your long isolation on a pacific atoll eating bugs and firing at enemy planes overhead. Your exile appears to be your own creation.
Mighty fine charge of racism you've got there.
You want to back that up and prove that claim?
(And what if MErril comes back with Japanese scholars for each of the data points - what will be the claim then?)
The estimates were derived from "2- 1 Population by Sex, Population Increase and Decrease, Population Density (1872--2009)(Excel:60KB)" and "2-36 Expectation of Life by Sex and Age (1891--2003)(Excel:66KB)" which are downloadable from the Statistics Bureau of Japan. I projected back from the 1872 population of 34 million and the 1892 life expectancy at birth of 42 years, but you are free to make your own estimate.
Following the opening of Japan by the force of the US Navy in 1854, the Tokugawa system was abolished and the emperor was restored to power. Japan then modeled itself on the foremost power of the day, the British Empire. Like England, it parlayed its limited resources into a series of colonial posessions in order to gain the supplies of energy, minerals and food necessary to support a growing population on a island chain with limited agricultural resources. This growing empire brought it into conflict with the United States and other European imperial powers, who thought that proper imperialism was exclusively a white man's burden.
Currently Japan has over 127 million people in a country the size of Montana, and less than 12% of the country is arable land. It has essentially no oil or natural gas, and its coal mines are worked out.
From the CIA World Factbook:
In a peak oil world, where fossil fuel becomes unavailable to Japan they are in a desperate situation unless they can generate sufficient energy to run their economy and turn imported materials into high-value exports.
From your source, it looks like they estimate a background dose of 12.4 mSv/year from all sources in Denver). They also attribute a lifetime risk of "cancer deaths attributable to these sources" at 33,000/million (or 3.3%). With an evacuation limit of 20 mSv/year in Fukushima as a consequence of nuclear fallout or cs-137 radiation, are you suggesting we can attribute an elevated lifetime cancer mortality risk in excess of 3.3% for populations falling in the exposure range 12.4 - 20 mSv/year in Fukushima? It seems to me this is what you, and the source you have provided, are suggesting.
Just one comment: the Linear No-Threshold theory is flawed:
http://radiology.rsna.org/content/251/1/13.full
20 mSv cronic dose, a bit every day, is not the same as an acute exposure to 20 mSV in one shot. The DNA has strong capacity to recover from low levels of ionizing radiation, if it weren't so there would be no life on earth. Life developed in a much higher radiation background, our DNA has developed mechanisms to take care of that.
Roberto
Tis a difference between would and have.
Untill the answer is "Yup, now live next to Fukushima and a smile is my umbrella" then just another hand waving poser. (like most of us - Todd, you, Alan, and a few others have less clay feet than most)
Dave, you continue posting this "Germany has just built a new 2.2GW coal power plant" stuff. I would like to put this into perspective:
German electricity production by source 1990 and 2010:
brown coal: 171 TWh down to 146 TWh (-25 TWh)
hard coal: 141 TWh down to 117 TWh (-24 TWh)
nuclear: 153 TWh down to 141 TWh (-12 TWh)
gas: 36 TWh up to 87 TWh (+51 TWh)
renewables: 20 TWh up to 103 TWh (+83 TWh)
as you can see, total fossil generation has stayed practically the same; coal is trending downward and being replaced by gas, renewables have made a huge jump (a lot is actually biomass).
The Germans aren't building new coal power plants because they want to burn more coal, but because they want to burn it more efficiently: the average efficiency of coal power plants has increased a few % between 1990 and 2010, mainly due to decommissioning of older less efficient power plants and replacing them with new ones.
all data from:
http://www.umweltbundesamt-daten-zur-umwelt.de/umweltdaten/public/theme....
best hopes for the German renewable experiment
Martin
The Germans could take a page from the U.S. FF industry and just add the word "clean" to "coal" and --presto-- "clean coal"!
Germany is building around 19 new coal plants.
I agree that they intend to supplement them, at great cost, with renewables, but they are building in fossil fuel use for decades to come.
CO2 emissions have gone up greatly since they have stopped a lot of their nuclear plants, and they freely admit that they will now miss their targets entirely.
The figures you have chosen do not look at the period since they have stopped the nuclear plants.
please provide a source for your claim of 19 new coal power plants. this page: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_geplanter_Kohlekraftwerke_in_Deutschland has 16 coal power plants which are either under construction or planned, about half of which are at the moment stopped.
the germans are AFAIK one of the very few countries to meet their kyoto goals, although they agreed to reduce by a whopping (in comparison...) 21%. They emitted 23% less CO2 in 2010 than in 1990 (http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/uba-info-presse/2011/pd11-020_treibhausgas...), and emitted another 2.4% less in 2011 despite a reduction in nuclear power. your claims seem totally unreasonable to me unless you can show any source...
I did not "choose" figures, as usual, energy statistics are not available for the current year. Also, they didn't "stop the nuclear plants" but just a few.
Sorry to jump into the discussion, but your statement...
"They emitted 23% less CO2 in 2010 than in 1990"
has NOTHING to do (or at best very little) with electricity production, you are quoting the TOTAL EMISSION INVENTORY OF THE COUNTRY, including transportation, factories, etc... as a matter of fact the emissions FROM THE ELECTRICITY SECTOR have gone up by 1% in 2011 compared to 2010, in spite of a 1% OVERALL reduction of the emissions.
Note that that is a fact, not my opinion, official data.
Roberto
If you understood the data provided by Fierz you would get that electricity from coal was peplaced 1:1 by electricity from natural gas, which provides one unit energy with much less carbondioxide emissons than coal. Therefore, there were large savings, more very likely by improving insulation levels of buildings and destruction of industry in Eastern Germany.
So, total fossil electricity production went up 2 TWh over 20 years, despite enormous subsidies to alternatives. And now they are going to focus on decommissioning nuclear in the coming decade. At least three lost decades, probably more.
We already know the results of the German renewable experiment. You just provided the figures! For comparison, in two decades, France went 75% nuclear. They were done with that in the early 90-ies.
We do NOT know the result of the German efforts to go to renewables.
Check back in 2030. And again in 2035 & 2040.
Alan
Again, screaming and boldfacing doesn't help your arguments gain credibility. The numbers were presented, a 30 year failure is apparent and the case is closed. You might think it's fine to wait 30 more years in the hope of failure unexpectedly turning to success. We who care about the environment find that extremely irresponsible.
The case is only closed in your closed mind !
The decision to go all renewable was only made AFTER the great nuclear power success at Fukushima. Before that, there was not the political will.
And renewable technology was barely available 30 years ago.
*IF* you care about AGW, find a better solution(s). There are many that are better than nukes.
Alan
No political will? Are you serious? Follow the money. They speak the truth. There was most definitely will!
Arguably some on the margin, but I won't settle for a few percent. I want to get rid of coal. For real.
The author says concerning a Renewables powered country:
Like the author, jeppen and DaveW in this thread have forgotten Spain. 30% of actual generation comes from renewables. The numbers for the GWh produced this year are:
(note that this is the actual produced energy, not the installed nameplate capacity)
I've translated the graph myself but the data and original charts are here: [ref1, ref2].
So it's perfectly possible for a country to ramp up renewable generation to 30% in less than 10 years.
For me, that's not good enough. We need much more low-carbon electricity than 30%.
First cut consumption by half, while building out renewables. Spend that time (using private $$, nukes have already consumed $500 billion !!! in public monies) designing a REALLY SAFE nuclear power plant.
To prove it is safe, take out a $250 billion (or 200 billion euro) (in 2012 $) liability insurance policy. And dispose of all waste fuel more than 25 years old as well.
We will raise carbon taxes high enough to make nuke power economic - unless new renewables (now spending their $500 billion (inflation adjusted) in public monies) can do it better.
A fair, level playing field for both sources of energy.
May the best choice win,
Alan
Still, you're not serious. Still making unrealistic, silly and quite unconstructive demands on nuclear.
Europe is already at half the consumption of the US. Also, China is now the dominating carbon emitter. The US could have made a real difference before, leading the way with nuclear. You didn't, and we will all pay the price.
Let me also mention that past costs are irrelevant, and even if they weren't, a reasonable outlook would be that renewables has had far more subsidies for buildout.
renewables has had far more subsidies for buildout.
You are BLINDINGLY ignorant of the facts.
Nukes have received at least ten times the subsidy of renewables. The US Navy paid for 100% of the original design, 100% of the uranium enrichment plants, *FREE* insurance, tens of billions in R&D on waste & recycling, etc. etc. etc. Even under Carter, the nuke R&D budget was several times the renewable R&D budget. That $500 billion was no joke.
Even today, building a new US nuke gets several times the subsidy of a new US renewable.
You are simply out of touch with reality.
Alan
The 500 billion earlier mentioned was almost all chernobyl/fukushima costs, not US costs.
R&D is not much. I'm talking about subsidies for buildout. Renewables has extreme subsidies per kWh all over the world, except, of course, in places were it doesn't get built.
You are not aware of the massive US (and Soviet) subsidies to start-up nuclear power and the billiosn invested in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s till today in R&D.
ALan
@Alan and @jeppen.
Please provide references to justify if the start-up investments where "minimal" or "billions". Otherwise we're just throwing opinions around.
In Ontario, Canada we've commited to paying 20 year FIT rates for wind and PV power that are well beyond current market rates and on top of that spent billions on grid improvements to get that power to market. So what do we have to show for that investment? 2011 was in fact a record year for nuclear power which supplied 56.9% of the power generated in the province. Hydro electric power which is relatively abundant in Ontario is our cheapest source of power but nuclear power would be the second cheapest source. Thermal generating plants (using imported coal), gas generating plants (using imported natural gas), wind and solar are all more expensive than nuclear.
Your claims that nuclear power receives more subsidies than renewables is only true in absolute terms. It's entirely a different story if you calculate the subsidy per Mwh produced. Yes, the development of nuclear power in Canada was subsidized but nowhere near to the extent that it was in the US. Nuclear research in Canada has always been directed towards peaceful purposes -- the technical expertise to develop nuclear weapons was available but Canada has never pursued the development of nuclear weapons. Canada's CANDU reactors utilize natural uranium so we don't even have any fuel enrichment facilities.
Modern renewables are just not a good fit for Ontario. This is not an inherently windy place so the thousands of MW of wind capacity currently installed are typically producing a neglible amount of power. PV is relatively effective in the summer months when we have long days and lots of sunshine. However, our greatest need for power is in the winter months when PV is a lot less effective. If I come home on a 30+C day and can't run my air conditioner that's an inconvenience. If there is no power to run my furnace on a -20C day in the winter that's a disaster!
The best solution for Ontario would be to have enough nuclear capacity to meet base load, eliminating the need for coal or gas fired generators, and use our hydro electric capacity to handle the peak load.
"Nukes have received at least ten times the subsidy of renewables. The US Navy paid for 100% of the original design, 100% of the uranium enrichment plants, *FREE* insurance, tens of billions in R&D on waste & recycling, etc. etc. etc. Even under Carter, the nuke R&D budget was several times the renewable R&D budget. That $500 billion was no joke."
... and WHO CARES about that? They would have done it ANYWAY, my friend!... while the indecently high "incentives" thrown away for PV, committing blank checks to "investors" (often foreign investments funds... at least in the part of Europe I am familiar with) are not spent for any other purpose... the Navy had in mind something different, nuclear propulsion... the fact that a military application finally found a civil application, for the benefit of all, should be commended, not certainly finger-pointed as you, and many others, do.
Check your facts, and check your logic, please!
Roberto
It seems the image didn't render in the previous comment. Here is the energy production in Spain.
Is 30% not enough? Sure. But the point is that it can be done quickly.
Yes, sub-20% wind can be done fairly quickly, and if it combines with NG to displace coal, it's certainly much better than the status quo. However, nuclear is faster, since time is money. Also, the perception of being able to continue on that wind/solar path is very dangerous, since it turns people off the real solution.
... you forgot another point, I am afraid... which is called "capacity credit". As the penetration of wind increases further, the amount of real watts delivered by each nominal, installed, Watt, decreases... the curve of the effective power vs installed power saturates.
