Far East Nuclear News

[lektrode]

Re: Far East Nuclear News

Just look at PG & E's FERC report:
Page 273: the actual cost and production data for Diablo Canyon:
Cost to build per MW capacity: $3.1M
Total production expenses: $383219978 ($0.0236 per Kwh)

natural gas plant called Humboldt Bay 1 & 2
Cost to build per MW capacity: $396,061
Fuel cost per Kwh: $0.0741

Pages 296 & 297: AT & T Solar Arrays
Cost to build per MW capacity: $18.1M
Fuel cost per Kwh: $0.0
Cost per Kwh over lifetime: $3634

SF Service Center Solar Arrays:
Cost to build per MW capacity: $90072
Fuel cost per Kwh: $0.0
Cost per Kwh over lifetime: $8.53

It costs $10,500 or so to put 1 kilogram in low earth orbit - $18.6B could put 1.7 million kilograms into orbit.

just think how many _tons_ could be disposed of at yucca mtn, after we've ALREADY SPENT 10'S OF BILLIONS (in harry reid's district) BUILDING THE FACILITY and now we're supposed to just write all that off?

and the final comparison, for the hysterically-inclined, in the issue of "safety"






for more on this and germany's about-face on nuke power, see:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2732...nuclear-u-turn


cant for the life of me reconcile the anti-nuke brigade's assault with the facts concerning all the costs associated with various sources, when the solution to the world's (and in particular, The US) energy conundrum has been staring us in the face for over 40years, YET ALL WE HEAR ABOUT IS HOW BAD NUKE POWER IS, WHEN CLEARLY COAL IS KILLING THE PLANET

[c1ue]

Re: Far East Nuclear News

just think how many _tons_ could be disposed of at yucca mtn, after we've ALREADY SPENT 10'S OF BILLIONS (in harry reid's district) BUILDING THE FACILITY and now we're supposed to just write all that off?

and the final comparison, for the hysterically-inclined, in the issue of "safety"

I don't dismiss the issue of how spent nuclear fuel/radioactive materials are handled.

As I've noted before - there is a huge amount of gamesmanship which can be invoked when accounting for these costs.

Equally so I don't believe that solar power can never play a role in public utility electricity generation.

The problem is that the cost of solar PV is so extremely high compared to existing sources - even assuming 10x increases in conventional fossil fuel costs - that the notion of full replacement is 100% impossible in the next 2 decades (at a minimum).

The same PG & E FERC report has a 2009 vintage combined cycle natural gas plant putting out electricity at $0.038 per kwh - this number seems extraordinarily low but nonetheless shows that the hurdle to replace conventional fossil fuel derived electricity is very high (very low price comparison).

For a nation like Japan which has very little fossil fuels - nuclear has another huge benefit: it does not require dozens or even hundreds of gigantic LNG, coal, or oil tankers in order to supply fuel. This supply stream is extremely vulnerable to both price and supply shocks; a conflict with Korea, China, or the Phillippines for example would immediately threaten Japan's electricity infrastructure.

In contrast Japan could easily store a decade's worth of nuclear fuel in a very small area.

For that matter, the spent fuel cost is something which has a economic alternative: I can't give details but I've seen firsthand documents in which Taiwan paid for its nuclear spent fuel and radioactive materials to be offloaded to another country. And it wasn't the US.

Yes, Taiwan has 6 nuclear power plants with another 2 under construction; it has even greater strategic issues vis a vis the ROC as Japan does.

[lektrode]

Re: Far East Nuclear News

I don't dismiss the issue of how spent nuclear fuel/radioactive materials are handled.

As I've noted before - there is a huge amount of gamesmanship which can be invoked when accounting for these costs.

agreed... tho most of the cost issue is directly the result of the eco-frauds (as mr steve calls em) and luddite-brigade-induced irrational fear of nuke power, as if _any_ other form of electric generation is somehow 'safer' than nukes.

Equally so I don't believe that solar power can never play a role in public utility electricity generation.

