Fukushima: Little by Little . . .

[Starving Steve]

Re: Fukushima: Little by Little . . .

So it would seem.

Much of the cost of a conventional, water-cooled nuclear power plant is due to cooling system complexity. These are part of the safety of the overall design, and thus require extensive safety systems and redundant backups. A water-cooled reactor is generally dwarfed by the cooling systems attached to it. Additional issues are that the core irradiates the primary loop water with neutrons causing the water and impurities dissolved in it to become radioactive and that the high pressure piping in the primary side becomes embrittled and requires continual inspection and eventual replacement. Such systems are maintenance and survivability nightmares.
There are much more modern nuclear power system designs that make better sense, the circa 1970 Fukushima plant was not one of them.

When I was a kid, in 8th grade, I used radioactive iron-filings from the core of a reactor as the source of radiation for my cloud chamber experiment. The radioactive iron-filings from the core of a reactor didn't kill me nor give me cancer. At age 62, I am healthy and more obnoxious than ever.

One more point, radionuclides from reactor cores are taken to hospitals and injected into patients to use as tracers in their blood stream and to fight cancer. So this whole scare from the eco-frauds about radiation and cancer is patently wrong.

[peakishmael]

Re: Fukushima: Little by Little . . .

Perhaps C1ue, or Steve, will humor me and provide some basis for their statements that solar is expensive, particularly relative to nuclear. For my part, I will offer the following:

Here's a study (from Belgium) which at first glance (if you read the summary) seems quite bombastic... almost like Steve. But if you plow through it, it seems well documented and nuanced. And concludes that the cost of building a nuke plant is about $5000/kw, and trending up, not down. http://boell.org/downloads/Thomas_UK_-_web.pdf

What I know about industrial (utility-scale) solar is that there are two new manufacturers of thin-film PV panels that have started production in the last couple years. And these are now being installed, in Germany and elsewhere, for about $1000/watt. And the trend there is down, with at least one of those companies claiming to be within reach of $600/watt by 2013. www.nanosolar.com www.miasole.com

Now Steve likes to write screeds about how solar only works when the sun shines. Which is of course true. So factor that in. The best nuclear plants are now achieving near 90% operating efficiency. Solar only works during the day, and not so much when it is cloudy, so let's assume that on average a solar installation is only 30% efficient, which is pretty conservative. So it will take 3 times as many solar plants to generate what a nuke plant can, at the same rated capacity.

Ergo, a nuke plant at $5000/kw is equivalent to 3 solar plants at $1000/kw. So the solar costs 40% less now to install, and the costs of the former are rising, while the costs of the latter are falling. Meanwhile, which takes 20 years to complete design, get financing and approvals, and construct? Which is cheaper to operate? Which has the greater environmental issues?

Here's the big picture of what Germany is about... they are going after all forms of renewables (not just solar) while they shut down nuclear. http://www.energybulletin.net/storie...nergy-possible

Yes of course, solar can't be used as a base load because it isn't constant. But in concert with other renewable sources, and a societal willingness to implement conservation measures, it can play a big role.

OK, guys, tell me where I'm wrong.

[stetts]

Re: Fukushima: Little by Little . . .

You are wrong because "Renewables Won't Keep the Lights On." http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7340

Link is to an analysis of Great Britain, concluding that no matter how you arrange renewables, and no matter how well they work in concert, sometimes you simply will not have power. Sometimes for a few hours, sometimes for a few days, or maybe a week. Worse, you never know when it'll hit.
How do you maintain an efficient developed society without reliable power? Power loss is intensely disruptive and costly. Who wants to build anything where you can be assured the power will randomly quit?
As with any renewable, there will always be one constant--prepare for a substantial change in lifestyle. And it won't likely be upward. More likely conservation happens through government forced coercion--which isn't conservation, it's brute force.
I happily use solar where it makes sense--my patio lights are such. A lot of my rural neighbors use small solar panels to recharge battery powered gate openers and I had a nice solar powered electric fencer for a remote pasture for a while. Those are very small power users so they work fine.
Hope this helps. Stetts

[peakishmael]

Re: Fukushima: Little by Little . . .

You are wrong because "Renewables Won't Keep the Lights On."

Look at my name here. I'm not arguing that renewables can support current levels of energy usage. Nothing else will, either.

In the article about Germany's goals you can read:

Within four decades, one of the world’s leading economies will be powered almost entirely by wind, solar, biomass, hydro, and geothermal power.

