Slashdot Mirror
California Has Become the First State To Get Over 5% of Its Power From Solar
Lucas123 writes: While the rest of the nation's solar power generation hovers around 1%, California clocked in with a record 5% of power coming from utility-grade (1MW or more) solar power sources, according to a report from Mercom Capital Group and the Energy Information Administration. That's three times the next closest state, Arizona. At the same time, 22 states have yet to deploy even one utility-grade solar power plant, according to the Solar Energy Industry Association. Meanwhile, the rest of the world saw a 14% uptick in solar power installations in 2014 for a total of 54.5GW of capacity, and that figure is expected to grow even faster in 2015. While China still leads the world in new solar capacity, Japan and the U.S. come in as a close second and third, respectively. In the U.S. distributed solar and utility-grade solar installations are soaring as the solar investment tax credit (ITC) is set to expire next year. The U.S. is expected to deploy 8.5GW of new solar capacity in 2015, according to Mercom Capital Group.
5%, in one of the sunniest states there is.
Seriously, guys, that's just pathetic. And that's considered newsworthy?
In the US it is newsworthy. "Mined energy source" lobbies are very powerful here.
Recall that Germany, at the same latitude as Maine, USA, had one day where 52% of the electricity was supplied by renewable energy sources.
So, yes, this is embarrassing news that this is news in the US, but at least it's a step in the right direction
Sunniest or not, the ROI is not very different in most of the states. It is the pathetic ROI that contributes to the pathetic adoption rates. 5% of the total energy use is still commendable though, especially in state that consumes as much energy as California.
Germany gets 6-7% of its total energy consumption from Solar. It is still pathetic of course.
NZ's renewables are not a recent thing nor a result of political decision based on climate change. They have had about 75%+ in hydro since... well almost there entire history. Since at least back to 1930.
so 1% by all the Californians, 1% Google, 1% Apple, 1% Tesla and 1% who ?
The bulk of those 52% is hydro, solar is still pathetic.
If that half are all as dumb as you they won't be missed. This is meant to be a site for people with at least 1 working braincell.
Yeah, thats one of the ironys of the idiocy of current German policy and the whole braindead anti nuclear movement based on knee jerk paranoia and 50 years out of date science.
To be fair: the radiation released by a nuclear power plant in normal operation mode isn't a problem.
It's the failure modes that are problematic.
bickerdyke
There are complex issues to wide scail deployment.
First is what I think is a short term political problem. Where the energy industry is fighting the change, and lining the pockets of political parties that are willing to make sure things don't change. Technically solar power is more akin to conservative ideals, as it allows the individual to generate their own power without having to handle what big brother says.
Secondly solar requires consumers to buy in. In terms of price even with tax incentives for my home and usage it is about the same price. So there is a hidden cost for me to find a source and deal with the salesmen trying to find a good deal. So it makes it more expensive then current energy. Other forms of energy you don't need a huge buy in. They buy some land, build a plant and the community has power. Just as long there are more people benifitting from it then who are harmed society is happy.
Third trees. Contrarary to the world view of Americans, we like trees a country that is 50th in population density means a lot of us lives in more rural areas, and our homes have a fair amount of tree cover that we do not want to get rid of.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The sad part is that states like Florida are making it harder to install solar. On top of that, Florida is fighting energy efficiency. Other states are adding fees to solar users at the behest of the utility companies.
I live in California and am getting solar installed later this week though not nearly as big of a system as I'd like due to limitations of my roof. PG&E has some of the most expensive electricity in the country because of our state's corrupt public utilities commission. Average rates are around $0.194/kwh (compared to Santa Clara $0.113/kwh). PG&E has been quietly lowering the thresholds to push people into higher tiers of power as they make their homes more energy efficient. On average I'm paying well over $0.19/kwh so solar makes perfect sense.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
First of all, Germany is not replacing nuclear power with coal but with wind and solar.
Everyone knows that, I really wonder why you don't.
Secondly, german coal plants filter exhaust. They basically exhaust cleaner air than they 'breath in', besides CO2.
Thirdly, the 'idea' that coal emits noticeable radioactivity is a myth from the 1960s/1970s. Which is debunked since decades, everyone participating in discussions like this: should know that.
But thanx for harassing Germany :) ... hint: Hitler died 1945 ... Germany is meanwhile a peaceful first world country leading Europe together with its neighbours to prosperity. In case you missed the last 50 years of world development as well.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Thirdly, the 'idea' that coal emits noticeable radioactivity is a myth from the 1960s/1970s. Which is debunked since decades, everyone participating in discussions like this: should know that.
In Germany, maybe not. In the USA and China, they certainly do.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
First there is no knee yerk reaction. Germany voted anti nuclear 25 years ago. But the later Merkle government reverted that voting. After Fukushima, they reconsidered and reverted back again to the original old plans.
Secondly there is no anti science or new scientific discovery. Germany is drowning in nuclear waste, we have no idea where to put it safely. All existing deposits turned out to be a desaster and need to be closed and cleaned up. Possible future deposits for waste don't exist. And it is unlikely, we find a good place in our own country. Right now our politics, COSTLY as that, is to keep our own waste in our own country instead of exporting it into a third world country
However if your sim city knowledge is so superior, you are invited to come to germany, run for office etc. Unlike the USA you only need to have German citizenship to run for President or Chancellor, you don't need to be born here.
However I suggest to read a bit more about energy production. You will hardly convince one to build or agree to a new nuclear plant when a wind plant is much much cheaper. :D but I guess you know that renewables are cheaper than nuclear ... just wondering why you promote them.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Here in Portugal, my electric bill states we do at least 30% from wind sources, and overall +70% is renewable. We rarely get outages, and we have a very decent supply of fossil-fuel from North Africa. We have a lot less surface area than California (~100.000 vs 400.000 km) , and probably less sunlight time overall, considering cloudy days are like 30% of the year span. Let me know when a state gets even close to that!
Boo hoo.
http://www.ukpower.co.uk/home_...
0.10p / KWh. (excluding VAT at 5%) = 0.148c / KWh (at current exchange rates). Call it 0.16c in reality, rounding up etc.
And that's just the lowest priced ones (because that's a price comparison site), on average, not including VAT, not including service charges, and tied into long contracts to get that etc.
And we have little solar alternative (the UK isn't great at producing sun, though we do have some).
And of course providers are charging fees for solar users - if you want to push back to the grid, it's horrible to do so for solar as it's so variable and in the wrong "format" for grid energy.
To quote your link - "We're supposed to encourage conservation but it must be cost-effective."
Consider yourself lucky that you have a viable alternative at all.
The point, which you seem to have missed entirely, is this:
It's a start.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Considering the pace at which this energy was added to the grid, it is news worthy. Considering coal (and large hydro and nuclear) are all about ~9% each in California, it will only be a handful of years until solar surpasses power production from each coal, nuclear, and large hydro.
Perhaps then solar detractors will rubber neck at the remarkable progress in the industry. It will be hilarious over the coming decade as the raw economics drive us to abandon domestic resources (coal, gas) in favor of Chinese (or Malaysian) manufactured solar panels. Exporting billions of dollars to China after handing them this giant industry (inevitably one of the world's largest) on a silver platter.
I wonder how the myopic thinkers will react to this scenario. Of course, we'll have to wait a decade for them to realize what has already happened.
It's the failure modes that are problematic.
They're also astonishingly rare. Of all the major accidents, we have:
Chernobyl: a crazy design with a strongly positive void coefficient. No one else has ever made such designs, even before Chernobyl because it was always known to be dangerous.
Fukishima: Germany is just not prone to natural disasters on that scale. It's geologically stable and free from hurricanes and tornadoes.
Three Mile Island: an excellent design from a fail safe point of view because despite a full core meltdown, it released almost no radioactivity.
Windscale: wasn't a powerplant for a start. Also a design which was known to be batshit at the time but was done in a screaming hurry for national security reasons. Even so, it's been cleaned up and the effects are basically gone.
If you look at Europe's record on nuclear stuff it is excellent. If you winnow that down and include only operational powerplants and reprocessing facilities (so ignore things like the plutonium cooker at windscale and experimental plants) the record is almost spotless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
SJW n. One who posts facts.
