Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Nuclear Power  (Read 275071 times)

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3330
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 612
  • Likes Given: 409
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #200 on: March 25, 2016, 01:02:13 PM »
"the age of nuclear energy is drawing to a close"

Hurray!
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Laurent

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2538
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 35
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #201 on: March 25, 2016, 01:36:06 PM »
Fossil Fuel and nuclear have to be phased out quickly, not for the same reasons. The consequence is we have to restructure completely our societies that cannot live without the actual quantity of energy. Cities have to be diminished to fit ecological footprint fast, we have to enhance solar organic and tax more all other type of energies, that is to facilitate what can be done and recycled locally, etc...

Theta

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 174
  • Grips
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #202 on: March 25, 2016, 07:59:01 PM »
Well put, folke_kelm.

On top of those excellent points, it must be pointed out that we are almost certainly headed for total or near total collapse of civilizations.

In such cases, nearly every part of the built infrastructure will be vulnerable to neglect at best and terrorism at worst.

Neglect a solar panel or windmill and nothing much happens, and even intentional harm won't bring about essentially any widespread damage or threat.

The same cannot be said about any nuclear plant.

The faster we close down and dismantle all nuclear plants, the better.

The collapse of civilisation is something that worries me a lot about the nuclear power plants because I subscribe to the idea that it'll happen overnight, and when it does happen, nobody will be monitoring them, so spent fuel rods are likely to go up in flames and spread radiation everywhere on the planet, thus doing damage that rivals that of Climate Change and an asteroid combined. At least, that's what I get from the OurFiniteWorld Comment Section.
Can't think of a signature

Laurent

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2538
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 35
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #203 on: March 25, 2016, 08:46:55 PM »
Do not worry too much, it is a fact, a possibility ! Just ask your politicians to phase out nuclear and on your side go away from big cities, try to regroup collectively and be as much autonomous (individually and collectively) as possible. I am still using the electric boiler everyday... My providers assert the electricity is produced with renewable.
French company, but may be you have the equivalent : http://www.enercoop.fr/

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 7787
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1148
  • Likes Given: 538
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #204 on: March 26, 2016, 11:44:29 AM »
Quote
Brussels attacks: Nuclear alert after security officer found dead with his pass missing

 A security officer at a Belgian nuclear plant has been found dead with his work pass stolen. This disturbing development, revealed by the newspaper Derniere Heure on Saturday, follows concerns that the Brussels bombers wanted to build a radioactive dirty bomb — but apparently shelved the plan after security was stepped up at Belgium’s nuclear plants following intelligence warnings.

The security officer was murdered on Thursday evening as he walked his dog in the city of Charleroi, but news of the killing only emerged on Saturday. His pass was quickly cancelled, according to officials.

Investigators are exploring a theory that the man, who has not been named, was killed to steal his pass and gain access to a nuclear facility. Nuclear power plants are known to be targets for the terror network behind the Brussels bombings and the Paris attacks in November.

 Eleven nuclear workers in Belgium had their work passes revoked after intelligence warnings.

Ibrahim and Khalid El-Bakraoui, the two brothers believed to have blown themselves up at Brussels airport and a metro station, are also suspected of involvement in an Islamic State plot to make a bomb that could have contaminated a large populated area with radioactive material.

A senior nuclear industry official was secretly filmed by jihadists last year, Belgium’s nuclear authority said, apparently with the intention of abducting him and obtaining radioactive material.

The El-Bakraoui brothers were linked to the surveillance of the head of Belgium’s nuclear research and development programme.

 However, soldiers were not deployed to guard nuclear facilities until March 4 - two weeks after the filming was discovered. Despite the revelation of the surveillance on February 17, the interior minister, Jan Jambon, initially rejected the proposal, saying: “Nothing indicates a specific threat to nuclear power plants… This is why we are not planning any military support.”

But the government soon changed its mind and on March 4 approved the deployment of 140 soldiers to guard five nuclear facilities.

 In the hours following the Brussels bombings, two Belgian nuclear power plants were evacuated.

Security measures have been stepped up at France’s many nuclear power plants, a French intelligence source told the Telegraph on Saturday. Workers have been screened for Islamist sympathies and a number had their security passes revoked.

Are increased security measures included in the price and carbon footprint of nuclear?
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #205 on: March 27, 2016, 08:21:05 AM »
Fossil Fuel and nuclear have to be phased out quickly, ....

I'm not sure.  I don't think it makes sense to build any new reactors.  The money a reactor would cost would buy a much larger amount of renewable electricity and get it online years earlier.  We'd burn much less fossil fuel for both reasons.

Existing reactors (if they are reasonably safe) buy us some time to replace fossil fuels first.  We can see that in Germany the decision to close reactors early caused Germany to burn more fossil fuels for a few years and set them behind on their move off coal and gas.