This translates into a minimal, but by no means negligible, amount of thermal units standing by all the time waiting for some wind, somewhere around the country, to stall.
It's a well known effect, studied since at least one decade, well documented.
I would also like to point out to your attention that the last full calendar year (2011) has had a different ditribution of generated energy compared to the one you have shown in your graph...
http://www.ree.es/operacion/comprobar_ines.asp?Fichero=31122011
... the THIRD plot from the left gives the production of electricity during the whole of 2011... as you can see the PV+wind have generated LESS energy than you showed,16+2.7=18.7% (vs 20% of your graph)...and hydro has a high yearly variability.
If you look at the equivalent daily report for yesterday, just change the final part of the URL with "01092012", i.e. the integrated electricity generated over the last 12 months, you can see that PV+wind=18.9%, meaning that in the last 8 months it has gone up by only 0.2%,in spite of several hundred MW wind and PV having been installed.
The wind capacity installed during 2011 has been 997 MW... in spite of this ~1GW more than 2011, the percentage of the generated electricity has stayed the same as for 2010, 16%, even with a REDUCED demand to cover, -5.6 TWh (net, and I should compare to gross, right?).
Summary: Wind and PV won't ever make it.
Roberto
They already have made it!
What hasn't made it is the current paradigm of infinite growth on a finite planet coupled with ridiculous unsustainable expectations, especially those which relate to how we use, distribute and allocate all forms of energy.
Now that paradigm is running into a very hard wall and will soon go splat!
@Molflow,
My chart depicts the "Año Móvil" or rolling average, that is the last 365 days (chart on the right of the 2012 document). I'm not sure why you chose to compare it with the 2011 year.
Whatever the case, nit-picking on the increase in the figures of 2011 vs. the prior 8 months is not very relevant. In this financial crisis total Electricity demand has decreased in Spain for the first time in the last decades (so that could be part of the explanation behind more capacity but similar generation).
What matters is the big picture: 20 years ago Hydro was the only renewable energy in Spain. In only two decades wind and solar have stepped out to the plate and provide 20% of actual generation. Which country of the world has gone from 0% to 20% Nuclear in the last 20 years?
I agree with you 100%: let's stop talking about the magnificent German effort in wind and PV, then... let's wait till 2035 and beyond... reading some posters here it seems that it is already feeding the country 24/24 at no extra costs...
Roberto
jeppen, being pro-nuke doesn't mean you automatically have to be anti-everything-else :-)
"despite enormous subsidies to alternatives" - you must know that all sensible nonrenewable energy sources (coal, oil, gas, nuclear) have also received "enormous subsidies".
france is about the only country i know of that managed a transition on that scale worldwide (read smil's papers on energy transitions....).
the german renewable experiment is working ok so far. since they are pioneers, there are some bumps on the road, but they will get there eventually. also, increase in renewable power generation has been growing steadily. from http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/pdf/...
year %-renewable electricity
1990 3.1
1995 4.5
2000 6.4
2005 10.1
2010 17.1
2011 20.0
so talking about 3 lost decades is really nonsense - from 2001-2011 they increased renewable share from 6.7 to 20%, that is certainly not a lost decade. if anything, the decades before where they were not pushing renewables as heavily were los!
Yes, Germany increased renewable share from 1990. However, it didn't reduce the amount of electricity produced by fossils. That is, the renewable energy came on top of previous generation. Examine this:
The image shows that the German nuclear buildout started to eat into fossil generation, but unlike France, Germany stopped (new builds coming online stopped about 1988). Then they started to build renewables, and you can see that by 2008, they have made no further dent in fossil generation. The picture show very clearly that they were on a roll, but threw away two decades. And now they have announced, to green applause, that they will throw away another decade to get rid of nuclear, virtually guaranteeing that the renewables added won't affect fossil generation.
Thanks for that great IEA graph, and up through 2006 at the end of the graph history I agree with your those points. I'm curious about what's happened since then:
Per above Germany produced ~50,000 GWh in 2006 from wind/solar/bio. In 2012 they're on pace at ~6,600 GWh/month to produce 79,000 GWh/year from wind/solar/bio.
http://www.iea.org/stats/surveys/mes.pdf
hmm, i had data up to 2011, showing that they have been constantly speeding up renewable deployment and you counter that with data up to 2008 - oh well...
I'm pointing out that they had two lost decades and the graph shows that, doesn't it? Also, we know that they are intent to lose another decade or more by letting renewables cut into nuclear generation, not into fossil generation. My claims are thus perfectly compatible with your claim that they are "constantly speeding up renewable deployment".
You are perfectly right: they are replacing a 100% carbon(and heavy metal, arsenic, particulate, etc)-free technology , nuclear, with non-100% carbon-free set of technologies... and the remainder will be more fossil.
They already announced they will stop at 52 GWp with their PV installations, which will yield 46 TWh, i.e. a small part of the stopped reactors' electricity. Wind won't be able to make up the rest, neither will the other "renewables"... the moral of the story is more fossil-based production... I wonder wether this may have anything to do with Mrs Merkel's predecessor getting a top-spot position in a Russian gas company... after all he (Schroeder was the one who announced the first nuclear scale back... mmmh... nah... can't be the case, right?
Roberto
Maybe, but which Paleolithic mind? The one that sees all the energy in Nuclear, and waves off the massive systems required to keep it at best marginally secure, or the one that is afraid of the possibly invisible aftermath that he/she feels will be nonetheless uncontrollable and much of the hazard undetectable?
I think any discussion on the other forms, like Thorium, is still almost unrelated, since we have little to no practical commercial experience with these, while several reactors in the U.Fission age have shown us the growing downsides of disregarding safety procedures, of industrial secrecy and regulatory manipulation in the face of public skepticism, of the effects of age on the equipment, particularly when it is pressed beyond its design parameters or lifespan expectations..
All this in a period when we had young reactors, an abundance of external energy sources that could be brought in to help corral problems, when the climate was stable, and when power plants generally all lived in countries that had been able to avoid exposing them to Hot Wars, unstable grids or overheated or depleted cooling water sources.
As they say in Vaudeville, 'It's the perfect setup to a fall..'
The thorium and some other reactors look promising.
And so does a tomahawk fusion reactor to its believers.
Same for Blacklight Power.
Or EESTOR.
The Liquid Sodium medium was tried and when the fires happened - no one wanted re-do's on that.
But they all come under the dreaded nuclear umbrella
If the present 'nuclear umbrella' response to sleeping guards is: http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Nuclear_plant_security_fears_after_guards_...
And fires the person who could not get management to deal with the issue and took it public - can you justify why the 'nuclear umbrella' should not be seen with dread?
' The thorium and some other reactors look promising.
And so does a tomahawk fusion reactor to its believers.
Same for Blacklight Power.
Or EESTOR.'
You are confounding demonstrated, proven science with dubious science and obvious scams.
The analogy is invalid.
Got proof to back up them thar Thorium claims? Like long term working commercial reactors?
Shouldn’t be too hard to produce such.
Cuz last I knew Sodium-using reactors were rejected because Sodium was just too reactive in the biosphere and the cascading failures from Sodium in the biosphere were considered too risky.
(And I'll also note that an obvious weak link like sleeping security guards have not been addressed or defended by the pro-nukers who are quick to point out deaths/power to weight of fuel ratios/new technology saving all of humanity/whatever else claim. The pro-nuke camp can't successfully take on the flawed nature of Man so they don't.)
The hyped thorium reactors don't use liquid sodium. They dissolve the fuel in flouride.
"tomahawk"
you mean "tokamak", right?
R.
Thank you for this Gail. Many speak of peak oil as being a liquids fuel crisis. But, at least here in the US, we face a very wide energy shortage crisis, liquids or no. I don't know anyone planning for the retirement of the many, many US reactors that will hit a 60 year end of life about the same time as oil imports are likely to end (2035 or so).
The EIA had an article on the shutdown of reactors in 2010:
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo10/nuclear_power.html
Most of these reactors are early designs. None of them are safe if power is lost for a long period. I don't know how well they will operate if the grid becomes much less stable. The US may find itself in a terrifying position of trying to run ever more rusty reactors because we need the power because we cannot afford to shut them down.
'Most of these reactors are early designs. None of them are safe if power is lost for a long period. I don't know how well they will operate if the grid becomes much less stable.'
Uh? Designs of all running reactors are being back-checked against the accident at Fukushima.
All the reactors in Japan stood up superbly to a 9.0 category earthquake, one of the events many predicted nuclear doom from, and those that came unstuck only did so when hit by a 15 metre tsunami.
They still were cooling fine on their back-up batteries, but the latter were inadequately specified and only allowed for 8 hours of power.
Utilities around the world are now well aware of the back up issue, and all plants are being provided with multiple secure back ups.
Why aren't you worried instead by the tens of thousands of annual deaths from air pollution, mainly from coal and diesel/petrol transport, in the US alone, not to mention the release by the coal industry of goodies like arsenic and mercury, with a half life of forever?
Since renewables with anything like current technology absolutely require what is erroneously referred to as 'back-up' from renewables for around 70% of power, and which is actually clearly using fossil fuels as the main source of power with different degrees of greenwashing, then it seems we are in the process of building in lethal fossil fuel use for decades to come.
At 70% of the power from fossil fuels for a renewables economy, the risks are orders of magnitude larger than for a nuclear economy.
Your statement that they held up just fine in an earthquake is not confirmed. Just your speculation.
Fukushima had the strongest temblors and no detailed examination of the quake damage has been made.
It is note worthy that the US NRC ordered a review of seismic risks after Kukushima and rated North Anna had the lowest seismic risk of ANY US nuclear plant.
About a month after the report was released, a previously unknown fault stressed that reactor to twice it's design earthquake acceleration - even though it was only a 5.9 Richter scale earthquake.
So We are incapable of assessing seismic risks at nuclear power plants.
But that is the minor point. Your "cost-benefit" analysis simply missed THE BIG ONE !
WITH DIFFERENT WINDS - TOKYO WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE POLLUTED WORSE THAN THE CHERNOBYL EXCLUSION ZONE !!
Kukushima released 4.3x as much as Chernobyl of the major long lived radio nucleotide - cesium 131 from memory.
We should only build nuclear power plants in areas where we are willing to take a 0.25% risk of a massive radiation release, and resulting 50 to 200 year exclusion zone. Perhaps south Central Georgia, West Texas, Idaho, places like that. I am not saying don't build them - just build them where you are prepared to write off the surrounding area if something happens (say 1 in 400 chance).
Nowhere near heavily populated areas.
Alan
There was a plant closer to epicenter but that wasn't overwhelmed by tsunami. It fared very well.
Perfection shouldn't be assumed nor is it required.
Yelling doesn't make it true.
No, Fukushima released about a fifth, some 14 PBq, while Chernobyl was at 85 PBq.
Fukushima released 430% as much CS 131 into the air as Chernobyl. Per TEPCO.
And no detailed examination for seismic damage has been made at Fukushima. So the conclusion that there was no seismic damage at any Japanese nuke is just supposition, unsupported by facts.
Alan
First, I think you have got your isotopes mixed up. Second, you should check your numbers and stop making false claims based on some alarmist report you read once upon a time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Fukushima_and_Chernobyl_nucle...
Sigh. You're really unreasonable, do you know that?
As I noted earlier, the isotope was from memory/ Cesium 137 is the isotope and Fukushima released 423% as much as Chernobyl into the air, not the 430% I claimed (although more may yet be released).
http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2012/05/23/tepco-fukushima-cesium-relea...
And you are the one that has the quite unreasonable positions.
On one of many points, I find it completely specious to claim "no quake damage" with a site close to the earthquake with six reactors that has never been (and never can be) closely examined for quake damage. I was staggered that anyone would have the chutzpah to make such a claim.
But chutzpah (and magic wands to make real issues go away) are plentiful amongst pro-nuke supporters.
BTW, if you want to slow AGW, they are at least a dozen better ways to do so than to build more nukes.
Alan
Then we have differing numbers. I'll take my wikipedia entries over your blog.
He said the reactors "stood up". They did, they shut down well and no damage was registered before the tsunami. You're trying to interpret it as "no damage whatsoever, even minor" and then build a straw man from that. I just get tired of you, I don't even know why I'm replying to this.