In 2014, the UK was the largest market for solar energy in the EU.
Considering just how far north it is, that's still impressive, if not to you.
This is true. What is needed is more investment in solar capacity in the south, and investment in the power grid in the north (and nationally). There is no reason the North should not be buying a majority of it's power cheaper from the south, where it is plentiful.
It's [solar energy] going to be enough for those who will remain after the Generational Purge. The One Percenters will find those figures quite satisfactory, since the plans for California is to turn it into a state-size vacation area anyway.
Suicide carried off many. Drink and the devil took care of the rest.
~Robert Louis Stevenson
Sorry Bob, the devil is looking elsewhere to fill quota, and even good drink will be scarce during the Generational Purge due to a loss of the 'Just In Time' food supply chain. Modern cannibals will find scarcely a week's worth of cans on the grocery shelf and perhaps another few weeks in distribution centers, but this will serve only to swell the ranks of the migrant Cannibal Armies that will actually conduct the Purge.
The Cannibal Army is the ultimate (and last) achievement of any failed modern civilization. The only reason the history books are not chock full of 'em is that historians are delicious, and there has never been enough population to achieve the necessary critical mass, collapsed societies to this point have always left numbers few enough to live off the land, and retained enough know-how to do so. That is not true today.
Ask anyone on the street if they know how to solder a joint, sow seed, plant a cow or where delivery pizza comes from and they haven't a clue. But ask them if they could figure out how to eat someone and they will quickly nod assent. It is not only instinctive it is infused into the culture. The recurring theme of pursuit and car chases in popular movies expresses the primal knowledge necessary for cannibalism.
The cannibals will be ruthless, they will employ cleverness and the use of technology to scour the land. Your stationary survival enclaves will be the favorite feast of the first wave, where all the cherished ideals of small sustainable energy, and those who practice it, go into the cooking pot. Domestic cattle and other animals will be mere appetizers in this Moveable Feast, because cannibal armies have no patience to raise them. Disease from improper preparation will claim some, but the critical mass will persist until there is only one Cannibal Army left in California.
That last cannibal army, great in number, will then march on the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant to absorb and consume the small group of engineers and scientists who have gathered there to preserve the remaining fruits of civilization, and for hot showers. Cannibals are easily swayed by reason, you might say they are even attracted to it, because wherever reason exists there are yummy people to consume. And consume they will until the last corn-fed game is exhausted. And then they will turn on each other and feast until human population levels out and reaches a sustainable level of -1.
The fate of California's energy policy is foretold in Lucifer's Hammer. Devour this book.
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
Why don't you build integral fast reactors? They are capable of consuming the existing way and create power in the process. They also can't melt down even theoretically since a runaway reaction is not possible with them. At least you would generate power cleanly from your EXISTING waste. It is far better to use the waste than bury it and you do less damage in the process.
So far I have not been very impressed with decisions being based on actual science and careful thought in Germany. It has certainly not been my experience with anything regarding GMO where almost every German I have run into is against it period and no discussion is possible. They do want the life saving medical treatments though that are possible with GMO they just don't want them developed here.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
The pace of PV installations in the U.S. is accelerating as the federal government's solar investment tax credit (ITC) is set to expire next year.
We've been through this before. All of the graphs on this page assume last year's growth will continue unabated. But what we're really seeing is a rush to grab as much of the subsidy as possible before the free money goes away.
"Scail"? Scail. You wrote "scail". That's a fale.
First of all, Germany is not replacing nuclear power with coal but with wind and solar.
Germany has targeted closing all their nuclear plants by 2022, a mere 7 years from now. Nuclear accounts for something like 17-19% of power in Germany. Do you honestly think they are going to install that much renewable capacity AND solve the baseload problem in 7 years without fossil fuels playing a role to get them there? They aren't going to use coal but they are going to use more natural gas" which isn't exactly something to be thrilled about. It's cleaner but not by much.
Secondly, german coal plants filter exhaust.
So do plants in most developed countries.
They basically exhaust cleaner air than they 'breath in', besides CO2.
Complete bullshit. There isn't an operational coal plant in the world that is that clean even if you stupidly ignore the CO2 problem.
Thirdly, the 'idea' that coal emits noticeable radioactivity is a myth from the 1960s/1970s.
A myth you say? Yeah, the facts are not backing you up on that one.
Wow, LeVar Burton! What's the next book on today's Reading Rainbow?
That is all.
How dare you try to counter wild hysteria with facts!
and what percentage of hydro was in use in the first 10 years of hydro?
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
unfortunately most of the detractors of something new to market expect it to be at 100% usage/coverage and/or working 100% perfectly immediately as they've got nothing else of substance to complain about
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Desalinization requires a LOT of power. So, maybe they are focusing on it, but they're taking care of prerequisites first.
Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
You're partly wrong.
It was Italy that voted against nuclear in 1986. 2 reactors where working at that time and had to be shut down. In 2011 there was another referendum to reenter the nuclear powe production, but italians confirmed they'd like to remain nuclearless.
East Germany (not todays Germany) shut down in 1990 its last nuclear power plant due to security concerns, and no new reactors were planned or build afterwards.
In 2000 Germany (now united) decided to gradually reduce the use of nuclear power, and thus in 2003 the first power plant went offline. Others followed in subsequent years. In 2010 they decided to slow down the decommissionment and let the reactors live a few more years. In 2011, after the Fukushima tragedy, Germany decided to shut the reactors as soon as possible. 8 reactors were then shut down immediately, and the rest will be shut down in steps till 2022.
It is worth noting that California is the #2 electricity consuming state in the nation (behind Texas), but has the lowest per capita consumption in the country, roughly half the average per capita consumption of the entire U.S.
They seem to be implying that is a bad thing, I don't know what the distribution of those states are but it wouldn't be very smart for Northern states to build a utility grade solar plant even if they wanted to.
Germany gets more power from solar than California (as a percentage), and they're about the same latitude as most northern US states. In fact, I think their northern border is much farther north than all US states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
Is there any other technology, besides renewable energy, that makes certain Slashdot readers so darn mad? It's like they would prefer that it just didn't exist.
If you say Apple has 13% of the personal computer market, they're popping corks and doing the peepee dance. If you say a newer technology, solar energy, has reached 5%, while facing enormous geo-political resistance and the enmity of the most powerful corporations in the world, it actually pisses you off for some reason.
I'm curious. What is it about solar energy that spurs such surprising anger among this segment of Slashdot readers? What did solar energy do to you?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Iowa was getting nearly 30% of their power from wind energy two years ago, already.
this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice
thats quite power intensive process so maybe it becomes more viable once they have more solar to power the plants
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
A complex dilemma you've painted. :)
But it's all in the (your) mind
Yes renewable energy seems to cost more than conventional fossil but then the last has hidden costs regarding the environment now and in the future.
I'm really curious why you brought up the subject of trees, do you maybe feel we need to cut down trees for large scale PV deployment?
Like yesterday I ordered PV cells covering about half my garage roof and they'll be good for some 125% of my annual consumption and that's at 52 degs. North.
A few hundred square kilometres in some nice deserts (+ a lot of transmission infrastructure) would cover the needs of the planet.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Yes for efficiency's sake the weather could be better but it's still quite well possible, you do realise these cells will even generate power on cloudy days?
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Well, Maine promises to bring their new solar plant online just as soon as the clouds break.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Oh, not measurable in kWh?
Just type these five words into a search bar and be wiser: "energy needed to heat water".
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Did you know that Texas, home of Big Oil, produces slightly more than 10% of it's power from wind, about 14,098 MW according to wikipedia. They're the nation's leader in wind energy. Florida does solar better than anyone else, and for overall green energy, Washington (via dams, mostly).
In a related tangent, California claims to get almost 5% of their power from wind, though they only produce 5,917 MW from theirs, and have about 10 million more people, so somewhere, something doesn't add up.
My guess is that a lot of these "% power" claims, including the one in the article, come down more to clever accounting than actual, literal green draw.
Indeed the present German disposal sites suffered extremely bad management.
But there are several proposed sites that look really good if it wasn't for the usual NIMBY crowd (kraut?)
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
You can think their relatively mild moderate climate for that, less heating and cooling necessary in most places in the state.
