Slashdot Mirror
America's Energy Department Works With Bill Gates To Test Mini Nuclear Reactors (washingtonexaminer.com)
An anonymous reader quotes the Washington Examiner:
The Energy Department is participating in a major push with electric utility Southern and a company founded by Microsoft founder Bill Gates to develop small nuclear power reactors that are less expensive and more efficient than their much larger cousins. "Molten salt reactors are getting a reboot," the Energy Department tweeted late Wednesday, offering a schematic of a battery-like power plant module that "could power America's energy"... The Department of Energy linked to a detailed description of how its Oak Ridge National Laboratory and other federal labs are teaming up with Southern Company, a big coal utility with several nuclear plants, and Gates' TerraPower to test and develop a type of reactor that uses liquefied sodium "as both coolant and fuel."
These liquid-metal reactors are sometimes referred to as nuclear batteries because they are small, self-contained units, which theoretically can be deployed anywhere, although the version being tested at Oak Ridge appears to be one requiring a permanent structure and housing. TerraPower was awarded a $40 million award by the Energy Department in 2016 to pursue the project.
Currently it's in the "early design phase" to assess commercial viability, but testing will begin in 2019, "which will help validate the reactor's safety systems for license certification by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission."
These liquid-metal reactors are sometimes referred to as nuclear batteries because they are small, self-contained units, which theoretically can be deployed anywhere, although the version being tested at Oak Ridge appears to be one requiring a permanent structure and housing. TerraPower was awarded a $40 million award by the Energy Department in 2016 to pursue the project.
Currently it's in the "early design phase" to assess commercial viability, but testing will begin in 2019, "which will help validate the reactor's safety systems for license certification by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission."
Face it, a very large chunk of the price of a conventional nuclear reactor is built into the legal challenges that pop up whenever building a reactor is proposed.
If the anti-nuke hysterics follow pattern, it won't matter if they can build these reactors for $5.99+shipping, they'll have 30 years of court challenges to deal with before they can actually build the first one, and then repeat for every copy proposed....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
The "mini-reactor" idea comes around every 10 years. And every 12 year someone discovers that the fixed costs of operating any type of reactor that produces enough power to be useful (e.g. a US Air Force or Soviet "remote base" or "small town" system) mean that a somewhat larger plant is much more efficient, and a somewhat larger plant more efficient than that, and so on into the economy of scale argument for power/steam plants around... 1000 MWe (3000 MWt). Which is what tend to get built today.
The basics of power engineering, nuclear engineer, security, and waste disposal are well known and aren't going to be magically 'disrupted' by anything other than Mr. Fusion.
Even depreciated over 30 years, nuclear power costs are almost an order of magnitude higher than NG, and much higher than wind or even solar so this is just so much wanking
Nuclear power is the only alternative that has all the qualities you need to power civilization. It provides on demand power, it doesn't require very limited geographic features the way hydro or geothermal do, and it has the lowest impact of any power technology.
If we are lucky we will see its resurgence soon.
Where are the Blue Screen of Death jokes?
Because small, unitized reactors that can be easily dropped into place, and later removed and refurbished could make all the difference in the nuclear industry.
Then, you can strategically drop a reactor wherever you need steady power and encase it in a concrete/steel/lead sarcophagus and only address it again when the core needs replacing. This can help with the issues involved in building large nuclear facilities in danger-prone areas (like California).
Or, if you need more power, you drop multiples in and gang them together.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Design and build small, modular nukes for cargo ship power plants. It was tried once as a demonstration project. Unfortunately, they pulled the plug on it just before fuel oil prices started to rise enough to make the Savannah economical.
Have gnu, will travel.
Where is gates going to manufacture this at?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
...will ever need more than a terawatt."
-- Bill Gates
...to something called the nuclear powered naval ship. Those things use mini reactors, and seem to be working quite well.
All will be cool, in the Trumpverse. Hail Trump!
Of cause he should get his finger in a technology like nuclear power.
You are right that the anti-nukes are f%ing insane. However, most of these 4th gen are much cheaper and safer. Add to that many anti-nukes are environmentalists and know that we MUST get CO2 down, and nuke as part is the only solution.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
And too little too late, China is an order of magnitude more
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/12/china-spending-us3-3-billion-on-molten-salt-nuclear-reactors-for-faster-aircraft-carriers-and-in-flying-drones.html
"After testing, Southern Company and TerraPower plan to develop and license a test reactor before developing a 1,100-megawatt prototype by 2030."
Perfect. This is will arrive the same time that fusion power becomes commercially available and the $35,000 Tesla begins production.
A 1 Gigawatt prototype is not small!
"only solution"
'only if we get all nations, bla bla'
Do you even understand English words?
Are you using some alternate meanings the rest of us are unaware of?
nuf said.
Nuclear power becomes the back up for renewables and when not used for that, the energy generated used to increase recycling, to the point of zero waste cities, all waste reduced back to raw materials. You need back up energy ie imagine an the entire suburban landscape with solar panel roofs, enough energy to power the domestic needs of the entire city and most commercial need. Industrial would still require more energy. Now imagine a major hail storm, those panels will take months to replace and you can not shut down a major city for months, hours is bad, day are really bad, weeks are a disaster. So nuclear is required as a back up on the grid for all renewable energy sources as they are quite environmentally vulnerable. There are probably better nuclear reactor designs, it is just a matter of getting that technology back on the market.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Hail is really a non issue. It hits relatively few places, and only a few places in America, let alone the world, that has any real amount. I live Colorado front range, which is considered one of the worst areas for hail. We get up to baseball size and yet, our solar panels hold up fine. The real issue would be tornados tearing off roofs, or large volcanoes, such as Yellowstone erupting. Then you have weeks, months, or even years of little to no solar or wind energy.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The big wheel of forgetting turns surely, if slowly. Plenty of countries have sunk bill-bucks into sodium reactors, and they all decided, nope, too unreliable, too risky, too radioactive, bye, Felicia. From Fermi 1, through the Soviet Alphas and others, through Japan, and I forget who else. They seem attractive at first, with their low pressures and high outlet temps but then the enthusiasm falls quickly with sodium leaks, sodium fires, and radioactivity. One can hope a new generation will learn from and surpass the old, but I'm not buying any stock.
Four countries have launched nuclear-powered merchant ships: America built the NS Savannah, a passenger-cargo ship; Germany built the Otto Hahn, which carried ore for nearly a decade; Japan built the Mutsu, which was decommissioned after a single test run; and Russia built the Sevmorput, which carried cargo until 2012.
That's because in the US, our pride is really REALLY expensive. We take the motto "failure is not an option" to a degree that passes the reasonability mark, and we apply it unevenly.
Nuclear risks are there, I'll never deny that, and they should be mitigated, strongly. But not to the extent they are today. It is unknown how many deaths actually come from coal and oil, per gigawatt of energy derived. But it vastly outweighs the deaths caused by nuclear power, by orders of mangatude. Even if we produced our power requirements 100% from nuclear powers, which have the same average failure rate we've seen, and experienced X number of Fukushima Daichi-sized meltdowns, it would still not mean the same number of deaths we have today.
I'm not going to dive deep into the number of cancer cases, increased frequency and scale of adverse weather events, potential risk with ocean rise, spills and fires, or any other factors that make nuclear power the better alternative, because all of that is debatable (though certainly no one claims it to be zero). Deaths is an easy statistic to compute and attribute.
Nuclear power is the terrorism of energy production. Billions and billions spent to defend against it, when overhead power lines have killed way more and it would have cost less to bury them. Not all deaths are equal in the US in terms of priority.
640 MW of power ought to be enough for anyone.
You can't produce nuclear plants fast enough. Nuclear has been around more than half century, and it has failed to outcompete fossil fuels. The new designs are still just finding better ways to boil water. Even if they improve costs by an order of magnitude, solar and wind are still going to beat them.
Solar and wind are still enjoying exponential cost decreases, and at least solar is likely to continue on that path for a long time.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
What's the point in testing new designs now the USA stole the only french company that can compete with US companies ?
"However, most of these 4th gen are much cheaper and safer. ..."
Don't know about safer. But recent attempts to build state of the art reactors in the US, EU and Korea have been way late and way over budget. Only a year ago, Toshiba wrote off something like $6B due to losses in its nuclear unit.
Maybe the Chinese or Indians can do better. I hope so. But lets not count our cheap, safe nuclear reactors until they are on line and generating power and revenue.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
By 2030 most of the world will have abandoned coal and most places outside the US will have abandoned natural gas for power generation as well. Even if it arrives on schedule (which nothing experimental ever does), we're probably talking 2040 until this design can be produced in the quantities needed to produce 1% of the world's power.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
You can't produce nuclear plants fast enough. Nuclear has been around more than half century, and it has failed to outcompete fossil fuels. The new designs are still just finding better ways to boil water. Even if they improve costs by an order of magnitude, solar and wind are still going to beat them.
Solar and wind are still enjoying exponential cost decreases, and at least solar is likely to continue on that path for a long time.
Nuclear has produced, and continues to produce more energy than wind or solar. In fact, no other scalable non CO2 emitting source has produced anything close to the production that nuclear has. Countries with higher percentage nuclear power have the lowest energy prices. Your statements ring hollow.
You know, the only product that if they made it would not suck....
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
In civilized countries the city would be connected to a grid ... just saying.
And hail storms that destroy the solar infrastructure are so rare, I can assure you: you will have much server problems than lack of solar power in winter if that happens to your city.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Nuclear has produced, and continues to produce more energy than wind or solar.
Not in Germany.
Energy prices depend on taxes on energy.
They have nothing to do with the source.
In fact, no other scalable non CO2 emitting source has produced anything close to the production that nuclear has.
I doubt that. It will be hard to find numbers, though.
For the current situation that is irrelevant anyway. Building solar and wind plants is cheaper and faster than building coal or nuclear plants.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Why is that pointless rant directed at the parent post?
Nuclear has produced, and continues to produce more energy than wind or solar. Not in Germany.
Globally, by a long shot. Its not even close. You can always draw a small circle. Unfortunately for Germany, their CO2 emissions haven't improved and their electricity costs have skyrocketed, as reflected in their pricing, in their quest to add solar and wind.
History is very relevant. I see you want to ignore it. We know how that ends up.
Solar and wind have enjoyed the benefits of economics of scale. Mass producing solar panels and wind turbines in factories reduced costs. Next generation of nuclear energy can also benefit from economics of scale. See NuScale They are building a Small Modular Reactor and have passed phase 1 of the NRC review. Their first 12 reactors are going to be built in Idaho for Utah municipalities. They will be factory built which will reduce costs and will allow them to be built quickly.
China is now leading our clean energy future. Here is an actual link for that, and related ones:
China spending US$3.3 billion on molten salt nuclear reactors ... ...
SINAP T-MSR Promotional Video
Why China’s 600 fte MSR program wants to cooperate
It should be mentioned that China's efforts stem from Kirk Sorensen's rediscovery and publication of the brilliant MSR work done at ORNL many decades ago, which was foolishly cancelled and lost in obscurity. He has since founded a company to further that work in the US, and there is a good overview of the vision here:
The Flibe Energy LFTR49: the triple ace in nuclear GEN IV design
If the US, EU and Korea abandon the line of nuclear power research China will also have to stop because there would be nobody to steal the technology from. And people may disagree with this statement but can anyone list any Chinese ground breaking technological breakthroughs in the past 200 years that they have contributed to the world?
In 2007, Wired ran a brief article about Toshiba's micro-reactor. If this technology existed eleven years ago, then how is its current "development" newsworthy?
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Impersonating me again I see: Poor imitation & yet sincerest form of flattery proving you WISH you were ME but an offtopic "ne'er-do-well" in yourself can NEVER ever be since you waste your time producing the outcome of your WASTED LIFE we all see now from you.
APK
P.S.=> Grow up, get on topic & be normal, ok? Thanks... apk
Impersonating me again I see: Poor imitation & yet sincerest form of flattery proving you WISH you were ME but an offtopic "ne'er-do-well" in yourself can NEVER ever be since you waste your time producing the outcome of your WASTED LIFE we all see now from you.
APK
P.S.=> Grow up, get on topic & be normal - ok? Thanks!... apk
Hae?
What nonsense do you talk now again?
Germanies CO2 emmisions have improved greatly in comparison to the US.
And energy/electricity prices have not skyrocked. They are higher per kwh than in the US, but that is compensated by the low consumption. An average German household pays less for electricity than an American.
As always: you have no c!ue, to sad.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
As to backing up the grid, nuke is great. But we got in trouble because we allowed coal to get up to 60%. We really need to limit any singular form of energy to say 30%. For example, wind and solar are nice, but both depend on the sun. If we were to build to that, we run risks WHEN ( not if ) Yellowstone blows . Geothermal is great, but overuse runs risk of causing real earthquakes. Small amounts, like say 10-30% of our energy is likely not going to cause issues. Hydro is limited. Etc, etc, etc So, running nuke up to say 30-50% is not a bad number.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
... do not turn off.
Nuclear power is the only alternative that has all the qualities you need to power civilization.
It even drives my power armor.
What the hell are you talking about? The US CO2 emissions have gone down, but Germany's hasn't. It has gone up as it uses more coal. It also buys electricity from neighbors. It is like you guys are in a reality distortion field. You don't need to believe me: it is all readily available on the Internet.
If after 50 years nobody has solved the nuclear waste disposal problem, who is going to pay the cost for decommissioning these little WMDs? If a shoe bomb can be WMD, these are way more dangerous. All the voodoo economics to paint these as attractive does not even account for all the operational security and maintenance needed to keep them safe over their operating lives, or insurance to cover mishaps natural or otherwise, let alone the cost to deal with the left overs (even if the active fissile material magically disappears, there will still be lots of radiation contaminated materials to sequester. Until there is political will and $$$ to deal with all the nuclear crap that left over from the last 50 years of nuclear power and bomb making, these will just add to the problem.
Hae? What nonsense do you talk now again? Germanies CO2 emmisions have improved greatly in comparison to the US. And energy/electricity prices have not skyrocked. They are higher per kwh than in the US, but that is compensated by the low consumption. An average German household pays less for electricity than an American. As always: you have no c!ue, to sad.
Germany's emissions have not improved at all. You are showing complete ignorance. Once again, its a pattern with you. You just say stuff you want to be true even though it isn't.
The people that purchase their electricity fund decommissioning. Each plant has a fund set aside from per kWh revenue, for this purpose. Who pays to decommission non-nuclear plants that are not required to have such fund?
The fucking hippies won't give a shit. All they will see is "nuclear" and then they will lose their fucking shit. It happens every time. if it wasn't for the hippies we probably would have had this decades ago and global warming from CO2 emissions would nothing but a theory on paper.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
The individual reactor cores are small enough to transport, thus making EOL disposal far easier and safer; you don't need to disassemble them on-site, or indeed disassemble them at all; you can bury the whole thing in a reasonably-sized tunnel.
But they're intended to be used in groups, so a lot of the economies of scale in the support equipment (steam generators, turbines, electrical switchyard, etc.) can still be used.
There are a lot of neat reactor designs that have gone unexplored because early work was funded by the U.S. Navy who concluded that the most practical reactor for nuclear submarines was the boiling water design.
And of course, the very successful demonstration of the passive safety of sodium-cooled reactors was very unfortunately timed.
In April 1986, Experimental Breeder Reactor II demonstrated, for a large international group of witnesses, safe passive shutdown in the face of a total loss of cooling. Basically, all the reactor components have a high coefficient of thermal expansion, to the point that an overtemperature reactor cannot sustain a chain reaction even in the absence of control rods. And the coolant has enough mass and a high enough boiling point that it can absorb the decay heat without boiling.
Nobody remembers this, because a few days later on the night of 25 April 1986, Chernobyl reactor #4 demonstrated that water-cooled reactors lack this inherent safety.
In civilized countries the city would be connected to a grid ... just saying.
And hail storms that destroy the solar infrastructure are so rare, I can assure you: you will have much server problems than lack of solar power in winter if that happens to your city.
I don't know about your servers but our servers at work have a combination power conditioner and UPS for transients and a diesel generator for power outages longer than a minute. With a bigger battery and some solar panels we could go off-grid. Assuming we have the solar panels insured then after a hail storm we'd just run on diesel until the paperwork was processed and new panels installed. We had a storm take out power for hours before, we could go for days at least if we had to.
imagine an the entire suburban landscape with solar panel roofs, enough energy to power the domestic needs of the entire city and most commercial need
In most places rooftop solar would not even be enough to provide domestic needs, let alone commercial needs.
People love to claim that their solar roof provides enough electricity to cover all their needs, and that part may be true, but that's because the people making that claim aren't using electricity for things like cooking, heating, and providing hot water. They are burning natural gas, and the amount of energy provided by that natural gas is much larger than the amount of electricity they consume. If they actually wanted to go "all green" they would have to use electricity for ALL of their energy needs, and that roof would only provide a third or less of what's required.