Those last 3 are not intermittent. Still,

Most electricity grids have not been built to accommodate the scale of intermittent energy generation (e.g. wind and solar) envisioned in Germany. When pressed about this challenge, a German government official recently responded, “Without a problem there would be no solutions.” Rather than viewing the restructuring of the current grid as an insurmountable obstacle, Germany views the challenge as an opportunity for necessary innovation to support an affordable, clean, and more decentralized energy system in the future. As Germany’s Minister of Environment recently stated:

“It is economically nonsensical to pursue two strategies at the same time, for both a centralized and a decentralized energy supply system, since both strategies would involve enormous investment requirements. I am convinced that the investment in renewable energies is the economically more promising project.”

The future of the German electricity industry will require a rethinking of the way energy is bought, sold and transmitted. In developing the Energy Concept and in presenting its recent six-point plan for accelerated transition, the Merkel government has identified several key initiatives to reorganize the grid, including:

- Maximizing existing storage options and rolling out innovative new battery technologies
- Relying increasingly on flexible power plants, such as biomass, biogas, and natural gas, that can more readily balance intermittent wind and solar generation
- Strengthening and expanding existing electricity grid infrastructure, including the construction of transmission super-highways that can move electricity between the north of the country, where wind is plentiful, and the south, where the solar resource is stronger.
- Widespread introduction of smart meters and smart grid technologies
- Accelerated energy efficiency deployment

Regardless of all that, my primary argument here is that PV is already cheaper than nuclear, and getting more so. I'm anxious to read any counter-evidence.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Fukushima: Little by Little . . .

Translation from their new eco-language to plain English: biomass = burning COAL, wood, dung, or garbage = filth; biogas = methane = natural gas = CH3;
accelerated energy efficiency deployment = bologna sausage to bamboozle kids in elementary schools = rolling black-outs;
smart grid technologies = bologna sausage to bamboozle adults and kids = wasting more money to get government grants;
rolling-out innovative new battery technologies = wasting more money on lithium and rare earth batteries that cost a fortune and don't work miracles = black-outs;
the solar resource is stronger in the south of Germany = bologna sausage = the solar resource is stronger in southern Libya;
smart meters = you can cook dinner at 2AM when rates for power go down;
smart grid technologies = wasting more money to get government grants = meaning, a doubling in your electric rates;
transmission super highways = meaningless bologna sausage to bamboozle the public, especially children and mental midgets; there is not enough power generated for a transmission super highway in Germany, and electric power is lost (wasted) in transmission; there are no super-conductors;

[c1ue]

Re: Fukushima: Little by Little . . .

What I know about industrial (utility-scale) solar is that there are two new manufacturers of thin-film PV panels that have started production in the last couple years. And these are now being installed, in Germany and elsewhere, for about $1000/watt. And the trend there is down, with at least one of those companies claiming to be within reach of $600/watt by 2013. www.nanosolar.com www.miasole.com

There are many, many problems with the statement above.

1) Even if the numbers quoted above are true, the actual electrical power generated per installed watt of solar is a fraction of the actual power generated by a nuclear power plant. (load factor)

The generally accepted number for solar is 19%, for nuclear it is 80% (actually higher: see http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-co.../staff/sr1350/ - Appendix A)

This means 1 installed solar watt generates 1,664 kwh per year while 1 installed watt of nuclear generates 7,008 kwh per year.

Note the 19% is a solar industry touted number and thus likely in optimal conditions and locations.

In contrast, even wind has a (wind industry) touted number of 30% (i.e. 1 watt wind = 2,628 kwh/year) though recent UK data show numbers more in the low 20s%.

Thus even with the 'future' cost estimates you note, the actual cost is almost equal. To this equation you then have to add the backup costs for solar: every single solar watt requires 1 equal backup watt or massive expensive storage mechanisms like pumped storage dams.

This raises the costs far and away above nuclear.

Note home installations have the identical issue - only the electricity utility is the one which provides backup free of cost.

2) Solar panels degrade. While both nuclear power and solar power require maintenance - with nuclear being higher, solar panels degrade significantly during operational lifetimes. This is 20% over 20 years, and a lot more for thin film type solar panels (the cheaper types).

This means more solar generating plants must be built - 1 for every 5 existing installs in 20 years - just to maintain existing capacity. In contrast Fukushima, the Michigan plant in the Climate Change property tax post, many of the German (actually East German) plants don't have this issue.