So net savings compared to places where you're fighting oppressive heat or frigid cold or both.
When discussing Chernobyl, one must always keep in mind the proximate cause of the incident.
Specifically, the version of the NRC decided it needed to know how much energy they could extract from a meltdown in progress to deal with the meltdown. Perfectly reasonable notion - it makes a meltdown easier to deal with if you don't have to rely on dozen/hundreds of (relatively) small emergency generators for lights, pumps, etc.
So, they picked an out-of-the-way reactor, and pushed it as far toward a meltdown condition as they considered safe to do, and started measuring the energy output of the plant in that mode.
Unfortunately, they were wrong about how "far toward a meltdown" was "safe to do"....
So, the largest nuclear disaster in history happened because someone made a goof while trying a Real World (tm) SIMULATION of the largest nuclear disaster in history....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Look here, when first Italy and later Greece joined the union they had every chance to become prosperous.
Then there's just that little issue of you guys voting for parties that like to spend without first finding the income to do so.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
I wonder how the myopic thinkers will react to this scenario. Of course, we'll have to wait a decade for them to realize what has already happened.
Or we could realize that attitude won't keep industry in the US.
Coal power comes with a rather huge CO2 mortgage payable in the future and by all.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
While it's absolutely true you get better efficiency in the south you'd also see a rather high investment in transmission lines. Besides, having your (renewable) energy production geographically distributed is never a bad idea.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Or just stay away altogether because more than 15 years of evidence points to a lack of story writing talent making April Fool's Day less than fun on /.
Three Mile Island was the most fantastic design ever. A catastrophic failure leads to absolutely no negative consequences except for that of a nasty red mark on the balance sheet.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Pathetic? Are you mad. It's fantastic. Take a look at a graph of solar power production from the 1970s to today? What do you see? Exponential growth. It goes up at roughly the same pace regardless of political party or tax incentives or gas prices. We're now at the point where the exponential growth is being seen and you say 5% is pathetic.
Look at the growth rates. The future is very bright.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
We are not born yesterday and it is getting to be irritating, these April fools jokes.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Desalination, even the energy-hog reverse osmosis process we use now, would be an ideal application for the fluctuating power output of renewables. Because the fluctuations don't matter in that application, desalination would put a lot of wind and solar power to work without waiting for Smart Grid.
"Germany is drowning in nuclear waste, we have no idea where to put it safely."
Reprocess it! Oh wait, the hippies don't like that either.
"However if your sim city knowledge is so superior,"
Pardon?
"just wondering why you promote them."
Are you talking to yourself?
Considering just how far north it is, that's still impressive, if not to you.
Not just north, but also cloudy. But that is not impressive, it is dumb. Reducing CO2 is a global problem. They could have got that much reduction at half the cost if they had subsidized solar panels in Spain and then imported the energy. Or build solar plants in Egypt or Ethiopia, and then sold the carbon credits.
Thirdly, the 'idea' that coal emits noticeable radioactivity is a myth from the 1960s/1970s.
Really? Skip down to table 2 - German coal may not contain a large amount of Uranium, but it does have Radon, Thorium, and Potassium. Please read this post that I wrote using the data from table 2 for US coal.
I seriously doubt there's no U-238 in German coal if there is Ra-226 since they're related via the decay chain, and Table 3 disputes the lack of U in German coal - the ash and slag contain up to 411 Bq/kg of Uranium that has to exist in the unburnt coal.
Even if we ignore the Uranium and go with just the average levels of Th and K, we get a total activity of 435 Bq/kg, which is ~3.5x the lowest US value detailed in my other post. That means 1 kg of average unburnt German coal contains 29 BEDs. When burnt in a 'new' plant (assuming the 1% up-the-flue rule) each burnt 3.45 kg of German coal results in 1 BED (banana equivalent dose, 15 Bq) out the stack. I don't have figures for German coal consumption/year, but that's still quite a lot of fissionable material going up the stack. The US alone emits a minimum of 11 tonnes of U and 2.7 tonnes of Th - that's 70.25 billion (10^9) BEDs best case and 7.025 trillion (10^12) BEDs worst case.
Mass-for-mass, average unburnt German coal is 4.35 times as radioactive as your average banana.
Is it noticeable? Certainly. Is it dangerous? Probably somewhat. Is it worth "The sky is falling" hysteria? No.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
Furthermore, I'm not sure why they're gloating about beating Arizona here. Arizona's largest metro area (Phoenix) receives all (and then some) of its electricity from clean power sources (nuclear and hydro) and even generates such an abundance of power that California actually buys 25% of its electricity from Arizona (and meanwhile California is still unable to meet its own power needs.)
Why should we build 'new (insert technology term of the month' ) nuclear reactors, when we already have a clean exit into solar and wind and biomass?
Regarding your idea how any reactor works, sorry, you are simply wrong.
No one is so idiotic and/or braindead to build a industrial production line to be able to craft fuel elements that are 'half full' with fuel and 'half full' with 'waste' (hint: spend fuel rods != waste).
All reactors designed to be able to transmute 'waste' only do that with the waste they actually produced, and that actually is not called waste: that is called fission products.
Waste is everything that in any way got in contact with radioactive material or inside of a reactor or recycling facility. Like the nitric acid that is the main reaction component in fuel rod reprocessing. How do even want to get that into a reactor?
Sorry, the idea that existing nuclear waste can be 'treated' in a future reactor is just a myth.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Wait, are you saying that different wavelengths aren't as obstructed by water vapor?! Unpossible!
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Mixed: in some senses the design of the control room was poor and a better design would probably have prevented the meltdown. But the layers and layers and layers of failsafing, was brilliant. I think the final layer was that in the event of a meltdown, the core was designed to melt through part of the reactor thereby diluting itself to the point of noncriticality then spread out on a big chunk of concrete to cool off.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
April Fools! Its only 1%.
Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
And that start is growing with double-digit percentages. AND, the majority of new power generation projects in the US (and worldwide) is already renewables (solar/wind/etc), so the trend is only going to accelerate.
Naively projecting that 5% solar power forward at 14% growth per year leads to 50% solar power in 18 years and 100% solar power in 23 years. Of course, that's not an accurate model of what will happen -- a better model would be an s-curve, with the maximum currently unknown -- but it does give a good idea of the rough time scale involved. Around 2 decades until solar power is saturated? That's not so long.
It took a while to get going, with the required government support for the basic research costs, but now this is a self-sustaining free-market endeavour which means it's a trend that now cannot be stopped, thankfully.
Cutting CO2 is not the entire picture, though. With that in mind, it ceases to be less "dumb" than you think. Building the PV installations in Germany creates money for Germans to spend in the German economy. It also generates experience in the sectors involved. Sending money to Spain keeps the money in Spain.
Not only that, but when you say 5%, it sounds rather small.
When taking a look at the actual numbers behind the percentages, it's a bit more dramatic. In 2013, California generated and used 296,628 GWh of energy on their grid, according to this. If energy usage was flat (not likely) than solar is now generating 14,831.4 GWh of energy in California alone.
That's hardly nothing, and definitely not "whoop de do da."
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Hehe, not really wrong, I just simplified. Was the 'SchrÃder + Greens' government 2000? Thought it was longer ago.
Thanx for your clarification, I hope you get some 'informative' mods.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Coal generation in California is only ~7%. That change your outlook any?
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
April Fools! Its only 1%.
Actually, it may be closer to that when we are talking about usage and not generation. California is a net importer of electricity. The 5% is the percentage of power generated in California only. It is not 5% of California's total energy usage, which includes a lot of power generated outside the state.
It is also worth noting that California is a net importer of electricity. The 5% is in-state "generation", not usage. California's usage includes a significant percentage of power generated outside the state.
Getting a core non-critical is the _easy_ part. Change of core geometry, loss of moderator, pretty much anything will take the core non-critical. The cooling down part is what is tricky. You don't just have a big chuck of material at some temperature that simply need cooling, the core will continue to generate gigawatts of heat due to the decay of short-lived isotopes for several days/weeks after it has been rendered non-critical. Simply dumping nuclear lava on a concrete floor will not work. You have to spray it or flood it with borated water which will produced copious quantities of highly contaminated hot water, steam, and hydrogen. You can't keep all that material in your containment building...