So no, these MSRs would not just be a "backup to solar"; they would provide the majority of the energy which solar could supplement. Although if we can make the MSRs cheap, safe, and versatile enough to be used anywhere, it might make more sense to just ditch solar entirely.
Germany hasn't?
Ezekiel 23:20
That'll work. Once China is pumping them out of an assembly line and selling them on AliExpress for $999 with free shipping, I'm sure our consumer culture will take over. Even hippies will be buying one to recharge their Prius.
The reason nuclear power plants are not being built has little to do with anti-nuclear hysterics and a lot to do with the initial cost of building these facilities.
The reason for the high initial cost has a lot to do with anti-nuclear hysterics.
The US would have to reduce its emissions by forty percent to reach German per-capita CO2 emissions in the first place. The US would also have to reduce its emissions by about thirty-five percent to reach Germany's nominal GDP per kg of CO2 emissions. Perhaps the discussion of the problem of Germany's emissions should be postponed until the US at least catches up?
Ezekiel 23:20
I couldn't tell from the article. Are they talking about molten salt reactors or molten sodium? They mention both.
Also, any idea what the fuel cycle is? Some uranium isotope, thorium, or something else?
uh no. Even if AMerica had not gone after coal, the world would still be in a world of hurt because China and other nations make heavy heavy use of Coal. Then add in that America has loads of oil base transportation.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
"Do not stare into remaining village."
I've met some of the Nuscale guys and talked to them about their plant. The first planned one will still have a site output over 1,000 MWe. The 'Big Idea' is that by ganging several smaller reactors together, they can be small enough to avoid expensive ECCS and shutdown cooling systems, but big enough to pay for all the people you need on a nuclear site. Also, with a dozen smaller reactors on site, you can frequently have one in a refueling outage, so you can staff a constant, smaller crew for that. Then your 'big outages' are just the ones necessary to take care of the electrical generating equipment (which will still happen every couple of years.) They do have a planned project with a Utah Power company, I think you can find the details on their website.
We'll see how it works out over the next few years, but as someone familiar with the nuclear industry, I'm optimistic about these guys.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Actually, no. Both have gone down similar in %, and America has done more in actual numbers.
Since you love to normalize on a BS number, lets go with it.
Germany went from 13.59 in 1970, down to 9.47 in 2016 (and has been flat/growing for the last 7 years). That is a 30% cut.
America went from 21.74 in 1970, down to 15.56 in 2016 (and America went down again in 2017). That is a 28% cut.
So, no, there really has not been much of a difference.
And no, the average german household pays similar to the low-end of American areas. For example, I know that I pay a lot less than most Germans. Why? Because even though we have wilder climate than you do, I also insulated my home far more than what you do.
Where America is missing is we still have LOADS of old homes from pre WWII, which Europe does not. In addition, we have AC/various heating, rather than using geo-thermal HVAC. However, that is changing. We will see loads of changes coming to America. Not due to our president ( traitor ), but due to states pushing this.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Germany's emissions HAS come down from its high back in the 70s. Now, for the last 7 years, they have been flat, while America continues downwards. BUT, Germany DID come down.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
If you look at the figures at how many people die per terawatt that nuclear puts out, you will see nuclear power is in a class all of its own.
There is no wonder why it is a technology that is shunned.
should be enough for everyone.
It is not hysteria when the failure-mode is the definition of 'disaster,' which, is the logical basis for the large 'built-in' legal costs associated to nukes. I mean, it's just common-sense.
Solar does not suffer from this because the worst-case failure mode is just typical small-scale 'bits-n-parts,' fire, electricity.
Pro-nuke fanatics remind me of the episode of SNL where Jane Curtain is grilling Dan Akroyd's character, who is defending his Christmas toy product, 'Bag-o-Glass."
It is not hysteria when the failure-mode is the definition of 'disaster,'
That is, of course, total nonsense. The failure mode for everything from cars and airplanes to home furnaces and matches is "disaster" if you're willing to be creative enough. By your logic, as long as it's technically possible for any particular bit of technology to cause a disaster, no level of crying and nail-biting can be considered hysterical.
This is why people rightly call your arguments anti-nuclear hysteria.
Where America is missing is we still have LOADS of old homes from pre WWII, which Europe does not
Seriously?
Ezekiel 23:20
Uh, no.
The current reactors being built are based on 70's technology. ALL OF THE LARGE ONES come from the 70s with upgrades. They are all 3rd, and even 2nd Generation. And the large 1+Gw reactors are just an economical nightmare.
I do not know if you have ever done construction, but imagine building a single home. Per ft^2, it is EXPENSIVE, esp if this is a one time, or even only say 20 are built.
Now imagine a factory, when you build the bulk of the home via walls and then simply ship the walls to the site. You can use robotics to build those walls, and then have lots of cameras and other automated QA look it all over. Then take them onsite and erect these quickly, hook wiring and plumbing together and in several days, you have a new building. Note that the manufacturer will want to build LOTS of these. As in 1000s. That is to get their costs down.
That is the difference between the large 1GW reactors that are built on-site, vs. SMRs that are built in factories and can actually build the reactors and have them in storage so that when a utility decides to add one, the new reactor is up in less than 6 months, as opposed to 6-10 years for large reactors.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
By your logic, as long as it's technically possible for any particular bit of technology to cause a disaster, no level of crying and nail-biting can be considered hysterical.
This is why people rightly call your arguments anti-nuclear hysteria.
The problem I have with nuclear is it is difficult to protect against stupid. The Fukushima mess was a series of bad decisions, many of them apparently over a long time. (Chernobyl was another act of stupid.) Continuing to run older and less safe plants past their initial design period is a bad decision, yet what are we doing? Older plants aren't more risky than they were, at least if they pass tests and all that, but not taking proactive steps to reduce risk when you can is, well, risky.
Sure newer designs are inherently better protected against stupid, but are they enough?
Basically, convince me that the nuclear plants will never be run by idiots or people wanting to save a buck at (almost) any price, and you will remove my remaining skepticism on nuclear.
Unfortunately preventing stupid decisions is invariably expensive. That can be somewhat managed, but it nonetheless remains a significant cost for nuclear power.
Germany went from 13.59 in 1970, down to 9.47 in 2016 (and has been flat/growing for the last 7 years). That is a 30% cut.
America went from 21.74 in 1970, down to 15.56 in 2016 (and America went down again in 2017). That is a 28% cut.
So, no, there really has not been much of a difference.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Forbes claims to know how deadly each energy source is to people.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...
Nuclear power is by far the safest energy source we have available, that's especially true in the USA. There hasn't been a major incident in the USA with nuclear power since Three Mile Island, and no one died from that. Problems in Japan and with old Soviet reactors are not indicative of anything being built today in the USA. Even so the death count from Fukushima is zero, or so close to it that it's just noise on top of the signal from the tsunami that started it all. A once in a century tsunami that hit a reactor older than Chernobyl is not the metric we should use to measure the safety of nuclear power. Certainly not Chernobyl, a reactor with no containment dome and operated by drunken bureaucrats instead of properly trained technicians.
The question isn't if we should use nuclear power, we don't have much choice not to. The question is how quickly we should be building new nuclear power plants. The nuclear power reactors we have now are getting old and we need to replace them with something. It's going to be nuclear power or the lights will start to go out. Or, at least the lights will go dim. We can build devices to collect energy from wind, water, and sun, but that will never be enough for a society that wants to keep airplanes flying, and explore beyond the atmosphere. In space there is no wind, and even on Mars the sun gets pretty dim.
Using wind, water, and sun for energy might mean survival. Using coal and natural gas will mean continued air pollution. If we are going to keep Earth clean, and go even as far as low earth orbit, then we will need nuclear power.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
The problem I have with nuclear is it is difficult to protect against stupid.
It's probably impossible to completely protect against stupid. But no serious person would demand that. The track record of nuclear even after Chernobyl and Fukushima shows that it's possible to protect against it well enough to maintain an acceptable safety margin, even with very old designs. Newer designs improve safety even further. And MSRs would be the closest thing to idiot-proof that it's possible to get.
Continuing to run older and less safe plants past their initial design period is a bad decision, yet what are we doing? Older plants aren't more risky than they were, at least if they pass tests and all that, but not taking proactive steps to reduce risk when you can is, well, risky.
Absolutely. Letst fast track the development of MSRs, pump out hundreds as soon as the designs are proven, and decommission all those old plants as soon as new ones start coming online.
Sure newer designs are inherently better protected against stupid, but are they enough?
Yes.
Basically, convince me that the nuclear plants will never be run by idiots or people wanting to save a buck at (almost) any price, and you will remove my remaining skepticism on nuclear.
Why would you set such an unrealistic goal? Look, MSRs are inherently immune from meltdowns. They don't require any human intervention to make them safe. If the temperature in the reactor gets high enough, instead of the fuel "melting down" and causing an increase in reactivity it instead melts through plugs at the bottom of the vessel causing the molten fuel to drain out into multiple separate containers. Once separated in that fashion it no longer has enough material present to continue the chain reaction, and it cools off all on it's own. No special procedure needed, no coolant required, just leave it alone and it will stop on it's own. The only "disaster" is that you lose electrical production and are going to have to spend time and money fixing and restarting the reactor.
If you can think of a way that "idiots or people wanting to save a buck" can fuck up that system to the point that it releases radiation into the environment, I'm all ears.
Unfortunately preventing stupid decisions is invariably expensive.
That's why you don't waste money trying to prevent all possible stupid decisions; you just build your reactor so that a stupid decision can't do any serious harm. You do this by ensuring that overheating of the core causes a reduction of power output rather than an increase. You also do it by removing water from the cooling circuit so that you can't have any hydrogen explosions (which are the main problem with meltdowns; hydrogen exploding spreads radiation all over the place). Even non-MSR Gen 4 reactors include passive cooling features which preclude the possibility of a Fukushima-type failure, and use coolants which can't cause explosions.
We have had 60 years of development since Fukushima was built; you don't think we've learned anything about how to design safer reactors in the last 6 decades?
Solar thermal is more efficient than solar PV at heating your hot water. PV is just more convenient.
The rest of your claims are bullshit about how there might be a super volcano that blots out he sun for a year, so everyone needs 1.21 GWh of battery backup or solar is 100% useless.
How did coal get you in trouble? (apart from the pollution Americans dont care about anyway) it was cheap, reliable, coal is everywhere and not running out. If you have no sun or wind you likely have much bigger problems. Nuclear winter maybe or alien invasion.
Why stop at 30% or 50%? why not 80% or 100% or 110%. Use any extra for water desalination, etc.
You keep throwing out numbers without any rhyme or reason. Do you think it makes your silly ideas more scientific or something? Are we supposed to assume you thought about it for more than 5 seconds because you threw out some numbers? (your numbers are usually all lies anyway)
Yellowstone blowing in a big way is going to be a civilization ending event that nukes aren't going to help much for. Volcanic ash is nasty stuff and when you measure it in feet, well unless you're upwind, you're fucked, and even going far enough upwind will just circle the globe and bring you to downwind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Perhaps you should blame the oil companies that financed those hippies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
You can't produce nuclear plants fast enough.
Sure we can.
There was a time when the USA could build them "fast enough", and the USA has only grown in population, industrial capacity, and wealth. We can afford to build new nuclear. We can't afford not to. The USA built 99 reactors between 1967 and 1990. That's nearly 5 per year, but they were going online much faster than that at the peak.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/i...
Just to keep up with the rate of expected closures of old coal and nuclear, and growing electrical demand, the USA will have to build about 2 new nuclear power reactors, of about 1GW capacity, every month. Once we've replaced all the old power plants we will have to keep building them at that rate to replace the ones we build today in 40 or 50 years. This is consistent with EIA projections of 20GW of new natural gas electrical generation capacity this year.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinene...
I have heard from a nuclear engineer that a nuclear power plant takes no more materials or engineering than nuclear power. The only difference is in the paperwork. If we can get all the legal hurdles out of the way then we could be building new nuclear like we did in the 1970s and 1980s.
Nuclear power is safe, clean, reliable, and we can build it as cheap as anything. Even with all the current bureaucracy on building nuclear power it is competitive with wind and natural gas, and it's certainly cheaper than solar right now. It's not as cheap as natural gas just yet but it only takes a spike in demand, and therefore prices, to flip that around. I expect that to happen after a couple years of 20GW of more natural gas power coming online every year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It seems all there is to say against nuclear are easily debunked lies. We will have more nuclear power, that not a question any more. The only questions to answer is how quickly we can ramp up production and what kind of nuclear power we will be building. We can build more light water solid fuel reactors like we have for decades, or we can move beyond that and build molten salt reactors.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
The fattest person lost more weight than the skinny person.
Pat yourself on the back Windy, except you are still the fattest.
It's easy to lose the most when you have the most to lose.
You dropped 6 per person. India can't drop 6 per person, because they only produce less than 2.
In Windyland, that makes an American cleaner than an Indian. Even though the American still produces as much as 8 Indians added together.
Germany went from 13.59 in 1970, down to 9.47 in 2016 (and has been flat/growing for the last 7 years). That is a 30% cut. America went from 21.74 in 1970, down to 15.56 in 2016 (and America went down again in 2017). That is a 28% cut. So, no, there really has not been much of a difference.
Most C02 cuts per capita in both countries were due to efficiency improvements, and not all is tied to electrical generation. The topic here is improvements in electrical generation emissions. Germany's per KWH generated CO2 emissions have not improved since they started adding solar and wind. In US, per KWh improvement have been mostly due to replacing coal generation with natural gas.
France has by far the lowest per KWh CO2 emissions due to high percentage of nuclear. They also have the lowest per capita CO2 emissions.
Don't confuse CO2 emissions reduction due to efficiency improvements with per KWH electrical generation emissions. And the topic is improvements due to solar and wind, which started early 2000's. Germany has not seen an improvement in CO2 emissions per kwh from adding solar and wind.
Where America is missing is we still have LOADS of old homes from pre WWII, which Europe does not.
Uh, citation please? My very superficial googling suggests that about 19% of US houses are pre 1949 as of 2009. (US Census Bureau) For comparison I picked two European countries that I know were heavily damaged in WWII. 2011 Eurostat figures put Germany at about 24% pre 1946 buildings and the UK at just short of 38%
Germany hasn't?
Not in the electrical sector from adding wind and solar. They've seen improvements outside of generation due to efficiency. But their emissions per kwh generated have basically been flat for the last 8-10 years.
https://www.cleanenergywire.or...
You just said
Germany was 9.47 in 2016
America was 15.56 in 2016
How many more years until you get down to where Germany is now dropping .6 of a % ? (decades? another 50 years?)
Why do you claim thats meaningful?
And energy/electricity prices have not skyrocked. They are higher per kwh than in the US, but that is compensated by the low consumption. An average German household pays less for electricity than an American.
As always: you have no c!ue, to sad.
Perhaps "skyrocket" is being hyperbolic but prices have risen. And German households buy less electricity because it costs more, that's pretty basic economic theory.
https://www.ft.com/content/e3ee517c-a6a6-11e8-8ecf-a7ae1beff35b
Economists broadly expect the increase in inflation, due to rising raw material costs, such as energy prices, to be temporary.
Germany has quite high electricity rates and these "temporary" price hikes aren't helping.
https://www.ovoenergy.com/guides/energy-guides/average-electricity-prices-kwh.html
Germany pays three times that of US, Canada, or Russia. These three nations have access to cheap hydro, nuclear, and natural gas. What does Germany have? Brown coal? Germany has large subsidies on wind and solar, which only hides the true costs to the buyers. Subsidies on expensive energy doesn't make the energy cheaper, it only adds costs in the overhead of shuffling the money about.
Germany is in between a rock and a hard place. Or perhaps French nuclear power and Russian natural gas. Germans put themselves there with this stupid idea of abandoning nuclear power. Germany will have to return to nuclear power or see it's economy collapse under the weigh of expensive and unreliable wind and solar power.
I have heard from a nuclear engineer that a nuclear power plant takes no more materials or engineering than nuclear power.
This was probably meant to be "no more materials than a coal plant", and if you set nuclear and coal plants side by side, it is blindingly obvious. See pages 48-52 for such a comparison of coal with advanced nuclear.
Never mind that conventional nuclear already uses a tiny fraction of the resources of renewables, so the comparison with advanced nuclear is even more stark.
If the west completed the transition, which would have made nuclear cheap and ubiquitous, China and the rest of the developing world would have chosen nuclear. Their lack of choice and adoption of coal is entirely our fault.
If the right nuclear technology path had been chosen for commercialization, the replacement of fossil fuels would have progressed even more rapidly, as molten salt reactors are a superior technology with inherent safety, using less resources and enabling smaller and simpler plants.
This was probably meant to be "no more materials than a coal plant",
Yes, thank you. Nuclear power is still a thermal power plant like coal and much of natural gas. As such most of the same structures and machines are used, like steam driven generators. The difference is in the source of the heat.
and if you set nuclear and coal plants side by side, it is blindingly obvious. See pages 48-52 for such a comparison of coal with advanced nuclear.
