What the operators were forced to deal with after the Tsunami is not nearly as relevent and the fact that the Tsunami left the plant with no emergency power and water intrusion quickly disabled and remaining systems that were battery backed. This was the case because the plant, nor its safety systems, were designed to withstand the Tsunami.
After the tusami, operators indeed were left with such a deteriorated situation that they were forced to make decisions that they should have never had to make to start with.
If my tires are rated for maximum 50 mph, and I'm going 90 mph and lose control, and I tried to swerve and wind up hitting a tree, the problem was not that I swerved the wrong way, the problem was that I put the vehicle in situation it was not designed to safety handle.
The earthquake took the plant off-line not the Tsunami.
The plant safely began shutdown when the earthquake occurred. Damage that cause failure was entirely due to the Tsunami. Other reactors nearby that experienced the same earthquake but were not hit by Tsunami, shut down safely, as designed, without incident. The plants and safety systems were not designed to operate through a tsunami hit, and hence, the inevitable outcome when the tsunami hit. Shame on Japan for siting those plants in a Tsunami zone with inadequate protection and design.
Those who blame the earthquake for the safety systems failures are either ignorant, or outright and intentionally misleading. Which are you?
On one hand, Kansai Electric is paying for the sins of TEPCO.
On the other hand, the weakness in the regulatory authority is central to Japan's citizen's overall mistrust, and much work still needs to be done to repair it.
That 35 percent was momentary, possibly only for a few seconds or minutes, which means other plants had to make up for it right after dropping back to lower percentage. There is a cost associated with that, one that I know you conveniently like to ignore. You also assume no grid issues were experienced, but you'd better talk to the dispatchers before you jump to that conclusion.
Also, note that it was 35 percent, for a short duration, at a time when power demand was relatively quite low.
Who paid the fixed costs for those gas plants to be ready to spin up to meet that demand? How much less would power have cost overall if it was just produced by existing plants and the wind was never built? Probably quite a bit less. But those total costs are never calculated.
Large power plant shutdowns are actually easier to deal with. Its still a big cost, but on a percentage basis, you may have a large plant tripping once or twice a year, while wind is up and down many times even in a day. Its not even remotely comparable. If large plants tripped daily, then it would be a fair comparison, but many plants run for over a year straight with no unplanned trips.
In addition, the transmission grid was designed to manage large plants tripping, with key transmission lines between large generators so that a few can ramp up a bit to handle the lost one. Since the power can be brought in from generators over a large area, the deficit can be made up with little grid stability problems. Sometimes a major trip does cause problems though. Wind brings the issue to areas that don't have the transmission infrastructure, and the wind generators are not yet willing to pay for that infrastructure.
Well, that is not exactly cheap, and it represents the lowest "contract" sales price for power in some of the best wind generation areas. It is not an average by any means. And, once again, it doesn't factor in the cost of spinning reservce.
Like I said, I like wind. I like it a heck of a lot more than solar. But it has limits in what percentage of our supply it can produce and not cause grid stability issues, or incur great costs to limit them. Right now, solar and wind ride on the backs of coal, gas, and nuclear when it comes to grid stability and reliability.
I am all for equivalent subsidies for CO2 free power sources. But make it across the board, with similar percentage construction/installation subsidies as well as production or power purchase subsidies.
Fracked shale gas will not remain cheap. It will stay that way until a certain level of global dependency is reached. At that point, supply flow increases will slow or stop, and wild price fluctuations will ensue, with a steady rise in average price over time.
There is plenty of oil and gas supply, yet look at the prices they can demand due to the dependency of the transportation sector. That's how our whole energy sector will eventually look.
That's currently roughly 12% of world energy production, for roughly 6 billion people, with many in dire poverty and quite low energy consumption.
I teared up a bit.
But hey, lets propose solutions that don't exist yet rather than one that's already offset more CO2 contribution than we can hope solar and wind will in the next 10 years. Gathering solar wind? Yeah, lets do that while many are in dire poverty.
We need realistic and practicable solutions that we can afford. There are plenty of ways to keep the nuclear fuel supply for hundreds of years. By then, maybe we'll have your solar windmill.