I'm not suggesting Germany made a bad decision.  They were living with reactors in their midst and had experienced a major nuclear reactor disaster next door.

I'm just saying that to a large extent we've already messed up several hundred sites by building reactors on them.  I'm not sure we mess those sites up a lot more by running them for a few more years.

BTW, at the rate the US has moved off coal over the last 5 years we could be done with coal in 15 more years.  I suspect we'll move something faster than that.

GeoffBeacon

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 394
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #206 on: March 27, 2016, 11:39:25 AM »
In Plutonium Pie in the Sky: the Dangerous Delusion of New Nukes, James Heddle says

Quote
Never mind that – as Stanford scientist Mark Jacobson and his associates, as well as others, have conclusively shown – the entire nuclear fuel chain from mine to waste dump is more carbon intensive than wind and solar put together. Their work shows a transition to renewables is totally possible…without nuclear energy.
How carbon intensive are the current and planned nuclear power stations when "the entire nuclear fuel chain from mine to waste dump" is considered?

I worry about most nuclear power stations being on the coast and vulnerable to sea level rise, storms and even climate induced tsunamis.

How would these power stations cope with one of Hansen's super storms?
Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18592
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 838
  • Likes Given: 323
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #207 on: March 27, 2016, 04:36:19 PM »
...
I'm just saying that to a large extent we've already messed up several hundred sites by building reactors on them.  I'm not sure we mess those sites up a lot more by running them for a few more years.

BTW, at the rate the US has moved off coal over the last 5 years we could be done with coal in 15 more years.  I suspect we'll move something faster than that.

My thoughts exactly.  It's great to see you posting again, Bob.  Welcome back!
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3330
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 612
  • Likes Given: 409
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #208 on: March 27, 2016, 05:54:24 PM »
Also is the cost of relocating millions of people in the event of another Fukushima factored in to the cost of nuclear? And the lives lost from these displacements? And the endless cleanup/patch up necessary after such? Or, as Japanese officials now admit they think was a possibility, the need to totally (or almost) abandon a major industrialized country like Japan?

Bob wrote: "[nukes] buy us some time to replace fossil fuels first"

That seems reasonable, but we don't know when collapse might come. The faster we mover toward carefully and systematically shutting these things down, starting with the oldest and least secure, the more likely it is that we may be able to avoid multiple Fukushimas in the face of a society that has completely ceased to function.
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Theta

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 174
  • Grips
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #209 on: March 27, 2016, 06:45:09 PM »
Also is the cost of relocating millions of people in the event of another Fukushima factored in to the cost of nuclear? And the lives lost from these displacements? And the endless cleanup/patch up necessary after such? Or, as Japanese officials now admit they think was a possibility, the need to totally (or almost) abandon a major industrialized country like Japan?

Bob wrote: "[nukes] buy us some time to replace fossil fuels first"

That seems reasonable, but we don't know when collapse might come. The faster we mover toward carefully and systematically shutting these things down, starting with the oldest and least secure, the more likely it is that we may be able to avoid multiple Fukushimas in the face of a society that has completely ceased to function.

I agree. If it was possible for nuclear to become the next cheap and easy to access form of energy, then it would be quite beneficial as it would solve all of the present economic problems that can tip society over the edge. However, it is not cheap and is reliant on the power grid which is reliant on oil, so it must be taken down. The only problem I have with the idea of decommissioning Power Plants en masse, is the fact that it takes decades for to decommission plants safely (fuel rods are too hot to relocate), and in my opinion, society itself doesn't even have a year.
Can't think of a signature

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #210 on: March 28, 2016, 01:20:28 AM »
In Plutonium Pie in the Sky: the Dangerous Delusion of New Nukes, James Heddle says

How carbon intensive are the current and planned nuclear power stations when "the entire nuclear fuel chain from mine to waste dump" is considered?

I worry about most nuclear power stations being on the coast and vulnerable to sea level rise, storms and even climate induced tsunamis.

How would these power stations cope with one of Hansen's super storms?

The lifetime (cradle to grave) footprint of nuclear is higher than wind and solar but considerably lower than fossil fuels.  Cost, safety and radioactive waste are nuclear's problems.

We need to continually reevaluate the risk of each operating reactor.  Rising sea levels could be a problem for some, as could increased flooding due to the larger extreme rainfalls we're experiencing.  It might be necessary to build 'sea walls' around some reactors.  Perhaps close others.

It would be a lot cheaper and quicker to install enough wind, solar and storage to replace a risky reactor than to rebuild a city wiped out by a nuclear disaster.