That is an excellent presentation. Thorcon has been a noted advocate for immediate use of thorium for fuel. What makes Thorcon perhaps a bit unique from competitors like Flibe Energy, Terrestrial Energy, and Transatomic, is their very conservative approach. They want to use most everything off the shelf in the construction of a nuclear power plant to keep as many unknowns to a minimum as possible. This helps with licensing and such as well as costs.
Never mind that conventional nuclear already uses a tiny fraction of the resources of renewables, so the comparison with advanced nuclear is even more stark.
I like that article and I expect articles like it to come up more often and eventually be brought to wider audiences. Especially what was said in the last paragraph.
The prospect of climate change and ocean acidification are real, and the long time it takes to implement corrective measures means that we must rapidly decarbonize our energy systems. Our fears of radiation are largely unfounded and have had the deleterious effect of continued use of fossil fuels. Even as we deploy wind and solarâ"the nominally low-carbon sourcesâ"the absence of large scale storage systems have forced us into using natural gas power for back up. The design of natural gas power plants used as spinning reserves are selected on the rapidity with which they can be brought online. These designs are among the least efficient of gas-fired plants, with thermal efficiencies around 33%, and thus high carbon emissions. Gas-fired power plants that operate with a combined steam cycle have thermal efficiencies in excess of 50%. Analysis by Larsen and Rez shows that we would do better in terms of carbon emissions if instead of installing low capacity factor wind or solar systems and backing them with natural gas, we simply used a combined cycle natural gas plant.
Wind and solar power are just proxies for natural gas. This will remain true until technology in storage gets to be cheap enough to compete, which may never happen. Third generation nuclear works now, and fourth generation nuclear promises to be far better. We'll need as much nuclear as we can build now, and we should invest in the next generation nuclear to bring it to market as quickly as we can.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
"death count from Fukushima is zero"
Sorry, this is utter bullshit and you know it. You must be one of those that also thinks that smoking don't kill anyone. Cancer does, but smoking... no sir!
buildings != homes/dwellings.
Europes Here is America's.
Note that most of Europe's construction is from the 70s on (sweden is a HUGE exception). br America's is about what I would expect. The rust belt has homes that are 45-65 years old, while the south east and west is generally under 30.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Learn to read idiot.
America is not even CLOSE to being #1. Never has been. Hell, Canada and Australia are both worse.
BUT, Like AMerica, they are headed in the RIGHT DIRECTION. That is, they continue to lose emissions, while your nation continues to add massive amounts.
Yes, it is easy to lose that weight. BUT, as a %, we still lost a great deal. Simple as that.
And I notice that you have switched from trying to compare China to AMerica (and lying about the numbers), over to India. Got to move those goal posts.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
buildings and homes are very different. That is why I posted above showing that.
Keep in mind that the Allies over all, worked hard to NOT destroy antiquities, and that includes buildings.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
America will very likely be below 10 before 2025, if not sooner. The fact is, that as our cars switch to EVs, it will only continue it downwards.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You think so small.
Go ahead, build your nuke plants. Pat yourself on the back at how safe they are. Your enemies need only destroy your nuke facilities with conventional weapons, and you will have effectively nuked yourself.
Or, just wait until your economic collapse, you are unable to maintain the costs to keep them operating safely. Again, you nuke yourself.
This isn't hysteria. It's game theory and reality. Nuke plants are very expensive. They make cheap product which looks good on balance sheet, but you really need to look further.
The problem I have with nuclear is it is difficult to protect against stupid.
It's probably impossible to completely protect against stupid. But no serious person would demand that.
Wait, what???
I seriously demand that solar PV be the gold standard for safety, economy, and environmental impact. When nuclear power exceeds PV in all aspects, then I'm on board. Until then, no nuclear power. The risk is truly small, but the consequences are horrific.
"death count from Fukushima is zero"
Sorry, this is utter bullshit and you know it.
Not only am I convinced that the deaths from the Fukushima Diiachi meltdown is zero, so are the experts at the United Nations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Annex A of the UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee for the Effects of Atomic Radiation) 2013 report to the UN General Assembly[49] states that the average effective dose of the 25,000 workers over the first 19 months after the accident was about 12 millisieverts (mSv). About 0.7% of the workforce received doses of more than 100 mSv (Chapter II A(b) paragraph 35). No radiation-related deaths or acute diseases have been observed among the workers and general public exposed to radiation from the accident (Chapter II A(b) paragraph 38). Adults living in the city of Fukushima were estimated to have received, on average, an effective dose of about 4 mSv (Chapter II A(a) paragraph 30). No discernible increased incidence of radiation-related health effects are expected among exposed members of the public or their descendants (Chapter II A(b) paragraph 39). Average annual exposure in the region from naturally occurring sources is about 2.1 mSv, and average lifetime exposure is 170 mSv (Chapter II A(2) paragraph 29). For comparison, the average dose from an abdominal and pelvic computed tomography (CT) scan, with and without contrast, is 30 mSv.
In the tsunami there were 16,000 people dead and missing. In all of that chaos and death people focused on the relative non-event that happened at the nuclear power plant. I will emphasize that didn't say the meltdown was a non-event, only that in the aftermath of the tsunami anything that happened at the power plant is minimal by comparison. I recall hearing of dead bodies found on the site of the power plant, the circumstances were such that it is suspected they drowned there in the flood. Again that's my recollection, go find something counter if you like as I already pointed to a report by the UN that no one died as a result of the accident.
There's another report out there that considered the evacuation around Fukushima to have caused more deaths than if everyone had stayed. Maybe the area should have been evacuated but it should have been done more slowly, and with greater care, to avoid the deaths from over exertion, traffic accidents, and so forth, that happened in the mad dash out of the area. We've learned to be more cautious in ordering evacuations, because the risks of deaths from an evacuation is not zero.
Think about that. It's quite possible the Japanese government caused more deaths in the evacuation than could have been caused if everyone stayed in place. We've gotten so scared of nuclear power that we are killing more people to "keep them safe" from it.
So, sure, I'll agree that claiming there were zero deaths from Fukushima is "bullshit". More people died fleeing the radiation than if they had all refused to leave.
Life is dangerous and everything we do carries a risk, and that includes doing nothing. Is there a risk from using nuclear power? Of course. That risk is far lower than using anything else, or using nothing at all.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
the main problem with the present nuclear reactors is the use of WATER as a thermal transfer agent. Water at 300*C is at a very high pressure, and at even higher temps in close proximity to ZIRCONIUM the oxygen gets lost and hydrogen gas appears, with predictable results.
Molten salt operates at higher temps and low pressure. Cheap abundant fuels can be used, even nuclear waste, as common fuel rods needs to be shuffled around and eventually removed for "reprocessing". Only 2% of the fuel is used in the rods. The rest is waste and no permanent solution for their disposition has yet been found. Fast spectrum molten salt reactors can burn old fuel rods which at present has negative value.
Molten salt reactors, the old FUD does not fit.
Can just as easily use China, but thats just more excuses for you to call me a Chinese troll when I'm not even Chinese.
Who is closer to #1? Who is fatter? America or anyone from Asia? America or Anyone from Europe?
As a % you did a little worse than Germany. But you had so much more fat to cut!!
Is someone paying to not understand this? It is easier for an extremely fat person to lose a kg compared to a normal person. There is just so much more fat to cut. You keep patting yourself on the back because you used to be morbidly obese, but not you are just extremely overweight.
You started from a much higher level idiot. Just because you hang around with a couple fat friends does not mean you are as healthy as a European, or as malnourished as an Asian.
Germany and the whole of Europe are below 10 already fool...
Transport is still heading up idiot.
Your decreases are getting smaller, in fact 2018 is predicted to see an increase in America.
Then the one thing you cling to will be gone.
China is below 10. China has never been above 10, you were above 20 !!
India isn't even 1/2 that and is below 5 (below 2 and an 1/8 your level on recent numbers)
Germany went from 13.59 in 1970, down to 9.47 in 2016
America went from 21.74 in 1970, down to 15.56 in 2016
America went from being 1.60 times as bad as Germany in 1970, to being 1.64 times as bad as Germany in 2016. So, no, there really has not been much of a difference, despite you constantly telling us that America is doing a good job and Germany is bad and using too much coal.
America is not only just as bad as before, but actually a little bit worse. Maybe in the next 46 years you will start to catch up even a little bit.
Starting next year, the new tesla trucks will actually drop our CO2 by 2-5% EACH YEAR. That is how much of an impact that truck will make. Yes, 5000 new Tesla trucks EACH YEAR will reduce CO2 FURTHER than 500,000 new model 3s EACH YEAR.
If you're going to lie, why not lie big hey Windy?
Can you find anywhere credible that predicts America will drop to 10 per person by 2025?
Or just pulled from your ass again...
mindless weasel to the very end, just fills the world with shiit. this time though, it's radioactive. fvck3n r3tard
German CO2 emissions rise in 2015 despite renewables surge
That's only a surprise to anyone that hasn't figured out that wind and solar power are just proxies for natural gas. Wind is unreliable, and as the winds shift the difference between it and the load have to be made up by something. This "something" needs to be able to react quickly to the changing supply to meet demand and we have only two energy sources that can do this, natural gas turbines and hydroelectric dams. Natural gas turbines are not very efficient, about 30%, while natural gas combined cycle plants are nearly twice as efficient. Given the low capacity factor of wind power it's often been shown that just burning the natural gas in a combined cycle plant will nearly always have a lower CO2 output than if natural gas turbines were combined with wind.
Solar is "reliable" in that we know when the sun will rise and set but "unreliable" in that we can't just tap into that whenever we want. Despite claims of the sun's output matching demand this is only true in the most general sense. People do use more power during the day than at night but there are peaks in electrical demand every morning and evening, I'm guessing as people make coffee and toast for breakfast and then put something to eat in ovens every evening. Solar output peaks at noon, right when people turn off stuff to break for lunch. This also means relying heavily on natural gas for people that lack ready access to hydro power.
I know people will want to bring up batteries as a means to match supply to demand but I mentioned hydro and natural gas energy sources that can shift output quickly. Batteries are not a source of energy. They cost money, lots of money, but make no power, in fact they lose some of it in the process. This makes them a money loser twice over. Oh, and a source of CO2 emissions in their construction.
Nuclear power is reliable, low CO2, and cheaper than solar power. Since Germany has very little hydro electric power available to them they will continue to see electricity prices rise, and CO2 emissions rise, until they reverse this self imposed ban on nuclear power. That is, perhaps, unless they replace much of their coal and "renewables" with combined cycle natural gas power.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Thanks for the link Windy. It does show the dirty 3 (USA Canada Australia) are far above Germany and even further above China.
OOPS, But it also points out your favourite lie is a lie doesn't it. "My nation" (I Assume you mean China here), peaked in 2014 and is clearly not "continuing to add massive amounts".
PS: I had to choose a country below 6 to show the impossibility. So you could fully understand the point Windy. Maybe you still failed to get it...
Person for person, China makes lighter use of coal electricity than America does. You will have to find something else to blame.
Or admit America is the problem. Na find something else to blame.
oh god and all the possible deities, don't let any part of this project use windows.....
Sure newer designs are inherently better protected against stupid, but are they enough?
Yes, absolutely.
Second generation designs like at Fukushima and Chernobyl it was possible to force them into an unsafe condition by disabling safety mechanisms. As these safety mechanisms required electrical power to operate this means denying these systems power can render the reactors unsafe. Fukushima lost power from being overwhelmed by a wave of seawater, Chernobyl had power removed from safety systems by a wave of hubris and incompetence.
Third generation nuclear are in most every way built and operated like a second generation plant but the design parameters are such that make it impossible, or nearly impossible, to force an unsafe condition. This is by things like having moderator rods held up by magnets and lowered under gravity, if power is lost then it will shutdown. Heat removal is done by the heat within the reactor. The reactors at Fukushima had an early version of this but it only worked until the temperature dropped to a certain level, once the systems stopped they could not be restarted again without electricity and the temperatures rose again, to a point of failure. Third generation reactors also often have a more sensible means to counteract a "China Syndrome" event where the fuel inside gets hot enough to burn through the primary containment vessel, the floor underneath would be made with neutron absorbing "poisons", which will keep the fuel from becoming critical again, and sacrificial materials, which melt and/or boil off to remove heat. This is a last ditch safety mechanism since at this point the reactor would be damaged far beyond any repair.
MSRs, a fourth generation nuclear technology, simply cannot be rendered unsafe. As temperatures rise the fuel expands to slow fission, it naturally moderates to the heat removal. If the temperatures rise too high then a safety plug at the bottom melts and the fuel drains into a tank with both active and passive cooling. A reactor core is designed to keep the fuel in a state to maintain fission, and allow the heat to only leave through the coolant loops that drive the turbines. With liquid fuel in MSRs the fuel can be drained from the core to a tank that has a shape that denies it the ability to continue to fission. Some designs will add "poisons" to this drained fuel to soak up neutrons that could keep fission going. Every system I've seen has a primary cooling system that is driven by electric pumps to keep it cool but this is only to allow increased safety and reduce the time before it is safe for people to enter and inspect the reactor. Secondary cooling is by convection and so long as there is air and gravity it will be kept cool. A last ditch final and beyond all doubt safety mechanism is this, if the fuel gets far too hot it will simply boil away from the core, which again has the properties required to keep the fuel critical. This would be exceedingly bad since this means a plume of radioactive gas rolling out and condensing on everything it touches, but it will mean that fission stops very quickly, heat will be removed with the boiling off of the fuel and/or moderator, and the radiation that escapes will be very small, and the heavy gasses will not rise and float away. Unless the designers were exceedingly stupid and had no proper containment structure, like at Chernobyl, no radioactive material could leave the reactor site. As everything is operating at near atmospheric pressures, perhaps even a slight vacuum, it would be impossible for the containment to be cracked open violently like at Fukushima.
Fourth generation nuclear is defined by the lack of water as a primary coolant. Water is very bad in nuclear accidents as both hydrogen and oxygen make very good neutron moderators and reflectors, which encourage fission. Water also likes to burn metals under high temperatures and release explosive hydrogen gas in the process. Boiling water will expand to 1000 times the volume of the li
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/09/fukushima-daiichi-operators-face-court-for-unpaid-wages
"A year ago, the prime minister told the world that Fukushima was under control. But that's not the case," Tsuguo Hirota told Reuters. "Workers are not getting promised hazard pay and skilled workers are leaving. It's becoming a place for amateurs only, and that has to worry anyone who lives near the plant."
In other words: Maybe the number at the event was zero but people (decomission workers and others) probably will still die afterwards. Remember, decommission still have more than 30 years ahead.
And too little too late, China is an order of magnitude more
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/...
Is Molten Salt Reactor the same as Pebble Bed Reactor?
That's only a surprise to anyone that hasn't figured out that wind and solar power are just proxies for natural gas.
Not in Germany. Germany really doesn't have massive amounts of natural gas power. Gas is too expensive in Europe to be wasted on generating electricity whenever you want to. Germany only generates something like 13% of its electricity in gas plants. Considering that it generates 2.5 times as much from wind and solar, "proxy" clearly doesn't describe the relationship unless Germans can somehow conjure electricity from nothing.
Given the low capacity factor of wind power it's often been shown that just burning the natural gas in a combined cycle plant will nearly always have a lower CO2 output than if natural gas turbines were combined with wind.
This sentence is absolutely nonsensical. One can't make an inference like that from any level of wind capacity factor. Wind's capacity factor here is about as much a red herring as inferring economic viability of solar panels from quantum efficiency of photovoltaic cells (another popular mistake!). But to follow the viable part of your logic, since Germans generate several times more electricity from wind and solar than from gas, and since carbon intensity of wind generation is so much lower for wind and solar than it is even for CCGT plants, replacing the wind and solar power with stable CCGT-generated power can't possible reduce CO2 intensity even if the existing 13% of gas plants are *not* combined cycle plants already, since if if 13% of the generation goes, say, from 600 grams per kWh to 300 grams per kWh, but another 35% goes from let's say ~50 grams per kWh to the same 300 grams per kWh, clearly that's *not* a net improvement.
Solar output peaks at noon, right when people turn off stuff to break for lunch.
I don't know where you live, but where I live, at noon people generally start going for lunch in staggered groups while other workers keep working. Usually not a lot of stuff gets turned off. At homes, stuff is already turned off of course since people are already at work.
Nuclear power is reliable, low CO2, and cheaper than solar power.
Not anymore. At least in certain regions. Those will increase in size over time, though. Very recently, price even in German auctions was around 4-5 Euro cents per kWh, much less than what is requested by prospective nuclear power operators from states as a guaranteeed feed-in price (in my country neighboring to Germany, a guaranteed price of 10 Euro cents per kWh was requested by the nuclear plant operator as a condition for building two new reactors).