The problem is that the cost of solar PV is so extremely high compared to existing sources -....

i _dont_ think solar makes sense for public utility-generated power, but it makes perfect sense for individual-users to have PV up on their own roof, esp if they convert low-yield/fiat-cash into something that provides them with some measure of energy independence/security in the face of steadily escalating power cost - it makes even more sense if they adjust their energy consumption pattern to eliminate the use of electricity to make heat (using gas to cook, dry clothes, heat house etc)

but the farce promoted by the alt-energy crowd and their liberal pals in DC that we can make do without nukes or oil for power (or even more laffable: motor fuel) simply makes them look/sound like more loooney by the day

altho someday algae-derived fuels might get us where we need to be, i think we'll be dependent on oil and nuke power for a long time before solar-powered electric cars ever make even a small dent in real-world utility-scale energy needs

[c1ue]

Re: Far East Nuclear News

i _dont_ think solar makes sense for public utility-generated power, but it makes perfect sense for individual-users to have PV up on their own roof, esp if they convert low-yield/fiat-cash into something that provides them with some measure of energy independence/security in the face of steadily escalating power cost - it makes even more sense if they adjust their energy consumption pattern to eliminate the use of electricity to make heat (using gas to cook, dry clothes, heat house etc)

If PV makes so much sense for individuals - why then are there such massive subsidies? 50% or more of PV cost is covered by subsidies with additional benefits like feed-in tariff prices as well as higher electricity prices from utilities.

I've also noted before that unless the connection is ripped out, every supposed grid-independent house in reality is backstopped by the existing grid. More importantly, only 1/3 of each individual's energy in general, and electricity in particular, is household use. The rest is used in infrastructure building/maintenance, in goods purchased, at work, at school, etc etc.

It is like saying you're a self sufficient farmer except during winter, during dry spells, when you go work in construction for a couple months a year, when your relatives send you a care package, etc etc.

Which is to say, not at all self sufficient.

I do agree that there is an agenda with alt-energy on the part of many of the Gaia crowd; to lump all alt-energy under this banner is too general though.

There are areas where alt-energy makes some sense. There will be more as technology improves. But so far the ability to replace fossil fuels and nuclear power using alt energy seems very, very far away.

[lektrode]

Re: Far East Nuclear News

If PV makes so much sense for individuals - why then are there such massive subsidies? 50% or more of PV cost is covered by subsidies with additional benefits like feed-in tariff prices as well as higher electricity prices from utilities.

yeah, but....
nears i can tell, gov subsidies have been necessary for getting most new technologies to a critical mass sufficient to create demand large enuf for economies of scale to take it to the next level (profitability) - consider what the auto industry wouldve been without the interstate hwy system and how/what the budgets of NASA and the DOD have done to bring all sorts of innovative goods to the consumer market - computers for instance - that otherwise wouldnt likely have ever seen light of day and would be sorely missed.

esp jetliner travel, which we could not do without today, development of which was nearly 100% 'subsidized' by the .gov

I've also noted before that unless the connection is ripped out, every supposed grid-independent house in reality is backstopped by the existing grid. More importantly, only 1/3 of each individual's energy in general, and electricity in particular, is household use. The rest is used in infrastructure building/maintenance, in goods purchased, at work, at school, etc etc.

would guess thats true, but every KWH that the owner of a PV system doesnt have to pay for, is 'free' electricity and reduces 'peak demand' and offsets need for expensive plants to meet this demand, so there's some real payback there and if gov subsidies can create the demand for larger scale of production (and more R&D to lower costs), then one would have to think that eventually, no subsidies of any kind would be necessary - even without considering the 'moores law effect' - wouldnt ya think?

It is like saying you're a self sufficient farmer except during winter, during dry spells, when you go work in construction for a couple months a year, when your relatives send you a care package, etc etc.

Which is to say, not at all self sufficient.

however, every penny saved from having to NOT buy something is that many less hours one has to put in on the treadmill workin for the man - so if spending/investing in a PV system that cuts the need for KWH's from the utility, and this allows one some amount of economic advantage going forward, then this is a good thing - esp as one approaches 'retirement' (read: no more income) and depends upon savings and/or simply not having to contend with rapidly escalating cost of living/utility charges = more self-sufficient, than one would be if his electric rates were going up 10%/year - wouldnt you agree?