The disaster at Fukushima Daiichi clearly demonstrated that containment buildings are all but worthless.
The disaster at Fukushima Daiichi clearly demonstrated that containment buildings are all but worthless.
Well no because the containment building at TMI demonstrated that they can work. That underwent full meltdown, but the containment building kept all but a very small amount of radation within.
I was wron about concrete: it was a steel vessle designed to act as a heat sink after dilution and it worked perfectly.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Raw economics is going to drive solar? Really?
This is a subsidy based land rush that will die as soon as the free lunch expires.
And if "raw economics" is driving this, why are California electricity rates so high?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/10/27/141766341/the-price-of-electricity-in-your-state
But what kind of fire? Coal furnace? We're talking about energy generation here...
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
I'm curious. What is it about solar energy that spurs such surprising anger among this segment of Slashdot readers? What did solar energy do to you?
My theory is that admitting that solar energy works means admitting that those g_dd_mn hippies were right. After all, hippies are never right, so solar energy cannot work.
Q.E.D.
Replace 'hippies' with 'Al Gore', 'leftards', 'commies', 'alarmists' or a similar label according to taste.
I am with you on this ledow. Just yesterday I ran into a couple oohing and aaahing about a pathetically tiny human being. Hardly 10.5 pounds and 19 inches long, without any hair. And this couple is totally over the top, painting a new room, getting new furniture, wondering what to name this human etc etc for this tiny member of Homo sapiens hardly 5% of the size of the parents.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Isn't it funny how trolls will grasp at straws to make a point that isn't really there? In point of fact, California is among the smallest per capita user of energy in the entire United States.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
There is a different between 'emitting' which implies uncontrolled distribution and spreading VERSUS 'producing' and collecting and capturing and depositing it.
German coal is btw irrelevant, 90% of the coal we burn is imported :) the few coal mines (hard/black coal) we still have are highly subsidized tokens ... that is all. Most coal we burn comes from russia and china and a bit from south america, I guess even the USA export coal to us.
Of course we also still burn brown coal (lignite?)
Is it noticeable? Certainly. Is it dangerous? Probably somewhat. Is it worth "The sky is falling" hysteria?
None of it. As I already pointed out in the first post to this thread: all this is filtered out and deposited, and not 'emitted'.
And even in the USA there never was much of 'emitting' happening. The majourity of ash, regardless of the name 'fly ash' is what the name implies: ash, a solid thing remaining in the plant, collected and deposited.
90% of the ash in Germany is transformed into construction material for roads and houses.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Thirdly, the 'idea' that coal emits noticeable radioactivity is a myth from the 1960s/1970s. Which is debunked since decades, everyone participating in discussions like this: should know that.
Really?: http://www.scientificamerican....
Solar's impact is greater than just the percentage may lead you to believe.
In many places like CA, TX and the Southwest, it's quite predictable, almost a given in AZ, and the solar daily ramp-up is a good match to the consumption curve.
Also, if you have a lot of rooftop solar that's feeding self-consumption, there's far less stress on the electricity distribution & transmission infrastructure.
TX may have a significant amount of wind turbines but they would have been better off ramping up solar installations once the price started falling back in 2008, even if they didn't install a single additional wind turbine - not that I'm much opposed to wind power.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
ou can think their relatively mild moderate climate for that,
You can mostly thank our massive population. There are more people living in and around Los Angeles alone than the population of at least half the states in the nation — probably far more if you count illegals correctly, something the census can never possibly accomplish.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
California practically doesn't use coal power at all. Less than 8% of their generation in 2013 was from coal, and only 4.3% of that less than 8% actually is generated in the State of California - the rest comes from the Boardman coal generating station in Oregon, or from other states in the southwest.
Take you're "man of the people" act and try somewhere else, preferably where Google (and facts) don't exist.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
No wait, seriously?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Do they take into account the fact that the sun isn't shining all day, every day and that we are using electricity non stop?
No, of course not. When you need a statistic for political purposes, you use the peak, not the average.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
What is it about solar energy that spurs such surprising anger among this segment of Slashdot readers? What did solar energy do to you?
Have you seen our pasty skin? The sun, it burnsssess!
He brought up trees because many people have trees on their property that they'd have to cut down in order to put solar panels on their roofs.
I'd have to cut down about six or seven trees to uncover the south face of my roof. Since they're on the fenceline, I'd have to coordinate with my neighbor. It wouldn't be cheap - there's only about ten feet between our houses (post-WWII GI Bill neighborhood here, small lots and small houses) so extra care would be needed to keep the trees from damaging the houses.
It's enough that, had I the money to put solar on the roof (and if it was economically feasible - I have a small house), I wouldn't do it because I like the trees and don't want to remove them.
Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
"I suggest to read some 'hard stuff' and not the pseudo science you read, otherwise you knew what reprocessing is, how it works and what the result is ... sigh."
I would kindly suggest you follow your own advice.
You know that Idaho got 82.9% of it's TOTAL 2014 (not just one damn day) electricity use from renewables, right?
What's embarrassing is schmucks like you getting modded up and thinking you're all insightful and the fact of the matter is that you know nothing. Get away from the "Science!" channel and get to taking a real sincere interest in this area and you'll find that while Germany is doing a great job they're far from the beacon of future electricity production.
Reprocessing does not reduce waste, it doubles to quadruples waste.
Reprocessing is a process to get unspent fuel out of spent fuel rods for reuse.
It does not magically let the waste, the fission products, or the chemical compounds you get during reprocessing 'vanish'.
I suggest to read some 'hard stuff' and not the pseudo science you read, otherwise you knew what reprocessing is, how it works and what the result is ... sigh.
Can you actually specify your qualifications to discuss matters pertaining to nuclear waste management and nuclear power in general on the specific level you've gone through the effort to create messages on this thread? Even decent references would make it better, the statements you've made seem to be on a very superficial level, and could easily be from a book of anti-nuclear propaganda.
I'm a programmer also, it doesn't mean I know much about nuclear waste management.
No, I can't as I'm not an native english speaker.
However it is a well known topic that american pro nuclear propaganda declared 'spend fuel' as waste, ignoring that there is much more wast to think abot.
Simple example. A fuel rod consists of fuel and surrounding casing. Assuming a 50% / 50% relationship. The fuel is uranium that once was enriched to 5% fissionable material.
After a bit more than half of that fissionable material is burned, when concentration is down to 2%, the fuel rod is 'spent'.
During reprocessing you aim to get as much as possible of the remaining 2% back for new rods.
The casing, is thrown away, the fission products are, half of the non fissionable uranium is, and a huge deal if the chemicals used for the 'reprocessing' is.
The misconception comes from the misnomer of the term 'waste' in the USA.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Yes, really.
Does ash contain low amounts of uranium or thorium? Yes. is that emitted and spread into the environment threatening the population? No! It is captured and deposited.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
But there are plenty of models to calculate one from the other.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
You'd be the perfect participant in one of those cooperative plants, get some similar people together + the owner of a large roof or piece of land and set up a generating facility as shareholders
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Sovereignty is a bitch.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
What's the broken window fallacy?
(Not exactly a direct comparison, but sinking money into something like PV panels, when they could be doing something more useful, like sending money to Turkey/Greece, doesn't seem like a very productive use of capital.)
It's enough that, had I the money to put solar on the roof (and if it was economically feasible - I have a small house), I wouldn't do it because I like the trees and don't want to remove them.
Oh I'm sure a free market will spring up to serve your needs in the future -- and people you identify with. If the trees have value -- which they do -- then some entrepreneur will figure out how to serve you. You should really be concerned with the average cost of energy, which everyone pays, regardless of the economic system. If the average cost is low, then the economy can only be good.
There are technological solutions to these types of issues, and some parts of the world are trying to develop the know-how. What we know about solar/wind, combined with long-standing trends, is that it is coming down in price fast. But moving to a new grid has inbuilt challenges, and some of the smartest people in the world are trying to figure out how to make the inevitable transition.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Sending money to Spain keeps the money in Spain.
The Germans are sending money to Spain anyway. They might as well get something in return.