Ezekiel 23:20
Its pretty simple, countries that have invested heavily in wind have high electric costs. Germany is the most shining example. And those countries have not made significant CO2 emissions reductions. Meanwhile, countries with higher percentage of nuclear have lower electric costs and prices, and lower CO2 emissions per kwh.
You can cite all the estimates you want, which are often best case wind and solar costs versus FOAK nuclear, but the real world has already showed us the answer.
Auctions don't reflect cost, and are skewed by subsidy. Nuclear can demand a higher price because of its relaibility. Solar and wind only exist on the grid today due to the capability of conventional generation. They cannot stand alone.
America will very likely be below 10 before 2025, if not sooner
How? Following this data, even a continued linear trend extrapolated from the most favourable scenario of -0.35 per year would put the US at around 12 in 2025, with only falling under 10 in the 2030s.
Ezekiel 23:20
Could that "low consumption" be at all related to geographical factors? A large portion of the United States is located in places where air conditioning is necessary; Germany, less so.
Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
It doesn't take a molten salt reactor to use thorium as fuel. It's just that thorium and molten salt reactors have properties that make the two go well together.
As I recall Canada and India have active government programs to use thorium in solid fuel reactors. I also recall the USA had experimented with a solid fuel thorium breeder reactor that was considered successful. Thorium is an excellent fuel for nuclear reactors whether that be molten salt fuel, solid fuel, or whatever other form the fuel might take. Thorium is plentiful and therefore inexpensive. Alone it's not fissile, it needs plutonium or enriched uranium to get the process going but after that it "just works". There's no such thing as "enriched thorium" because there is really only one isotope that exists in nature. It's worthless to make weapons and difficult to turn into weapon grade material, therefore inherently resistant to weapon proliferation. Because it's "lighter" than uranium it produces fewer difficult to handle "heavy" fission products.
I also have no problem with more MSRs. I do have a problem with the reluctance of numerous governments, including my own, to allow the use of thorium for fuel.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Its pretty simple, countries that have invested heavily in wind have high electric costs.
Yes, it's pretty simple, countries that have high electric costs invest heavily in wind, because it's cheap now. Hell, even the US invests in wind now.
Meanwhile, countries with higher percentage of nuclear have lower electric costs and prices, and lower CO2 emissions per kwh.
That sounds like a very wild statement given the very small sample size relative to the sheer number of compounding factors. A case in point, my country has three times the percentage of nuclear generation that Germans have, yet despite that, my country only has absolute per-capita emission levels *on par* with Germany, and even worse, my country emits more than twice the amount of CO2 per unit of economic output compared to Germany. Clearly the electricity sector is a drop in the sea here. Given the unique conditions for every country, merely pointing to France won't cut it as an argument for nuclear power being a GHG panacea.
You can cite all the estimates you want, which are often best case wind and solar costs versus FOAK nuclear
I tend to cite current average cases, actually. They are worse than the future average cases anyway.
Auctions don't reflect cost, and are skewed by subsidy.
...unless they aren't. Lots of auctions are for an unsubsidized feed-in tariff.
Nuclear can demand a higher price because of its relaibility.
No, nuclear *must* demand a higher price because of its high operating costs compounding its high capital costs. In our case, the reason for the high demanded price was the economic case. Since the alternative was that the same company would build a fossil fuel plant instead with the same stable output, the idea that they demanded it because they could for nuclear is preposterous.
Solar and wind only exist on the grid today due to the capability of conventional generation. They cannot stand alone.
That would be alarming if it weren't the case that nothing can stand alone today.
Ezekiel 23:20
You think our people live in tents or something? Homes are buildings.
Ezekiel 23:20
In other words, the US in 2016 is *almost* where Germany was in 1970, right? That doesn't bode well for the US.
Ezekiel 23:20
Germany will very likely be below 10 in 2009.
China will very likely never be above 10.
The fact is you have always been higher than China, and always been higher than Germany too.
You are very likely to always be above them both.
France has by far the lowest per KWh CO2 emissions due to high percentage of nuclear. They also have the lowest per capita CO2 emissions.
Neither of those is really true. First, even just in Europe, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland fare comparably or better with respect to per KWh CO2 emissions. Second, even more importantly, there's no shortage of countries with lower per-capita CO2 emissions than France.
Ezekiel 23:20
Germany's electric prices have gone up significantly since they started adding solar and wind, and there is no debate about the cause. They are even trying to figure out how to keep going forward knowing costs will continue to increase.
Your rationalizations completely ignore the infrastructure and curtailment costs of wind and solar.
France has by far the lowest per KWh CO2 emissions due to high percentage of nuclear. They also have the lowest per capita CO2 emissions.
Neither of those is really true. First, even just in Europe, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland fare comparably or better with respect to per KWh CO2 emissions. Second, even more importantly, there's no shortage of countries with lower per-capita CO2 emissions than France.
Those countries don't have the industrialization of France, they also import a lot of their power while France exports. I never said France was the lowest of all countries. But it is of comparable ones. And France's electric costs and prices are among the lowest.
Do you even have CO2 emissions per KWH for those countries? If so please link or state them because I don't see them. I think you are making statements you cannot necessarily defend. This makes me question your statements.
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data...
Not in Germany. Germany really doesn't have massive amounts of natural gas power. Gas is too expensive in Europe to be wasted on generating electricity whenever you want to. Germany only generates something like 13% of its electricity in gas plants. Considering that it generates 2.5 times as much from wind and solar, "proxy" clearly doesn't describe the relationship unless Germans can somehow conjure electricity from nothing.
Easy answer to that. Germany "conjures" this by selling electricity cheap to Sweden when Germany has an excess of sun and wind production, which seems to happen often with the large subsidies for wind and solar, and buying essentially that same electricity back from them at a higher price when there is a shortage. This isn't just Sweden in on the deal, they just make a good example because Sweden has a lot of hydro to balance their national grid and store the electricity that they bought cheap from Germany. France exports a lot of electricity too, which comes largely from nuclear power. Italy imports as much cheap electricity from other nations as they rely heavily on expensive natural gas.
Seems odd to me that nations that rely heavily on "cheap" wind power, like Denmark and Germany, pay such high prices for electricity when nations that rely heavily on "expensive" natural gas and nuclear, like France and Italy, pay much less.
This sentence is absolutely nonsensical. One can't make an inference like that from any level of wind capacity factor.
Sure you can make this inference. If wind power has a capacity factor of 50% then the rest has to be made up with load following natural gas turbines for a constant output. If the same electricity is produced by combined cycle natural gas 100% of the time, and with twice the efficiency of the turbines, then either way you'd be burning the same amount of fuel for the same consistent output. If the wind power has a capacity factor lower than 50%, which is almost always the case, then you'd be burning more fuel in the turbines with wind than if you had simply done without the wind and use the combined cycle natural gas production. That's an overly simple case that would never happen in real life but it does show how too much reliance on wind can increase a nation's CO2 output.
Not anymore. At least in certain regions. Those will increase in size over time, though. Very recently, price even in German auctions was around 4-5 Euro cents per kWh, much less than what is requested by prospective nuclear power operators from states as a guaranteeed feed-in price (in my country neighboring to Germany, a guaranteed price of 10 Euro cents per kWh was requested by the nuclear plant operator as a condition for building two new reactors).
Wind is cheap because wind is not reliable. Nuclear power can demand a higher price because it is reliable. Adding storage, load following power sources, arranging for shedding of load, or importing and exporting with nations with such load management, costs money. If the nuclear power plant was so "expensive" they why did anyone agree to this price guarantee? The answer is because it's more expensive to have to rely on "cheap" wind power.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
omg... its... they're...
If Yellowstone blows, wind and sun will be totally worthless as fine volcanic ash seeps into the gears and blots out the sun.
Yes and no.
The low consumption mostly is do lots of investment into energy saving. E.g. insulation, better windows, shades, and mandatory classification of consumer goods into energy saving levels.
A large portion (1) of the United States is located in places where air conditioning is necessary. Germany, less so. (2)
That is a double misconception.
1) No, wrong. At those places nearly no one lives. And with better housebuilding AC could mostly completely be avoided.
2) Wrong again. In summer there is not much of a difference of the heat in Germany or the heat in USA.
Finally: AC is only a small part of the energy bill. The US were once famous for the energy hungry fridges ... lights, basically every appliance. You know, they always come up with: "here is everything bigger!".
I guess it is a culture thing, too. You remember the movie "9 1/2 weeks"? There is a scene were a couple is sitting in front of an open fridge. It gets like 10 or 20 minutes. At that time parts of Europe, notably Germany was already on the energy saving trip. If I had kept the fridge open longer than 30 seconds my father would have slapped me. ... the scene was supposed to be romantic, we found it ridiculous.
Seeing them sitting there caused a kind of fringe in the audience
There is no reason that the US people can not drop their energy consumption to the level of a German, and below, without any loss of comfort.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
For example, I know that I pay a lot less than most Germans.
Then you know wrong.
https://www.check24.de/strom-g...
The pictures are self explaining, enter your number of people in your household, enter a zip code (Postleitzahl), use mine 76137. Then click "vergleichen"/compare and get a list with cheap offers, sort it by "Preis - niedrigster Preis" by the cheapest. E.g. 3 person house hold on average uses 4250kWh, where the cheapest offers are 850,- per year. That is $988.
Mind that is for three persons. Now tell me you pay less than roughly $1000 in electricity at your place, and I move house :D
Where America is missing is we still have LOADS of old homes from pre WWII, which Europe does not.
You mix up Europe with Germany. Germany was bombed into smitheren, the rest of Europe was not.
Perhaps you want to visit Europe once, especially Portugal, Spain, Italy, France are nice ... obviously meanwhile every country is nice. And basically all have their nice little old towns.
Why we don't need much AC is because all the houses in those hot regions are build with stone, about 2 feet thick granite walls. Shade your window, and open it late night when it is cold outside and your house is perfect.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Most European housings are a few hundred years old, no idea what you want to prove with your silly links.
Are you intentionally cross talking?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
It was just reported that decommissioning the Enterprise (a small,albeit old, reactor) will cost $1.5 billion.
San Onofre at least as much.
Dozens more to go in the next decade.
All will paid for by taxpayers, after the owners have left, just like the open pit mines of the West.
Until nuclear installs are required to post realistic bonds covering their full life-cycle it will always be so. Privatize wealth, socialize cost.
And Germany is 1/28th the size of the U.S.
The U.S. also has 3.94 times the population of Germany.
The U.S. has 4.5 times the GNP of Germany.
Starting to see a trend here yet? The U.S. has more population, more area, and more economy than Germany. With this factored in the U.S. has lower emissions per unit.
America will very likely be below 10 before 2025, if not sooner
How? Following this data, even a continued linear trend extrapolated from the most favourable scenario of -0.35 per year would put the US at around 12 in 2025, with only falling under 10 in the 2030s.
Disregard the linear trend. That assumes that everything remains the same, which will NOT be the case.:
1) Nearly all of America's CO2 cuts has been caused by the killing of the coal plants and replacing with Nat Gas and Wind. That will likely continue in spite of Trump's push.
2) Because of the massive focus that America has had on cutting CO2 from electricity, that has dropped as %, while Transportation % has risen. That does not mean that emissions from transportation has risen, just the % of our output has.
3) Over the next 3-6 years, the west and china will be moving heavily to EVs. In America, Commercial and passenger vehicles are all moving to these.
We have lots of new buses that are moving to EV with both BYD and Proterra. This is forcing other bus companies, even school buses to switch.
Tesla producing a Semi truck that does 600 MPC is going to put a LOT of pressure on ICE version of semis. Delivery starts in less than a year.
BYD is producing a Semi that gets less than 200 MPC, though lots of quality issues with.
THis is leading to multiple other companies producing EV semis, as well as new ones.
In addition, we have Rivian about to introduce both a pick-up truck and a 3 row SUV in 2020(to be shown in Nov at LA show) with more to follow afterwards.
What does that mean? It means that by 2024, EVs will almost certainly occupy at least 1/2 of ALL road-based vehicle sales, if not more. The average passenger vehicle in America is around 11.5 years. Basically, ppl have been holding off on buying cars, which is why Ford decided to kill sedans here. Point is, come around 2020/1, lots of vehicles are going to be bought and I would guess that few will want an ICE. Ideally Rivian and Tesla will be able to convince most F1, F2, F3 buyers to switch.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Germany is the world leader in CO2 emission reductions.
Idiot.
Followed by USA 2% or 3% behind.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Those countries don't have the industrialization of France, they also import a lot of their power while France exports.
They're definitely industrialized, just like all of Europe's countries. And all of them, France included, both import AND export a lot of power. We have a lot of electricity trading going on. Even better, these countries have 27%-55% higher GDP generated per unit of CO2 emitted, so their efficiency does not come at the cost of impoverished economy. Clearly the story is more complicated than "more nukes = everything solved".
I never said France was the lowest of all countries.
France has by far the lowest per KWh CO2 emissions due to high percentage of nuclear. They also have the lowest per capita CO2 emissions.
Yeah, it's like words don't mean anything anymore these days, isn't it?
Ezekiel 23:20
Here's a nice live map. Of course the values may vary depending on time.
Ezekiel 23:20
Most C02 cuts per capita in both countries were due to efficiency improvements, and not all is tied to electrical generation. The topic here is improvements in electrical generation emissions. Germany's per KWH generated CO2 emissions have not improved since they started adding solar and wind. In US, per KWh improvement have been mostly due to replacing coal generation with natural gas.
How retarded are you?
Since when does solar or wind produce CO2? How should it be remotely possible not to drop in CO2 production when you shift from coal to solar and wind?
Last year we produced 38% from renewables and another 20% from nukes.
This year we already have a world record spring and summer with current production of electricity 50% by renewables, and a bit less than 20% (15%?) from nukes due to hot summer and water temperature problems.
France has by far the lowest per KWh CO2 emissions due to high percentage of nuclear. They also have the lowest per capita CO2 emissions.
Wrong, they are more or less on the same level as Germany. Per capita they are worse due to lower car standards and insulation standards.
In what club do you go that you are so missfed with "facts"? I like to avoid it.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Now, for the last 7 years,
They have not, no idea why people come up with such claims.
The rate we reduce it is flat perhaps.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
That's certainly exaggerated, you can't really get that many households that old unless the population has been almost constant for centuries. Had half of your houses been two hundred years old, it would have meant that two hundred years ago, half of them would have been empty (and built for no good reason) because these was only a quarter of the population that you have today.
Ezekiel 23:20
That's only a surprise to anyone that hasn't figured out that wind and solar power are just proxies for natural gas.
Germany has no Gas plants, besides gas turbines for load balancing and reserve energy.
I would suggest you either spent a few years learning about the german energy infrastructure, or stick to the american one. No one cares that you have no clue about both. But it goes on my nerves that you constantly lie about Germany. Are you parents, grand parents hurt bad by the Nazis? That was 70 years ago, get a perspective.
Nuclear power is reliable, low CO2, and cheaper than solar power.
If that so in the US, than build new nukes.
In Germany it is not the case, as everyone told you 100 times. So bugger off.
I guess in future I end every answer to you with:
Exercise more, go off the couch!
Don't drink that diet coke!!
Eat healthy and don't overeat, and don't have 6 snacks during afternoon!
Oh, you are not even overweight ... no you see how silly your posts are.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Disregard the linear trend. That assumes that everything remains the same, which will NOT be the case
The problem is that this would make things even worse for the US. If the trend isn't linear, it's going to get slowed down. All the following units of emission reduction are harder than the first one, that's what basic economic principles tell us. So the linear trend has been remarkable so far for having happened despite this problem.
Ezekiel 23:20
Nuclear can demand a higher price because of its relaibility.
No they can't.
Energy is traded at the https://www.eex.com/en/ It is not traded by "reliability".
E.g. you want to buy "a band" of 2MW of electricity today, delivered tomorrow between 12:00 till 18:00 (hint: that are 6h * 2MW aka 12MWh)
Now you can make a wild guess from what plant the power will come if you have an idea about your counterpart. However in general you have no clue who is delivering the power.
And the more you are approaching peak hours or more precisely, hours were power demand is raising rapidly: the less a nuke can earn, because it is already running at max capacity, minus a few percent.
I'm so tired to repeat to idiots like you always the same truth abut electric power production.
If there is a power surge: nukes are maxed out. Coal or gas can increase but has costs. Solar and or wind might have a surplus and can deliver, at no cost. So: solar and wind win at the stock market. Always.
Keep in mind Germany is exporting nearly 30% of its production (we have overcapacity of 50%)
The only way to integrate a new nuke hypothetically into the german grid would be to make it as quickly load following as a modern coal plant. However some of the "new coal plants" build during the last 10 years, or planned to be build are already switched off again or construction is canceled: because wind and solar is cheaper.
In ten years all nukes will be replaced mainly by wind. And in 30 years the coal plants will be gone, too.
Then we can look back and see which country had the more sound approach.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Germany's electric prices have gone up significantly since they started adding solar and wind, and there is no debate about the cause. ... you seem to be out of the loop.