I do agree that there is an agenda with alt-energy on the part of many of the Gaia crowd; to lump all alt-energy under this banner is too general though.

There are areas where alt-energy makes some sense. There will be more as technology improves. But so far the ability to replace fossil fuels and nuclear power using alt energy seems very, very far away.

agreed, for the utilities/large scale production, esp...

but always remember that PV is more valuable on YOUR roof, than it is on PG&E's, with them charging you for its output (never mind when _they_ collect a gov subsidy to do it)

it will get even more valuable, on your roof, when the utilities are forced to go to time-of-day/peak rates, esp if you've got battery on your PV system, when after the PV has filled the battery all day, you then can disconnect from the grid when they would be bangin you for peak-demand charges in the early evening hours...

[c1ue]

Re: Far East Nuclear News

yeah, but....
nears i can tell, gov subsidies have been necessary for getting most new technologies to a critical mass sufficient to create demand large enuf for economies of scale to take it to the next level (profitability) - consider what the auto industry wouldve been without the interstate hwy system and how/what the budgets of NASA and the DOD have done to bring all sorts of innovative goods to the consumer market - computers for instance - that otherwise wouldnt likely have ever seen light of day and would be sorely missed.

esp jetliner travel, which we could not do without today, development of which was nearly 100% 'subsidized' by the .gov

Subsidies for solar power make no sense whatsoever from the 'economy of scale' perspective.

For one thing, the equipment used in making solar panels is directly thrown off from the semiconductor industry.

For a second thing, the inputs into solar are equally thrown off from the semiconductor industry.

So what you have with solar is almost purely R & D: can you assemble the building blocks which already exist into a better product.

The subsidies existing today thus actually hurt the development of solar technology: they reward companies which can already put out product - which is without question inferior to what will be coming out in even just 3 years - and effectively punish companies which choose to develop better solar technology.

would guess thats true, but every KWH that the owner of a PV system doesnt have to pay for, is 'free' electricity and reduces 'peak demand' and offsets need for expensive plants to meet this demand, so there's some real payback there and if gov subsidies can create the demand for larger scale of production (and more R&D to lower costs), then one would have to think that eventually, no subsidies of any kind would be necessary - even without considering the 'moores law effect' - wouldnt ya think?

How can solar PV electricity be free from anyone's perspective given its high cost - both for consumers even after subsidies - and for utility companies given the legal requirement to still provide grid electricity?

Similarly how does consumer PV help when major shifts like a conversion from liquid to electrical fuel for cars would completely kill the 'self sufficiency' paradigm?

I'd also note that PV doesn't do anything to reduce peak demand. For example: a solar PV system, barring ridiculous capital investment, cannot power an electrical cooling system for a house. A typical central air conditioner is 220V with a 20 ampere to 30+ ampere draw. Thus the electricity consumption would be at least 4000 or 5000 Watts per hour.

To power this air conditioner and given that solar panels don't produce a flat amount of electricity throughout even just daylight hours, you'd need at least a 7 KW installation. Throw in another KW to compensate for 20 year decline - and you're talking serious cash.

The point of the central air conditioner example is that unless the consumer has a gigantic solar PV install - the typical PV install just handles the small stuff - i.e. the non peak load. The utility company's still have to be prepared for peak loads during hot summers, similarly would have to provide electricity should the 'right thinking' consumer buy a plug-in.

however, every penny saved from having to NOT buy something is that many less hours one has to put in on the treadmill workin for the man - so if spending/investing in a PV system that cuts the need for KWH's from the utility, and this allows one some amount of economic advantage going forward, then this is a good thing - esp as one approaches 'retirement' (read: no more income) and depends upon savings and/or simply not having to contend with rapidly escalating cost of living/utility charges = more self-sufficient, than one would be if his electric rates were going up 10%/year - wouldnt you agree?

Yes and no.