Wikipedia does not distinguish between air and water borne releases. The TEPCO #s do. That is where the delta lies.
And I understand the frustration when confronting reality.
"No damage whatsoever - however minor" is the correct and appropriate standard to hold an operating nuke hit by an earthquake. Any lower standard is too dangerous.
Which is why I fear people like you in the NRC.
Alan
Of course, I don't agree at all. To me, that's a fundamentally unreasonable, even silly standard. Again, it shows that all you want is saying no to nuclear by whichever means possible.
And that you do not see the reasonableness of such a standard (which is achievable BTW) is why I fear people like you at the NRC.
And that people like you exist, with this blind spot, makes me question nukes even more.
Alan
BTW, did you know that during the fire at Brown's Ferry 1 (which I toured while it was being built) TVA ALMOST had an operating nuke without ANY means of controlling it ? One set of wiring was singed, the others gone. Even last ditch manual valve turning was blocked by smoke & fire.
Does that prospect frighten you ?
I suspect not (just decontaminate Tokyo).
If it does not frighten you, then I am frightened even more by the pro-nukers.
No, it is not achievable, and it's not reasonable, and it's not a blind spot. It's just you saying "no" to nuclear.
Regarding Brown's Ferry: Meltdowns are bad, mmkay? But not doing nuclear is far worse due to AGW, costs, coal particulate cancers and so on. It's just that nuclear accidents are spectacular things with decades apart and has this spooky, invisible radiation. Other energy sources kills more silently and distributed, and so you think they don't exist. You don't count the beans. Actually, you refuse to count the beans.
Negawatts are fast, cheap and very safe. I am VERY strongly in favor of them ! Even more than renewables.
Lets get 50% of our power from negawatts !
(I am writing by the light of a 9.7 watt, 940 lumen LED on a 14 watt Mac Mini. Need to better the screen - 35 watts).
Alan
Yes, you americans should do that. And then build nuclear power. 20% wind is 20% wind however much absolute energy you got.
Alan, for negawatts an example is the savings with widespread CFL use which is staggering.
Consider this example on a US national level:
100 million residences x 10 bulbs changed per residence; 60 Watt incandescent replaced by 13 Watt CFL;
Bulbs used average of 3 hours per day (1095 hours per year); cost per kWh = $0.11
(0.047 kilowatt saving per bulb) x 1095 hour usage per year x $0.11 per kWh = $5.66 savings per bulb per year
10,000 hour rated life / 1095 hour usage per year = 9.1 years of savings
1 billion bulbs x $5.66 per bulb per year x 9.1 years = $51.5 billion total savings ($15.5 million daily)
1 billion bulbs x $1.50 per bulb = $1.5 billion CFL Purchase Cost
$1.5 billion / $15.5 million per day = 97 day payback
$51.5 billion / ($110 per MWh) = 468 million MWh electrical savings
How long would a 1000 MW Nuclear Plant need to run to provide this same amount of power?
468,000,000 MWh / (1,000 MW per hour) = 468,000 hours
468,000 / (8760 hours per year) = 53.5 years (Or roughly 6 nuclear reactors operating throughout the 9.1 year life of the bulbs).
Yes, it is achievable and SHOULD BE REQUIRED !
Alan
Again, no.
I was wondering how long after Fukushima will take for the pro-nukers to come back in full force.
Honestly, it is depressing how many people are unwilling to change their opinions in the face of facts.
Thanks Alan for the patience you have to answer politely and continue this discussion. To me this is the worst Drumbeat I have seen in a long time. The pro-nuke arguments are almost trolling - digging for excuses to support their position without ever trying to answer the obvious question:
Can we do without dangerous energy generation (coal, nuclear)?
I think the answer is yes. Negawatts and efficiency improvements are part of the answer. The other part is just do with less. For me I am willing to lower my energy consumption (I already consume about a fifth of the average per capita here in US). And I don't even have kids! Obviously there are a lot of people for whom their comfort is more important than other people's life.
I am con Mk1-containment and pro preassure-relief-filter. ;-)
Seriously, old nuclear powerplants should be replaced with new ones.
Funny, I have been thinking that Alan is trolling quite a bit. And I keep biting, unfortunately.
You Americans seem to have a real problem in realizing that you are not the world. The leading carbon emitter now, by far, is China. You can (and should) conserve all you want, but the hunger of developing economies and a few more billion people on this Earth WILL push energy requirements higher.
And no, we can't do without dangerous energy production. All production is dangerous. Nuclear one of the least dangerous forms.
Maybe but his trolling is at most 75% of yours...
Provocations can induce thinking but to much creates rejection, be careful and have a good nights sleep. (Wishes one pro nuce another)
I have very seldomly been able to convince myself to take moderate positions instead of pushing for truth. That's one reason why I'm not a politician, I guess, even though I love debating. I simply wouldn't get many votes.
"You Americans seem to have a real problem in realizing that you are not the world."
Yes I live in US now but I grew up and enjoyed my childhood in a poor eastern european country. I understand how the rest of the world lives. We had frequent electrical outages and I rarely watched TV. On the other hand, I did enjoy my non-radioactive food (with the exception of one year because of Chernobyl fallout).
"The leading carbon emitter now, by far, is China."
Almost all of your post have a fallacy or another. In this case you seem to imply that if China moved to nuclear, they would stop burning coal. As we know from many examples over the years this never happen. The world will burn all coal, oil and gas available whether the nuclear power plants are built or not.
I really don't understand why you are pushing so hard on this. You seem to be worried about AGW. You should realize that nuclear or not, AGW will be just as bad. Nuclear will not make Australia or US stop digging up coal and exporting it. On the other hand, nuclear can make life much worse for the people in the affected regions.
In this case you seem to imply that if China moved to nuclear, they would stop burning coal. As we know from many examples over the years this never happen.
Not true. France for instance now consumes an a third the amount of coal in total it used prior to nuclear, and per person they use less than 10%. The US would have undoubtedly made up its 20% nuclear share with coal if nuclear never been allowed.
http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=fr&product=coal&graph=cons...
All food is radioactive.
Seems to trivialize the problem. You were a male kid, I guess. How much household chores did you do, and how much did your mother do, without electricity? Did you enjoy it?
Did you see the link to the Rosling talk I posted? Nobody in their right mind, not even most green people, wash their clothes by hand. Dishes as well. Health-care facilities and transportation needs energy. The internet needs energy. We need energy for lightning, heating and refrigeration. I would be the first to agree North America can halve its energy consumption, since most of the rest of the OECD has half the per-capita consumption. But it won't get us out of the AGW problem. The developing world is increasing its use, and rightfully so. And they are many more than you are.
I'd like to think that I correct one or another in every post. But if I truly have fallacies, then please talk me out of them. I'm always happy to go with new data, but you have to have them to convince me. Regarding China, Falstaff proved you wrong.
No, Fukushima released about a fifth, some 14 PBq, while Chernobyl was at 85 PBq.
...and Chernobyl was on fire, a graphite fire.
Yes, but Fukushima released more Cs 131 into the air.
Perhaps it has to do with the # of reactors and where they were in the fuel cycle.
After all, we all saw nuclear reactors explode at Fukushima.
Alan
BTW, nuke supporters coming up with "radiation is good for you" theories, dismissing waste as a non-issue, saying "Fukushima wasn't so bad" et al will get *FEWER* nukes built, not more. I see y'all as a group of "out-of-touch with reality" ideologues - who are NOT to be trusted with anything important. And when I think one of your number might be in an important position at the NRC, I get shivers.
Better a realistic mea culpi maximus after Fukushima, and a very hard nosed look at the difficult issues of nuke safety. That would be more realistic and get more new nukes built - at least in Idaho.
So, you're getting shivers that someone knowledgeable, that know his isotopes for instance, and is a rational bean counter would actually have a position at the NRC? No engineer types? You think NRC would be better served by having only "intuitive" people on board?
Sadly, I think reality is more or less as per your wishes.
I am an engineer, and have even done maintenance inside nuclear reactors. I can think of quite a few competent, REALISTIC engineers that could do well.
It is the out of touch with reality types that I fear.
Alan
This. I look at some of the comments by jeppen and DaveW and shake my head in disbelief. If you're a serious proponent of nuclear power you should acknowledge the good with the bad. Flat out denial of the dangers of radiation makes me think you're either ignorant or delusional. In either case I'm going to strongly discount everything you have to say.
What the heck are you talking about? Of course radiation is dangerous, as is driving your car. Radiation dangers are just not very significant in the grand scheme of things, and the thresholds set are often too low. This is a position that should be obvious to anyone that's even a little bit interested in doing the math.
This is what I'm talking about. It should be obvious to anyone that's even a little bit interested in understanding how DNA works.
Now you're making even less sense. Have you been tricked by the bad butterfly article?
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/bio-effects-radiation...
This is a reasonable approach to protecting the public from the nasty side of nuclear power. "Radiation dangers are just not very significant..." makes you come across as delusional.
From the same article:
It is reasonable only in a vacuum. One of the big problems of the NRC is that it is just responsible for nuclear power. This tunnel vision make it do extremely bad sub-optimizations. An entity that had to optimize the entire US energy system wouldn't price nuclear out of the market as the NRC does.
No, it makes you come across as a guy who is taking stuff out of context.
"Yes, but Fukushima released more Cs 131 into the air."
... strange, because this very recent paper says otherwise...
"These lower bound estimates, 1.2 × 1016 Bq for cesium-137, with an estimated standard deviation range of 15%-20%, and 1.9 − 3.8 × 1017 Bq for iodine-131, with an estimated standard deviation range of 5%-10%, are of the same order of magnitude as those provided by the Japanese Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency and about 5 to 10 times less than the Chernobyl atmospheric releases."
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00704999/
This other paper, by a well known anti-nuke, pro-renewable scientist
says this...
"Overall, radioactive emissions from Fukushima were roughly
an order of magnitude lower than from Chernobyl." ... page 2
and goes on...
"Why is the number of cancer morbidities predicted from Fukushima substantially less than the number of morbidities predicted from Chernobyl? Firstly, TOTAL I-131 AND CS-137 RADIATION RELEASED FROM FUKUSHIMA IS ROUGHLY AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE LOWER THAN THE TOTAL RADIATION RELEASED FROM CHERNOBYL" ...page 10
A third source, quoting the French IRSN, says this:
"NISA in June increased this estimate to 770 PBq (I-131 eq), being 160 PBq of I-131 and 15 PBq of Cs-137. Japan's Nuclear Safety Commission (NSC, a policy body) estimated that 12 PBq of Cs-137 had been released, giving an "iodine-131 equivalent" figure of 630 PBq to 5 April, but in August lowered this estimate to 570 PBq. The 770 PBq figure is about 15% of the Chernobyl release of 5200 PBq iodine-131 equivalent."
A fourth source, Scientific American, citing a scientific paper, says this:
"Caesium-137 fallout, however, is a much greater concern because it will linger in the environment for decades. The new model shows that Fukushima released 3.5 × 1016 Bq caesium-137, roughly twice the official government figure, and half the release from Chernobyl. "
... I think it is this one
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/12/2313/2012/acp-12-2313-2012.pdf
"Regarding 137Cs, the inversion results indicate a total
emission of 36.6 (20.1–53.1)PBq, or about 43% of the estimated
Chernobyl emission." ... page 2338
... and I could go on and on, with serious, respectable sources, which all claim that the Cs emitted by Fukushima has been LESS, not more, as you wrongfully... or should I say deliberately?... claim.
I rest my case.
Roberto
" 'Kukushima released 4.3x as much as Chernobyl of the major long lived radio nucleotide - cesium 131 from memory.'
No, Fukushima released about a fifth, some 14 PBq, while Chernobyl was at 85 PBq."
Hey!... you are talking about Fukushima, he was talking about Kukushima... a different accident... plus he put in the same basket the TOTAL INVENTORY of fuel on site... in that case he's right that Fukushima had more fuel than Chernobyl, though.
Fervent anti-nukes rarely can be precise, they mix up things all the time, don' worry.