"Chernobyl: a crazy design with a strongly positive void coefficient. No one else has ever made such designs, even before Chernobyl because it was always known to be dangerous."
Hmm.. which unit? not widely known, two meltdowns occurred at Chernobyl. NPP, Unit 1, September 9, 1982 and then the Unit 4 explosion April 26, 1986, which was hidden from world until the fallout trigger a Swedish radiation monitor.
Eight days days later, (May 4, 1986), a pebble fuel pellet got stuck in the piping in a German 750MWth, AVR PBM reactor. Efforts to dislodge the pellet caused a release of both core and coolant into the atmosphere. Local plant management tried to blame on the Chernobyl disaster. But a professor at a local university in Frelburg, analyzed the fallout which contained radioactive Pa-233 and determined that a second nuclear incident had occurred nearby.
So their is a list of three(3) incidents, each time management/government tried to cover up and there is much more.
Don't fooled, TMI unit II was only 4 months old when a valve got stuck and melted down.. Fukushima is the worst yet, three(3) fully mature reactor cores have melted down and now reside somewhere below the reactors, releasing deadly fission by products into an underground river flowing underneath it.
Millions of humans have succumbed to early death, and Ten's of millions more are suffering the consequences, and that is just the tip of iceberg. Their is nothing clean about Nuclear Power plants, each refueling cycle discharges a large amount of radioactive gas into the environment, and the effect is detectable in the surrounding population.
I'm curious. What is it about solar energy that spurs such surprising anger among this segment of Slashdot readers? What did solar energy do to you?
I think it is the government subsidy part that upsets so many.
I love saving money, if solar power will save me money, sign me up!
What bugs me is when it costs more than existing sources and only "appears" to be cheaper once tax dollars have paid down the cost enough to look that way.
Residential solar is currently in that boat, it makes no economic sense without tax incentives. Utility scale solar may be in another boat, given the lower cost per unit of power produced since almost everything is cheaper at large scale.
If utility solar makes economic sense, by all means, install it and use it, I'm all for that.
Just don't ask me to pay for other people's solar installation using my tax dollars then claim it is "cheaper" when it isn't.
-----
Side note: A comment here on Slashdot actually got me to do something about my own power use. Someone posted numbers on LED bulbs compared to incandescent and CFLs and I was a bit surprised, because they put it in terms of dollar cost per year and compared it to the new, lower prices of LED bulbs.
Amazon recently had a sale on LED bulbs, 60w replacements that use just 8w, for $5 a bulb. I bought 30 of them. The payback in cost is less than a year. It is a no-brainer.
If solar made that kinda sense, I'd install it tomorrow, as it stands, my payback is currently about 15 years, and that is WITH tax incentives. It makes no sense.
No, probably modded down for being a twat.
Someone isn't a schmuck for highlighting that 5% isn't terribly good, even if you have a better reference demonstrating why.
The sad part is that states like Florida are making it harder to install solar.
They are?
They are removing rebate programs that subsidize the cost of installing solar.
This does not prevent you from installing solar, it just removes the fake "lower cost" from doing so.
But every single form of energy is subsidized by the government. So why are we singling out solar again?
Do you feel the same way about nuclear?
You are welcome on my lawn.
In this context, Germany is not a state. In the USA (remember, Slashdot is a US web site, it's in the FAQ) you say "country" when referring to a foreign entity. Germany is a country. California is a state.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
None of it. As I already pointed out in the first post to this thread: all this is filtered out and deposited, and not 'emitted'.
Citation Needed
So, they picked an out-of-the-way reactor, and pushed it as far toward a meltdown condition as they considered safe to do, and started measuring the energy output of the plant in that mode.
No. No. No.
read,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
read,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
and read more.
The test plan called for a gradual reduction in power output from reactor 4 to a thermal level of 700â"1000 MW.[32] An output of 700 MW was reached at 00:05 on 26 April. However, due to the natural production of xenon-135, a neutron absorber, core power continued to decrease without further operator actionâ"a process known as reactor poisoning. As the reactor power output dropped further, to approximately 500 MW, Toptunov mistakenly inserted the control rods too farâ"the exact circumstances leading to this are unknown because Akimov and Toptunov died in the hospital on May 10 and 14, respectively. This combination of factors rendered the reactor in an unintended near-shutdown state, with a power output of 30 MW thermal or less.
A KNOWN problem with Xenon accumulation in the reactor was the cause of the problems. This is a long standing problem. If you shut down a nuclear reactor (including running it at too low of power output), you have to shut it down completely, and let Xenon decay before you can restart the reactors. There is no shortcuts. But these people wanted to shortcut the wait of a few days so they could run their test that was already behind schedule. They thought they could do this manually.
NO ONE wanted to run Chernobyl anywhere near melt down conditions. That had nothing to do with the turbine tests.
If you want power surges, you ignore Xenon and you get massive power surges as it gets cooked off. Just like Chernobyl - they got their nice power surge and a nice steam explosion. None of which had anything to do with the turbine tests.
But every single form of energy is subsidized by the government. So why are we singling out solar again?
No, it really isn't... this is a common misconception by people who don't really understand this stuff...
The government does allow lots of tax breaks for oil and gas drilling, that is true. But they allow similar breaks for almost any kind of business investment. The ones for oil and gas are a bit more favorable, but they aren't FREE MONEY.
The government is not writing checks out of the general fund to pay people to drill for oil.
The government IS writing checks out of the general fund to pay people to install solar.
That is a huge difference.
The tax breaks for oil and gas can only save you money if you have other investments to write them off against, and even then you must have spent money on the oil and gas drilling first to be able to claim the deductions.
The 30% the government will pay towards solar installation is a TAX CREDIT, not a TAX DEDUCTION. That is a massive difference, one well worth understanding before claiming oil and gas gets some huge break.
Do you feel the same way about nuclear?
Yes, unless you want to turn them into public owned utilities. Which is an option to consider.
But then if we turn them into public utilities owned by the government, solar then becomes an option.
----
Let me put it this way. If solar on the roof top makes so much sense, why aren't the power companies themselves offering to install the panels and sell you the power?
"Be GREEN at NO COST to YOU" could be the tag line.
They might even be able to offer you a 5% discount for reducing stress on the grid during peak demand times, that would get even more people to do it.
So why don't they? Could it be that without someone else paying for 30-50% of it that it makes no economic sense at all?
-----
As a further side note, it is quite possible that it would make sense to install them when building new houses, you get economies of scale when you do things in bulk. Installing 250 rooftop panel systems all at the same time, in the same place, might well make sense. It is the one-at-a-time installs that don't make any sense, labor is most of the cost.
Yes, I'm aware the panels have gotten much cheaper, now how do you get the labor of installing them cheap too? Solve that and you can be rich. :)
I wonder how the myopic thinkers will react to this scenario. Of course, we'll have to wait a decade for them to realize what has already happened.
Pretty sure they will consider it "Mission Accomplished."
Finally they are getting real competition from the free market. The new paradigm is, "Home owner, you don't worry about site survey, investment cost, installation contractor etc etc. Here is the deal. We install our solar panels in your property using our workers. We install a meter. You pay for whatever electricity we deliver at this price. There is x year lock in period, after that we take our stuff away anytime you cancel the contract. You compare apples to apples, metered electricity cost to metered electricity cost".
Even after the subsidies are taken away, even after imposing road blocks by politicians and utility commissions, this would not be stopped. The technology already has very strong market where the grid is poor. India, Pakistan, many developing countries, etc. They will provide the demand and the technology will advance. Then private companies will raise investment to compete with utilities. As people start using less and less of the grid, it becomes more and more expensive for the utility to find cash for infrastructure upgrades. That will feed into the vicious cycle, and utility companies will face big problems keeping customers.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Also, the headline is wrong, to put it mildly. As they normally do, the solar-electric propagandists came up with that 5% number by doing math that makes no sense - using POWER USED for the numerator and ELECTRICITY GENERATED for the denominator. Most power isn't electricity, so the number is bogus. Also, California uses a lot more power (and electricity) than they generate, so it's double bogus.
I say the number is "wrong", but MOST solar-electric stories on Slashdot make the exact same "mistake". When someone making an argument consistently screws up the math in the same way, after the error has been pointed out the them many times, that could be called "lying".