As for extreme storms, most should be designed to handle fairly heavy weather but we do need to evaluate and monitor.  For example, the very major Joplin tornado struck not far from the Fort Calhoun reactor.  Had the reactor been in the tornado's path it would probably have been fine.  But the grid connection would have been wiped out and the backup generator system was in a simple metal building which would almost certainly been destroyed.  A potential US Fukushima.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #211 on: March 28, 2016, 01:22:29 AM »


It's great to see you posting again, Bob.  Welcome back!
[/quote]

I'm going to give it another try.  I was totally grossed out earlier by the people who were fine with the concept of intentionally murdering billions of humans in order to prevent extreme climate change.

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2078
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 116
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #212 on: March 28, 2016, 07:00:23 PM »

The lifetime (cradle to grave) footprint of nuclear is higher than wind and solar but considerably lower than fossil fuels.  Cost, safety and radioactive waste are nuclear's problems.


Only if you do not take into account capacity factors and storage requirements for a total renewable replacement as a baseload generator.  With this additional buildout (about 4X that of just a single utility-scale solar or wind generator) necessary for baseload equivalency, the emissions for production of the total system takes about 30 years renewable plant operations to break even (a nuclear plant is about 9 for the same baseload generation potential)

It would be a lot cheaper and quicker to install enough wind, solar and storage to replace a risky reactor than to rebuild a city wiped out by a nuclear disaster.

It would be a lot cheaper and quicker to install enough nuclear generation capacity for baseload manufacturing operations on a 24/7 cycle that would allow an aggressive national renewable-energy and Transportation/Manufacturing sector electrification retrofit. 

It would be infinitely cheaper to do so than dealing with the consequences of the +4C result that the above retrofit would CERTAINLY PRODUCE if it was attempted by fossil fuel driven manufacturing of renewables.
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5778
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 811
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #213 on: March 28, 2016, 07:51:42 PM »
Could I have a cite for this  ? I seem to have missed it if it was posted earlier.

"Only if you do not take into account capacity factors and storage requirements for a total renewable replacement as a baseload generator.  With this additional buildout (about 4X that of just a single utility-scale solar or wind generator) necessary for baseload equivalency, the emissions for production of the total system takes about 30 years renewable plant operations to break even (a nuclear plant is about 9 for the same baseload generation potential)"

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #214 on: March 28, 2016, 08:16:14 PM »
The NREL lifetime carbon footprint study which found nuclear carbon emissions higher than wind and solar (but only a small amount more) was based on kWh, not nameplate capacity.

http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sustain_lca_results.html

You can't run a nuclear energy grid without massive storage buildout. 

If you want to talk about a wind/solar grid then the correct comparison would be against a nuclear grid.  Not a partial nuclear grid.  A partial wind/solar grid requires no overbuilding or storage.

"It would be a lot cheaper and quicker to install enough nuclear generation capacity for baseload manufacturing operations on a 24/7 cycle..."

Sorry, that is incorrect. 

Wind + solar + storage for a "baseload" supply is cheaper than nuclear.  And, don't forget, to make nuclear 24/365 reliable it is necessary to construct some source of generation to fill in the time during which reactors are offline.

It takes less than two years to bring a very large solar farm or wind farm online.  Six to ten or more to construct a nuclear plant.

"It would be infinitely cheaper to do so than dealing with the consequences of the +4C result that the above retrofit would CERTAINLY PRODUCE if it was attempted by fossil fuel driven manufacturing of renewables."

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.  Perhaps you don't know that wind and solar online already produces more energy than is used each year manufacturing new PV solar and wind turbines?  Fossil fuels were used to bootstrap wind and solar but we moved into energy positive territory some time ago. 

If you are saying that it would be cheaper to install massive numbers of nuclear plants than to deal with extreme climate change, that is absolutely true.  But it's a misleading statement.  Our option is not nuclear or roast.  The option is nuclear or less expensive/dangerous renewables or roast.




jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2078
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 116
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #215 on: March 28, 2016, 08:58:16 PM »
Nuclear power plant capacity factors are 3 times that of renewables the storage requirement to reach 90% capacity would at least add another 1/4 of total emissions associated with an equivalent 24/7 production cycle.  It would take about 14GW of ADDITIONAL buildout to facilitate a transformation of the Transportation/Manufacturing and Electric Power generation sectors to fossil-free (energy devoted solely to production, distribution and installation of infrastructure)

kWh to kWh comparisons do not include capacity factor comparisons, that is my point and the reason that an equivalent buildout would be 4X the embedded emissions.

A grid buildout for centralized Nuclear for the manufacturing hubs needed for this transformation would work on the current system without additional storage requirements.  Then using this energy the grid could be transformed for distributed generation associated with the renewable buildout (that is the ultimate goal)

LCOE for solar is 2.5 times as much as nuclear on a kWh basis, wind is slightly (20%) less but, again, the overbuildout needed for equivalent capacity factors quadruples this renewable cost (at least-storage is still much too expensive).