Roberto
In fact, there is at least one first order Euler strut buckle in the #4 reactor building - the one with the damaged fuel pool that's holding a brand new unused core, moved there shortly before the disaster. It is an artifact of seismic temblor damage. The entire structure is off-kilter now. If a large enough earthquake occurs between now and the indefinite time when Japanese Engineers manage to invent a technology capable of moving that fuel, what we have seen so far will look like a fire drill. (The spent fuel pool in this design is not inside the containment.) Got all of my fingers and toes crossed.....
There is also considerable evidence that Reactor #1 failed during the earthquake, not the tsunami that followed. TEPCO and the Japanese government were denying this; now they just don't talk about it. Of course, they also insist the plutonium that was found more than two miles from the disaster site came from inside one of the reactors; because to admit otherwise would be to admit a prompt criticality occurred in the fuel pool explosion at reactor #3.
Gail once pointed out that it takes time, energy, resources, and human ingenuity to achieve technology. It's going to take a lot of ingenuity, seeing as we're lacking in all of the other ingredients.
Denial - it's not just a river in Africa.
"they also insist the plutonium that was found more than two miles from the disaster site came from inside one of the reactors"
This is completely FALSE. There have been only TRACES of Pu isotopes, at concentrations so close to the concentrations of "average Japan", i.e. the left over of the atmospheric nuclear explosions of the 50s and 60s (which have spewed 6 tons in the atmosphere).
The lack of "macroscopic" Pu and Sr-90 is the biggest difference between Chrnobyl's emissions and Fukushima's.
I could back up my statement with references, could you do the same with yours? Don't think so.
Here is mine:
"As shown in Table 2, the amounts of released 2391240Pu and 241Pu were 1.0310 922.4310 9 Bq,and 1.1310 1122.631011 Bq,respectively. These values
are very close to those estimated by METI20, and about 4 orders
of magnitude lower than those of the Chernobyl accident. 17,18,21"
... which can be found in this paper:
"Isotopic evidence of plutonium release into the environment from the Fukushima DNPP accident", Nature Scientific Reports, March 2012.
FOUR ORDERS 0F MAGNITUDE LESS PLUTONIUM ISOTOPES WITH RESPECT TO CHERNOBYL
Roberto
P.S.: BTW, there have been hundreds of seismic events after the original one, many of them of very high level... so if the pool had to come down it would have already done it... fear mongering at its best.
...with sufficient investment, solar PV and wind energy, together with long distance transmission lines and battery backup could be a replacement, but this has yet to be proven to be possible in practice. Germany, discussed below, is really the first test case for this.
Germany is test case for replacement? How so? Whatever the pronouncements from Germany politicians, aside from the reactors shut down for maintenance prior to Fukushima Germany has not shut down any other nuclear reactors, nor does Germany have any viable plans for the next twenty years to replace *all* of its nuclear fleet with wind and solar. Instead those plans include i) the use of some new fossil fuel plants and ii) imports of nuclear or fossil fueled electric power from other countries. This does constitute a replacement, as the dictionary defines the word, of nuclear power with wind and solar PV.
Besides changing the context of Gail's post, and your usual lack of citations, much of what you blather about has been discussed. What part of "could be a replacement" and "test case" needs clarification?
Wind and solar produced 7.6 and 3.1% of Germany's electricity supply in 2011. That's a total of 10.7%. In 1990 the respective production was 0.0% and 0.0%.
Nuclear produced 17.6% in 2011 (down from 22% in 2010/2009) (all data from http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromerzeugung).
Bicker as much as you like about semantics - Germany is replacing nuclear power with renewables. Perhaps not all, and perhaps not by tomorrow, but it will happen eventually.
Of course. And thereby keeping coal, lignite and making themselves dependent on Russian gas. And when they are eventually done replacing nuclear with renewables, renewables won't be able to replace fossils, since they can only integrate so much expensive intermittent electricity in their grid.
Just as an observation, this post seems to lack a purpose. That being said, I agree on most of it - I'd just like to take the analysis a bit further in some instances:
* China will have cleared IP rights soon and may start selling nuclear reactors to third world countries as if they were bread toasters.
* That Germany and Japan are getting cold feet and start shutting down old plants is bad, but the future of nuclear, and its potential, lies in how many new plants is built right now and how the plans look like. And here, we're still seeing quite a lot of ambition in BRIC nations. (So, that the nuclear production has started sloping down is mostly irrelevant.)
* Nuclear is expensive due to regulation. The reason China can build cheaply and quickly has a lot to do with not having that much red tape, NIMBYism and political uncertainty. However, that does absolutely NOT mean Chinese plants won't have the physical safety features of modern plants. They will, but they will not require five forms and three certifications for inserting a screw.
* The projected decommissioning costs of Germany is outrageous and are also due to stupid regulation with too high requirements on documentation, over-the-top worker safety and too high requirements on decontamination of materials. In my own Sweden, you can buy, sell and eat moose meat with up to 1500 bq/kg, but a piece of concrete with 100 bq/kg has to go to repository after having had expensive and difficult per-isotope measurements done on it.
* The last few years of uranium supply has shown that rapidly increased production will indeed follow price increases. To focus on just the year of Fukushima gives the wrong impression. It's obvious that uranium extraction can be scaled to demand.
The big question here is if the West is going to get reasonable regulation before or after climate disaster and/or peak coal/ng hits us. As it stands today, "after" seems to be a safe bet. Wind and solar PV dreams acts as alibis for continued fossil use.
"The big question here is if the West is going to get reasonable regulation..."
What? Like limiting consumption of radioactive moose meat?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/world/asia/collapse-of-new-bridge-unde...
There are some drawbacks to fast and cheap.
Yes, and there are some drawbacks to slow and expensive. Big drawbacks.
What seems largely left out of this conversation, apart from Todd's allusion to the folly of BAU, is discussion of just what all this electricity is used for. How many nuclear plants does it take just to run all the clothes dryers in the US, for example? These are of course utterly unnecessary. But we even have HOA and other rules than prohibit the use of solar clothes dryers. We are an insane culture, bent on self destruction. I'm tempted to make a list of all the ridiculous, superfluous uses to which we put all this electricity, but no one outside a very small chorus gives one whit. I, for one, will be happier when the sky is once again dark at night. Sorry, end rant.
Please watch this TED talk with Hans Rosling. Even if the West conserve, which we do, we stand no chance of diminishing world electricity needs.
Even if the West conserve, which we do
Speak for yourself, Norwegian !
See the Romney Energy Policy Paper. US Conservatives /= Conservation
Alan
I'm Swede. Sure North America is especially wasteful, but you, as everybody else among mature economies, lowers the energy needed for certain amount of GDP year by year.
I have no problem with nuclear power in general. I think a few points may need to be be made though to round out the discussion:
1. As traditional sources of energy decline many nations may opt for nuclear- this would create a rapid increase in the price of resources for plants to be built and run- plants may in fact turn out to be money losers when the higher input prices are factored in.
2. As traditional sources of energy decline the fossil fuel costs of building a plant will increase
3. As more plants are built and operated the odds increase of accidents due to the law of averages- this may impose higher insurance costs from lawsuits or higher build costs due to new regulations
4. As climate change worsens- environmental factors such as droughts leading to low water levels, floods, storms, and disruption to power supplies will increase costs due to shut downs (as income is cut off from plant owners)
5. As more nations enter nuclear, the odds increase that these nations will have unstable governments, unreliable infrastructure, out of control climates, etc. This also increases the odds of plant failure. Nuclear has pretty much been limited to rich nations so far that can afford to take care of their plants.
6. Increasing nuclear does increase the options for nations to create nuclear weapons as a side project- like it or not.
7. Nuclear waste is still a big problem and this will grow as more reactors are built- many nations may choose to not deal with waste responsibly
8. Nuclear may be another one of those situations where the current generation creates a dangerous situation to meet immediate needs without sacrificing much and leave later generations the dangers of this decision. I worry that nuclear may be a very advanced technology in a future world that is considerably more primitive in other areas- that is a real concern. For all the drawbacks of wind and solar (and there are many)- they seem to exist more safely in the lower tech world I see coming.
Some simple numbers illustrate the magnitude of the low carbon problem. The world has 7 billion people using 15 terawatts of power. Of that 15 TW perhaps 12 TW comes from burning fossil carbon. Moreover that energy use is not fairly distributed with more people using wood fires in huts than electric clothes dryers in MacMansions. For a future world of say 9 billion we need to increase energy use for some and decrease it for others. Call it 20 TW as the long term steady state objective. However due to depletion and AGW concerns say 18 TW of that must be non-fossil. That includes electricity, heat and transport.
If these figures are indicative it means we must get from 3 TW of non-fossil to 18 TW. I'm not sure it's possible with or without nuclear. It suggests we'll need the equivalent of 15,000 new generating units of 1 GW (here I'm equating thermal and electrical power). If those units were nuclear power plants there would almost certainly be increased accidents and terrorism. On the other hand I don't see wind and solar stepping up to that level of contribution. I see no easy way out.
Increase efficiency by x2 and it is much easier. And doubling energy efficiency is fairly easy.
Alan
First, 18 TW thermal is only 6000 nuclear plants. It's less than one nuclear reactors per million inhabitants. My own Sweden has more nuclear per capita already.
Second, increased accidents and terrorism is acceptable. The fallout is manageable in the grand scheme of things. AGW may not be.
The operative word in this statement is "new." Nuclear has had 60 years of development worldwide, much of it with consistent and dependable government support, and many renewable technologies are not yet mature technologies, are still subject to learning curves, and have not received consistent and dependable government support. There is no better example here of apples to oranges. Concentrated Solar Thermal (for baseload) is not yet a mature technology, and there are few market rules to facilitate the expansion of energy storage (beyond the 20 GW of PHS we have in the US built primarily for load leveling in the 70s and 80s). CAES has a lot of development potential. Early pilot testing on liquid metal batteries as well. Offshore wind, much the same, it is not yet mature.
A good case has been made for the viability of renewable energy technologies in a reliable industrial generation mix, and with deep GHG cuts in the following paper.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1208365
Their finding, 74% generation from renewables is feasible in a place like California (the sixth largest economy of the world). And this includes widespread electrification of vehicle fleet, space and water heating, and industrial process. Also of particular note, they saw no cost advantages when comparing portfolio mixes with high renewables to portfolio mixes with high nuclear.
So if we're making our future bets now … it appears we would be well served by focusing on where we are likely to find cost savings in the future. Nuclear doesn't appear to be getting any cheaper, and renewables are breaking records lowering costs in nearly every sector, every scale, and every year. From where I stand, it's not a difficult choice (when looking at the matter objectively).
"Nuclear has had 60 years of development worldwide, much of it with consistent and dependable government support.."
Nuclear fission got it's start entirely with government funding (Underway on nuclear power?"). Funny that many pro-nuke folks think that the deployment of renewables should be entirely privately driven; "stand on its own". I suppose if an aircraft carrier could be run on wind energy....
I actually started to compile a list of government subsidies for nuclear ... and so far (not including the government funded research) I've found about $500bn. Data, references and details can be found on this public google doc. Feel free to add more if you have referenced figures.
I think Nuclear will be part of the solution but should be kept to a minimum to guarantee base load. When decisions must be made, renewables should be the priority. The main argument in my opinion is that nuclear requires a stable society with plenty of available capital and trained people for a couple hundred years. This is unprecedented and unheard of in the history of humanity. Until we can prove ourselves capable of that, it's too early to adopt nuclear as a major solution.
I agree. Build new nukes only when their is no alternative - and you have a place you can do without for 50 to 200 years.
And lets give renewables $500 billion (adjusted upwards for inflation) in subsidies over 20 years and see what happens.
Alan
Why not compile a list of nuclear subsidies of government?
???
Some property taxes.
That's about it.
Alan
Positive externalities from cheap, abundant electricity, sales taxes, insurance fees, regulatory fees, direct taxes (not sure about the US, but in many European countries, we have far larger arbitrary and nuclear-specific taxation than a reasonable insurance policy should cost).
The totality of nuclear power in the USA has not been cheap.