The useful number is "how much of the power we use can be generated from ________?" In the case of solar-electric in California, it's less than 2%. That's good in the sense that it's about the correct amount to generate in terms of resources used vs power generated. More would wasteful and hurt people's standard of living. For example:
It would be silly to use the sun to heat water, in order to drive a turbine, in order to generate electricity, in order heat a coil, in order to heat water for your shower. If you want hot water for a shower and you have bright sun, just pipe the water for the shower through a large black pipe and heat it directly. That's much more efficient than the Rube Goldberg approach of adding turbines, generators, etc. to it. If you want hot water and have hot water, just use the hot water - it's wasteful to convert it into electricity and back again. Under that kind of analysis, solar electric SHOULD be about 2%. Other sources are better for most of the needs of most of the people in most places, for most of the year.
There are more people living in and around Los Angeles alone than the population of at least half the states in the nation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
The normal statistic for Undocumented workers is 1 in 10, so call the CSA a nice round 20 million.
If Los Angeles were a state it would be ranked somewhere between 3rd and 7th in population depending on how much of the outlying are you counted.
He effected a bored affect.
Yes renewable energy seems to cost more than conventional fossil but then the last has hidden costs regarding the environment now and in the future.
For better or worse, we have decided to not price those future costs into our power bills.
If we did and we taxed carbon directly (not some credit scheme, but just a direct tax on carbon production), then you might well see the uptake on solar and wind shoot through the roof.
Right now, installing solar makes no sense, at least not at the residential home scale. The payback is measured in decades.
Part of the reason for that is the cost of labor to install the panels, grid tie, etc.. The panels themselves are no longer expensive, but the labor part doesn't change much.
If my cost of power went from 10.7 cents per kWh to 25 cents per kWh, those numbers change very quickly.
----
The interesting thing is that while solar and wind would become very competitive if we had a carbon tax, so would nuclear. Right now nuclear is having a hard time competing with coal and natural gas due to the low prices of burning those.
There is no citation needed.
Practices established since the late 1970s are common knowledge. If you don't know about them google or wikipedia is your friend.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Nonsense, coal isn't clean, you are the one who suggested it was, so you're the one who has to prove it.
Remember, that 5% of solar is stealing 5% of the revenue that could be going to our glorious oil, gas, and coal overlords. You may not think much of it, but some of those executives may have to forgo buying a fourth house.
No, nonsense youself. :) ... so plenty of good luck for you.
If you beliefe coal spreads uranium over Europe,or the usa, you have to prove it, good luck
You know, it is a mathematical/physical theorem that you can not prove the non existing
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
> 5% of the total energy use is still
The 5% neither of total energy, nor of use.
It's 5% of electricity generated within the state.
Most of the energy isn't electricity, and a large percentage of the electricity they use is generated in Arizona, where regulation has allowed new power plants that generate reliable electricity to be built.
In other words, it's really just how many new electric plants were built in California (only solar ones) as a percentage of the plants that California already had prior to them shutting down development and forcing any new plants capable of providing reliable electricity to be built across the state line in Arizona.
Given that the population of California has increased by 10% in the last 15 years, the fact that their electric capacity hasn't kept up, that they've become more dependent on power from Arizona, isn't actually a good thing.
No, I can't as I'm not an native english speaker.
However it is a well known topic that american pro nuclear propaganda declared 'spend fuel' as waste, ignoring that there is much more wast to think abot.
Simple example. A fuel rod consists of fuel and surrounding casing. Assuming a 50% / 50% relationship. The fuel is uranium that once was enriched to 5% fissionable material.
After a bit more than half of that fissionable material is burned, when concentration is down to 2%, the fuel rod is 'spent'.
During reprocessing you aim to get as much as possible of the remaining 2% back for new rods.
The casing, is thrown away, the fission products are, half of the non fissionable uranium is, and a huge deal if the chemicals used for the 'reprocessing' is.
The misconception comes from the misnomer of the term 'waste' in the USA.
With me, I think you're speaking to the wrong crowd. I personally know what nuclear waste ends up as here. Basically it's radioactive material in a canister embedded deep in the bedrock, and I think it's fine. I worry more about meteors hitting the apartment building I live (in my lifetime) in than the nuclear waste ever causing any harm to living organisms (ever), with the exception of bacteria, ect.
Seriously, worry more about crap like heavy metal poisoning than radiation poisoning (aka, if you eat uranium), unless Putin decides to start WW3.
That figure may give pride to the holier than thou Masters of Silicon Valley, but it is a hardship for those poorer Californians who live inland. Coal power is much cheaper. We shouldn't let the climate shysters talk us out of it.
Coal is only cheaper if you ignore the external costs it imposes.
The Boardman coal generating plant is supposed to be permanently shut down by 2018.
Coal, hydraulic fracturing, the pharmaceutical industry. The defense industry.
Shall I go on?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Rates:
/kWhr /kWhr
/kWhr
/kWhr for all kWhr per month.
/kWhr
CUSTOMER CHARGE:
Single-Phase Service - per month $ 9.00/month
Three-Phase Service - per month $18.00/month
NON-FUEL ENERGY CHARGE (To be added to Customer Charge)
First 350 kWhr per month-per kWhr 8.1034
Next 850 kWhr per month-per kWhr 9.2569
All kWhr over 1,200 kWhr per month - per kWhr 11.1343
WAIVER PROVISION:
For customers receiving bill credits under Low Income Home
Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), the Non-Fuel Energy
Charge is 8.1034
BASE FUEL ENERGY CHARGE (To be added to Customer Charge
and Non-Fuel Energy Charge)
All kWhr per month - per kWhr 13.6062
Minimum Charge:
Single-Phase Service - per month $17.00/month
Three-Phase Service - per month $23.00/month
South Australia - AUD$0.32 per kwh. USD$0.24
In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!
So, the trillions of taxpayer dollars we've spent on wars to protect energy interests just don't count? The hundreds of thousands of lives that were spent in these wars, counting the civilian casualities?
You might have an answer to that question if you weren't one of the "people who don't really understand this stuff".
And you're worried about 30% of the cost of solar panels. You're a special kind of person, you are.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I have no idea what your point is.
Oh I'm sure a free market will spring up to serve your needs in the future -- and people you identify with.
People I identify with? What people would that be? People in small houses? People whose energy bill could be lowered more by replacing the siding and adding insulation, instead of adding solar panels? People who happen to live on my street? People who like their trees?
And I'm not a libertarian. I don't share your faith in the free market.
If the trees have value -- which they do -- then some entrepreneur will figure out how to serve you.
Their value - to me - is that they look nice and partially block the view of my neighbor's hosue, which hasn't been painted since the Carter administration. I'm not going to pay "some entrepreneur" for the priveledge of keeping my own damn trees.
You should really be concerned with the average cost of energy, which everyone pays, regardless of the economic system. If the average cost is low, then the economy can only be good.
Which is why Venezuela has such a booming economy.
Look, I don't really understand what you're trying to tell me here. None of your points address the fact that trees block rooflines sometimes, and some owners are reluctant to remove the trees. Besides, solar poiwer in Oklahoma is silly. We've got enough wind to power half the country.
Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
So, the trillions of taxpayer dollars we've spent on wars to protect energy interests just don't count? The hundreds of thousands of lives that were spent in these wars, counting the civilian casualities?
One could debate the purpose of those wars, you seem to think it is set in stone to your view.
The strategic interests of the US are worth going to war over, and right now, oil is one of those. It wasn't the only reason, after all, oil was already flowing, it isn't like we went to war because it stopped.
If solar was what 95% of our cars ran on and the import of solar panels was cut off, we'd probably go to war over that too.
Normally with a UID that low, I'd expect a sound and reasoned argument.
I guess it goes to show that just because you've been here awhile doesn't mean you have any sense.
Have a nice day.
Exactly. And I wonder if the numbers were cherry picked. Of course they were. CA is a net importer, much of its electricity is generated out of state. So I guess if they want to improve this stat even more they can just shut down power plants next year, then say that 30% "generated" by solar because they cut down on other generation. Never mind how much is imported and consumed. But what would you expect when you see their source is the solar industry. Articles like this piss me off simply because of the amount of people who defend this shit using such ridiculous stats.