Add in the time for planing etc and wind is faster.
Faster to build one small unit compared to a large nuclear plant, yes. But faster to offset CO2, no even close. In the US, in 2013, after the billions spent on solar, Solar PV accounted for less than 0.5% of the electricity generated in the US. That is after over a decade of heavy solar investment. In that same timeframe, the construction of only a few nuclear units would have the ability to surpass all that solar in short order. In reality, the amount of CO2 free electricity generated by nuclear in 2013 is greater than the expected solar contribution for the next 10 years.
Now, wind is better than solar. I like wind, and it makes sense to a certain extent. But, it is non-dis patchable, and must be backed up by natural gas or coal, so there are limits to the percentage of power we can depend on wind for.
The article says that "wind farms built until March 2017 would receive a subsidized price of £100 for every 'megawatt-hour' unit of power they produce..."
So this is the subsidy in form of forced purchase. That on top of subsidies for construction which are often greater than 30%
As for the nuclear subsidy, it is a for a specific plant, not a general subsidy. It can be shown that nuclear has generated many times more tax revenue than it has ever been subsidized. Wind and Solar are tax negative big time. Its easy to cherry pick numbers to make a case, but it does not change the overall cost picture, like the cost of keeping reserve plants ready to make up for when the wind stops or the sun isn't shining.
No, i"d be happy with the correct, "one tenth", or "a tenth", or "10 percent of", or any other grammatically and mathematically correct way of saying it.
No. Saying 10 times less implies less has a value. If less has no value, then 10 times less = 0.
Its not a matter of knowing what the author meant. Its simply a matter of correctness. Don't submit anything to a science journal or a legal entity, and you'll be just fine.
or other for no other reason than they have to pay them............
I think its a matter of having a choice for things you don't need, versus have little or no choice for things you need. Along with choice comes the benefits of competitiion, where sellers strive to make you happy.
I need food, I have plenty of choices where to buy it. I can save money and buy generic, or pay more and buy brand name gourmet items.
I need a car. I can buy a low cost used car, or a new expensive luxury car.
I need electricity. I am forced to buy it from Company A at Price B.
I need ISP. I am forced to buy it from Company A. I have little choice in the ways it can be delivered. I pay more for it that others pay elsewhere for better service.
Interestingly, I am willing to pay more just to have a choice. I have TWC and pay for Vonage VOIP. I could use TWC VOIP and save a bit, but then I'd feel even more stuck.
It's a natural consequence of the general public (slashdotters included) being morons and cherrypicking single words (not sentences, words) and basing all their decisions on those words. That's how you elect politicians whose only ability is being able to talk for three hours without actually saying anything.
Exactly. I'm sure political speech writers have similar lists, and good technical writing guides will tell you to stay away from subjective modifiers and phrases.
So then why provide them with fodder like these reports of the science that leave out all the crucial information?
MOD THIS UP!
In particular this nuclear FUD. It seems that certain submitters peruse for anything they can find that sounds remotely anti-nuke and post it regardless of any credibility or truth. In reality, most coastal nuclear plants are quite a bit above sea level already, and several feet of rise would likely make no difference at all to the main facility. The intake structures could easily be modified, if even needed, for higher water elevation. The intakes are by nature under water to start with. In truth, if the intake is actually further under water, the water would be a bit cooler, and would improve the efficiency of the turbine generator.
ironically, the most effective, fastest, and cost effective way to offset Co2 contributions and thereby reduce that impact on GW is to build more nuclear.
Slashdot Mirror
What the operators were forced to deal with after the Tsunami is not nearly as relevent and the fact that the Tsunami left the plant with no emergency power and water intrusion quickly disabled and remaining systems that were battery backed. This was the case because the plant, nor its safety systems, were designed to withstand the Tsunami.
After the tusami, operators indeed were left with such a deteriorated situation that they were forced to make decisions that they should have never had to make to start with.
If my tires are rated for maximum 50 mph, and I'm going 90 mph and lose control, and I tried to swerve and wind up hitting a tree, the problem was not that I swerved the wrong way, the problem was that I put the vehicle in situation it was not designed to safety handle.