The costs associated with the climate induced destruction that is CERTAIN without using nuclear as the source for this 16 Trillion dollar mobilization for transformation of our entire nation's emission portfolio is well beyond the INSIGNIFICANT risk associated with a major nuclear accident from Gen 3 nuclear production during this transformation.

Using the current fuel mix to generate the renewable energy required for this transformation (14GW) would mean creating 42GW of renewable generation + additional storage (to allow a 24/7 manufacturing cycle).  Doing this with the current fuel mix would necessarily produce a 4C climate response.  Using only renewable energy for the transformation would mean starting out with 5 hours per day production and would extend the timeline of the transformation from 15 years to over 60.

our option is indeed nuclear (as a source for national transformation) or roast.
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

Theta

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 174
  • Grips
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #216 on: March 28, 2016, 09:04:38 PM »
Nuclear power plant capacity factors are 3 times that of renewables the storage requirement to reach 90% capacity would at least add another 1/4 of total emissions associated with an equivalent 24/7 production cycle.  It would take about 14GW of ADDITIONAL buildout to facilitate a transformation of the Transportation/Manufacturing and Electric Power generation sectors to fossil-free (energy devoted solely to production, distribution and installation of infrastructure)

kWh to kWh comparisons do not include capacity factor comparisons, that is my point and the reason that an equivalent buildout would be 4X the embedded emissions.

A grid buildout for centralized Nuclear for the manufacturing hubs needed for this transformation would work on the current system without additional storage requirements.  Then using this energy the grid could be transformed for distributed generation associated with the renewable buildout (that is the ultimate goal)

LCOE for solar is 2.5 times as much as nuclear on a kWh basis, wind is slightly (20%) less but, again, the overbuildout needed for equivalent capacity factors quadruples this renewable cost (at least-storage is still much too expensive).

The costs associated with the climate induced destruction that is CERTAIN without using nuclear as the source for this 16 Trillion dollar mobilization for transformation of our entire nation's emission portfolio is well beyond the INSIGNIFICANT risk associated with a major nuclear accident from Gen 3 nuclear production during this transformation.

Using the current fuel mix to generate the renewable energy required for this transformation (14GW) would mean creating 42GW of renewable generation + additional storage (to allow a 24/7 manufacturing cycle).  Doing this with the current fuel mix would necessarily produce a 4C climate response.  Using only renewable energy for the transformation would mean starting out with 5 hours per day production and would extend the timeline of the transformation from 15 years to over 60.

our option is indeed nuclear (as a source for national transformation) or roast.

But nuclear requires energy that we no longer have, as the economy is buckling under serious pressure at this point. The only rational move is to either close down all nuclear plants and give up on the project, or risk every single human being having their skin peeling off or getting ripped apart by cannibals as the entire biosphere is destroyed by spent fuel rod fires after the imminent economic collapse.
Can't think of a signature

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #217 on: March 28, 2016, 10:33:56 PM »
Quote
Nuclear power plant capacity factors are 3 times that of renewables

About 3x times that of solar in the US.  US solar is now reaching 30%.  About half US onshore wind.  New wind farms are reporting CF numbers above 40% with some above 50%.

Quote
the storage requirement to reach 90% capacity would at least add another 1/4 of total emissions associated with an equivalent 24/7 production cycle.

That's an unknown.  There are some numbers that say that grids can reach 80% wind and solar with no storage.

Quote
kWh to kWh comparisons do not include capacity factor comparisons

Of course they do.  If one is reporting cost per kWh that includes fixed and variable costs along with capacity factors.

Quote
A grid buildout for centralized Nuclear for the manufacturing hubs needed for this transformation would work on the current system without additional storage requirements.

Yes, we could replace coal plants with nuclear reactors.  But we could replace them at a lower cost with wind, solar, and storage.

Quote
LCOE for solar is 2.5 times as much as nuclear on a kWh basis, wind is slightly (20%) less

That holds only if you compare the cost of electricity from an efficient nuclear plant which is paid off.  Some paid off nuclear plants have operating costs in excess of 5c/kWh.  The unsubsidized cost of new onshore wind in the US is under 4c/kWh.  The unsubsidized cost of new PV solar in the US is about 6c/kWh

The cost of new nuclear in western Europe (Hinkley Point) and the US (Vogtle and North Anna) run from 13c/kWh to 19c/kWh.  Subsidized.  And it will not be possible to build further 13c nuclear in the US.  That price is a 'one timer' due to very low "Great Recession" funding.

It makes no sense to use prices from reactors built decades ago and paid off.  We can't go back in time and build more of them.  If we're going to talk about what we will build going forward then we have to use current installed costs.

I'm going to skip the rest of your comment due to your using incorrect numbers to this point.


Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #218 on: March 28, 2016, 10:36:30 PM »
Quote
But nuclear requires energy that we no longer have, as the economy is buckling under serious pressure at this point. The only rational move is to either close down all nuclear plants and give up on the project, or risk every single human being having their skin peeling off or getting ripped apart by cannibals as the entire biosphere is destroyed by spent fuel rod fires after the imminent economic collapse.