Yes, if the investment were indeed permanent. But in reality a PV installation isn't a magic permanent electricity producer - there is inherent degradation.

No, because the amount of money you invest in a large PV system would generate an appreciable chunk of annual electricity bills.

This is much like in real estate: the equity you have in a house does not itself actually generate any income. You can say you don't have to pay rent, but in reality you are still paying something: maintenance, insurance, interest and/or growth of the equity via a variety of investment vehicles, property taxes, etc etc.

agreed, for the utilities/large scale production, esp...

but always remember that PV is more valuable on YOUR roof, than it is on PG&E's, with them charging you for its output (never mind when _they_ collect a gov subsidy to do it)

it will get even more valuable, on your roof, when the utilities are forced to go to time-of-day/peak rates, esp if you've got battery on your PV system, when after the PV has filled the battery all day, you then can disconnect from the grid when they would be bangin you for peak-demand charges in the early evening hours...

Actually solar PV is more valuable from PG & E's perspective (I do not refer to other utilities).

It is more valuable because PG & E derives the vast majority of its electricity from the system of hydroelectric plants built from 1900 to the 1960s. PG & E's FERC report shows that this utility literally has almost no fossil fuel based electricity generation: only the Humboldt 4 decade old natural gas plant, a couple peak diesel plants, and the new plant they just ramped up in 2009.

In comparison - Oregon has nearly a dozen coal and/or natural gas electricity generation plants.

The longer PG & E can sell electricity which it effectively gets for free from these hydroelectric dams (and Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant), the more profit they make. This is why PG & E wants California consumers to conserve and/or buy PV.

For other states - and I've only looked at a few - the utilities prefer instead to lobby state and federal authorities for subsidies on alt energy like wind because of the dynamic where increasing rates in order to compensate for increased fossil fuel costs is a long, painful, and public affair. The above mentioned Oregon utility is heavily invested into wind.

As for batteries - you do realize that batteries degrade even faster than solar panels do?

A li-ion battery system that can handle a full day's charge for the above mentioned air conditioner - say 8 hours x 4.5 kwh = 36 kwh capacity - would cost $18,000 ($500/kwh capacity).

So your solar system that could generate 36 kwh during daylight hours would cost something like $30000, the battery pack would cost $18000, and you'd have to add more in 20 years for the former and replace the latter in 5 to 10 years (assuming 500 charge cycles and using it once or twice a week).

36 kwh/day/6 months per year for the next 20 years even assuming a tripling of prices from say $0.18/kwh today would yield a total utility expense of $47,336.04 (36 kwh * 182.5 days * $0.36 averaged out cost per kwh).

So you've spent $48000 to save $47336.04.

Not a lot of savings it seems.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Far East Nuclear News

To-day, June 5, 2011, and the eco-frauds, this time especially a group of frauds that call themselves, "The Union of Concerned Scientists" based in Toronto, are now pressuring TEPCO to store all of its so-called, "radioactive water" and not to dump that water into the sea. These eco-frauds are claiming that the water is "highly radioactive" because it contains tritium ( water with 1 proton and 2 neutrons on each atom of hydrogen in the H20 ) which is a trace amount of all water on Earth, and some dissolved iron or dissolved particles from the fuel rods at the reactor core. The tritium easily radiates its extra neutrons to become ordinary (light) H20 with 1 proton and 0 neutrons on each atom of hydrogen.

First, let me go over why atomic power plants have swimming pools: 1.) These pools of water keep the spent fuel-rods cold;
2.) These pools use water to absorb neutrons from the spent fuel-rods, so that fission of the spent fuel can not occur; and 3.) These pools of water, about 25-feet deep, shield the workers in the plant from radiation coming from the spent fuel-rod bundles.

One could actually fall into these pools of water, and no harm would come to them. Their exposure to radiation would be minimal provided that the swimmers don't dive down 25-feet to observe the bundles of fuel rods and get near to the fuel bundles.

There are actually life rings hanging on the walls enclosing these pools, in the case that someone doesn't know how to swim and falls into a pool.