Solar energy has always "worked." But it has not always been cost-effective.
Slashdot readers who held nuanced views that mass adoption should wait until it was cost-effective, have been characterized by other, un-nuanced Slashdot readers as "angry."
And it's not "hippies" who were right about solar; credit goes to the semiconductor scientists who kept upping the efficiency of PV cell designs, while reducing manufacturing costs.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
"It is a safe bet that I'm minimum 30 years older than you."
Not unless you're in your late 70s.
"while I'm completely fed up with idiots like you."
Boo hoo.
"It is a no brainer that reprocessing increases waste,"
Some extra low level waste which is easily dealt with. The high level waste which is the real problem goes back into the reactor.
"read a damn book about it!"
I've read a number thanks. How about you read something other than greenpeace propaganda?
"No, I can't as I'm not an native english speaker."
And thats your excuse for not given your qualifications is it?
I think a translation of that would be: "I don't have any".
I would kindly suggest you follow your own advice.
Well he does have a point about the zirconium cladding around the fuel rod. That is activated and becomes an emitter in its own right . So it does contribute to the radio active waste steam as opposed to fissionable material.
Second of all there is good reason not to like MOX in a reactor, because the fuel is more toxic and accident scenarios where that is the fuel (like Unit 3 or 4 IIRC of Fukushima) and can be released into the environment. Pretty much a nightmare scenario because of the toxicity and that it is readily bio-concentrated into the food chain.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Large trees near are a house do become a threat eventually either due to root damage or excessive draining of the water beneath causing ground shifts or simply being blown down and destroying the house.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
I think you are right. It has been surprisingly difficult for me to come to terms with that over the years. I guess win-win, if they win by squeaking out 6-9% margins on old assets while renewables grow to terrawatts by 2025, expanding 100x like the have over the past decade. Seems like a bizarre choice: 6x return over 10,000x, but I'm not complaining! Only 100x to go.
... all this is filtered out and deposited, and not 'emitted'.
Impossible. As the article I cited states, as much as 10% is EMITTED in an old plant, and as little as 1% in a 'new' plant. You even contradict yourself: "The majourity [sic] of ash ... [is] ... collected and deposited."
Even with 1% escaping, the US still emits TONS of raw radioactive Uranium and Thorium into the atmosphere.
90% of the ash in Germany is transformed into construction material for roads and houses.
This point is also addressed in the cited article:
During combustion the radionuclides are retained and concentrated in the flyash and bottom ash, with a greater concentration to be found in the flyash. The concentration of uranium and thorium in bottom and flyash can be up to ten times greater than for the burnt coal, while other radionuclides such as Pb-210 and K-40 can concentrate to an even greater degree in the flyash. Some 99% of flyash is typically retained in a modern power station (90% in some older ones). While much flyash is buried in an ash dam, a lot is used in building construction. Table 3 gives some published figures for the radioactivity of ash. There are obvious implications for the use of flyash in concrete.
Take a look at table 3 - these figures are for Germany. The first numeric column is Uranium, the next Thorium, and the last Potassium. The figures are Bq/kg.
Germany ash 6-166 3-120 125-742
Germany slag 68-245 76-170 337-1240
According to google, the average cinder block weighs 26-33 lbs (11.8-15 kg). If 75% of a 15kg cinder block's mass is average ash, every single cinder block has 6536 Bq of activity. That's a little shy of 436 BED per block. A cinder block building 20'x20'x10' uses (conveniently) 15 8x8x16 inch blocks in each dimension for each wall, so that's a total of 900 blocks. That's 5,882,625 Bq for the building.
Wikipedia says "In the United States about 131 million tons [118,841,195,700 kg] of fly ash are produced annually by 460 coal-fired power plants. A 2008 industry survey estimated that 43% of this ash is re-used." In the US, that means 51,101,714,151 kg of ash representing an average of 777 Bq/kg (a staggering 39.7 x 10^12 Bq of total activity) being put in close proximity to people per year. That's 2,647,068,793,022 (2.65 x 10^12) BEDs per YEAR, or around 9000 BED/person/yr in the US (round number assuming 300x10^6 people).
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
My calculations were based on € 0.23 per kWh and payback will be after seven years.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Because I live on a continent where CO2 IS charged (as a tax) and investing in solar pays.
My calculations were based on â 0.23 per kWh and payback will be after seven years.
Those numbers sound about right to me...
If that was the case here, I'd install solar tomorrow...
At under 11 cents a kWh, it makes zero sense. So really that is the dividing line.
Sorry, I have no idea from where you have your numbers.
As I said before basically every thing resulting in ash is filtered out.
The idea that up to 10% is flying all over the country (in Germany) is absurd.
There is no difference between older and newer plants as all old plants got upgraded since the 1970s ...
However nice that you figured that the concentration of "everything" is higher in the ash than in the original coal :D
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I have a few hundred german links if you want to translate them yourself :D
And as I pointed out in so many /. articles already: you can google for yourself.
For me it is a bit difficult to use the correct english terms to find english literature about german power plants.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The high level waste which is the real problem goes back into the reactor.
There is no "high level waste" that goes back into the reactor.
There is only uranium or in the case of breeder reactors, plutonium. This is considered "fuel" or "spent fuel" and not waste. I already pointed out several times: you mix up waste with spent fuel.
Half of the Uranium does not go back into the reactor (as you only can "enrich" the other half).
The whole original encasing gets deposited, so are the fission products.
On top of that you have a few hundred kg on acids ... mainly nitric acid per kg ... which are not Some extra low level waste which is easily dealt with but extremely difficult to be "dealt with".
I suggest you finally indeed read a bit about it. Because this: I've read a number thanks is no one going to believe.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I'm sorry you're so stubborn, ignorant, and nationalistic to believe that a mere 1% of the ash generated from burning coal couldn't possibly escape into the atmosphere in the Fatherland. Unless you've got alien-level technology, your German scrubbers are bound by the same physics as those in the US - ~99% efficient is the maximum you can get.
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/t... - 99% efficient
http://www.britannica.com/EBch... - 90% - 99% efficient
http://www.gdnash.com/rocktron... = 99% efficient
Table 3 in this document directly compares particulate matter emission regulations in the US and Germany - as you can see, the average PM emissions for German plants is 50 mg/Nm^3 as opposed to 18.3 mg/Nm^3 for all new large plants in the US as mentioned in this document.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
Did I typo?
You said up to 10% escapes into the atmosphere.
Which I find extremely unbelievable.
Thanx for the links, but keep in mind: 50mg emission for 1m^3 is far far far away from the 1% emission you claim in this post again.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Read the original article again. OLD plants emit as much as 10% - new plants with advanced scrubbers emit no more than 1%. Here's the quote, emphasis mine - search for it:
"Some 99% of flyash is typically retained in a modern power station (90% in some older ones)."
That's not my statistic - if you don't believe it, follow the footnotes in the article.
As for the 50 mg/Nm^3, your limit is higher than ours if the 18.3 mg/Nm^3 is correct. The US burned 850x10^6 tonnes (850x10^9 kg) of coal in the year 2009. Even of we go with the 1% figure nationwide, that's still 11x10^3 kg of uranium and 27x10^3 kg of thorium up the stack. Refer to the quote from the same document, below:
"In the USA, 850 million tonnes of coal was used in 2009 for electricity production. With an average content of 1.3 ppm uranium and 3.2 ppm thorium, US coal-fired electricity generation in that year gave rise to 1100 tonnes of uranium and 2700 tonnes of thorium in coal ash."
This article seems to show that Germany is not so clean after all given the relatively large amount of coal it burns compared to its EU neighbors.
This chart shows Germany using 256 million short tons of coal in 2011. That's 232x10^9 kg. With German coal containing up to 13 ppm of uranium and up to approximately 39 ppm thorium (see the first liked article for the source of those figures), that means:
In 2011 German power plants emitted up to 30x10^3 kg of uranium (232x10^9 x 13ppm x 1%) and up to 90.5x10^3 kg of thorium (232x10^9 kg x 39ppm x 1%).