Now Steve likes to write screeds about how solar only works when the sun shines. Which is of course true. So factor that in. The best nuclear plants are now achieving near 90% operating efficiency. Solar only works during the day, and not so much when it is cloudy, so let's assume that on average a solar installation is only 30% efficient, which is pretty conservative. So it will take 3 times as many solar plants to generate what a nuke plant can, at the same rated capacity.

You incorrectly assume that a solar panel generates electricity at its peak so long as the sun is shining. This is wrong; the peak electricity generated is when the sun is directly facing the panel. Before and after this peak position, the energy generated is considerably less.

This is why the actual load factor is only 19%.

Here's the big picture of what Germany is about... they are going after all forms of renewables (not just solar) while they shut down nuclear. http://www.energybulletin.net/storie...nergy-possible

Despite massive subsidies and society-wide approval, Germany still had to import 94.57 billion cubic meters of (mostly Russian) natural gas. The nuclear power phaseout was actually postponed 12 years until the Fukushima incident; the happiest people with the Merkel turnaround are the owners of Gazprom.

Germany also has clearly demonstrated that the solar technology thus far is simply inadequate:
http://theenergycollective.com/wille...ariffs-germany

Average feed in tariff: $0.54/kwh vs. retail prices of $0.28 (residential) and $0.20 (business)

It should be noted that the cost of the solar subsidy itself contributed to the overall cost of electricity:

In 2009, renewables FITs added $0.029/kWh to household rates and are likely to add $0.05/kWh in 2011, mostly due to the added PV solar systems in 2009 and 2010.

Among many consequences: Germany is accelerating the removal of these subsidies in lieu of an outright cut. total payments in 2009 were $3.54 billion for 6,578 Gwh electricity produced from an install base of 7.89 GW (5.95 GW + 1/2 * 3.88 GW installed in 2009) for a Germany wide solar load factor of 9.5% (this is almost exactly half of the 19% touted by the solar industry).

The costs of installation?

The 2000 PV systems were about $9,000/kW, the 2009 PV systems were about $5,000/kW, and the 2010 PV systems are about 4,300-5,200 $/kW, depending on the type of installation.

So the good news is, costs are falling. But they are a long, long way from being competitive in any sense of the word.

I do think there is a role for solar once the technology hits maturity, but the role will be minor.

Utilities have a number of different niches - solar can provide perhaps 10% capacity overall. Anything beyond which doesn't employ storage mechanism simply introduce massive instability into the grid - even if cost is disregarded.

For example: the niche of the diesel generator. All utilities have at least 1 or 2 of these types of plants for 'peak' loads - the cost of electricity from these is very high. Solar could replace this for daytime - which generally is when peak loads occur.

[FrankL]

Re: Fukushima: Little by Little . . .

...
It should be noted that the cost of the solar subsidy itself contributed to the overall cost of electricity:

Among many consequences: Germany is accelerating the removal of these subsidies in lieu of an outright cut. total payments in 2009 were $3.54 billion for 6,578 Gwh electricity produced from an install base of 7.89 GW (5.95 GW + 1/2 * 3.88 GW installed in 2009) for a Germany wide solar load factor of 9.5% (this is almost exactly half of the 19% touted by the solar industry).

....

9.5% load factor if you assume that all produced electricity is fed back into the power grid. Surely a significant part is used for own consumption too, and only excess production is fed into the grid.

Some further observations on the discussion:
- as Steve mentioned, building new coal power plants seem to be part of this 'renewable strategy' in Germany
- how many square meters of land (in Germany) needs to be covered with photovoltaic cells to supplant 1 nuclear plant with average capacity? Including the land use for the conventional power plant needed for backup (based on the average mix of non-renewable energy used in Germany). And including the area of land that is needed to replace the falling production capacity of the solar cells over the lifetime of a nuclear plant

[c1ue]

Re: Fukushima: Little by Little . . .

9.5% load factor if you assume that all produced electricity is fed back into the power grid. Surely a significant part is used for own consumption too, and only excess production is fed into the grid.

This is a good point.

However, I'd bet that the 'home' install proportion of the 7.89 GW of installed solar capacity is relatively small. The massive subsidies led to such a boom in full time solar farms - as opposed to residential roofs - that growth of PV capacity has exceeded projections by over 50%. (5 GW was the target for 2009)

Thus the 9.5% number is possibly low, but equally unlikely that 19% is also low. I've looked at the load factors for Mojave desert plants - and they're around 19%. Somehow I don't see anywhere in Germany approaching the Mojave desert for insolation.