And they are dropping since 5 - 10 years again
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
No, nuclear *must* demand a higher price because of its high operating costs compounding its high capital costs.
What you fail to understand is that nuclear demands a higher price and people are willing to pay for it. Yes, they must demand this price because of operating costs. They get paid this price because nuclear power offers a level of reliability, clean air, and safety that no other energy source can offer.
What we are seeing now are people like Bill Gates, TerraPower, and Southern Company, working together to bring the cost of nuclear power down. This technology also promises the ability to load follow like natural gas turbines, because it shares a lot of technology with it. Oh, and these reactors "eat" the waste from old nuclear reactors as fuel.
That would be alarming if it weren't the case that nothing can stand alone today.
And tomorrow? It's quite possible that these molten chloride fast reactors can stand alone. It's impossible for wind and solar to offer that. Then what? What does wind and sun offer? These people want to have a commercial scale prototype by 2030. Assuming the competition doesn't beat them to it we are about 15 years from wind and solar power becoming obsolete.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
France has by far the lowest per KWh CO2 emissions due to high percentage of nuclear. They also have the lowest per capita CO2 emissions.
Wrong, they are more or less on the same level as Germany. Per capita they are worse due to lower car standards and insulation standards.
Uhhhh...in what respect? In electricity, the average figures are something like 50-100 g CO2/kWh for France and around 400-500 g CO2/kWh for Germany, depending on measurement. Regarding total per-capita CO2 emissions from the whole economy, it's around 5 tonnes per capita per year for France and 9 tonnes per capita per year for Germany.
Ezekiel 23:20
If wind power has a capacity factor of 50% then the rest has to be made up with load following natural gas turbines for a constant output.
Perhaps you should really try to grasp what a CF is.
If my shiny wind turbine has a CF of 50%, it does not prevent it to stay at zero production for several days if there is no wind.
Likewise it could as well produce 200% of its capacity when the wind speed is 30% above the rated speed for days or weeks.
CFs are not used for what you think they are used, actually they are not "used at all", only in countries like the USA, each power plant is required to report its CF at the end of the year. In Germany there is AFAIK no such requirement, as that is a trade secret of the power plant owner. Why the funk would I report the CF of my most expensive coal plant to give my opponent an opportunity to outsmart me at the market?
Wind is cheap because wind is not reliable. Nuclear power can demand a higher price because it is reliable. Adding storage, load following power sources, arranging for shedding of load, or importing and exporting with nations with such load management, costs money. If the nuclear power plant was so "expensive" they why did anyone agree to this price guarantee? The answer is because it's more expensive to have to rely on "cheap" wind power.
This is complete nonsense.
You buy energy at the european stock exchange.
You pay per kWh. (More precisely MWh)
You most of the time only see the price, you don't know where the power comes from and there are no "price guarantees" from anyone.
The only exception is: you don't sell wind/solar via the stock market, but are happy with the guaranteed feed in tariff.
Only renewables have guaranteed feed in tariffs, payed by the grid operator where you feed in. What he does is his business, probably selling the power at the stock exchange, probably having a consumer already.
No one who is planning a nuke is getting a guaranteed price from anywhere. Unless he makes a private contract with a consumer.
And in the grand schema wind and solar are cheaper than coal and nukes, no idea why you are resistant to the truth. Must be kind of bad childhood or something.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
America will very likely be below 10 before 2025, if not sooner
How? Following this data, even a continued linear trend extrapolated from the most favourable scenario of -0.35 per year would put the US at around 12 in 2025, with only falling under 10 in the 2030s.
Disregard the linear trend. That assumes that everything remains the same, which will NOT be the case.: 1) Nearly all of America's CO2 cuts has been caused by the killing of the coal plants and replacing with Nat Gas and Wind. That will likely continue in spite of Trump's push.
You idiot. you can't just say it's likely with no evidence whatsoever.
After declining by 0.9% in 2017, EIA forecasts that energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions will rise by 2.0% in 2018. The increase largely reflects higher natural gas consumption because of a colder winter and warmer summer than in 2017.
2) Because of the massive focus that America has had on cutting CO2 from electricity, that has dropped as %, while Transportation % has risen. That does not mean that emissions from transportation has risen, just the % of our output has.
You liar, I've already showed you before that transport is increasing. Not just as a percentage, but the level of CO2 is increasing as can be easily seen on the graph. Last time I showed you the t of CO2. Why still lie about it now?
3) Over the next 3-6 years, the west and china will be moving heavily to EVs. In America, Commercial and passenger vehicles are all moving to these. We have lots of new buses that are moving to EV with both BYD and Proterra. This is forcing other bus companies, even school buses to switch. Tesla producing a Semi truck that does 600 MPC is going to put a LOT of pressure on ICE version of semis. Delivery starts in less than a year. BYD is producing a Semi that gets less than 200 MPC, though lots of quality issues with. THis is leading to multiple other companies producing EV semis, as well as new ones. In addition, we have Rivian about to introduce both a pick-up truck and a 3 row SUV in 2020(to be shown in Nov at LA show) with more to follow afterwards. What does that mean? It means that by 2024, EVs will almost certainly occupy at least 1/2 of ALL road-based vehicle sales, if not more. The average passenger vehicle in America is around 11.5 years. Basically, ppl have been holding off on buying cars, which is why Ford decided to kill sedans here. Point is, come around 2020/1, lots of vehicles are going to be bought and I would guess that few will want an ICE. Ideally Rivian and Tesla will be able to convince most F1, F2, F3 buyers to switch.
tiny and not growing
Electrified vehicles continue to see slow growth and less use than conventional vehicles
Just walk through a random old city.
And actually there are cities that are half empty, e.g in Brittany.
Perhaps you are nitpicking about households, I mean houses.
Just use google street view and walk through Paris or Madrid or Barcelona.
In countries that did not get bombed, the percentage of old houses is high, and 200 years is not uncommon. The house I live in was build 1870, in a town that got bombed, we only lost the roof. The walls are massive sandstone, about 50cm thick. The whole quartier is like this, with 2 or 3 exceptions of new houses.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
True, perhaps because we produce more.
Strange, I was of the opinion it is more or less the same.
Thanx.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Starting to see a trend here yet? The U.S. has more population, more area, and more economy than Germany.
Those figures (9.47 and 15.56) are already normalized by population.
With this factored in the U.S. has lower emissions per unit.
Per unit of what? Not per inhabitant, since 15.56 is clearly larger than 9.47. Not per unit of economic output either, since Germany generates about 1.5 times as much economic output per unit of CO2 emitted.
Ezekiel 23:20
Once again, you just say stuff.
Those countries don't have the industrialization of France, they also import a lot of their power while France exports.
They're definitely industrialized, just like all of Europe's countries. And all of them, France included, both import AND export a lot of power. We have a lot of electricity trading going on. Even better, these countries have 27%-55% higher GDP generated per unit of CO2 emitted, so their efficiency does not come at the cost of impoverished economy. Clearly the story is more complicated than "more nukes = everything solved".
I never said France was the lowest of all countries.
France has by far the lowest per KWh CO2 emissions due to high percentage of nuclear. They also have the lowest per capita CO2 emissions.
Yeah, it's like words don't mean anything anymore these days, isn't it?
The post was in response to discussion of US, Germany, and France. You just ignored the previous paragraph, on purpose I assume. You take shit out of context and twist it.
Solar and Wind are not available always when needed, thus they aren't as reliable. Its not that hard a concept to figure out, nor is the importance of reliability a difficult concept to understand.
That you go to such great lengths to rationalize away the importance of reliability is very telling. Nobody is buying your BS. Germany's exports are irrelevant.. Germany depends on importing power intermittently from France to maintain their stability and exports. This is happening all the time.
https://www.energy-charts.de/p...
Are you drunk? You really shouldn't be posting anything while drunk.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Here's a nice live map. Of course the values may vary depending on time.
That is a good map. Thanks. It demonstrated my points as well. The large countries with low CO2 intensity (Sweden and France) have significant nuclear capacity. Both countries also have low energy prices.
What have been their reductions from electrical generation since they started significant energiewende solar and wind installations around 2008?
True, perhaps because we produce more. Strange, I was of the opinion it is more or less the same. Thanx.
That is why you should look up the facts before saying stuff that is solely 'your opinion'.
I don't see any such restriction in that post, nor does there appear to be a way to infer that it's tied to those three countries specifically, especially because the immediately previous comment didn't even touch on France. Under these conditions I have no reason that the claims about France, mentioned out of the blue, were anything but universal.
Ezekiel 23:20
EVs will almost certainly occupy at least 1/2 of ALL road-based vehicle sales, if not more. The average passenger vehicle in America is around 11.5 years.
Even if they are 1/2 of all sales, a number I note you just made up or pulled from your ass.
After 11.5 years 1/2 the people are still buying ICE vehicles and keeping them for another 11.5 years...
For don't make sedans because it more profitable to hide behind you massive tariff wall for 'light trucks'.
Americans dont buy smaller sedans because they don't give a shit about fuel eficiency or pollution.
What other countries did the discussion talk about other than the US, France, and Germany? What other countries did I reference in that post or any other? If you are out to play 'gotcha' with your interpretation of my meaning, well go ahead if you think it makes a difference. I think it is clear what the frame of the discussion was when I made that post.
Disregard the linear trend. That assumes that everything remains the same, which will NOT be the case
The problem is that this would make things even worse for the US. If the trend isn't linear, it's going to get slowed down. All the following units of emission reduction are harder than the first one, that's what basic economic principles tell us. So the linear trend has been remarkable so far for having happened despite this problem.
No, it does not mean that at all. I said disregard it, because that was nearly 100% based on moving coal to nat gas/wind. The linear portion will continue for a time, but we will run out of coal plants. However, The next trend is going to add to it and will force things down faster. A LOT faster once it gets going.
Look, for the last 10 years, America has poured a load of money into R&D. Most of the tech dealing with LED, Solar, Wind, EVs, etc comes from America. Though to be fair, the most EV, esp the battery, R&D comes from Tesla, not so much America. But the single most important thing will be that Tesla is forcing other car and truck makers to move to EVs. Sales are picking up EVERYWHERE. Not just in passenger vehicles, but in Commercial vehicles.
In America and Europe, with EVs being bought, the older vehicles will drop off the grid. So, America has fairly clean electricity AND will see lots of OLD 1990s-2000s vehicles drop. Keep in mind that those OLDER vehicles are actually low MPGs. So, their dropping off will really drop our CO2.
BTW, compare that to Europe and China. Europe, like AMerica, has loads of old vehicles that will drop. BUT, most of those are higher MPG than America's. As such, not so much drop. OTOH, Europe has cleaner electricity, esp in the netherlands and France. Germany, along with eastern europe, will not. Far too dirty on their electricity.
Then we have China. In general, they cars are NEW, but more importanly, ppl are buying new cars, not just replacing them. So, China is going to add a bunch more, while the majority of their ICE vehicles remain on the road. Than we have the issue that their electricity is FILTHY. They still have 80+% coming from Coal. Worst yet, they have ZERO slack in their AE and continue to add more COal than AE. As such, all of their new electricity for charging EVs is going to come from coal.
So, yeah, my predictions remain:
America is going to continue dropping CO2, only faster.
Western Europe will go down
Eastern Europe will go up, some.
And China will go climb massively. What really bothers me is that I believe China will likely hit 50% more CO2 by 2030 at the latest, and possibly 2025. And I do not believe that it is possible to stop that, unless China quits adding coal plants. So far, they have not stopped.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Most C02 cuts per capita in both countries were due to efficiency improvements
"Both countries" was clearly Germany and France, and not all the countries in the world.
Germany's electric prices have gone up significantly since they started adding solar and wind, and there is no debate about the cause.
There's not a lot to debate about, considering the fact that the related accounting is quite accurate. But obviously, sunk costs are irrelevant for future installations.
They are even trying to figure out how to keep going forward knowing costs will continue to increase.
That is nonsensical, because unit costs have been decreasing year-by-year.
Ezekiel 23:20
What you fail to understand is that nuclear demands a higher price and people are willing to pay for it.
Clearly they aren't because the project was cancelled.
What we are seeing now are people like Bill Gates, TerraPower, and Southern Company, working together to bring the cost of nuclear power down. This technology also promises the ability to load follow like natural gas turbines, because it shares a lot of technology with it. Oh, and these reactors "eat" the waste from old nuclear reactors as fuel.
Ah, the famous small meme reactors, promising the economy of unscale. :)
And tomorrow? It's quite possible that these molten chloride fast reactors can stand alone. It's impossible for wind and solar to offer that.
The latter is in no way impossible. Just politically impractical. Fortunately the universe won't fall apart if no single source pushes out all the others.
Ezekiel 23:20
Energy prices backing down from ridiculous highs isn't 'decreasing year by year'. There is been a steady increase in pricing and it shows no signs of retracting significantly;
https://static1.squarespace.co...
Just walk through a random old city.
It's likely to have an old center, around which a larger number of newer buildings was built. The fact that there are old quarters doesn't change the fact that the populations of countries increased immensely in the 20th century.
Ezekiel 23:20
Here is some additional info that might help you better understand the finance based challenges facing Germany going forward;
https://www.cleanenergywire.or...
Easy answer to that. Germany "conjures" this by selling electricity cheap to Sweden when Germany has an excess of sun and wind production, which seems to happen often with the large subsidies for wind and solar, and buying essentially that same electricity back from them at a higher price when there is a shortage.
That doesn't really account for the volume of energy trading between Germany and other countries. For example, in 2017, Germany generated 142 TWh from solar and wind and 50 TWh from natural gas, but only imported 27 TWh. (By your "logic", they'd have to import over 200 TWh to compensate for the capacity factors.)
Seems odd to me that nations that rely heavily on "cheap" wind power, like Denmark and Germany, pay such high prices for electricity when nations that rely heavily on "expensive" natural gas and nuclear, like France and Italy, pay much less.
The majority of the wind fleet in Denmark and Germany is very new, and considering the learning curve, the older units were more expensive (and had to be subsidized at that point). The majority of France's nuclear fleet is old (and already amortized). Nothing odd about this. At a comparable level of development, wind power will definitely be cheaper than nuclear.
Sure you can make this inference. If wind power has a capacity factor of 50%...
...then you have to build at least twice the capacity for the required average generation. That's all you can say from that number, nothing more.
then the rest has to be made up with load following natural gas turbines for a constant output.
That's the part that doesn't make sense because the cumulative capacity factor for wind power doesn't tell you anything about the shape of the generation curve, so you can't infer the amount of load following required as a percentage of average generation.
If the same electricity is produced by combined cycle natural gas 100% of the time, and with twice the efficiency of the turbines, then either way you'd be burning the same amount of fuel for the same consistent output.
And if you produce two and half times as much electricity from wind power than you even generate from natural gas, as is contemporary Germany's case, then you're going to lose by converting that wind power to CCGT - as I've already noted.
If the wind power has a capacity factor lower than 50%, which is almost always the case, then you'd be burning more fuel in the turbines
As I mentioned above, this inference is nonsensical, that's not how capacity factors works.
Wind is cheap because wind is not reliable.
No, wind is cheap because of the comparative simplicity of the associated equipment. That's the same reason why PV solar is cheap, provided that the (steadily decreasing) capital cost is low - no mechanical parts at all, so maintenance per unit of output is minimal. And having a steady wind region or an interconnected grid with guaranteed output wouldn't make the equipment more expensive, which is why the not-reliable=>cheap inference is nonsensical, too.
Nuclear power can demand a higher price because it is reliable. Adding storage, load following power sources, arranging for shedding of load, or importing and exporting with nations with such load management, costs money. If the nuclear power plant was so "expensive" they why did anyone agree to this price guarantee?
That's a moot argument because my country didn't agree to the price. So if ~A, it doesn't matter that A => B, even if A => B is a valid inference to make. It's literally a what-if scenario on your part.
Ezekiel 23:20
Car replacements are NOT sufficient to remove 40% of US emissions. Even if you replace all of them, to the last sedan, van, pick-up, lorry and semi-trailer. Considering that transportation accounts for 30% of US emissions, even immediate replacement of ALL means of transportation whatsoever (cars, airplanes, ships) by carbon-free magical teleportation would only decrease US emissions to around 11 tonnes per capita per year. A prolonged replacement of a part of transportation by electric vehicles is not going to bring you under 10 tonnes per capita in 2025, sorry. That's simply impossible. Especially with the new administration.
Ezekiel 23:20
True, perhaps because we produce more.
France produced around $5900 of GDP per tonne of CO2 in 2006, Germany only about $3600 per tonne. However I'm not convinced that electricity is the only differentiator here (and the situation in the future will definitely improve for Germany), even if it is a major one.