Well, the eco-frauds are now making TEPCO store the pool water outside the Fukushima plant in above-ground sealed tanks, at great expense to TEPCO, and the frauds are telling the public and the media that the water is "highly radioactive" because the water contains dissolved particles from the spent fuel and also the water contains a higher portion of tritium (heavy water) than ordinary (light) water. The frauds are telling the public and the media that this ten-thousand tonnes of "contaminated" water can not be dumped into the Pacific Ocean because the "contaminated" water would "damage" marine life........ And sadly, the public and the media believes this bull crap.

No mind that all water on Earth is made-up of a small portion of heavy water (tritium), and tritium is a natural isotope of hydrogen generated by cosmic rays. Instead, the public is told that heavy water is pollution and pollution which would damage marine life.

So here again, we have an example of the eco-fraud pressure groups fabricating a problem of waste storage from nuclear power plants that is false and non-existent. The waste from nuclear power plants amounts to a cup of uranium per day, or a few cups per month. And now, as at the Fukishima plant in Japan, the public is told that the waste is 10,000 tonnes of highly radioactive water.

Then the eco-frauds tell the media and the public that the cost of waste from nuclear-power plants has not been properly accounted for in the cost of generating energy. And the public believes this bull sh*t!

As a boy, I had some radioactive iron-filings from the core of a nuclear power plant, and I used these iron-filings as a source of radiation in my cloud chamber experiment. I am now almost age 63, and I am doing fine.

The extent of mis-information given to the public by groups like The Union of Concerned Scientists is incredible. They are trying to kill the nuclear power industry worldwide by cultivated public hysteria. Some of the other groups that are in on this scam are Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and W.A.R.N. based in North Carolina. And until someone speaks-up, this bull-sh*t and propaganda becomes truth.

And we are told that "deadly plutonium" is a waste product of nuclear-power plants, but we are not told that this waste is part of the cups of waste from the plant. We are not told that the toxicity of plutonium is a chemical risk to health and not a radioactive risk to health. We are also not told that plutonium is a trace element in the Earth's crust worldwide because plutonium is a product of fission that occurs naturally within the Earth itself. All uranium ore, for example, contains a tiny bit of plutonium ..... All of the important facts about plutonium are nicely skipped-over by the eco-frauds. All the public is told is that plutonium is toxic, radioactive, a likely carcinogen, could cause lung cancer, it can be used to build atomic bombs, and plutonium is an un-natural or synthetic element produced by deadly fission activity inside nuclear-power plants.

And here we are now, with the public more mis-informed and more hysterical than ever.

[lektrode]

Re: Far East Nuclear News

...The subsidies existing today thus actually hurt the development of solar technology: they reward companies which can already put out product - which is without question inferior to what will be coming out in even just 3 years - and effectively punish companies which choose to develop better solar technology.

as usual, mr c1ue, yer probably right... but the status quo isnt working out very well and PV at least offers an alternative to sitting back helplessly as the politix of energy forces the inevitable skyrocketing of electric rates - and short of an all-out massive build-out of nuke generation capacity? (and the bernanks plan for the dollar) how will they _not_ skyrocket?

How can solar PV electricity be free from anyone's perspective given its high cost -

initial capital investment of the equipment is high, yes - but so isnt the price of a viking range, LG washer/dryer or a subzero refrig - but those just keep spinning your meter vs the PV will spin it in reverse = a dollar saved = a dollar earned = net return on the investment in PV, that escalates in direct proportion to increase in electric rates, which i seriously doubt will be going down in our lifetimes?

and so what makes sense, from POV of the typical residential electric bill payer - just do nuthin? put out _thousands_ of bux for 'high efficiency' appliances, of the types above?

of put money into something that cuts yer KWH's or better yet, spins yer meter backwards?

both for consumers even after subsidies - and for utility companies given the legal requirement to still provide grid electricity?