Gov't subsidies. MASSIVE cost over-runs. Canceled plants (TVA canceled 11 nukes in one day, Google Zimmer), Three Mile Island and other early closed plants (Trojan, Ft. St. Vrain) and bill for disposing of waste fuel is still open, with over 50 years of waste fuel sitting above ground.
The rest you mention are of no benefit to gov't. Sales taxes are collected on whatever form of electricity sold (even renewables).
Today, California is suffering because two of their four unreliable nuke plants are down for years due to terrible engineering.
Alan
Of course things as regulatory fees are of benefit to government. The point of government is to be big and provide jobs, job security and positions of influence for those involved.
"Today, California is suffering because two of their four unreliable nuke plants are down for years due to terrible engineering."
Good!... it is the best time to prove, as someone else (more than one) has written above, that PV and wind can be installed quickly, and they are reliable (boy!... they are reliable 24h/24, 365/365)... and they are CHEAP!... boy aren't they cheap?... so I am sure that the great state of California will IMMEDIATELY seize the opportunity to show the way to the rest of the world.
The two reactors you mention, produce every day of the order of 2200 MW x 24hr = 52800 MWh... each year 0.85 x 365 x 52800 = 16.4 TWh... in order to obtain the same energy (but not evenly during the day, BY DEFINITION PV doesn't produce AT ALL on a yearly average for 12 hours/day), one would need 9.4 GWp of PV... within the reach of California's economy, right?... a much weaker economy like Italy's has done just that in 2011, not to mention Germany's.
Tell me one thing: do you think that if California does that (installs 9.4 GWp of PV to replace the two S. Onofre reactors) the electric system of the State will be happy, no additional problems? NO additional costs to taxpayers?
Sure?
Roberto
P.S.: I just bumped into this...
http://sites.uci.edu/energyobserver/2012/04/12/cost-and-area-of-replacin...
... which does some math on the issue (I don't necessarily agree with it)... just to show the approximate cost and the size of the project.
That would be very welcome.
The exercise has been done for solar in Germany (can't find the link right now) and the industry pays more in tax than it receives in FIT.
If this can be shown to be the same for Nuclear that would be a good thing to know.
I've started to compile the list of hidden subsidies, if you start a referenced tax contribution one I'll merge it.
Of course it does, since PV upfront costs are large and brings in large tax revenues, but FITs are long-term liabilities. When PV installations are stopped, taxes will drop to almost zero but FITs will keep the same. However, the investments in PV is displacing other, more rational use of the same funds, that would also bring in the same tax revenue. You should try to acquire some intuition for economics, because these kinds of arguments that are trying to convince that you can earn money from subsidising stuff are obviously false. (An other very strange argument is that electricity rates has dropped more from subsidies than the cost of subsidies. Why not subsidise any other good, then, if you can make money that way?)
I can absolutely promise you that nuclear brings in more in tax revenues than it receives in FIT in Germany!
@jeppen. I don't want a promise. I want the data.
But I'm obviously not talking about FITs for Nuclear. I want to know if the taxes that the nuclear industry pays balance out their hidden subsidies in basic research, decommissioning, storage, security (think special convoys with gov. forces), insurance waiving, clean-up funds, nuclear proliferation mitigation, etc, etc which are paid for by the tax payer (i.e. are a hidden very long term FIT).
Please use data and references to make your point.
It seems you don't know that the NRC and similar authorities around the world is funded by fees on nuclear operations and applications, that insurance waiving has fees attached to them, that decommissioning, waste handling and clean-up funds are usually collected as parts of the sales price of nuclear electricity?
The only thing I'm unsure about is nuclear proliferation mitigation - there are probably hidden costs there. But I don't know why a civilian nuke in Sweden should be connected to disputes with North Korea and Iran.
Also, basic research is granted all energy types, as it should be. What I don't like is subsidizing large-scale build-outs. And even if that has happened for some energy types, that is no reason to keep making that error.
No data
No references
Which means that I'm lazy and that you can be assumed to know squat about nuclear regulation and oversight. Fair enough.
No data
No references
Another ruined nuclear thread
Then provide the data yourself. I explained how it works, and most interested people already know this. If you doubt I'm correct, then look it up and tell us what you find.
I have already provided many links in the thread. Relax your tone of "lies", "ignorance", etc ... as we only pay attention to data and reasoned arguments here. Not to ad hominem attacks.
Again, here's quick overview of nuclear subsidies [$580bn] (with references)
Since it only includes a couple of countries, is not inflation adjusted, and has only a couple of categories, the real figure is no doubt much larger.
Just off the top of my head see for example a yearly $300m paid by countries to the IAEA to ensure non-proliferation, security, an occasional $80m for new labs, etc.
Or consider the transfer of construction risk to the taxpayer when there are cost overruns.
Reality is more complex than you make it seem. Nuclear is clearly "necessary" at the moment if we want BAU. But it's not as clear as you think that it's cheap. It's the only CO2-low energy source which has been becoming more and more expensive with time. For example in the UK from the link above:
.
Or when the UK government rescued a Nuclear company and assumed the liabilities:
So yes. Subsidies are sublte, varied and complex. There are also undeniable benefits/returns to the subsidies. For any energy source.
Now go and find data for your arguments or let it rest.
"Factoring in the new 7 billion pound construction cost and a standard 15 percent return on investment, EDF would charge about 166 pounds per megawatt hour of electricity produced from its proposed atomic plants - requiring a government handout of 115 pounds per megawatt hour, he said."
Well... this "analyst", see below in P.S., should explain exactly why the 15% return on investment should be applied... it makes no sense.
Even factoring in 4375 pounds/kW as capital cost, with the 92% capacity factor of the proposed EPR, using the NREL LCOE calculator gives 96 pound/MWh, with a 15% interest rate (unrealitic) and 20 YEAR pay-back time of the loan (if 100% of the capital is borrowed, of course, which doesn't need to be... in fact that's exactly what the Olkiluoto 3 project has done).
Roberto
P.S.: concerning the "analyst"... give a look at this
http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/3594-who-is-peter-...
... this is what he has said about the main alternative to nuclear in the UK
"Citigroup analyst Peter Atherton has now warned that hitting the 100% target would cost around £46bn, because of the need to build more onshore and offshore wind turbines. His inference was obvious, funding might not be there – at least from Citibank. He and our mainstream media don't seem to worry that this £46bn isn't public money either. It's a big scary number so 'fit for use', fit for propaganda."
Incorrect.
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/50225.pdf
Germany made a number of changes when it introduced its FIT program, and this included a fixed annual "tariff degression" framework.
"Germany makes use of both predetermined degression and responsive degression, reserving the latter for solar PV due to the more rapid cost evolution occurring in that technology class. Other technologies such as wind, biogas, and biomass continue to operate under a predetermined degression framework." These are often in the range of 8 - 15% per year for many solar projects, and seem to be getting larger as the technology expands and costs for panels and installation decreases. Some large solar projects in Germany no longer receive FIT financing rates.
I see nuclear energy as fraught with problems. However, every energy source has problems. I would like nations to use as much solar and wind power as possible. I would prefer to see fossil fuel use decline. Therefore, the use of nuclear seems to be necessary even if we power down. In a vacuum, I would say no way to nuclear. Given our presently available options, I reluctantly say yes to nuclear, at the lowest level feasible.
kept to a minimum to guarantee base load.
Is base load 3:30-11:30 PM TV time or the 24X7 power needed to keep an electric furnace hot so that thermal shock doesn't shorten the life of the big 'ol melting pot?
Cuz I'm rather sure I can make/find an argument to why having Steel is important for a society - but being able to find The Simpions on many different channels for 8+ straight hours is a harder pro-society argument to make.
(for that matter - if baseload is important for a society - what was the baseload like in Iraq before and after 'kinetic actions'? How about in Lybia? Remember Lybia - http://www.tripolipost.com/articledetail.asp?c=1&i=3957
When I see 20 year PV contracts for over 80 cents per kwh (over 10 times the regulated rate for power) it's pretty evident that subsidies per kwh of PV power are far in excess of any subsidies for nuclear power. As I write this, over 60% of our power in Ontario is coming from our nuclear reactors while only a little over 1% is coming from our wind generators.
Cherry picking your data ... or confusing FIT (for a quick turnaroud on construction costs, not LCOE) with market rate for energy?
California RAM for solar PV has already achieved grid parity. Contracts for solar PV in the state ($0.089/kWh) have already beat market rate for electricity ($0.15/kWh). If you don't believe me, here is the evidence.
http://cleantechnica.com/2012/04/06/its-here-solar-renewable-grid-parity...
http://votesolar.org/2012/03/ram-results-11-projects-130-mw-total-most-s...
When PV comes close to grid parity, it's important to lower electricity taxes and have transmission fees depend on capacity rather than actual electricity troughput, so the grid parity becomes harder to reach. Otherwise, people will "beggar thy neighbor", ie build PV and thus push costs to everybody else.
How so? This just seems plain dumb to be, and a severe penalty for no reason at all. If the capacity factor for solar PV is dictated, in majority share, by the fact that the sun doesn't shine at night, how does crediting it for it's nameplate capacity rating make any sense? It will never generate electricity at this level, hence having capacity weighted transmission fees out of whack with electricity throughput makes no sense at all (unless you want to punish an energy resource simply for the fact of existing).
" Funny that many pro-nuke folks think that the deployment of renewables should be entirely privately driven; "stand on its own". "
I am definitely pro-nuke, and I just think that PV should stand on its own for what concerns deployment of the devices... but, of course, have backing for R&D from government (via taxation), big time, much more than at today's level.
The thing that I find really wrong with PV, for instance, is that we (Europeans) spend tens of billions every year, and we are committed for 20 years in most countries, for giving out incentives for the generation of electricity via highly inefficient systems... present day PV technology has way too low of an efficiency... no way to cover the demand.
I would be glad to pay a considerable fraction of what I AM OBLIGED to pay for serious R&D, but keeping paying for 20 years this demential, inefficient thing drives me literally crazy.
Roberto
Sadly, nuclear research has been on backburner for more than 30 years. Also, it never really reached economies of scale. Today, nuclear has much, much higher potential for learning and lowered costs than does wind power.
Please, can you give me a date after which you would accept nuclear buildout, if renewables hasn't stepped up to the plate? I've been hearing your kind of talk for more than a decade, but nothing really happens. Country after country gets close to 20% wind, and there it slows to nothing. When will the breakthrough come? For how long will we gamble with our climate before using our ONLY PROVEN method of large scale coal replacement?
If you were objective, you would admit that nuclear has been shown to work for 80% penentration, but that wind/solar hasn't been shown to work above 20% average. (Denmark is slightly above, but only because it is a small player on the wider European grid.)
2035.
I don't think this is an unreasonable time frame. At the current moment, technological development (and resource planning) is being driven by special interests and costs. The current glut in natural gas supplies is putting a hold on long term planning, and is buying time for markets, governments, policy, consumers, engineers, and developers to fall in line. We're in a period of irrational exuberance (and the speculative moment that horizontal drilling, hard to reach areas, and minimal federal regulation can bridge a very large gap). Readers of this site know quite well that we're operating on borrowed time … and that global demand is rising and non-renewable supplies will be unable to keep up.
We've decided (at least for now) to let the marketplace do our thinking for us, and so renewables and policy has a difficult and circuitous path ahead of it. I've always held out hope that we can think ahead of the next crisis, and start our planning early. But this requires leadership, policy coordination, expensive R&D, decision making that is not dictated by the marketplace, and a good deal of reasonable and practical science. Energy is awash in conflicting interests. I think it's going to take us the next 20 years to figure it out (perhaps even longer). Based on previous historical experience, it would be unreasonable to think any different?
Again, I would like readers in this forum to realize that the US isn't the world. Renewables experiments are being carried out all over the world.
I think the 25 more years you're asking for might doom us. But I seem to be much more worried about AGW than you guys. If you're not, then I can fully understand you don't really care and think we can wait and see.
Negawatts can do a LOT in ten years. Nukes cannot.
'
By 2022, the USA should have five new nukes. An old TVA nuke completed, and four AP-1000s. That's all. An all out US effort could only build 8 new nukes by then. Too many bottlenecks (see Finland).