Ezekiel 23:20
I'm afraid it demonstrates no such thing. Ukraine, for example, with its 50% of generation would by that logic be very productive and CO2-efficient but in reality it isn't. Their economic output per unit of CO2 emissions is terrible. Sweden also doesn't have extraordinarily cheap electricity. Come to think of it, neither does France, actually, at least according to Eurostat. France is slightly below average but Sweden is about average. Norway is cheaper, but that's thanks to hydro power. Which makes one think how hydro contributes to keeping Swedish energy costs from spiraling out.
Ezekiel 23:20
Actually, the "both countries" in question were clearly Germany and United States, which is exactly the reason why I interpreted "But France is besf of all!" as a global statement.
Ezekiel 23:20
The countries with high wind and solar are topping the charts with electrical prices. France is low by comparison, but yes there are countries with lower prices, that doesn't change the obvious. You are comparing countries with little nuclear or wind/solar, and some countries which aren't as industrial.
The correlation is clear. Higher nuclear = lower CO2, and lower cost than high solar and wind countries of comparable size and industrialization.
Germany and France are great for comparison. You can see the steady rise in German prices as they've added wind and solar, with almost no improvement in CO2 emissions. France has been way ahead on low CO2/kwh for decades, still is, will be for quite a while.
I didn't say 'France is best of all'. I never said 'of all'. I told you what I meant, yet you resort to bullshit change of words and taking stuff out of context ...to prove what? Let it go, you are making yourself look petty and foolish.
That can easily be explained by an economic uptick, annual temperature record, and/or electricity only being about 40% of Germany's emissions and something else changing. A single inter-annual data point is meaningless for trend estimates and you should already understand that.
Ezekiel 23:20
Ah, no labels on axes. That's "useful". :-p Also has nothing to do with what I was talking about, which is decreasing cost of generator installations, and the corresponding decrease in auctioned price for new units.
Ezekiel 23:20
Your enemies need only destroy your nuke facilities with conventional weapons, and you will have effectively nuked yourself.
If you think that this is even remotely true you're clearly not qualified to speak on the subject.
Aaaaaand there it is - there's nothing in the article about your fictional "problem of increasing costs". Which is understandable, since it doesn't exist. In fact, the article even explains the situation in detail (grandfathered surcharges etc.) but you've apparently decided to make up stuff instead in your head.
Ezekiel 23:20
That can easily be explained by an economic uptick, annual temperature record, and/or electricity only being about 40% of Germany's emissions and something else changing. A single inter-annual data point is meaningless for trend estimates and you should already understand that.
The chart shows only electrical generation sources. So no, your other excuses are applicable.
Ah, no labels on axes. That's "useful". :-p Also has nothing to do with what I was talking about, which is decreasing cost of generator installations, and the corresponding decrease in auctioned price for new units.
The chart reflects the average price of electricity. The final values are shown, you can figure out the axis from those quite easily. I don't really care about the isolated decreasing cost of generators, or even the auction price. I care about the systemic costs which include transmission and infrastructure costs, and curtailment costs which are incurred due to addition of intermittent wind and solar. Those are driving the cost of power in Germany up, and will continue to be even larger factors as wind and solar reach higher penetration. If you don't understand those systemic factors, and why they will become more demanding with higher penetration, then you are operating from a Dunning Kruger level of expertise.
If costs aren't increasing, then why are they struggling to figure out how to pay for them? I see you just like to find reasons to dismiss stuff. That explains your responses.
Dropping from below 15 down to 10 is a 33% drop, not 40%.
Vehicles by 2025, will probably account for about 50-60% of our drop.
Add to that, more coal being dropped, more homes switching to solar, etc, and yeah, we ARE looking at ~33%.
As to trump, he will be gone before long. Thankfully, he has not done squat to really Harm America in terms of CO2.
He has been trying to grow our Coal. So far, not a thing.
He has allowed the car makers to decrease their MPGs. BUT, all that is going to do is hurt the car sales. It makes it easier to argue that EVs save money vs ICE.
Quite probably the WORST thing that is going to happen to America, is that the far LEFT (our Dems) will win congress and then focus on shutting down our nukes. Right now, nukes provide 20% of our electricity and they are CLEAN. The dems are the ones that I fear if they stop our nukes.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
What other countries did the discussion talk about other than the US, France, and Germany?
I didn't say the discussion involved other countries (France included), I said it didn't involve France until you mentioned it. The comment you responded to (with your sudden mention of France), as well as five comments above it (comment 1, comment 2, comment 3, comment 4, comment 5, comment 6) only mentioned Germany and compared it to United States. You were the first to suddenly mention France, and did so in a seemingly absolute statement, since there was no way for me to interpret it as "but France is the best of the three previously mentioned, the three being Germany, US, and France", because there was no three, only two (Germany and US). That left me with the set of all countries as the only meaningful reference set for your claim to the superlative (not comparative). Had you said "but France is better than either of the two", the mistake would have been easily avoided. Not so much with your "France is by far the best" phrasing.
Ezekiel 23:20
I mentioned France because it was relevant to my point. You can mention any countries you want as well, If they are not relevant to my point, I will point that out as well..
You are dragging this into as stupid tit for tat 'he said she said' direction. A tactic I see a lot when a person would rather not refute key points.
Quite probably the WORST thing that is going to happen to America, is that the far LEFT (our Dems) will win congress and then focus on shutting down our nukes. Right now, nukes provide 20% of our electricity and they are CLEAN. The dems are the ones that I fear if they stop our nukes.
No, nuke operators are stopping your nukes. Probably because your nukes are fucking expensive? Or I don't know, maybe your nuke operators are Democrats. :-p.
Also, U.S. Democrats = "far left" - hahaha. :D They're a lot like our Civic Democratic Party, definitely a right-wing party. They're just not an ultra-right-wing party like the Republicans, is all.
Ezekiel 23:20
Then you should have made it clear by using a comparative that it's related to the US/Germany discussion. Using a superlative such a situation is really confusing.
Ezekiel 23:20
Or vice versa - in places with high electricity prices, it is comparatively more advantageous to install even an expensive electricity source. Just look at Hawaii... In any case, decreasing costs of solar and wind electricity render this point moot for the discussion of the future. A price crossover is inevitable at some point.
Ezekiel 23:20
as they've added wind and solar, with almost no improvement in CO2 emissions.
Don't forget the decommissioned ancient nuclear plants that had to be replaced somehow. So far the effect of the renewables was that CO2 emissions haven't increased even further from replacing the nuclear capacity by lignite, so you can't really say that renewables had no impact. They clearly did.
Ezekiel 23:20
The chart shows only electrical generation sources. So no, your other excuses are applicable.
But the claim in the article is about "German CO2 emissions", not "German CO2 emissions from electrical generation". You're also wrong about the chart because there clearly is a primary energy consumption chart, too.
Ezekiel 23:20
The article is about financing the expansion of the generation fleet at the point where renewable sources are approaching, but not yet reaching the wholesale price, especially considering the different structure of costs of renewable sources (more has to be paid up front, as opposed to coal, gas and nuclear plants where a large part of the costs is for fuel and/or maintenance). In fact, that they're even considering expansion clearly means that the costs must be decreasing, otherwise they couldn't possibly be considering further expansion of the renewables fleet. It would have been impossible at the former high costs of the technology required. In other words, this is a positive sign that people are aware of what's coming. Also, the part of the debate about internalizing the fossil fuel externalities is perennial and should in no way surprise you. This would be the case even if the projects to be financed by this were nuclear plants. Nuclear advocates are generally in favor of carbon tax, too.
Ezekiel 23:20
You're caring about systemic costs in a very weird way, then, if you're divining function derivatives from a single function value. Otherwise it should be clear to you that just because old generators having the price tag several times higher than contemporary ones having driven electricity cost six cents higher means squat for what future cheap generation is going to do with the price.
Ezekiel 23:20
You're caring about systemic costs in a very weird way, then, if you're divining function derivatives from a single function value. Otherwise it should be clear to you that just because old generators having the price tag several times higher than contemporary ones having driven electricity cost six cents higher means squat for what future cheap generation is going to do with the price.
I care about total cost, that is all that matters. If you think its weird, then you just display your lack of insight into what really matters. The fact you haven't even mentioned any of those cost reinforces the obvious, you are speaking with a Dunning Kruger level of electric generation, transmission, and distribution. Your many posts reflect such, you are a waste of time
as they've added wind and solar, with almost no improvement in CO2 emissions.
Don't forget the decommissioned ancient nuclear plants that had to be replaced somehow. So far the effect of the renewables was that CO2 emissions haven't increased even further from replacing the nuclear capacity by lignite, so you can't really say that renewables had no impact. They clearly did.
Another sign of your ignorance. The nuclear units were shut down for entirely political reasons, they could have been run another 20 years easily with modest investment. Germany was even taking nuclear profits to pay for solar and wind until the courts found it unconstitutional.
If you can't read the list of items on the chart and understand what they are, then you have once again proven you don't understand much.
The article is about financing the expansion of the generation fleet at the point where renewable sources are approaching, but not yet reaching the wholesale price, especially considering the different structure of costs of renewable sources (more has to be paid up front, as opposed to coal, gas and nuclear plants where a large part of the costs is for fuel and/or maintenance).........
I said it was about financing, here are my exact words;
Here is some additional info that might help you better understand the finance based challenges facing Germany going forward;
Unfortunately you don't grasp the reasons why they are struggling. Wind and Solar require major investment in infrastructure that nuclear and gas don't required. Installed wind and solar are driving up cost making financing new installations harder. In short, they aren't paying for themselves. And wind generators equivalent lifecycle is in the mid 20 year timeframe, so they must consider that replacement cost on a continuous basis going forward. The situation is not improving, its getting worse.
BTW, A nuclear plant can run for 60 - 80 years with modest investment and license renewals. Its a shame Germany was stupid enough to start shutting them down.
It's just lie after lie after lie with you isn't it Windy.
you are wrong and lying? are you Windy?
I care about total costs, too. You invoking Dunning Kruger, like in majority of cases, is most likely ironic anyway. I don't need to mention transmission and infrastructure costs if we already have electric infrastructure, which we generally do have. It works pretty well. In cases of specific projects such as NORD.LINK, we can debate the specific costs and benefits. And guess what, the benefits generally win, since these things actually get built.
Ezekiel 23:20
Unfortunately you don't grasp the reasons why they are struggling. Wind and Solar require major investment in infrastructure that nuclear and gas don't required.
"Nuclear doesn't require major investments in infrastructure"...mmmkay, that's been enough of jokes for today, don't you think?
Ezekiel 23:20
I actually read the article, and it even mentions some of my points. You clearly did not, otherwise you wouldn't be claiming such things as "The chart shows only electrical generation sources" when there's eight of them and four of them - that is one half of the data - aren't even about electricity.
Ezekiel 23:20
Even if you removed all cars it wouldn't put you below 10. While cars and transport are your biggest polluters, they aren't big enough by themselves to remove over 1/3 of your CO2 emissions. That's even pretending you don't use a lot of natural gas and coal for your electricity. Even if by some magic you charged them 100% renewables.
"by far the lowest"...yes, that's definitely not a superlative. /s
Ezekiel 23:20
2) Because of the massive focus that America has had on cutting CO2 from electricity, that has dropped as %, while Transportation % has risen. That does not mean that emissions from transportation has risen, just the % of our output has.
Why do you lie WindBourne? Transport has been increasing in absolute amount of CO2 for 5 years straight.
If we were to build to that, we run risks WHEN ( not if ) Yellowstone blows
If you think that human civilization would survive exploding Yellowstone by not building wind and solar power, I have some really bad news for you... (In any case, perhaps surprisingly, a variation of solar flux could wipe out our civilization that solar power plants wouldn't even properly notice. )
Ezekiel 23:20
You can't even predict the past or the present. All you can do is lie. America is predicted to increase CO2 for 2018 up over 2%.
You are the only person predicting China will climb massively. Show anywhere credible that agrees with you.
Facts are China CO2 from coal peaked already.
China has more renewable electricity than America as a % of the total electricity, and in absolute number terms.
China remains below 1/2 Americas per person emissions.
Much smarter people than you, who lie much less, predict China will never reach the per person level that America is already at.
Can't you put 1 and 1 together and realise China and Europe are cleaner than you because their transport is already more eficcient and cleaner than yours?
You are patting yourself on the back for dropping more. But again thats only because you are dirtier in the first place !
China already has a greater share of renewables than you do and are increasing every year.
Their cars are already more eficient and newer than yours.
You just aren't credible.
Even if China did increase CO2 50%. They would still be cleaner than you ! They are 7 and you are 15 you moron.
BTW, A nuclear plant can run for 60 - 80 years with modest investment and license renewals.
By the same logic, a wind plant can run for thirty years and a solar plant for forty. As far as I can tell, the oldest operating nuclear plant is just about to shut down at 49 years of age due to rising costs, and even that seems to be an outlier. A facility with a seventy year lifetime still hasn't been proven in practice, which is probably why it's generally seen as a risky investment. (Unless it can pay for its own construction much faster than that, of course, which is way harder at the moment due to falling electricity prices, at least here in Europe.)
Its a shame Germany was stupid enough to start shutting them down.
That is something I can agree with. They should have held onto them as long as they possibly could. But it's their own democratic choice. We'll gladly sell them our nuclear power if they pay for it. :)
Ezekiel 23:20
U.S. Energy Information Administration Projections Consistently Underestimate Renewable Energy and Overstate the Promise of Fossil Fuels
For first 6 months of 2018 vs 2017, all parts of America is burning less fossil fuel except for south east
As others have told you, go back to sucking Xi's cock. You have nothing intelligent to say. All you can do is lie, lie, lie.
Why are you claiming from below 15? You are above 15 Windy at 15.8 so stop lying.
More than twice China's level too, don't keep lying about that either.
Well trump did increase your coal exports 61% in 2017, reduce your emission standards for power plants, reduce your MPG standards for cars.
It is NOT about costs. It is about idiots pushing to close these down before we have alternatives in place. This is being pushed by California Dem, Steyer.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Then we have China. In general, they cars are NEW, but more importanly, ppl are buying new cars, not just replacing them. So, China is going to add a bunch more, while the majority of their ICE vehicles remain on the road. Than we have the issue that their electricity is FILTHY. They still have 80+% coming from Coal. Worst yet, they have ZERO slack in their AE and continue to add more COal than AE. As such, all of their new electricity for charging EVs is going to come from coal.
Renewables and nuclear were 30%So lie number 1.
There is a lot of slack in China's AE. So lie number 2.
Power from wind, solar and hydro plants is often wasted as there is not enough transmission capacity to absorb it, leading to high curtailment rates, especially in northwestern China.
AE was higher than thermal And for thermal, gas was higher than coal anyway. Lie number 3.
Of course, when you base your conclusion on 3 lies, the conclusion will also be wrong.
China's % of electricity from coal is decreasing
there are no lies but yours.
All the big ones went up and all the small ones stayed flat. But then you also have to add on transport increasing, and all the other sources of CO2 as well.
You 2nd statement is a blatant lie, central also went from 50.11 up to 52.61.
Six reactors have closed since 2013 and eight more reactors are planned for shutdown before 2025, mostly because of increased competition from cheap natural gas.
Costs...
Silly little boy, you do know what total energy mix means right? It includes everything, it's the total, not just electricity.
Doesn't explain why you lied 3 times in a row.
Are you going to even try to back up your lies with evidence?
Yes, thank you. Nuclear power is still a thermal power plant like coal and much of natural gas. As such most of the same structures and machines are used, like steam driven generators. The difference is in the source of the heat.
The difference is that the source of the heat is either inadequately hot, as in current designs, or consists of a molten corrosive salt, as in the modern designs that no one can get to actually work.
In current designs, you are stuck trying to get a decent amount of energy out of low-pressure steam, rather than proper high-pressure 1000K steam from a nuclear or gas plant. Suddenly your major concern isn't dealing with the stresses from the power that you generate, it is simply to get rid of the waste heat that dwarfs the actual power output. It's doable if you have a body of water nearby, or if you can boil off water in cooling towers. If you build 2 every month you'll be out of suitable sites in a decade.
Add to that that you'll be littering the country with useless buildings that have to be guarded and maintained for a long time. Denmark is currently taking apart the tiny experimental reactors at Risø. The cost is astronomical. Thankfully Denmark does not have actual power producing reactors to deal with.
Get nuclear power plants up to a decent temperature and find a way to avoid the littering, then we can talk. Before 2030, so solar cells won't have taken over the world. Good luck.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Its pretty simple, countries that have invested heavily in wind have high electric costs.
Look at this power map of the Nordics. Denmark is extremely heavily invested in wind.
You might get lucky and see prices above 60EUR/MWh. Feel free to look at the historical data if that happens. This has been an unusual summer so prices are very high. Even so, that compares well to the US wholesale prices.
With the punitive tariffs on solar cells going away soon, we should hopefully see some GW of new installations across the Nordic countries. That would have kept prices normal through the windless summer.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
The difference is that the source of the heat is either inadequately hot, as in current designs, or consists of a molten corrosive salt, as in the modern designs that no one can get to actually work.