That's some pretty heavy Henny Penny thinking.




jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2078
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 116
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #219 on: March 29, 2016, 06:54:17 AM »
I don't think you quite get what LCOE means:

Quote
Levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) is often cited as a convenient summary measure of the overall competiveness of different generating technologies. It represents the per-kilowatthour cost (in real dollars) of building and operating a generating plant over an assumed financial life and duty cycle. Key inputs to calculating LCOE include capital costs, fuel costs, fixed and variable operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, financing costs, and an assumed utilization rate for each plant type.

https://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm

total system LCOE nuclear = 95.2
total system LCOE Wind (onshore) = 73.6
total system LCOE Wind (offshore) = 196.9
total system LCOE (solar) = 125.3

The main reason that you are wrong in your estimations is that you do not include support system (mostly distribution) associated costs and you don't consider that the reduced capacity factor of renewables means that it will take 3 times as much capacity to produce the same amount of energy on an annual basis.  This will triple the cost of buildout for the renewables ABOVE the costs show above if a 24-hour production cycle is needed, otherwise you are doing your work with coal.

We do not yet have the storage capacity at a reasonable cost - these projections are for 2020 with an assumption of much cheaper batteries than today.

In addition, for an infrastructure buildout in every major population hub of this country, you cannot simply place your wind turbines and manufacturing centers in Iowa.  The associated emissions of transportation would produce untenable additional emissions.

Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #220 on: March 29, 2016, 07:24:31 AM »
I suppose you aren't aware that EIA predictions are jokes.  The EIA is predicting that the US will get 34% of its electricity from coal in 2040 when we were already down to 33% for all of 2015 and in the process of closing over 100 coal plants over the next couple of years.  For the last three months of the year coal produced 31%, 29% and 28%.  We are building no new coal plants.

The EIA has been predicting higher costs for wind and solar a few years into the future than what current prices are.  Here are recent power purchase agreement (PPA) averages.  A PPA includes everything included in a LCOE plus real estate and owner profits. 

Wind = $0.0235/kWh average 2014 PPA (subsidized). 

DOE "2014 Wind Technologies Market Report"

http://energy.gov/eere/wind/downloads/2014-wind-technologies-market-report

Solar = $0.05/kWh PPAs (subsidized) being signed in the US Southwest.  Working backwards through a LCOE calculation extrapolates a cost of about $0.02 higher for the less sunny Northeast.

 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory entitled “Utility-Scale Solar 2013: An Empirical Analysis of Project Cost, Performance, and Pricing Trends in the United States”

http://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/utility-scale-solar-2013-report.pdf

PPA prices for wind and solar are lowered about 1.5 cents by PTC (Production Tax Credits).  Both wind and solar are eligible for 2.3 cent/kWh tax credits for each kWh produced during their first ten years of operation.  Half of 2.3 is 1.15, but getting ones money early has value.  That means that the non-subsidized costs of wind are a bit under 4 cents and solar is running 6.5 to 8.5 cents/kWh.

http://energy.gov/savings/renewable-electricity-production-tax-credit-ptc

Wind less than 4c/kWh in the real world.  Solar a bit over 6c/kWh in the real world (up to 2c/kWh higher in less sunny places).  And the prices will be lower in 2016.  The EIA is claiming 7.4c/kWh for onshore wind and 12.5c/kWh four years from now.  That is simply silly.

Their 9.5c/kWh for nuclear is also without merit.  Vogtle, barring further cost overruns will cost 13c/kWh.  The low bid for new reactors at North Anna, Virginia came in at 19c/kWh.
---

Quote
The main reason that you are wrong in your estimations is that you do not include support system (mostly distribution) associated costs and you don't consider that the reduced capacity factor of renewables means that it will take 3 times as much capacity to produce the same amount of energy on an annual basis.

Nuclear does have a higher CF than wind and solar.  But CF is built into price, you need to master that concept.  The cost of electricity from any plant is total annual cost / total annual electricity produced.  You do understand that CF is a measure of electricity produced, do you not?


The PPA prices I gave you are the cost of electricity produced.  All three - wind, solar, and nuclear receive subsidies.  Nuclear receives a bit more per kWh than wind and solar. 