Note that US coal contains up to 4 ppm uranium while German coal contains up to 13 ppm. From the first article, "US, Australian, Indian and UK coals contain up to about 4 ppm uranium, those in Germany up to 13 ppm ...".
I really can't make it any clearer that ALL coal plants emit fly ash, and because of the vast amounts of coal burnt around the world, that fly ash represents a significant and easily detectable amount of radioactivity (not to mention the chemical toxicity) released into the atmosphere around the plants.
I think I've proven my point with reason and numbers to back it up - all you've contributed is disbelief and scorn.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
"There is no "high level waste" that goes back into the reactor."
A pedantic german. What a surprise. If it wasn't reprocessed it would be considered high level waste. Ok?
"On top of that you have a few hundred kg on acids ... mainly nitric acid per kg ... which are not Some extra low level waste which is easily dealt with but extremely difficult to be "dealt with"."
How old were these books you allegedly read? 1960s? I suggest you read up on modern methods such as molten salts.
" I've read a number thanks is no one going to believe."
Frankly I don't believe you know anything about it other than what you've read in some greenpeace propaganda pamphlets. When asked about your qualifications you apparently can't translate them. Sorry? Let me help - the word you're looking for is a "degree". Do you have one in anything appropriate to this topic?
No, didn't think so.
Now fuck off you waste of space.
Well, I'm to lazy to recalculate your numbers.
They look wrong obviously. The biggest mistake is that you all the time say "german coal".
I thought Germany mainly burns coal from Russia and China, and not German coal. But I just figured it is: Poland (24 Prozent), southafrica (23 Prozent), Russia (15 Prozent), Columbia (10 Prozent) und Australia (10 Prozent). So the amount of uranium/thorium in German coal is: irrelevant.
I think I've proven my point with reason and numbers to back it up - all you've contributed is disbelief and scorn.
You are misinterpreting my point. You started with an insane amount of "radiation" spread by coal plants. Now -- after 3 or 4 posts -- you accept that perhaps maximum 1% of ash is spread as fly ash (which I don't accept). So there is no scorn or "disbelieve".
However it is good for you that you did the math and the googeling and scaled down from insane radiation spread by coal plants to a more realistic number :D
However your numbers are in so far minimum way of by a factor of 1000 because it is easy to google how much mercury all power plants together emit. In 2006 all mercury together was 2.8 metric tons. Both uranium and thorium can only be around a percent of that number. So your idea of 30 metric tons of uranium and 90 metric tons of thorium makes no sense at all.
All emissions above a certain level are published. The fact that uranium and thorium is not published makes pretty clear that the amount is extremely low.
However there are reports in Megabecquerel, no idea how to easy calculate kg or metric tons from that.
The effectiveness of exhaust scrubbing in 2006 is assumed to be 99.5% ... so about 0.5% (half of your claim) is emitted into the atmosphere.
A coal plant emits about 0,4 μSv/a "radiation".
A nuclear plant about 1,4 μSv. Funnily that is mainly C14.
Some of my "facts" here are from this document: http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip2...
Which is from 2008 and the numbers are from 2000 till 2006, respectively. We have now 2015 ... you can assume that ten years later the situation has improved ;D
To bad your math was all in vein ... as I said: to lazy to search where your main mistake is. I guess you simply miscounted some zeros (besides the fact to use the wrong coal source as germany only burns a very very minimal amount of own coal, likely less then 1% of all coal (hard coal/stone coal) is from germany).
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The radiation numbers in my other answer are in micro Sv ... /. again ate my "my-Sign" :D
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
A pedantic german. What a surprise. If it wasn't reprocessed it would be considered high level waste. Ok?
Nope, not OK. Regardless how/what you reprocess the wast that remains is "high level" and dos not go back into the reactor. A standard reactor can not do anything with the stuff we consider waste, like half of the depleted uranium, the fission products of the previous cycle etc. I explained that already but you flailed to grasp that.
I suggest you read up on modern methods such as molten salts.
Molten salts are not used for reprocessing.
But thanks for your ranting :D
When asked about your qualifications you apparently can't translate them. Sorry? Let me help - the word you're looking for is a "degree". Do you have one in anything appropriate to this topic?
Actually I have! Your turn?
Besides: you did not ask for my qualifications. You asked for citations of links because you can not follow simple logic argumentation.
Ah well, we can continue this rant of yours when your country actually is doing reprocessing. Perhaps the way how it is done and how much waste it produces is then more easy accessible for you :D
THEN you can try to convince another country/person to do it.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Did you stop to think that the article I quoted means "The coal that is burnt in Germany" not "coal that is mined in Germany"? You're too quick to dismiss the source data. Why would an article quote radiation figures for coal that's not being used, as you state? You've repeated this over and over, but I hoped you'd figure out your misunderstanding yourself and that I wouldn't have to point it out to you.
As for the "You started with an insane amount of "radiation" spread by coal plants. Now -- after 3 or 4 posts -- you accept that perhaps maximum 1%" --- I have done no such thing. I used the MOST CONSERVATIVE numbers to prove my point. Even using the lowest figure of 1% you still have to reconcile these facts:
"In the USA, 850 million tonnes of coal was used in 2009 for electricity production. With an average content of 1.3 ppm uranium and 3.2 ppm thorium, US coal-fired electricity generation in that year gave rise to 1100 tonnes of uranium and 2700 tonnes of thorium in coal ash."
If 1% is lost to the atmosphere, simple math (so simple you might be bothered to verify it) shows 11 tonnes of U and 27 tonnes of Th are released. My previous post was indeed in error. I was off by a factor of ten, but not the way you claim - I previously said "2.7 tonnes of Thorium" when the actual number is 27 tonnes.
As for your mercury numbers, you're the one that's way off. this paper sampled US coal for 25 years and came up with a mean mercury value of 0.17ppm. As stated above, US coal has 1.3 ppm U and 3.2 ppm Th. There is 7.6x as much U as Hg, and 18.8x as much Th as Hg.
Besides, the original argument was "Thirdly, the 'idea' that coal emits noticeable radioactivity is a myth from the 1960s/1970s" - I've proven that clearly there is noticeable radiation released on a continuous basis.
If you are too lazy to do any research, then I'm done with you. Continue with vague hand-waving and accusations of bad math and maybe someone will believe you.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
Besides, the original argument was "Thirdly, the 'idea' that coal emits noticeable radioactivity is a myth from the 1960s/1970s" - I've proven that clearly there is noticeable radiation released on a continuous basis.
Erm, then perhaps we have simply a different perception? I consider so low amounts not noticeable. You consider them noticeable.
"The coal that is burnt in Germany" not "coal that is mined in Germany" :D And you are wrong, as you took the numbers from typical coal mined in Germany, and not the numbers of coal burned here. ...
Obviously that is a difference, and precisely the difference I mean
You might think that the coal burned in Germany is the most radioactive one, but it is not. Sorry
If 1% is lost to the atmosphere, simple math (so simple you might be bothered to verify it) shows 11 tonnes of U and 27 tonnes of Th are released. My previous post was indeed in error. I was off by a factor of ten, but not the way you claim - I previously said "2.7 tonnes of Thorium" when the actual number is 27 tonnes.
There is not 1% lost to the atmosphere. How hard is that to grasp?
At the very worst assumption of a burning process, 90% of the ash is captured and deposited as ash directly from the burning chamber. That is a no brainer.
That means maximum 10% escape into gas exhaust system.
As the German plants have gas cleaning mechanisms that are proclaimed to be 99.5% efficient that means from that ten percent above "9,95%" get captured and "0.05%" escape in the exhaust.
So the total amount of escaping thorium / uranium or what ever is roughly 0.05% the amount you have as input in the coal.
That is not 1% that is more than 50 times less than 1%.
As it pretty clearly that it is not 10% of the ash that is "escaping" into the gas exhaust system, but much much much less, it obviously can not even be that 0.05% of uranium escapes via "smoke" into the atmosphere.
If you are too lazy to do any research Yes, I'm to lazy to research, because I know you are wrong.
Sorry that you feel you have wasted your time. I have no urgent business to proof to you you are wrong, because I don't care.
However, thank you for pointing out that there is more uranium than mercury in coal ... that comes as an surprise.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.