Similarly how does consumer PV help when major shifts like a conversion from liquid to electrical fuel for cars would completely kill the 'self sufficiency' paradigm?

the answer to that question is way beyond my paygrade ;)

I'd also note that PV doesn't do anything to reduce peak demand. For example: a solar PV system, barring ridiculous capital investment, cannot power an electrical cooling system for a house. A typical central air conditioner is 220V with a 20 ampere to 30+ ampere draw. Thus the electricity consumption would be at least 4000 or 5000 Watts per hour.

but that example ignores my comment about _not_ trying to make heat with electric and even tho the desired product of an A/C system is cooling, what one is really doing is 'pumping heat' out of the house - so yes, it would be nuts to try to build a PV system to handle that function in a residential application anyway - certain types of businesses can make the equation work however, ones with lots of roofspace and limited cooling req's

my main point in discussing the residential apps is that YES some modification of consumption patterns is required and once past using electric for making heat (or a/c) that its quite cost effective to use PV to reduce the KWH's to the point where one could disconnect from the grid completely, if/when the circumstances make it advantageous to do so (esp with time-of-day/demand pricing, or far-out in-the-middle-of-nowhere locations, something getting to be quite fashionable these daze, esp in the right parts of hawaii, where we are paying .44/kwh - my house/income bracket just isnt in a good part, or i'dve done it myself)

......
..........
Actually solar PV is more valuable from PG & E's perspective (I do not refer to other utilities).

It is more valuable because PG & E derives the vast majority of its electricity from the system of hydroelectric plants built from 1900 to the 1960s. PG & E's FERC report shows that this utility literally has almost no fossil fuel based electricity generation: only the Humboldt 4 decade old natural gas plant, a couple peak diesel plants, and the new plant they just ramped up in 2009.

In comparison - Oregon has nearly a dozen coal and/or natural gas electricity generation plants.

The longer PG & E can sell electricity which it effectively gets for free from these hydroelectric dams (and Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant), the more profit they make. This is why PG & E wants California consumers to conserve and/or buy PV.

For other states - and I've only looked at a few - the utilities prefer instead to lobby state and federal authorities for subsidies on alt energy like wind because of the dynamic where increasing rates in order to compensate for increased fossil fuel costs is a long, painful, and public affair. The above mentioned Oregon utility is heavily invested into wind.

and again, mr c1ue, this illustrates precisely why i've observed that getting into a debate with you, on most any topic, is an exercize in futility - altho even when i appear to be losing the argument, i still win, because any time you get workin on stuff like this, the outcome, for me (and a bunch of the others, no doubt) - is that i become educated far more effectively that i could on my own, reading for _daze_ on the topic

(and you i'm sure recognize a compliment when you read one ;)

As for batteries - you do realize that batteries degrade even faster than solar panels do?

A li-ion battery system that can handle a full day's charge for the above mentioned air conditioner - say 8 hours x 4.5 kwh = 36 kwh capacity - would cost $18,000 ($500/kwh capacity).

.....

yes, without a doubt, lowering the price of the battery bank IS the holy grail of PV.

but if one isnt trying to cover every last KWH for the worst case scenario, then the price of the optimum sized battery isnt as high as you might think - and i have pulled high quality batteries (AGM type by concord/lifeline) off boats that have been upwards of 10years old - and to further illustrate: put some on a boat in 2000, he was headed for tahiti in 2004 and wanted to replace em, told him i didnt think they were all that bad yet - he sez "do you know what these things cost in tahiti?" - right - changed em - kept 2 of the 6 - used em harder than he did for next 2 years and know what? i can still get appx 40% of their rated capacity out of them - 11 years later (last time i check em anyway)

so batteries are an issue, but not to the extent that its a deal killer on the PV equation and the panels themselves, the crystaline wafer types, have 20year wrrt of 90% of rating, with expected lifespan of 30years or more (my distributor has panels on his house that are 30years old and still putting out)

but again - i will defer to your view on this, strictly from the POV of subsidies (perhaps) not making best sense, from POV of 'highest/best use' of the feds/states budgets, but in the short term, not sure what a better option would be, esp for those who are concerned about their electric bills becoming unaffordable in the future

altho perhaps http://www.plugpower.com/Solutions.aspx might someday present a better idea (hopefully before the stock i bought goes to zee-row ;)