How do you mean "inadequately hot"? There's over 400 of these "inadequate" nuclear reactors around the world right now providing 10% of the electricity we use. You do realize that the DOE has just funded a company that claims to have solved the problem you brought up? There's a lot of smart people at the DOE and I'm guessing they gave them these funds, and access to government facilities, because they believe these problems have been solved. Included in these smart people are Bill Gates, his friends at TerraPower, Southern Company, ORNL, a handful of well known universities, and on and on. I'm guessing that they have considerable confidence in that this works, or that they can get it working soon.
In current designs, you are stuck trying to get a decent amount of energy out of low-pressure steam, rather than proper high-pressure 1000K steam from a nuclear or gas plant. Suddenly your major concern isn't dealing with the stresses from the power that you generate, it is simply to get rid of the waste heat that dwarfs the actual power output. It's doable if you have a body of water nearby, or if you can boil off water in cooling towers. If you build 2 every month you'll be out of suitable sites in a decade.
First, there's plenty of good sites for nuclear power plants with current technology. These run on the same steam cycles as coal and natural gas so if that's a problem for nuclear then it's a problem for electrical power generation generally. Second, these molten salt reactors use the same molten salt that has been proposed for concentrated solar thermal power. If it works for solar power then it works for nuclear power, and vice versa. This means no need for water cooling, it's air cooled and we aren't going to run out of air, and no need to be near a body of water. It can follow changing loads, which is what's been something of a holy grail for solar power for a long time.
Add to that that you'll be littering the country with useless buildings that have to be guarded and maintained for a long time. Denmark is currently taking apart the tiny experimental reactors at RisÃ. The cost is astronomical. Thankfully Denmark does not have actual power producing reactors to deal with.
The reactors that TerraPower propose are suppose to be moveable by trucks and trains. They'll simply pick up the valuable parts and ship them off to a secure site when they are finished with them. Which is far better litter management proposed than for wind and solar so far.
Get nuclear power plants up to a decent temperature and find a way to avoid the littering, then we can talk. Before 2030, so solar cells won't have taken over the world.
That's precisely what the article proposes that's being done. Did you even read the article? I know this is Slashdot but you are simply raising every problem that TerraPower says they've already solved. All they are doing now is building a small scale prototype for the government to look over.
Good luck.
Thanks, but I'm not the one doing the work. And, it looks like the people doing the work have it figured out.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
That doesn't really account for the volume of energy trading between Germany and other countries. For example, in 2017, Germany generated 142 TWh from solar and wind and 50 TWh from natural gas, but only imported 27 TWh. (By your "logic", they'd have to import over 200 TWh to compensate for the capacity factors.)
Or, export 100 TWh to compensate. Which it appears is what they've been doing.
The majority of the wind fleet in Denmark and Germany is very new, and considering the learning curve, the older units were more expensive (and had to be subsidized at that point). The majority of France's nuclear fleet is old (and already amortized). Nothing odd about this. At a comparable level of development, wind power will definitely be cheaper than nuclear.
Yes, I know, we've established that wind is expensive and nuclear is cheap. The why is not all that important. Claiming wind will catch up is speculation. This discussion is in response to an announcement by Bill Gates of a new kind of nuclear power very much unlike anything done before. The game has changed and wind power has nothing to offer that could compete.
As I mentioned above, this inference is nonsensical, that's not how capacity factors works.
I know how capacity factor works, and I gave an overly simplified example to prove a point. I stated it was not a real world example but it does play out similarly in more complex real life examples. I've read studies and news articles on wind power, and wind power will not lower CO2 output without access to sufficient hydro capacity or other low CO2 backup. The trend is now that every 5 MW of wind needs 4 MW of reserve on hand. Germany addresses this by exporting their excess wind power at low rates only to have to buy some of that back at higher rates. A nation with access to plenty of hydro can manage a lot of wind and still see lower CO2 but if the backup is natural gas turbines or spinning reserves of coal then a nation can see increased CO2 output with this excess of wind production.
I bring up Germany because it pushes "angel's" buttons but this has been playing out all over the world and very few people are willing to admit to the problem. Wind will not lower CO2 without access to hydro for storage. Prices for electricity will rise with wind power precisely because of the need for backup reserves. What is promising is that new thermal storage energy systems are coming to solve this. What happens though is that this technology mates well with molten salt nuclear reactors. If we have cheap nuclear with thermal energy storage, and the load following capability that comes with that, then wind looks even less attractive than it does now.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Denmark pretty much has the highest electricity prices in the EU.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/...
I'll just address all your points in summary. As you are bouncing around trying to make a point.
As for lifetime years, notice I said "equivalent lifecycle". That takes into account refurbishment which over time equates to a complete replacement.
As for infrastructure and systemic costs, you fail repeatedly to indicate you even have any understanding of what they are for higher penetration solar and wind. I'd tell you but you'll just execute your willfully ignorant denials. So please, show me that you have a slight clue and describe those systemic costs. You don't have to get into the harder stuff like transmission like per unit costs, which I assume you never even heard of, just a basic description will be fine. I've gave you a good lead, so it should be quite simple.
Wrong. They emit more than 1/2 of what an American does. They are over 8 tonnes while Americans are under 15. More importantly, they continue to climb, while America comes down.
The population size does not matter. What matters is that they continue to grow their emissions. You seem to not realize that this 'shit' is for real. China has emitted the MOST as a nation since the time of christ, 1850, 1950, last 10 years, etc. They continue to grow their emissions. Only an idiot would sit in this shit and continue to let it happen.
#1 lie , China doesn't emit more than 1/2 America.
#2 lie, China wasn't over 8
#3 lie, America wasn't under 15
#4 lie, of course population matters
#5 lie, most since time of Christ
#6 lie, most since 1850
#7 lie, most since 1950
Maybe China's total was higher for the last 10 years, he didn't show any evidence, and it's pretty irrelevant anyway with China being 4 times bigger.
So 7 lies in only 3 lines.
There was a time when the USA could build them "fast enough", and the USA has only grown in population, industrial capacity, and wealth.
Industrial capacity does not take into account industrial diversity. The US has to import large power distribution transformers and parts for nuclear power plants because it lacks the facilities to fabricate them.
to the lies this time?
First, there's plenty of good sites for nuclear power plants with current technology. These run on the same steam cycles as coal and natural gas so if that's a problem for nuclear then it's a problem for electrical power generation generally.
You are ignoring what I am writing. With current technology, nuclear runs at 500K whereas natural gas and coal runs at 1000K. At 1000K you can run the "cool" side above 400K if need be, so you can do things like district heating or use cooling towers. At 500K that is unviable.
As to load-following, economy kills that idea. There are no savings from running below full power output, so the owners would be idiots to load-follow unless electricity prices go negative. Solar has the same characteristics, except it manages to stay economical without producing unwanted power at night.
It's great that TerraPower has solved all the problems. They are hoping to be commercial in 2030.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Oh stop the disinformation.
Denmark has among the lowest electricity prices in the developed world, actually.
On top of those, consumers (and some businesses) pay taxes on electricity use. Those taxes have nothing to do with generating costs. I will happily debate tax policy, but don't use it to derail the debate on nuclear power.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Oh stop the disinformation.
Denmark has among the lowest electricity prices in the developed world, actually.
On top of those, consumers (and some businesses) pay taxes on electricity use. Those taxes have nothing to do with generating costs. I will happily debate tax policy, but don't use it to derail the debate on nuclear power.
Please cite your source. Here are a couple more citations from me that back my statements. You've provided none.
https://www.statista.com/stati...
https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/...
I want one. A mini nuclear reactor, I mean. How cool would that be??
The practicalities are not my concern at this moment. Throw a Slowpoke in a shed in the back yard, and next thing you know I'm outfitting frikken' sharks with frikken' laser beams! Pew, pew, pew!!
I could be Ernst Stavro Blofeld!
why do you say people lie?
You are ignoring what I am writing.
That's because it's a rather petty complaint. If the complaint is the need for access to water then this is the same complaint for any thermal plant, whether that be coal, natural gas, or concentrated solar. There's plenty of places for nuclear power yet. If they can get water for the boilers at the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility out in the desert near Las Vegas then they can find water for any nuclear power plant where ever they choose to put one..
With current technology, nuclear runs at 500K whereas natural gas and coal runs at 1000K.
With current technology there's probably a half dozen third generation nuclear designs being built right now. The AP1000 reactors that just went online at Vogtle run at about 500K, probably lower than that even. In South Korea they spec them at about 620C, or about 890K. That's not quite 1000K that some coal power plants reach but darn close. The complaint with some second generation nuclear power plants was that they ran too hot. Running over 650C or so is considered too close to where the hot water could start to burn through the zirconium cladding on the fuel rods, which has been the case in likely every notable nuclear power accident you can come up with. Lowering the temperature for those built in the last decade or so is considered a feature, not a bug.
I'm thinking that if the nuclear reactors ran at 1000K that you would complain that running so hot would be unsafe. I consider the temperature they run at a very petty complaint because nuclear power at every temperature is still as inexpensive, low CO2, safe, and reliable, as anything else we have, if not far better. We'd be wise to build as many third generation nuclear power plants as we can until we work out the details on building fourth generation nuclear.
At 1000K you can run the "cool" side above 400K if need be, so you can do things like district heating or use cooling towers.
That's true. With these proposed molten salt reactors we can expect to be able to reach even higher temperatures. Temperatures that can allow for ease of running air cooled systems that don't need water to run efficiently. Temperatures that, if water is available, can produce desalinated drinking water or synthetic fuels. Temperatures that allow for efficient thermal energy storage and the load following systems that come with it.
At 500K that is unviable.
At 500K current second and third generation nuclear power is still very affordable, safe, clean, and (again) we'd be wise to keep using what we have so long as it is safe to do so and build more until we get fourth generation designs proven.
As to load-following, economy kills that idea. There are no savings from running below full power output, so the owners would be idiots to load-follow unless electricity prices go negative.
You are speculating. You can't say for certain anything on the economics of technology that isn't on the market yet. I've heard from nuclear power plant operators that current nuclear power can load follow just fine, and do so economically, if only the steam systems allowed for them to load follow. The savings in having nuclear follow load is not having to burn natural gas. Natural gas boilers are very cheap to run but they also have steam systems that prevent them from following load. Natural gas turbines can follow load but they burn twice as much fuel as the boilers for the same electrical output.
Solar has the same characteristics, except it manages to stay economical without producing unwanted power at night.
Citation needed. My brothers have considered investing in solar power but they found out that it's not all that great. One brother simply gave up on the idea, the other had to scale back on his plans once he found out that the tax rebates wouldn't be as big as he though
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
The link was right in the post you replied to!
Here it is again: http://www.statnett.no/en/Mark...
And what do the Dutch prices have to do with anything?
It only takes a few clicks from the link to download historical hourly Nordpoolspot prices for any part of the Nordics you are interested in.
I also told you why the household prices are irrelevant. They consist almost entirely of tax and transportation costs.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
The link was right in the post you replied to!
Here it is again: http://www.statnett.no/en/Mark...
And what do the Dutch prices have to do with anything?
It only takes a few clicks from the link to download historical hourly Nordpoolspot prices for any part of the Nordics you are interested in.
I also told you why the household prices are irrelevant. They consist almost entirely of tax and transportation costs.
Come on. That link doesn't reflect electric prices in Denmark. Its a bullshit response with a link to a website, not a specific reference, please cite a specific chart or graphic, like I did. It is funny now after a few posts you suddenly want to ignore Denmark, when I've provided multiple citations that show they pay more for their electricity than just about anyone in Europe.
Yes, Norway has lower prices, and low and behold very little solar and wind.
lie - it's costs
lie - it's not idiots pushing to close them
Verdict - liar didn't even read his own link.
Claim of lies - unsubstantiated - dishonourable
Doesn't understand the link or quotes he used. - foolish
Verdict - dishonourable, doesn't understand the topic.
lie - America isnt below 15 (claim with no evidence)
claim with no evidence - 50-60% drop
claim with no evidence - ~33% drop
lie - Trump has harmed
lie - he grew coal mining and exports
Verdict - small lies, claims without evidence, claims things he wants to be true.
lie - China electricity isn't 80% coal.
lie - China has slack
lie - Not more coal than AE
claim with no evidence - America dropping faster
claim with no evidence - China climb massively
lie / claim with no evidence - is possible to stop
Verdict - Lots of lies and wild claims not backed by anything.
claim with no evidence - ignore your prediction but believe mine
lie - CO2 from transportation has risen
lie - not just the % of output
claim with no evidence - 1/2 of sales, says who
claim with no evidence - reason people holding off buying cars
claim with no evidence - Ford killing sedans
claim with no evidence - lots of vehicles 2020/1
verdict - all claims with no reasons given, blatant lies about CO2 emissions
claim with no evidence - below 10
lie - CO2 emissions have been going up and down year to year, won't only go down
verdict - claims, lies and wishful thinking
lie - America is close to being #1
lie - has and is close
lie - China isn't adding massive amounts
false accusations of lying - dishonourable
verdict - insults, lies, misdirection, false accusations
If the complaint is the need for access to water then this is the same complaint for any thermal plant, whether that be coal, natural gas, or concentrated solar.
This is where you go wrong. Coal and natural gas can use district heating for the cold side where that is desired, turning the waste heat useful. This is only possible because they can deliver the waste heat at 400K and still produce decent amounts of electricity. For areas where the waste heat isn't useful, combined cycle power plants can get close to 60% efficiency. That means that for every 1W produced they need less than 1W of cooling -- and cooling something that is upwards of 400K hot is fairly easy on Earth.
At 500K you need the cool side to be not too much higher than 300K (preferably even lower), to make building the power plant worthwhile at all. In practice you hit maybe 30% efficiency, which then means you have to cool 2W for every 1W of electric power output. Worse, the outside air might actually be hotter than your cold side, making any forms of air cooling unviable. Such cold water is obviously unsuitable for district heating. You need a nearby body of water to get rid of the heat.
To keep a 1GW nuclear plant running, you need to heat around 500 tons of water per second by 2K. If the inlet temperature goes up, as it might in a hot summer, the thermodynamic efficiency goes down and you hit the point where little useful power is generated while cooling needs rise. Hence the power plant shutdowns that happen in summer, when AC loads are highest.
Notice that nuclear is not the only type of generation with this problem. Denmark is in the process of replacing coal fired power plants with wood chip burning ones. The thermodynamic efficiency of those things is just as terrible, and unlike nuclear the fuel isn't free.
You are speculating. You can't say for certain anything on the economics of technology that isn't on the market yet. I've heard from nuclear power plant operators that current nuclear power can load follow just fine, and do so economically, if only the steam systems allowed for them to load follow.
It is basic economics. The fuel is free. The maintenance is practically unaffected by lowering load (or made slightly worse because of the problems with reactor poisoning with byproducts at low loads, but that is a minor distraction). If you run at less than maximum power you are throwing money down the drain. Don't do that.
The savings in having nuclear follow load is not having to burn natural gas. Natural gas boilers are very cheap to run but they also have steam systems that prevent them from following load.
Modern combined cycle natural gas (or coal for that matter) plants can certainly load-follow, as in they can be backup for wind or solar and handle the peak cooking load. They take up to hours to go from low production to full production, but that is not really a problem. Power demand and renewable production is well predicted on the hourly scale. They don't react fast enough to handle grid failure, for that you need gas turbines or engines.
I don't know where you got the idea that they are cheap though. You actually need to run them a decent fraction of the year to make them worth building.
Natural gas turbines can follow load but they burn twice as much fuel as the boilers for the same electrical output.
Those only need to run for a few hundred hours a year. It sucks that they waste energy, but for now the problem is more the methane they leak than the CO2 they emit. By 2030 they'll mostly be replaced by batteries.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
You need a nearby body of water to get rid of the heat.
Again, if the solar thermal facility in the desert at Ivanpah gat get sufficient water then any nuclear power plant can get water. There's plenty of viable places to put nuclear power, we are not going to run out of sites for them. Talking about district heating and such is moving the goal posts.
It is basic economics. The fuel is free. The maintenance is practically unaffected by lowering load (or made slightly worse because of the problems with reactor poisoning with byproducts at low loads, but that is a minor distraction). If you run at less than maximum power you are throwing money down the drain. Don't do that.
And no nuclear power plant exists in a vacuum. Natural gas costs money, as do the turbines that burn it. If a nuclear power plant is capable of load following as well as natural gas then the utility doesn't need to invest in natural gas. No one runs a nuclear power plant at 100% all the time. They keep a reserve for emergencies and to reduce wear. If needed for short bursts of peak power then they can use some of this reserve at the nuclear power plant for that. If this means not burning natural gas then it's a money saver.
Modern combined cycle natural gas (or coal for that matter) plants can certainly load-follow, as in they can be backup for wind or solar and handle the peak cooking load. They take up to hours to go from low production to full production, but that is not really a problem. Power demand and renewable production is well predicted on the hourly scale. They don't react fast enough to handle grid failure, for that you need gas turbines or engines.