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5778
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 811
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #221 on: March 29, 2016, 07:39:36 AM »
Agree that EIA is not to be trusted as to forecasts, "so wrong for so long" comes to mind. After refreshing my memory and talking to a couple civil/electrical engineers, i find that cost of new build nuclear is completely outclassed by new build solar/wind or even retrofit of unpowered dams. Until penetration of solar/wind hits 30%, storage does not seem to be an issue, and battery prices are following the solar cost curve down. I imagine that the banks see the same numbers i do, so they are financing renewable and ignoring nuclear. Getting financing for new build nuclear seems prohibitive, and that's whats killing nuclear. Nobody wants to tie up that much money for so long, when it could be producing in sixty days.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #222 on: March 29, 2016, 07:43:34 AM »
Quote
you do not include support system (mostly distribution) associated costs

Quote
This will triple the cost of buildout for the renewables ABOVE the costs show above if a 24-hour production cycle is needed, otherwise you are doing your work with coal.

Quote
We do not yet have the storage capacity at a reasonable cost - these projections are for 2020 with an assumption of much cheaper batteries than today.

I'm starting a new comment here because this is a different topic - the cost of powering a grid, reliability, 24/365.  The previous comment was about the cost of electricity as it comes from the plant/farm.

You are correct and incorrect about storage at a reasonable cost.  We are starting to install batteries for short term storage (daily cycle) and we have already built a lot of pump-up hydro storage (PuHS) which we needed in order to incorporate nuclear on our last-century grid.

PuHS is not cheap.  Estimates for new PuHS run from 9c/kWh to 23c/kWh.  The 9c number was given by DOE Secretary Chu.

But let's leave storage aside for the while.  What makes most sense to fill in for wind/solar and nuclear is natural gas.  The plants have a low installed cost and are highly dispatchable, meaning they can be turned on and off quickly unlike coal.

How about some installed cost comparisons?

Wind Onshore 
 $1.64 Installed Cost/Watt
 DOE 2014 Wind Technologies Market Report

PV Solar
$1.43 Installed Cost/Watt
Greentech Media 3rd Qtr 2015 Executive Summary

CCNG
$1.09 Installed Cost/Watt
Open EI DOE Database Median Overnight Cost

Nuclear
$8.33 Installed Cost/Watt
Vogtle LCOE adjusted for additional budget overruns.

Wind and solar tend to produce at different times of day.  A watt of wind plus a watt of solar is likely to produce, on average, 80% of the time with the rest filled in by a watt of NG.  Cost to install a watt of all three = $4.20

Nuclear plants, once dialed in, produce about 90% of the time but we'd still need a watt of NG to fill in the other 10%.  A watt of nuclear plus a watt of CCNG = $9.40.

The cost of supply the grid with a 'reliable' watt of renewables + NG is 40% the cost of supplying that watt with nuclear + NG.



Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #223 on: March 29, 2016, 07:50:10 AM »
Agree that EIA is not to be trusted as to forecasts, "so wrong for so long" comes to mind. After refreshing my memory and talking to a couple civil/electrical engineers, i find that cost of new build nuclear is completely outclassed by new build solar/wind or even retrofit of unpowered dams. Until penetration of solar/wind hits 30%, storage does not seem to be an issue, and battery prices are following the solar cost curve down. I imagine that the banks see the same numbers i do, so they are financing renewable and ignoring nuclear. Getting financing for new build nuclear seems prohibitive, and that's whats killing nuclear. Nobody wants to tie up that much money for so long, when it could be producing in sixty days.

I just posted 2014 prices for wind and 2015 prices for solar.  By the time a new reactor could be built and brought on line the price of wind and solar should be significantly less than the numbers I gave. 

In 2013 new wind farms were reporting CFs under 40%.  Recently GE reports that their new wind farms are producing at over 50%.  A 25% increase would drop the cost of unsubsidized wind close to 3c/kWh.  (Assuming no significant cost increases.)

Utility solar costs have been falling over 15% per year.  The price should be around $1.20/watt by the end of this year and close to $1/watt by the end of 2017.  That will take the unsubsidized price of utility solar below 5c/kWh.


Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #224 on: March 29, 2016, 07:55:15 AM »
Here's the link to a letter sent to the EIA which spells out the problems with their forecasts in more detail....

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/01/10/horrible-eia-forecasts-letter-cleantechnica-readers/

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 899
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #225 on: March 29, 2016, 02:30:21 PM »
The problems I see for nuclear are two fold. If rivers are utilized either flooding or drought can disrupt operations, while seaside locations are vulnerable to SLR & storms.
The other difficulty is ongoing maintenance when governmental instability or lack of funding precludes safe operations.


http://russia-insider.com/en/science-tech/toxic-south-ukraine-n-power-station-shut-down/ri13579


The future is now.
Terry

GeoffBeacon

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 394
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #226 on: March 29, 2016, 02:48:53 PM »
TerryM

Quote
The problems I see for nuclear are two fold. If rivers are utilized either flooding or drought can disrupt operations, while seaside locations are vulnerable to SLR & storms.

I may be a bit paranoid in worrying about tsunamis in Europe (as well as SLR & storms) but the BBC report some interesting research on historic tsunamis.

Am I too paranoid?

Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2078
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 116
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #227 on: March 29, 2016, 05:18:09 PM »
Quote
I'm starting a new comment here because this is a different topic - the cost of powering a grid, reliability, 24/365.  The previous comment was about the cost of electricity as it comes from the plant/farm.

Actually, the additional costs associated with utilizing renewable energy on a 24/7 manufacturing cycle was the entire point of my discussion.  As I wrote earlier

Quote
Only if you do not take into account capacity factors and storage requirements for a total renewable replacement as a baseload generator.  With this additional buildout (about 4X that of just a single utility-scale solar or wind generator) necessary for baseload equivalency

Your cost per generated kwh (subsidized) does not consider the regional constraints, energy storage requirements and distribution system requirements needed to be in place to facilitate a series of 9 regionally distributed manufacturing hubs (the majority in the mid-atlantic region) necessary for the transformation of our society.

While a wind and solar manufacturing cycle could be possibly put into place in texas, the energy storage requirements (no pumped hydro potential available there) would be prohibitive if compared with new gen-3 modular reactor construction. 

that is the only location that fits the situational requirements for a renewable system generated manufacturing center.

It has:
1.  lots of wind and solar energy - though not enough for a continual 24/7 production cycle without significant battery storage
2.  a retrofitted energy distribution system that can transport this energy from ERCOT wind centers already in place (at a cost much reduced from the national average of $8-$10 dollars per MWh http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Report-Cost-For-ERCOT-and-Xcel-to-Integrate-Wind-and-Solar-is-Less-Than-Ex )
3. Significant regional population and associated infrastructure for transformation

However, the costs of using wind and solar and their associated capacity factors and distribution system costs associated with using them for a 24/7 manufacturing cycle makes this completely untenable in all other major regions, with the possible exception of the dakota's as a norther -midwest manufacturing hub. 

Your cost estimates looking at contracted cost per kWh does not consider these additional costs, that was the whole point.  If you look at the additional buildouts needed you will find that the associated emissions for using renewables vs. nuclear will triple the project GHG footprint and make the initial buildout GHG warming neutral only after 28 years - which is far too late.



Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

Bruce Steele

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1908
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 505
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #228 on: March 29, 2016, 05:33:44 PM »
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #224 on: Today at 07:55:15 AM »
Here's the link to a letter sent to the EIA which spells out the problems with their forecasts in more detail....

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/01/10/horrible-eia-forecasts-letter-cleantechnica-readers/

Bob, I see your name on the above letter and good on you for the thorough takedown on the EIA renewable forecast.
 As I recall however you support the EIA reporting on the worldwide ~ flatlining of anthropogenic CO2 emissions in their 2015 report. I tend to think the failures in the EIA renewable energy forecasts make other EIA reporting questionable also. So how do you pick through their information and  choose the parts you ( their CO2 emissions reporting ) like while so thoroughly debunking what you don't like?
 I tend to think the Mauna Loa CO2 trend line trumps EIA reporting and yes I realize there is a bit of a time lag between the two. Until I see the Mauna Loa flatlined however I will continue to believe the EIA are paid shills. 

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #229 on: March 29, 2016, 08:11:07 PM »
Quote
So how do you pick through their information and  choose the parts you ( their CO2 emissions reporting ) like while so thoroughly debunking what you don't like?

The EIA does two things.  (Perhaps more, but let's stick with these two.)

1) Reporting of historical data.  Things like amount of electricity generated and by what sources, price of electricity (by state, residential vs. industrial, etc.).  I've never seen an article criticising the accuracy of their data reporting.

2) Predicting future energy production and costs.  Personally I watched their predictions of the cost of solar while I was watching the rapidly dropping cost of solar panels and could not reconcile the two.  That led me to look more carefully at some of their other predictions and they also made no sense. 

I cannot explain why the EIA makes such unreasonable predictions.  I think being paid shills is unlikely.  I really doubt that office of the EIA is receiving payments to make the predictions they make.

Perhaps the person running the office is highly incompetent and doesn't check predictions against reality.  The EIA has been predicting rising wind and solar prices for a few years now while prices have been dropping.

Perhaps it's political pressure.  Perhaps the EIA is afraid of budget cuts from the fossil fuel industry friendly Republican Congress and they "report the news" that Republicans want to hear.

Perhaps the office is run by a Cheney plant. 

I simply don't know and can't understand.   All I know is that their predictions have turned out to be worthless.
--

BTW, the letter went to the DOE Secretary's office which sent it off to the EIA prediction office.  As one would expect they didn't answer the questions. 

I understand that the letter has been taken to the Administration by someone with White House access.  It will be interesting to see if predictions become a bit more grounded in reality in the future. 

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #230 on: March 29, 2016, 08:23:41 PM »
Quote
Your cost per generated kwh (subsidized) does not consider the regional constraints, energy storage requirements and distribution system requirements needed to be in place to facilitate a series of 9 regionally distributed manufacturing hubs (the majority in the mid-atlantic region) necessary for the transformation of our society.