Alan
The US is 50 of the World's most prominent countries, in a way. 50 countries can probably do more than 8 nukes in 10 years in an "all out effort". But I'll be surprised if you even do the five. I don't think you will.
The NRC did a study a few years ago on bottlenecks to build new nukes. Eight is a decade was the maximum that we could do.
I read the report and thought they were optimistic (see Finland). Eight in 12 or 13 years I could buy.
People are the biggest bottleneck. 20+ new nukes in the second decade.
Per the report, new nukes are simply not the answer.
Alan
In an all out effort (like in war-time mobilization) the bottlenecks will be handled, and you would do much more. NRC scenarios are without real urgency. Of course, you won't do an all out effort, as you guys generally put little trust in AGW scenarios.
Finland is irrelevant, but as I said, I agree, you won't do much, if anything.
An all out effort to conserve and to install renewables would do much more, faster, and more economically and MUCH safer.
Then build a few nukes to fill in the base load gaps. Say 17% nukes, 3% FF and 80% renewables.
Alan
No, it wouldn't, since renewables are more expensive and time is money. But we've told each other this 100 times now.
Nuclear power, btw, doesn't mix well with intermittent sources as you seem to believe. For a more extreme example, consider 50% nuclear baseload. Then 20% wind electricity is actually 40% of the more flexible generation, and the consumption swings above base is also very large. Matching demand with wind generation won't be possible in such a scenario, whereas it would be fairly easy if the rest is hydro and biomass instead of nuclear.
Note that in the 1980s globally 218 power reactors started up, an average of one every 17 days.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf17.html
I grant in the US the government could slow the rate down to anything it likes, but there's no engineering reason why plants could not built at a similar pace today.
The 80's boom was the peak of reactor construction, but it was preceded by a build up of human and infrastructure resources based on long-term growth of the industry. These days you'd be very hard pressed to put together more than a handful of site teams with the professional certifications to build a nuclear plant.
Given a decade we could train up n-stamp construction architects, engineers, and construction crews. During plant construction, we could train up new operators, and develop senior management skills at existing sites. We know it's possible, because this bootstrapping has already been done once.
So, those may not be exactly engineering reasons, but they are significant impediments to a step response back to the 80's pace.
Just as a thought experiment, knowing what you know today, imagine yourself heading into collage. Would you choose to go into nuclear power as a career? History demonstrates that a single accident can hobble your future career. Accidents have happend with discouraging regularity. One more accident, even a scary near miss, might leave you with staggering student loans in an industry that may not need your new mad skills.
On the other hand, suppose you took a degree applicable to renewable energy...
The rapid expansion that lead to the 1980s construction boom also lead to MASSIVE cost overruns and multi-year delays. And Zimmer (a fully built nuke that could not get an operating certificate due to poor quality construction).
The economics of US nukes are not very good - if one includes the canceled plants & discount rates in the accounting. TVA canceled 11 nuclear reactors under construction in one day. WHOOPS started 5 nukes, and finished one and many more smaller examples (many operating US nuclear power plants have a second partially completed hulk next to them, Unit #2 that got aborted after a large to very large investment).
Alan
The US cannot manufacture a nuclear power plant. We do not have presses capable of forging the pressure vessel components.
Heavy Manufacturing of Power Plants
You do have the option of building CANDU type reactors that utilize a separate pressure tube for each fuel rod, eliminating the need for a monolithic pressure vessel. For bonus points, it is fueled with natural uranium and can be refueled while operating. I suspect the CANDU design was to allow the reactor components to be built by manufacturers within Canada, something that would likely not have been possible if a monolithic pressure vessel was required.
And wasn't there an issue with a Canadian design where the reactions did not meet engineering specs so in the interest of safety that medical isotope reactor was never put into service?
Come to think of it - what if you are a nation-state who is allowing inspections per the nuke weapons ban and want to build reactors for your own making of medical isotopes and civilian electrical power. Is it at all fair and just to have attacks being talked about VS your infrastructure?
You are referring to the Maple reactors which were supposed to replace the aging NRU reactor which is currently being used to produce medical isotopes. It was found that the reactors had a positive power co-efficient of reactivity. The reactor design was supposed to provide a negative power co-efficient of reactivity. Experts from outside of Canada were brought in to review the design and construction of the reactors but no one was able to come up with a satisfactory explanation as to why the reactors did not operate as designed.
It now appears to be possible to manufacture medical isotopes using a particle accelerator so in the future it may not be necessary to use nuclear reactors for this purpose. Both the NRU reactor and the Maple reactors which were intended to replace it use highly enriched uranium as fuel. From a security perspective, shutting down the NRU reactor would be a good thing as highly enriched uranium can be used to construct a nuclear bomb.
Kirk Sorensen a thorium technologists does a good job of getting us familiar with LFTR.LFTR is a type of Thorium Molten Salt Reactor (Th-MSR)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4&feature=plcp
Speakers from all walks present their opinion,comment on LFTR.I really am not educated enough on the use of Thorium for energy but it does seem to have its merits.
http://www.youtube.com/user/gordonmcdowell/videos?sort=dd&flow=grid&view...
Another approach that shows great promise is the energy amplifier. As with the LFTR, it is a passively safe reactor that can reduce extremely long-lived elements into fission products with half lives measured in decades. While at the same time breeding new fuel from inexpensive widely available actinides. Thus eliminating the new fuel issue while reducing the storage problem to a manageable few hundred years.
I am a proponent of nuclear energy. But done right, not as an extension of a weapons program. I think another few years of increasing fossil fuel costs and sweltering summers will show that nuclear's baseload capability and zero emissions are worth the hassle. I think we should be building modern nuclear power plants using improved fuel cycles, as fast as possible.
7GW of nuclear power is under construction in Russia right now, including one breeder:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Russia
For the one breeder … are you talking about the BN-800 under construction in Zarechny?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beloyarsk_Nuclear_Power_Plant
This plant broke ground in 1987, but was shut down due to protests the following year. Construction was resumed in 1992 by Presidential decree, but "Financial difficulties have resulted in slow progress." Construction costs are estimated at 1 trillion rubles ($31 billion USD for 880 MWe), and the plant may not be completed until 2015 (some 28 years after originally proposed).
It goes without saying, if time and costs are important to mitigating climate change, waiting 28 years for a single reactor to get built is entirely the wrong approach. With little direct subsidies, we managed to add 2.3 reactors worth of wind to the grid in 2011 in the States (7000 MW at 30% capacity factor). In relative construction years, why pursue a strategy that is 6440% less efficient than wind in getting the same amount of energy to the grid (and at a much reduced costs, and with far fewer of the investment, safety, and fuel security risks)?
Those delays are completely unrelated to the project. The construction started in 2006. The goals of the project are much more ambitious than simply providing electricity to the grid.
Construction started in 1987.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beloyarsk_Nuclear_Power_Plant
If you don't think this is the case, please provide documentation to the contrary. When construction stopped on the project (due to public protests or financing shortfalls), it has everything to do with the project. How is this unrelated to the construction of the power plant?
Well, you know, there was a collapse of the economy and other interesting things in that part of the world.
The real work was started on 07/18/2006. I live 30 miles from the plant, you can take my word for it.
That is pathetic, actually. If you don't do nuclear, at least do wind for real.
How is this pathetic? It's more new generation connected to the grid than nuclear …. and that's at low construction levels of 2011. Turbines currently under construction in 2nd quarter of 2012 already exceed 2011 levels (and by 148%). The best I can tell, the US may get 4-6 new NPPs on line by 2020. Averaged over the same 9 year period to 2020 (and assuming wind construction remains at 2011 levels), new wind clearly generates more electricity than new nuclear (and by a long shot). In 2020, new construction from wind will be producing 340% the electricity as new construction from nuclear. Reduce this number to 4 NPP by 2020 (instead of 6), and the difference is 511% from wind.
If this is pathetic, what does this make nuclear … "useless"?
It is pathetic because the US averages 450 GW total electricity, and you added only 2 GW average wind in 2011. With 20 years of life, that's 40 GW asymptotically, or 10%. That's too little, too late.
And yes, obviously new nuclear builds in the US matter even less, since you hardly do any!
The world would benefit from a bit of leadership from the world's only superpower. What do you do in that area? Fracking, that's all.
Installed capacity in US is 1010 GWe, and has a capacity factor of some 24%. So 17 GW of wind in only two years at greater than average capacity factor is a massive amount of energy (by any measure). I'm not sure why you don't realize this (perhaps you aren't familiar with resource planning or energy statistics). 17 GW at 30% capacity is some 44.7 TWh/year, or enough electricity to power a country the size of Israel, Hong Kong, or New Zealand.
You seem to sneeze at these numbers, but this was done very quickly (in 2 years), primarily by the private sector, with little help from taxpayer in direct subsidies, has no fuel price risk, no dependence on foreign fuel supplies, emits very low carbon (on lifecycle basis), contributes to jobs, small businesses, and rural incomes, and in many cases beats the market rate for electricity. With electricity consumption stable or falling in the US since 2008, this is surplus energy (which further lowers the cost of electricity for ratepayers in deregulated markets).
It appears we're doing a great deal more than fracking. If you think otherwise, please feel free to make your case (and some actual numbers would help).
Very strange comment. I presented actual numbers and thereby put that tiny amount of wind in perspective. What more do you want?
Btw, I really, really hate the persistent claims that wind power produce jobs. The only thing wind power produce is an uneven stream of electrons. To do that, it CONSUMES resources, among which is labour. When labour is consumed by wind, less remains for other useful tasks.
The European wind industry boasts that they've "created" 500,000 jobs in the EU. This shamelessly exploits the public's lack of economic education. The industry have used subsidies to CONSUME that amount of labour. The subsidies has DIVERTED 500,000 persons from providing care for elderly, new and better housing, education and so on.
Germany installs 2,086 MWe of wind in 2011, and somehow this is "Energiewende" (or an energy revolution). The US installs three times this amount, and this is deemed "pathetic." In 2012, US additions will exceed all those in the EU for 2011.
Last time I checked, we have underemployment in the US, and if somebody wants to pay someone to build wind turbines, and return a profit for developers (and lower energy costs in many regions), I say the more power to them. Nobody is taking away jobs providing care for the elderly, new and better housing, education, etc., by delivering a product that that marketplace suggests has value. Not sure you really understand how an economy with high unemployment and major income inequality works. Development that returns a profit and puts money into the pockets of workers (who will then spend it to create jobs elsewhere) is a very good thing, even if on frivolous things, even buying a Ford (on a $5 wage and shorter workday), even repairing broken windows.
Installed capacity in US is 1010 GWe, and has a capacity factor of some 24%.
US overall electric production capacity factor is about 45%
Humm. You're right. I did the calculation based on numbers below (I thought), but must have screwed up the math somehow. According to EIA:
http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=US&trk=m
The US has 1,010 GWe installed capacity, and generates 4,119.39 TWh/year. That's a capacity factor of 46.6%.
"The world would benefit from a bit of leadership from the world's only superpower. "
Perhaps we're just taking what you said upthread to heart:
"You Americans seem to have a real problem in realizing that you are not the world."
Perhaps a bit of 'having your cake and eating it too', or just heckling from the cheap seats?
Both, I think.
But seriously, if you had kept rolling with nuclear, you would have provided the world with better, cheaper nuclear technology that they could've applied too. Your solutions could've become global solutions.
Instead you killed the nuclear construction industry (and actively tried to stop various advancements due to proliferation concerns). And much the same people that pushed for that are now saying "we're wasteful, we should conserve our way out of this". But you can't, because that's not a global solution.
Don't discount your free market at work: coal was cheaper and more profitable for many reasons. Now that the liabilities/costs attached to coal extraction and use are coming more to the forefront, changes are occurring; again, the "free market" is selecting; natural gas, for the most part.
One wonders how much popular (and market) support for fission we would see in Sweden or Germany if either had had their 3 Mile Island event, and had been endowed with so much coal and gas. Just sayin'...
...and, personally, I've made it my goal to move past all of these complex, extractive, increasingly expensive energy sources; my little free market choice. Funny that, the same Americans who criticize PV are the same folks beating the "energy independence" drum so loudly. I've been largely energy independent for years; they never will be.