I'd also point out that ultimately even households which have installed solar power are better off feeding the solar generated electricity into the grid and then taking electricity from the grid.

They literally make money that way.

What might people do if they literally make $0.26 for every kilowatt they use? This would be over $200/month for the average American family though only $50/month for the average German household.

[Shakespear]

Re: Fukushima: Little by Little . . .

Interesting !!!

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1105/1105.2841.pdf

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-b...0040523x2.html

[Starving Steve]

Re: Fukushima: Little by Little . . .

And the only answers the eco-frauds have are: 1.) starvation and living in the dark; or 2.) a default to coal, as in Henderson, Nevada.

Enjoy your poverty and darkness with solar and wind, or enjoy your lung cancer and filth with coal. And let's be honest and frank about this.

There is a solution to siting Japan's nuclear power plants: (bedrock) + (water location) + (water towers) + (water canals) + (a siting over 35 feet above sea-level) + (some roads nearby and away from unstable or soft cliffs) + (diesel-powered pumps at the site) + (pools of water at the site) + (some water tankers on tractors on site).... Every problem has a solution if even Starving Steve, a geographer, can envision the solution to the problem. Other than finding the bedrock to drill into, this is not a difficult nor an expensive engineering problem to solve.

Sad to say, you don't have the luxury of moving the plants too far away from faults. And do NOT believe anything the eco-frauds tell you about geology because almost every site on this planet has some geologic risk. But these risks can be planned for, even in Japan.

[Shakespear]

Re: Fukushima: Little by Little . . .

This one is for you Steve

Regulators Find Design Flaws in New Reactors

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/21/bu...nuke.html?_r=1

[Starving Steve]

Re: Fukushima: Little by Little . . .

This one is for you Steve


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/21/bu...nuke.html?_r=1

Some issues that I have with the Obama Administration: their lack of an energy policy; their eco-crap; Chau who runs their Energy Department; their re-appointment of Bernanke; their TBTF bail-outs for Wall Street; their arrogant delays in licensing nuclear power plants; their money-supply growth; their lack of a budget; their financial repression of savers; their funding of everything; the endless politics and speech-making; their failure to reform the education curriculum; their failure to junk the EPA; their pro-Hamas policies, their failure to support Mubarek; their failure to confront Iran and Pakistan; their anti-drilling oil policy; their delay in implementing health reform; their failure to endorse NAFTA; their alliance with labour aristocrats; their anti-growth attitudes; their nationalism and buy-American policy; their unwillingness to support King Faisal; their neglect of King Abdullah; their love-in with rebels in the Arab World who are allied with Al Qaide; their love-in with Greenpeace and the Sierra Club; Nancy Pelosi and her SF County field-mouse; their deficits; their money-printing; their new (1967 borders) peace proposal; their failure to support oil sands development; their unwillingness to speak frankly with the American people and provide leadership; Obama's isolation in the White House; offering faith as a policy for almost everything; endless hand-shaking; theatrics; telling people what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear; their kick-the-can economics; their neglect of the message from the gold market; their appointment of Tim Geitner to Treasury, their failure to identify what liberalism really is and differentiate themselves from the GOP; their love-in with the BBC in London; their anti-China policy; and a few other issues too numerous to mention...... And it's sad!

[dropthatcash]

Re: Fukushima: Little by Little . . .

Get close... GET REAL CLOSE!...to your monitor. Get so close you can see the little dots that make up the web page you're looking at. Each of those dots represents a person that has died as a result of the last 10 years of earthquakes. Now look at the dots that make the period of this sentence. That's the number of people that have died as a result of nuclear accidents.

Now do the reverse. Each of the 'dots' on this page represents an article, blog, comment, etc. on the web about the pending doom of nuclear power. The "dots" under the period? Those would equal the number of articles, blogs, comments, etc. on the web about the dangers of incompetent individuals risking innocents lives under the threat of earthquakes.

[don]

Re: Fukushima: Little by Little . . .

Michio Kaku



It's been reported that Reactor Building #4 is leaning

[Shakespear]

Re: Fukushima: Little by Little . . .

A little bit of Japanese's news

The government has discovered thousands of cases of workers at nuclear power plants outside Fukushima Prefecture suffering from internal exposure to radiation after they visited the prefecture, the head of the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said.

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/...na021000c.html

Are we close enough to the Monitor?