Technically they can but for economic reasons they rarely do. All steam power can load follow, including nuclear, but because of the stresses on the plant this is done only as a last resort. Load following with steam is very hard on the equipment, including combined cycle. Load following with combined cycle reduces efficiency, as you seem to already know from your description on how this works, and therefore there's no cost savings over open cycle turbines. Load following is simply expensive because of the fuel that is wasted. With nuclear, as you admit, the fuel is essentially free, so why not use nuclear to load follow? You didn't explain that except on capital expense grounds. Well, turbines are a capital expense, and by not having to buy them means money saved.
I don't know where you got the idea that they are cheap though. You actually need to run them a decent fraction of the year to make them worth building.
Nuclear is "cheap" because the fuel costs nothing, as you admit. Molten salt reactors promise to be able to load follow at low cost. I believe this is possible because Bill Gates tells me so. You can say that this won't work economically but I'm going to take the word of Bill Gates, the US DOE, ORNL, and the NRC over yours.
Those only need to run for a few hundred hours a year. It sucks that they waste energy, but for now the problem is more the methane they leak than the CO2 they emit. By 2030 they'll mostly be replaced by batteries.
Batteries can be charged by nuclear power too, you know that don't you?
If batteries are what you believe will save solar power in the future then I believe you will be in for a surprise. Solar has a capacity factor of about 30% and will get very "peaky", necessitating large batteries, large charge/discharge currents, and just plain large batteries. Nuclear power can just putt-putt along at a seasonal/daily/hourly average and let batteries and hydro soak up the peaks and valleys. This means nice gentle ramp up and down of the nuclear if needed, which even old boilers can handle. No expensive turbines, no stressing of steam boilers, and unless solar collectors can get far cheaper by 2030 then they might find themselves replaced by nucl
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Again, if the solar thermal facility in the desert at Ivanpah gat get sufficient water then any nuclear power plant can get water.
Ivanpah runs at 800K. Not 500K.
All steam power can load follow, including nuclear, but because of the stresses on the plant this is done only as a last resort. Load following with steam is very hard on the equipment, including combined cycle.
Load following on the hourly scale is being done by every Danish combined cycle power plant -- and until a couple of decades ago, Danish power generation was practically all coal-fired combined cycle. It is a non-problem. It is slightly more difficult with nuclear, but as France proves, that can be overcome.
Load following is simply expensive because of the fuel that is wasted. With nuclear, as you admit, the fuel is essentially free, so why not use nuclear to load follow?
No fuel is wasted when load-following! Where are you getting this from? The whole point of load-following is to NOT waste fuel. A power plant load-follows when the price of electricity is below the cost of fuel needed to generate this electricity. For nuclear power, solar, and wind, fuel is free, so it only makes sense to load-follow when prices are negative. As long as prices are positive, no matter how close to zero, those power plants keep producing because a tiny income is better than no income.
You are focusing on the technical challenges of hour-based load-following. Those were solved 50 years ago. Every type of power generation today can vary its output between reasonably close to zero and full output (with full being dependent on the available wind and solar insolation in the appropriate cases, of course) on an hourly basis. Solar can cut its power output in ms without needing warning beforehand. Wind and gas turbines need a few minutes of warning. Combined cycle needs a few hours of warning. The Nordpool spot market has no problems accommodating all of them.
Technically, nuclear is great at load-following. Just like everything else. But why would you throw away almost-free electricity? It must feel particularly terrible when the capital cost of building the power plant leaves a sunk cost of around 70EUR/MWh. Every hour that a nuclear power plant does not produce must be made up by raising the prices above 70EUR/MWh when it DOES produce. Otherwise the company goes bankrupt. Danish spot electricity prices rarely hit 70EUR/MWh, so the power plant loses money every hour it produces, and even more money every hour it doesn't produce.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
The price is right on top of the map of Denmark! What more do you want? Note that prices are often different in DK1 and DK2. DK1 has the highest wind penetration and the lowest prices.
Here are there hourly prices for this year: https://www.nordpoolgroup.com/...
Again, Denmark is DK1 and DK2.
You can get all the information you want from https://www.nordpoolgroup.com/...
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Ivanpah runs at 800K. Not 500K.
The APR-1400 reactor runs at 890K, so what are you talking about?
All your complaints on "current designs" of nuclear are not in fact based on current designs. The APR-1400 and other "Gen III+" reactors are operating now. The articles on the DOE web site say that this MCFR can load follow, provide process heat and electrical generation, and more so I'm inclined to believe them. All of your complaints don't hold up. This is especially true with your mention grid connected batteries. Whatever benefits batteries provide they apply to nuclear power as well as any other source.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
The APR-1400 reactor runs at 890K, so what are you talking about?
The APR-1400 actually runs at 600K. Read for yourself here: http://euanmearns.com/an-overv...
Perhaps you are referring to the temperature of the fuel? If so, that is irrelevant, the relevant temperature is that of the steam that you can draw power from. APR-1400 is around 4000MW thermal to get 1400MW electricity, so the rule of thumb of having to cool away twice as much heat as you get electricity applies. Again, this is pitiful compared to fossil plants or even concentrated solar thermal (not that concentrated solar thermal is ever going anywhere for electricity purposes).
The articles on the DOE web site say that this MCFR can load follow, provide process heat and electrical generation, and more so I'm inclined to believe them.
Never once have I said that nuclear power plants have a technical problem doing load-following. The problem is entirely economical.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
I see why you are confused. You are pointing to grid pricing, not retail pricing. Grid pricing does not include transmission and infrastructure costs, idling costs, reserve costs, it most important of all it is post subsidy.
I showed you the the retail prices, those reflect systemic prices and subsidy corrections via taxes and fees.
Thank you Mr AC.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
The APR-1400 actually runs at 600K. Read for yourself here: http://euanmearns.com/an-overv...
I got my APR (advanced pressurized reactor) confused with my ACR (advanced CANDU/Canadian reactor). There's many variants of both the APR and ACR, and there's a an ACR design that has an output temperature "high enough" for whatever uses you propose. Your original complaint was that we'd run out of bodies of water to cool these "inadequately hot", or whatever, nuclear reactors. We simply will not, both because there is a lot of water out there and we have designs right now that get as hot as any solar or coal plant.
Never once have I said that nuclear power plants have a technical problem doing load-following. The problem is entirely economical.
Yes, I noticed that. And I replied that you are just speculating. I have Bill Gates' word against yours that this can be done economically. I believe Bill Gates.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
The customer retail price in Denmark includes taxes spent on all sorts of things unrelated to the grid. At least use the price paid by the heavy users, such as datacenters.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Yes, I noticed that. And I replied that you are just speculating. I have Bill Gates' word against yours that this can be done economically. I believe Bill Gates.
You are arguing that the Moon is made of cheese because Bill Gates said so. You have not refuted the basic argument that if you get something for free and people want it, it's stupid to throw it away.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
We are replacing old heating systems with new ones, often combined with electricity generation as in fuel cells or "Blockheitzkraftwerke" which is only a fancy name for a car engine, running a generator and storing the excess heat in a water tank.
Regarding electricity, till this month Germany has produced 50% its electricity from renewables and 20% from nukes ... over the remaining months that likely drops and we end up end of the year with 45% produced by renewables, or a bit less. Last year it was 38%. So, yes we improve. After all we invented the "Energiewende" :D
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Of course they have new buildings around, why is that a point?
The original poster claimed that in europe every building would be younger than an US building, which is nonsense if you apply your logic to an US city ... look at LA ... or NYC.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
We started introducing wind and solar around 1980, not 2008. The law about "renewable energy(EEG)" was introduced 2000.
Reduction over that time is about 40%. But it is hard to find charts, I'm to lazy to look them up for you :D
2017 we produced 38% of our electricity CO2 free ... but the amount of water power in this equation is more or less the same like 1950.
https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/ is usually a good site, but I don't find an english reference.
This link includes exported power:
https://energytransition.org/2...
Hence it says total production was 33% by renewables. Many other sites only count the power we consume ourselves, so they say 38%.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Germany depends on importing power intermittently from France to maintain their stability and exports
That is your interpretation, as you don't know how the european wide grid and market works.
We buy power because it is cheaper, not because we can not produce it.
That is a no brainer, which you obviously can not follow.
I allowed myself to make "intermittently" bold. What exactly would "France" do if Germany would not buy their extra power? They would ramp down a nuke or two or three. Then the nukes stays ramped down 4 or 5 days, due to Boron poisoning (neutron poisoning) ... how much money would they lose if they don't sell the power to us super cheap, so they can keep the nuke on the current power level?
Sorry, you simply have no clue.
The energy market is there that all parties participating can save money and run their fleet of plants bottom line more efficient.
I don't get why americans call it a "bad thing" that we send power to Norway and store it there and get it back later as water power. You can't be so dumb not to grasp that this "is a very good thing".
Switzerland is planning to become the central european energy hub. They investigate and research storing solutions for the rest of Europe.
Germany is transforming into a pure wind/solar/biomass country. No idea why you are against that or see a "risk". Switzerland or Norway are not countries that simply vanish from the landscape.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
So, you can't show any CO2 reductions. Thanks
Germany depends on importing power intermittently from France to maintain their stability and exports That is your interpretation, as you don't know how the european wide grid and market works.
You demonstrate repetitively you don't know how the grid works. Those changes in imports from France are not market decisions, they are response to demand.
As I actually worked 10 years in power companies: no, they are not reactions to demand.
France overproduces, and because it has to react to that, it sells excess power. Germany has coal plants and can power them down easily, so it buys the excess power.
France has nukes, which it only can power down and power up around the right circumstances.
Obviously thos nare market decissions. France has no influence on Germand grid stability anyway ... a no brainer if you knew anything about the european grid(s)
So please stop arguing about nonsense like this.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Of course I can, but not for the years in question.
Why don't you look for your self if you need 2008 till 2017?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
You seem to fail to have a grasp of basic electrical fundamentals. Power flows toward loads from sources. You don't direct power down a certain line. Import/export agreements are basically availability agreements. They simply monitor the flow.
The western grid of Germany uses imports from France to help balance. Its pretty obvious. The power flow in constantly fluctuating, meeting the needs of Germany.
We all know you just say stuff based on what you believe, not facts.
I've looked, many times, CO2 per kwh in Germany has not significantly improved. Prices have risen significantly.
Perhaps you want to google: transport grid, distribution grid.
The french and german grids are only interconnected by transport grids.
And over those, there is no unannounced, not prescheduled power transport.
The general power transport needs to be anounced 24h in advance, ad hoc transfers need to be anounced 1h in advance.
If you want I sent you a link to about 2000 pages of regulations how international europe wide power management works.
So, no. There is no random power flowing from France to Germany over the river Rhine, just because there is a french power plant on the other side.
BTW: France is a net importer of power from Germany ... just in case you did not know.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Dude, no idea what you want to say.
Last year we produced about 33%-38% of electricity CO2 free.
This year in summer, we already are at 50%, but going towards winter, that might drop.
And: unlike you, I follow the discussion close enough to know that you got bombarded with dozens of links regarding to this topic by other /.ers
I gave you two institutions to check, fraunhofer.de and energy-dingsbums org, don't have it on my tablet, just look in the history. They answer all your questions.
So: I already know that you have links proofing my point. Why do you bother me searching the same links for you again?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
France is a net importer of power from Germany ... just in case you did not know.
I am so tired of you just saying stuff that is completely wrong. Once again, you prove you don't know anything.
Import/Export;
2017 Germany to France: 2.2 TWh
2017 France to Germany: 6.2 TWh
2018 Germany to France: 0.8 TWh
2018 France to Germany: 6.9 TWh
https://www.energy-charts.de/e...
Please stop responding to my posts with your ignorance.
Dude, no idea what you want to say. Last year we produced about 33%-38% of electricity CO2 free. This year in summer, we already are at 50%, but going towards winter, that might drop.
And: unlike you, I follow the discussion close enough to know that you got bombarded with dozens of links regarding to this topic by other /.ers
I gave you two institutions to check, fraunhofer.de and energy-dingsbums org, don't have it on my tablet, just look in the history. They answer all your questions.
So: I already know that you have links proofing my point. Why do you bother me searching the same links for you again?
Why don't you quote what matter, CO2/KWH annually? You avoid it because you know that it hasn't been improving significantly.
Tired of your BS.
while Transportation % has risen. That does not mean that emissions from transportation has risen, just the % of our output has.
Yet in your comment here you linked to this and explained the reason for the increase.
Everything went down, EXCEPT for Transportation, but that was because oil became cheap and ppl bought new big cars.
So you knew about it enough to 'explain' it to other people, giving reasons and links. But then conveniently forget about it when you needed to lie about it later.
It changes every year, you see.
So two years we were not a net exporter to them, who cares?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Why don't you quote what matter, CO2/KWH annually? You avoid it because you know that it hasn't been improving significantly.
Because Homunculus already quoted it to you.
CO2 per KWh dropped from 1980 till 2018 roughly from 100% - 2% renewables - 20% nukes -> ~78% CO2 to 100% - 38% renewables - 10% nukes -> ~52% CO2.
So the change is from 78% CO2 producing plants to 52% CO2 producing plants. In my eyes that is a significant improvement
Plain and simple, and for that you don't need a graph. Es you probably have noticed: https://www.energy-charts.de/i... only goes back till 2008.
And that we now produce 38% last year and probably much more this year: you see yourself on https://www.energy-charts.de/ why the funk should I search you the relevant page?
https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/...
So, now find a 1980 study yourself, or a 2000 or a 2008 what ever you want.
I really don't get why you are such a nitpicking moron and most of the time completely wrong.
However I admit I was not aware that the import/export situation between France and Germany has changed.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I know you don't care if you are correct, but I and others do.
I see you still avoid quoting CO2/MWH hr output due to wind and solar additions Improvements due to other factor back in the 1900's really doesn't matter. Wind and solar were not added in significance until around 2008.
Their are charts that show the answer. You will avoid showing them.
Because I don't search for stuff like this, why don't you search yourself? I don't know how to find a graph for this "I see you still avoid quoting CO2/MWH" and I really have more important things to do than googling several hours for stuff I'm not interested in.
Wind and solar started to be added in significant numbers around 1985 ... no idea where you have 2008 from. What has 2008 to do with that? The EEG first came into force on 1 April 2000 and has been modified several times since. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Before that we had laws specific to solar and wind for subsidizing ... the first wind farm at my place was build 1986. And it was not the first in Germany.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Because I don't search for stuff like this, why don't you search yourself?
I know the answer. I've shown it multiple times yet you argue. CO2/KWh has not significantly reduced in Germany with the expansion of wind and solar starting around 2008 (or earlier in 2000s if it makes your feel better) and later under Energiewende. The most significant additions being in those years till present. With essentially zero improvement in C02/kwh emissions.
Anecdotes about isolated wind projects are irrelevant.
Germany did have big gains in the past, as you say, when they added nuclear;
http://petrushelsinki.net/wp-c...
I've shown it multiple times yet you argue. CO2/KWh has not significantly reduced in Germany with the expansion of wind and solar starting around 2008
Does not make sense if renewables rose from ~20% to ~40% ...
Should be a no brainer.
How should CO2 per kW/h not shrink if you double the amount of renewable power?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I've shown it multiple times yet you argue. CO2/KWh has not significantly reduced in Germany with the expansion of wind and solar starting around 2008
Does not make sense if renewables rose from ~20% to ~40% ...
Should be a no brainer.
How should CO2 per kW/h not shrink if you double the amount of renewable power?
Because you are using more coal and gas which are required to offset intermittance. And because you fail to distinquish the wind and solar part of what you call 'renewables'. Wind and solar, which is the subject matter, are not 40% annual generation.
Also, since you will ignore me, you should look up the answers of why CO2 emissions improvement due to wind a solar additions is failing in Germany. There is plenty of information available, why do you remain ignorant to it? Here is one, there are plenty more just some google searches away.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...
Because you are using more coal and gas which are required to offset intermittance.
No we don't. Energy production changed from 25% nukes + water, 75% coal and gas (1980) to ~50% nukes + renewables and 50% coal and gas (2018). So obviously CO2 production dropped by 1/3rd.
So, how is it physical possible to use more coal and produce more CO2 when you actually produce less power from it?
Wind and solar, which is the subject matter, are not 40% annual generation. ... last year 38%, this year already at 50% ... lets see how the rest of the year goes.
But renewables are
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Why should I read a forbes link, when I have fraunhofer.de and energy-charts.com, which publish the exact reallity of energy production?
The one who is ignorant is you.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Look, You can insist the real numbers aren't real. It is well documented that CO2 emissions per KWH have not significantly reduced in correlation with wind and solar additions..
You can ignore all the information that shows wind and solar in Germany have not brought significant improvements in CO2/kwh. I assumed you willfully ignore information. Now you have confirmed. That is why you are ignorant.