I get your point. If my own Sweden had a TMI event, nuclear would go out the door quickly, I think. It shouldn't, but it would.
I hate the idea of energy independence (and of independent anything). Trade is probably the strongest force for peace and prosperity there is.
"I hate the idea of energy independence (and of independent anything). Trade is probably the strongest force for peace and prosperity there is."
I'm all for cooperation, trade, peace and prosperity, as long as I have seat at the table. In the case of US mega-corporate control of energy, the only self-respecting choice I could make was to vote with my feet. I've also shared this option with many others who have joined me in this "force for peace and prosperity". So far, this process has been quite free of corruption, something I just can't say about most of the solutions you favor. Corruption has many faces. Contributing to it was taking a toll; takes a toll on all of us.
I dunno, you support "corporate power" when you buy batteries and solar panels as well, and you likely give them more money than when you get the same amount of power from the grid.
Think of it as the price of exiting the system, a bit like bribing the prison guards ;-/
I am not sure if an operator breaking its reactor withouth harming anybody outside of it would end nuclear power in Sweden. Peoples views are changing and the general public has some insights in the slowly moving energy crisis.
Myself I like to live in a rich and well run society with a government that has enough civil defence to be able to help its citizens to survive major natural catastrophies, breakdowns in global trade and war. This will cost some tax but it gives a lot of comfort as the climate is changing and manny countries fuck up their adaptations to the resource crisises. There is also a moral dimension, I prefer that there are Swedish food stockpiles over us using the market mechanism of buying other peopels starvation if the climate change makes years like 2012 common, I know ways to do this without harming the regular market.
I prefer us being a net exporter of electricity, forest biomass, food calories and metal goods over self sufficiency. We also need to continue having a diverse number of extremely attractive export goods that continue to be bough in realy bad times like truck spare parts, tampoons, high tension transformers, munitions, mobile communication software, medicines and so on for us to be able to buy stuff we absolutely must have such as oil.
Such a civil defence and robust trade is a very good combination with having lots of nuclear power.
Regardless of whether it is reasonable or not, media will hang a number of people for ignoring warnings, cutting corners, making insensitive or trivialising remarks, acting badly during crisis handling and so on. Also, media, whether reasonable or not, will claim that we got within an inch of a full-blown core explosion with containment breach. Any small amount of venting of radioactive gasses will lead to an infinity of conspiracy theories and the occasional report of significant cancer increases among a sample of 5 people downwind from the reactor. And some mutated butterflies, of course.
Hi,
concerning jeppen and others..
it might be interesting to go back to the 2009 discussions about the future of nuclear energy facts and fiction
(here http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5677 and more)
this is what jeppen wrote..
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5677#comment-531596
reality is something totally different.. even without Fukushima..
regards Michael
jeppen on August 20, 2009 - 10:56pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top
Well, no. My thinking was more like additions of 2 GW in 2009, 4 in 2010, 6 in 2011, 8 in 2012, 10 in 2013 and so on. That 2,4,6,8,10... is more conservative than WNA's compilation of planned starts which amounts to 4,5,6,12,13... My smoothed out additions would give rise to this:
Year GWe TWhe
2008 373 2601
2009 375 2615
2010 379 2643
2011 385 2685
2012 393 2740
2013 403 2810
2014 415 2894
2015 429 2991
2016 445 3103
This might turn out to be quite conservative - I consider real results more likely to be higher than lower.
Ah, nice. Actual reactor starts:
2009: Tomari-3 900 MW
2010: Lingao-3 1000 MW, Quinshan-6 600 MW, Rajastan 5-6 2*200 MW, Rostov-2 1000 MW.
2011: Chasma-2 300 MW, Kaiga-4 200 MW, Lingao-4 1000 MW, Quinshan-7 600 MW, Shin-kori-1 1000 MW
2012 (to date): Bushehr-1 900 MW, Kudankulam-2 900 MW, Shin-Wolshong-1 1000 MW, Shin-kori-1 1000 MW
Total additions: 1,3,3,4 GW for 2009-2011.
My prediction was: 2,4,6,8 GW.
We were lagging about a gigawatt before Fukushima and 3 GW after Fukushima. For you, this reality might be "something totally different.. even without Fukushima". To me, it's a delay of a few months (before Fukushima). Now perhaps the schedule is delayed by a year. (And total production, of course, is completely wrong due to Fukushima-motivated old-reactor-shedding.)
``Total additions: 1,3,3,4 GW for 2009-2011."
``My prediction was: 2,4,6,8 GW."
your numbers are just about a factor of two wrong..
now take into account how many were turned off..
and lets count how many GWe we have today and in 2009 ..
(Japan is still counted besides the ones which exploded..)
http://www.iaea.org/pris/
today 370 GWe count the new connections to the grid..
and the new construction counts.. (you can find your own writing i guess or do i need to expose it?)
``We were lagging about a gigawatt before Fukushima and 3 GW after Fukushima. "
sorry, you wrote back in 2009 for 2011/2012
2010 379 (GWe) 2643
2011 385 (GWe) 2685
2012 393 " 2740
with now 370 GWe .. you are just 23 behind.. (even without Fuskushima you would be about 13 GWe behind)
need more?
any further numbers for the next couple of years?
so far only 2 got connected this year.. and two new construction starts (this number was your claim to go up up up..
if not well your hypothesis fails.. smile)
last year we had 7 new connections ..
want to check for TWhe produced as well?
you are hopelessly behind.. and forever it seems..
You seem to have no luck with maths.
I didn't forsee Fukushima and the resulting decommissioning of some old plants. It's as simple as that.
No, I see no real reason to change my estimates of new additions. We'll see if they catch up or not.
I listed four that started commercial operation. Let's use the same metric (if you want to use grid connections, that's fine, just a bit impractical since I started with commercial operation figures.)
ok,
lets just compare actual GWe installed and predicted by you ..
your 2009 predictions are far off reality (with and without Fuskushima)
anyway.. a good estimates has some error margins including small events like in Japan..
you need a new hypothesis sorry..
mine is in line with hard data..
What you have is the ability to be unreasonable. I though it was obvious that projections never plays out exactly. And as I said, the main thing is the new builds, and I see no reason to abandon those projections just yet. Let's see how they play out. You can return and try to claim victory again in late 2014.
``And as I said, the main thing is the new builds, and I see no reason to abandon those projections just yet. Let's see how they play out. You can return and try to claim victory again in late 2014."
So ``two new constructions" initiated this year compared to 4 last year 16 in 2010 and 12 in 2009..
and 7 new connections in 2011 but only 2 so far .. this year Brian W might also loose his patience..
http://www.iaea.org/pris/
so yes, for many years to come, the pro nuclear cargo cult believers are in trouble...
would be great to learn these facts from their own postings ..
michael
ps..
it is not about victory, we are not at war..
it is about reality checks
``And as I said, the main thing is the new builds, and I see no reason to abandon those projections just yet. Let's see how they play out. You can return and try to claim victory again in late 2014."
So ``two new constructions" initiated this year compared to 4 last year 16 in 2010 and 12 in 2009..
and 7 new connections in 2011 but only 2 so far .. this year Brian W might also loose his patience..
http://www.iaea.org/pris/
so yes, for many years to come, the pro nuclear cargo cult believers are in trouble...
would be great to learn these facts from their own postings ..
michael
ps..
it is not about victory, we are not at war..
it is about reality checks
Yeah, you're right, construction starts have slowed, probably due to Fukushima. That should impact operation starts in 4-5 years. We'll have to see whether they pick up again after designs have been corrected to implement lessions learned.
I'm not sure why you are so critical and scream about cargo cults and reality checks. I don't see anything strange with this development.
Hi
``We'll have to see whether they pick up again after designs have been corrected to implement lessions learned."
may be you could explain what you mean by that statement?
So far I understand that you say everything is "fine",
so what should be corrected?
Oh, whether the pace of nuclear construction starts picks up again.
I don't think everything is fine. Fukushima gave the nuclear industry a blow, and the US NG glut is also something of a game changer. I think we're in a pretty uncertain state right now and we'll just have to see how things play out. Anyhow, nuclear will have a very tough time for the remainder of this decade, I think. The renewables-fanatics will have another five good years but after that, limits to integration of intermittent power should really become obvious.
i see,
so we can almost agree on certain things..
the current systems can not be sustained and the way down is unavoidable (blame it on limits or on stupidity, it does not really matter)
so please in a world with unstable electric grid and blackouts..
do you prefer to have windmills facing blackouts or nuclear power plants requiring cooling?
We don't agree on this. If the grids become too unstable due to too much intermittent power, then governments will remove some of that power to restore stability. That we have enough power will be guaranteed by coal and NG.
you might know that during cold winter days .. and around 19:00
the grid in France survives only thanks to huge imports of 8 GWe from Germany and other neighbors..
also, the system in France forced people into ``cheap" electric heaters which are now a pain for the french and european grid system.
and yes, 80% nuclear base load in France works only because of massive hydropump storage system in Switzerland
allowing to make good money in Switzerland .. all this imbedded in a europe wide grid with 25% nuclear power base load now.
It would never function with 80% everywhere..
French are trying to reduce nuclear fraction these years to get a more reliable overall and profit making system.
But it seems too late.. lets see how the next winter goes..
It seems to work much better for France to have 80% nuclear, than it works for Denmark to have 20% wind. France had gross electricity imports of around 7% in 2010, while Denmark had a whopping 27%.
you replied only to one minor point.
Could you reflect about the nightly overproduction (export) daily underproduction (import) in France?
There is more than the annual net production .. (I agree however that a stable grid with high per capita consumption
is not possible with renewables and also not without fossil fuels.. )
Anyway, it seems you agree with me that the french system is unsustainable and needs drastic changes
or the light go off..
The same kind of problem with cold winter days exist in Sweden due to heating oil being replaced with resistive heating and then heat pumps.
We can handle cold snaps on our own if every power plant is on line and this has been troublesome during the last years since the nuclear powerplant avaialability has been poor due to upratings and life lenght extensions plus an embarrasing accident with a vacuum cleaner at Ringhals 2.
We dont have enough hydro powerplants and north-south high tension lines to help Germany during cold weather over large areas.
More nuclear capacity in southern Sweden, more high tension lines and more hydro turbines in northern sweden where we have most of the hydro powerplants would help us ballance more Danish and German wind power and PV.
Sweden is one of the few European countries with 100% biomass option, so even if I would not follow this path to 100% a few more biomass powerplants with cogeneration of heat and power would help in winter :-)
During the apartheid years there was an attempt to prevent South Africa getting fuel for its French-designed Koeberg nuclear power station. We got the fuel, but Gitanes cigarettes appeared on the shelves and Mirage fighters appeared in the skies, i.e. we had to pay for the privilege.
I wonder how much these sort of considerations figure in the minds of national energy planners.
Radiation history from Yahoo Group Alas Babylon message 42928 ++
> --- In AlasBabylon@yahoogroups.com, "hamlet_jones" wrote:
>
> > So, Bob, you must have some idea of your accumulated life-timed dose to
ionizing radiation..
As a child I had shoe fitting with a fluroscope on more than one occasion. Had
multiple x-ray therapy treatments to my face for acne around age 15. I recall
only one diagnostic x-ray during high school - broken finger. Later had yearly
chest x-rays, occasional barium studies and a few orthopedic injuries. No
exposure records. The film was slower in those days, thus required more
radiation. The fluroscopy units were relatively primitive. No dosage records
Trained as a limited xray-tech while in high school circa 1948
Grew up with relatively high cosmic radiation, elevation 3600 feet, but have
since lived mostly at or near sea level . Have never checked radon levels.
Considered being a math/physics major but stuck with pre-med. During my
sophomore and junior years at Baylor Med I lived at the VA Hospital working some
nights, weekends and summers first as a lab tech then as an x-ray tech. Then
spent a year at the old Memorial Hospital in downtown Houston as a summer and
then on call x-ray technician. At that time certification was not required. Did
quite a few portable x-rays with limited protection. I recall few radiation
records but there was one incident at VA. A medical physicist claimed that the
old fashioned fluroscope was putting out a horrible 30 R per minute at the
table top. Probably improper filtration. During the 80's a sharp local
dermatologist suspected that a breast erythema was from radiation. Rumor was
that a filter was not in place. I also recall one or two radioactive
girlfriends. They had potassium 40 in their blood.