The earthquake took the plant off-line not the Tsunami.
The plant safely began shutdown when the earthquake occurred. Damage that cause failure was entirely due to the Tsunami. Other reactors nearby that experienced the same earthquake but were not hit by Tsunami, shut down safely, as designed, without incident. The plants and safety systems were not designed to operate through a tsunami hit, and hence, the inevitable outcome when the tsunami hit. Shame on Japan for siting those plants in a Tsunami zone with inadequate protection and design.
Those who blame the earthquake for the safety systems failures are either ignorant, or outright and intentionally misleading. Which are you?
On one hand, Kansai Electric is paying for the sins of TEPCO.
On the other hand, the weakness in the regulatory authority is central to Japan's citizen's overall mistrust, and much work still needs to be done to repair it.
If you killed Elon Musk, would Tesla thrive?
'Companies don't fall apart when they lose their CEO or CFO;
I find it hard to believe that if you keep killing the CEO and CFO of a company, the performance of that company will not suffer.
That 35 percent was momentary, possibly only for a few seconds or minutes, which means other plants had to make up for it right after dropping back to lower percentage. There is a cost associated with that, one that I know you conveniently like to ignore. You also assume no grid issues were experienced, but you'd better talk to the dispatchers before you jump to that conclusion.
Also, note that it was 35 percent, for a short duration, at a time when power demand was relatively quite low.
Who paid the fixed costs for those gas plants to be ready to spin up to meet that demand? How much less would power have cost overall if it was just produced by existing plants and the wind was never built? Probably quite a bit less. But those total costs are never calculated.
Large power plant shutdowns are actually easier to deal with. Its still a big cost, but on a percentage basis, you may have a large plant tripping once or twice a year, while wind is up and down many times even in a day. Its not even remotely comparable. If large plants tripped daily, then it would be a fair comparison, but many plants run for over a year straight with no unplanned trips.
In addition, the transmission grid was designed to manage large plants tripping, with key transmission lines between large generators so that a few can ramp up a bit to handle the lost one. Since the power can be brought in from generators over a large area, the deficit can be made up with little grid stability problems. Sometimes a major trip does cause problems though. Wind brings the issue to areas that don't have the transmission infrastructure, and the wind generators are not yet willing to pay for that infrastructure.
Well, that is not exactly cheap, and it represents the lowest "contract" sales price for power in some of the best wind generation areas. It is not an average by any means. And, once again, it doesn't factor in the cost of spinning reservce.
Like I said, I like wind. I like it a heck of a lot more than solar. But it has limits in what percentage of our supply it can produce and not cause grid stability issues, or incur great costs to limit them. Right now, solar and wind ride on the backs of coal, gas, and nuclear when it comes to grid stability and reliability.
I am all for equivalent subsidies for CO2 free power sources. But make it across the board, with similar percentage construction/installation subsidies as well as production or power purchase subsidies.
You make some good points here.
Fracked shale gas will not remain cheap. It will stay that way until a certain level of global dependency is reached. At that point, supply flow increases will slow or stop, and wild price fluctuations will ensue, with a steady rise in average price over time.
There is plenty of oil and gas supply, yet look at the prices they can demand due to the dependency of the transportation sector. That's how our whole energy sector will eventually look.
That's currently roughly 12% of world energy production, for roughly 6 billion people, with many in dire poverty and quite low energy consumption.
I teared up a bit.
But hey, lets propose solutions that don't exist yet rather than one that's already offset more CO2 contribution than we can hope solar and wind will in the next 10 years. Gathering solar wind? Yeah, lets do that while many are in dire poverty.
We need realistic and practicable solutions that we can afford. There are plenty of ways to keep the nuclear fuel supply for hundreds of years. By then, maybe we'll have your solar windmill.
So you're saying that you support expensive energy, and further with that creating misery for those who can't afford cheap energy? .
No, he said Obama does. He didn't make any judgement.
Everyone benefits from the dropping of wholesale cost. That means the price can be reduced.
Add in the time for planing etc and wind is faster.