Interned at Jefferson Davis, the charity hospital in Houston TX 1955-6. The book
I'm Done Crying by Louanne Ferris was about this hospital. Had an elective with
the well known radiologist Vincent P Collins MD who among other things garnered
fame for the study of tumor doubling times. Was involved with an experiment in
the Department of Nuclear Medicine which was later mentioned in The Presidents
Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments. I was one of the so-called
humans.
Moved to Montreal in 1956 for a radiology residency at Royal Victoria
Hospital/Montreal Neurolocical Institute/McGill. Was glad to leave hot humid
Houston. There was very little air-conditioning during the early 50's.
--From the mid 50's on there was constant controversy about the dangers of
ionizing radiation with vocal opinions on both sides. Donald McRae, the Chief of
Radiology at MNI was doing genetic radiation experiments on mice. Claimed to
find nothing, at least at that time. The Canadian magazine Macleans had a long
popular article on the controversies. This was the early days of the LNT and
other models of radiation injury. Through family connections I met the McGill
biologist N.J. Berrill in 1956. He got me interested in what is now called peak
everything. McGill sponsored an excellent series on medical physics. Budding
radiologists had to pass a physics exam for the boards but most radiologists
were relatively uninterested in physics. There was more interesting stuff to
learn. I don't recall any extraordinary personal dosimetry readings. Later I
encountered controversy about whether one should wear film badges inside or
outside of ones lead apron.
47935I do not have the reference but sometime around the late 50's or early 60's
someone published an article claiming that contemporary radiologists had
shortened life spans. If memory serves a rebuttal article came later noting
that the data was from obituaries in the JAMA. The second article pointed out
that radiology was a relatively new and growing specialty populated with
disproportionate numbers of young individuals. Those who did die from any cause
would more likely be young. There were other claims that radiologists actually
lived longer than certain other groups. There would of course be confounding
variables. There were no end of jokes such as since radiation is cumulative
(whatever that means) radiologists need long vacations to recover.
Below is a link to a book published about the time of my training. It is in the
public domain.
http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001560622
Having been deferred during the Korean conflict I owed the Navy two years. The
radiology was not too interesting but i was assigned to do pediatrics and family
practice some nights and weekends. The military wasn't too particular. I did
catch a few bugs from the sick kids. Instead of regular chest x-rays the Navy
took many chest photoflurograms, primarily screening for TB. These were cheap
but gave unusually high radiation. Sometimes I might crank through 500 minifilms
in an hour more or less. Flouroscopy was still done the old fashioned way.
Considering such and all of the nuclear fallout it is of interest that we
recently learned that average life expectancy has reached a new high in the US.
[Congratulations Robert, you have really good genes! -Hamlet]
Debatable - My father died of prostate cancer and my mother from malignant
melanoma while also suffering from a slow growing gastric lymphosarcoma
To finish. I retired around 1999. My highest radiation was probably during the
60's when I was handling radium needles, using a technique that was becoming
obsolete. (Some of the 800 KEV gamma would pass through a lead brick)
--Ignoring regulations and bureaucratic suggestions, I was an occasional guinea
pig to test new techniques, films and equipment. I also held patients on
occasion during exposures. Could not ask others to do such. Would occasionally
palpate with my hand in the direct fluroscopic beam. Not recommended.
--I saw technologists quit the field due to radiation hysteria even though they
were able to do virtually all of their work behind lead shielding. There was
also some cataract hysteria though as far as I could ever determine there were
no known cases of premature cataracts in technologists doing routine
radiography. There was a famous case involving Dr Mason Sones, a pioneer at the
Cleveland Clinic, but the circumstances were unusual.
--For many years I was lax about keeping my own exposure records. Thus I can do
no more than guess at an accumulated life-time dose.
RW
I have wondered what the effect of a solar flare 2x, 3x or 4x that of Carrington would be on nukes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859
The grid would be down for "an extended period" (Months to Years to ...). Societal support for ailing nukes would likely not be there.
Nukes are not designed to withstand EMF (or EMP) (I asked decades ago), so the control circuitry could go out. Administrative support would be out.
This is a real risk (it happened in 1859, the same or worse could happen in the future), but it is a risk that is simply ignored.
On solar PV, they could be unplugged with a little warning, otherwise I would expect the inverters to risk damage. Fuses/breakers would likely save the wind turbines.
The effect would vary a bit around the world (facing the sun when the blast hit, or not).
IMO, a real but overlooked risk factor.
Alan
That's always been one of my main concerns about reactors; you can't just hit the 'OFF' button and walk away. There is no off, for decades, even centuries. Natural gas and coal? Simply stop fueling them and walk away. Hydro? Shut down the turbines, open the flood gates and walk away. PV or wind? Trip the breakers, walk away.
That is one of the good aspects of the Thorium Molten Salt Reactor (Th-MSR), you can just walk away. You still have all that nuclear material setting here but at least the design is such that it takes an active process to keep it going. It could turn out that this path not taken was a horrendous policy failure on the part of the US and is know being suppressed because we can not admit that we went with a sub-optional design just because it produces a byproduct that can be made into bomb grade material.
It is "interesting" that we seem to be giving this technology to China. Maybe the reasoning has something to do with placating them about concerns about all of our t-bills etc that they own and it does encourage them to develop a nuclear power industry that has no potential military application.
Still it is to early to tell how this will play out but I believe that there is at least a chance that the thorium molten salt reactor is for real. If so and if the Chinese do develop it could make for some major changes both good and bad.
Roughly 30% to 33% of the heat from a nuclear reactor comes from the decay heat of radionuclides with half lives of an hour or longer. "Scraming" a reactor does not stop the decay.
If circulation stops, and no heat is extracted for generation, how is this heat extracted ?
Just wondering.
Alan
There is no longer to implement "solution" than an entirely new type of nuclear reactor. But if we spend the next 25 years building renewables & negawatts ASAP, then new nuke types could fill in the gaps left.
Hi Alan
Trying to find an answer but finding so much contradictory info that my head is spinning. There was a reason I dropped out of Nuclear Engineering... I had a NE professor, an old guy with a heavy German accent, he was part of the Manhattan Project, love to go back into time and ask him about this. That was late 70's so little chance he is still alive.
Likely I should stay with mindset issues, that's something I can at least maintain clarity of thought when I'm thinking about it and something I definitely have a passion for.
I agree that the major energy effort needs to be renewables and negawatts and appreciate your effort to help make this happen.
best
Fairly new plants use gravity circulation cooling with days to weeks of coolant. Within this timeframe, you need to get there with a fire truck or something to top up the coolant. No need for electricity and pumps.
LFTR reactors with their continuous separation of fission products and low inventory of fuel, can IIRC drain fuel (using a simple melt plug in the bottom of the vessel) into a configuration that is dispersed enough so that when coolant has evaporated, air cooling is sufficient.
It was difficult (it did not happen) to "get a fire truck" to "top up the coolant" at Fukushima. TEPCO was able to eventually pump in seawater, but that was not done quickly. So that is clearly an inadequate back-up plan.
Alan
It wasn't in that case, obviously. Newer reactors have better systems and more coolant - the AP-1000 is designed for gravity circulation during 72 hours until top-up is needed. At Fukushima, there was a bit of an access problem due to debris after the tsunami, so one of the many lessons learned is that governments should be better prepared to ship in the necessary equipment (pumps, diesel power, fire trucks) by helicopter.
Decay heat for Uranium 235 reactors is 6-7% of reactor power, falling to 1% five hours after shutdown.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Decay_heat_illustration2.PNG
I stand corrected.
Alan
Surprisingly little info ...
Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack
Stray magnetic flux impigning on the transformer core? Thats very over simplified, the damage mechanism is induced DC current on the power lines leading to a DC current thru the transformer windings and this saturates the magnetic flux capacity of the iron core wich lowers the transformers efficiency and more of the AC power transmitted thru the transformer is turned into heat inside the iron core heating it and leading to permanent damage when the insluation between the thin iron plates is broken down buy the heat and the iron fuses. Such damage leades to permanent lower efficiency in the transformer and if a lot of heat is deposited it heats, breaks down and preassurises the transformner oil and you can get a fire. This also means that it is easier for solare flares to damage transformers that runs at full capacity, load margins and redundancy helps for manny problems.
Svenska kraftnät who run the Swedish high tension grid actually have planning to handle giant solar flares. The transmission line protection circuits are set to open before transformers are damaged by DC currents and the grid is fairly resilent since most long transmission lines have series capacitors to get higher capacity.
The plan is thus that the grid protects itself by shutting down and then they have to restart it, there are iceland running capability if it should fracture but the main plan is to begin with one of the largest hydro powerplants and then add production and consumption untill it all is up or restart from Norway or Finland if they are up.
All nuclear powerplants are required to be able to handle a load reject and transition to house turbine running only powering themselves but it is a sensitive procedure that dont allways work and you get a scram with complete shut down. After that it is a job for the internal diesels if the medium voltage grid is not available. If one reactor at a plant is running it can of course power the others for months via an on site transformer. The house turbine running requirement is not a nuclear safety requirement but a grid reliability requirement, we want to get back quickly after a fault and after a scram you need to wait out the xenon decay and then run a longer restart procedure.
The EMP hardening I know about is lightning strike hardening.
This is my main problem with nuclear.
Design a nuclear reactor that could be hit with an EMP, and the simultaneous abandonment by all staff without it blowing up and taking out half a country and I will be in favour of it. If it can't survive an EMP, then clearly it is far too fragile, and could be targeted multiple ways in a war or by terrorists.
If it can't be done, they should not be built.
We should not build ANYTHING with the power to take out whole countries that are this fragile.
Energy official wants contractor relieved in nuclear cleanup
Drought raises concern about Kansas nuclear plant
It might be worth noting three things:
1) Thorium is not fissile. LFTR reactors require start-up inventories of enriched U233, U235, or Pu239. Enthusiasts will tell you these start-up inventories are small and not a problem, but LFTR is not technically speaking a "Thorium" reactor (and may pose a proliferation concern in refining these start-up fuels).
2) There are no operating LFTR pilot scale reactors anywhere in the world. The ORNL experiment (on which these design proposals are based) was a 7.4 MW test reactor operating from 1965 - 1969, and ran on uranium. Again, the enthusiast community is leading the charge here (not private developers or government backed research labs), and there are a lot of challenges to work out (over the next 20 - 50 years) to operate a reactor to scale and on a commercial basis. Reactor lifetime is a significant hurdle, as well as thermal spectrum and breeding ratio, and once-through or breeding design (that doesn't make repeated use of expensive start-up inventories or raise proliferation concerns in an entirely new fuel cycle).
3) Jiang Mianheng, the lead Chinese official on the Chinese Academy of Sciences development proposal (in the source you cited), has been stripped of his post. Charged with embezzlement, bribery, mis-allocation of public funds, a stock bidding scandal, and perhaps a great deal more … he has far bigger fish to fry at the moment. Involved in everything from state-backed telecommunications, semiconductors, and construction projects, LFTR was just another investment and fund raising opportunity for the young prince (son of former Communist Party leader Jiang Zemin). It is unlikely this DOE - CAS partnership (under the auspices of Jiang Mianheng) is going anywhere.
Good info, makes more sense than anything else I've heard. There does seem to pattern of cloak and dagger, smoke and mirror, and this would explain it.
I would assume that the enthusiast organizers could care less if there is anything of value here or not as long as they can skim off any research funds they can get their hands on.
Murdoch's Journal pushes tragic Fukushima flim-flam
I see three players in this debate, not two. Corporations involved in operating nuclear plants would more accurately be described as pro-profit, not pro-nuclear. Practices such as extending the licenses of first generation nuclear plants instead of replacing them with more modern designs, and storing used fuel indefinitely in pool storage are done for one reason only -- to save money and enhance corporate profits. To be pro-nuclear has to mean you want things done right and that means replacing old reactors with newer, safer designs and working on more permanent solutions to the waste problem.