Faster to build one small unit compared to a large nuclear plant, yes. But faster to offset CO2, no even close. In the US, in 2013, after the billions spent on solar, Solar PV accounted for less than 0.5% of the electricity generated in the US. That is after over a decade of heavy solar investment. In that same timeframe, the construction of only a few nuclear units would have the ability to surpass all that solar in short order. In reality, the amount of CO2 free electricity generated by nuclear in 2013 is greater than the expected solar contribution for the next 10 years.
Now, wind is better than solar. I like wind, and it makes sense to a certain extent. But, it is non-dis patchable, and must be backed up by natural gas or coal, so there are limits to the percentage of power we can depend on wind for.
Cost of wind £100 per megawatt hour
The article says that "wind farms built until March 2017 would receive a subsidized price of £100 for every 'megawatt-hour' unit of power they produce..."
So this is the subsidy in form of forced purchase. That on top of subsidies for construction which are often greater than 30%
As for the nuclear subsidy, it is a for a specific plant, not a general subsidy. It can be shown that nuclear has generated many times more tax revenue than it has ever been subsidized. Wind and Solar are tax negative big time. Its easy to cherry pick numbers to make a case, but it does not change the overall cost picture, like the cost of keeping reserve plants ready to make up for when the wind stops or the sun isn't shining.
No, i"d be happy with the correct, "one tenth", or "a tenth", or "10 percent of", or any other grammatically and mathematically correct way of saying it.
No. Saying 10 times less implies less has a value. If less has no value, then 10 times less = 0.
Its not a matter of knowing what the author meant. Its simply a matter of correctness. Don't submit anything to a science journal or a legal entity, and you'll be just fine.
"Ten times more" would mean multiply by ten, so it makes sense that "ten times less" means divide. It's consistent, and that's the main thing.
If 10=more and 5=less, which is greater, 10 times less or 11 times less?
A supposedly intelligent author feels the need to say "ten times less"
or other for no other reason than they have to pay them. ...........
I think its a matter of having a choice for things you don't need, versus have little or no choice for things you need. Along with choice comes the benefits of competitiion, where sellers strive to make you happy.
I need food, I have plenty of choices where to buy it. I can save money and buy generic, or pay more and buy brand name gourmet items.
I need a car. I can buy a low cost used car, or a new expensive luxury car.
I need electricity. I am forced to buy it from Company A at Price B.
I need ISP. I am forced to buy it from Company A. I have little choice in the ways it can be delivered. I pay more for it that others pay elsewhere for better service.
Interestingly, I am willing to pay more just to have a choice. I have TWC and pay for Vonage VOIP. I could use TWC VOIP and save a bit, but then I'd feel even more stuck.
On the flip side, forcing everyone to use Windows 8 would be a violation of fundamental human decency.
We shouldn't mandate that cars should be safe.............?
The day that cars become tools that are used for self defense, this analogy becomes applicable.
But anyhow, cars used recreation-ally, on private tracks, are not required to be safe.
But painting groups as 100% extreme purists is the only way idiots can make a point.
It's a natural consequence of the general public (slashdotters included) being morons and cherrypicking single words (not sentences, words) and basing all their decisions on those words. That's how you elect politicians whose only ability is being able to talk for three hours without actually saying anything.
Exactly. I'm sure political speech writers have similar lists, and good technical writing guides will tell you to stay away from subjective modifiers and phrases.
So then why provide them with fodder like these reports of the science that leave out all the crucial information?
MOD THIS UP!
In particular this nuclear FUD. It seems that certain submitters peruse for anything they can find that sounds remotely anti-nuke and post it regardless of any credibility or truth. In reality, most coastal nuclear plants are quite a bit above sea level already, and several feet of rise would likely make no difference at all to the main facility. The intake structures could easily be modified, if even needed, for higher water elevation. The intakes are by nature under water to start with. In truth, if the intake is actually further under water, the water would be a bit cooler, and would improve the efficiency of the turbine generator.
ironically, the most effective, fastest, and cost effective way to offset Co2 contributions and thereby reduce that impact on GW is to build more nuclear.