First, I gave you the unsubsidized cost of wind and solar along with the subsidized cost of neuclear.  Do you not see that as overly fair for nuclear?

Now, are you questioning whether each region of the US has ample renewable resources to supply a renewable grid?  If that's your issue I'll give you two sources which you can check -

Here's a very interesting interactive graphic which allows one to look at an optimal mix of renewable resources for each state -

http://thesolutionsproject.org/infographic/

And here's a more regional graphic -

http://www.rmi.org/RFGraph-US_renewable_energy_potential

I dealt with the storage issue.  Basically storage is too expensive right now so we are using natural gas as the primary fill-in for renewables and for nuclear.  Reread what I wrote and if that is not sufficiently clear to you tell me what you do not understand and I will give it another try.

Distribution costs for renewable and nuclear are the same.  There are some transmission costs for both but even the cost of moving wind from the Midwest to the East Coast (roughly 2.5c/kWh) does not come anywhere close to the cost difference between wind (<4c) and nuclear
(~15c). 

Solar farms are often built along existing transmission routes which are being freed up as coal plants are closed.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #231 on: March 29, 2016, 08:32:35 PM »
Quote
While a wind and solar manufacturing cycle could be possibly put into place in texas, the energy storage requirements (no pumped hydro potential available there) would be prohibitive if compared with new gen-3 modular reactor construction. 

The cost of Texas wind has dropped below 4c/kWh.  Without subsidies.

The cost of new nuclear is 15c/kWh or higher.  With subsidies.

The cost of PuHS runs 9 to 23 cents.

In general we would not run a grid with only one energy input.  In Texas a mix of onshore wind, offshore wind and PV solar would mean that little storage would be needed to smooth the supply. 

Here's a really simple model.... 

40% wind at 4c + 40% solar at 6c + 20% stored wind/solar with 16 cent storage = 8.3c/kWh.  About half the cost of nuclear before we add in the needed storage and backup for nuclear.

Texas is not flat from boarder to boarder.  Ever hear of the Texas Hill Country?  And there is no rule that storage has to be located in the same state as where the electricity is used.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #232 on: March 29, 2016, 08:36:49 PM »
Quote
Your cost estimates looking at contracted cost per kWh does not consider these additional costs, that was the whole point.  If you look at the additional buildouts needed you will find that the associated emissions for using renewables vs. nuclear will triple the project GHG footprint and make the initial buildout GHG warming neutral only after 28 years - which is far too late.

I believe I have given you cost estimates with include storage/NG fill-in for both renewables and nuclear as well as renewable prices which include capacity factors.  It seems to me that you don't want to read those numbers.  So let's try this -

You give us your numbers for an all-nuclear grid and for an all-renewable energy grid.  And then I'll tell you if I think your numbers look reasonable. 


Bruce Steele

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1908
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 505
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #233 on: March 29, 2016, 11:29:16 PM »
Bob, Thanks for the comeback and once again kudos on the letter debunking the EIA renewable forecasts. We should all make these sorts of attempts to address policy when it is so obviously misinformed. Maybe there is someone here on ASIB willing to copy your letter to elected offices they have access to. I still think your letter casts doubt on all EIA reports and that includes their CO2 emissions figures. 

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #234 on: March 30, 2016, 04:27:55 AM »
Quote
casts doubt on all EIA reports and that includes their CO2 emissions figures

Is there any data that suggests the EIA CO2 emission figures are flawed?

Is there another agency or organization that measurers US CO2 emissions and, if so, how do those numbers compare?

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #235 on: March 30, 2016, 04:33:58 AM »
I've tried about a half dozen web searches using variation of 'EIA CO2 measurements wrong' and come up with nothing.  Not even some crackpot denier site making that claim.

Why do you think their CO2 measurements are incorrect?

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2078
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 116
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #236 on: March 30, 2016, 07:00:26 AM »

You give us your numbers for an all-nuclear grid and for an all-renewable energy grid.  And then I'll tell you if I think your numbers look reasonable.

right
so by your estimation of capacity factors, even with the most optimum placement and integrated operation of resources you would have to manufacture 2GW renewable (solar + Wind) generation capacity to cover about 75% of a 24 hour manufacturing cycle that required 1 GW of energy inputs. 

This is optimum and the reality will be much different with non-optimum generation occurring throughout much of the year.  To compensate for that you suggest using natural gas fired generation, lets say cogeneration to make it more efficient.

Current studies of natural gas fired generation state that it takes 25 years for a natural gas power plant with 4% fugitive methane gas emissions to become global warming equivalent to a coal power plant.  Since your 2 GW of renewables does not operate on a perfect schedule the natural gas power plant (absent of other storage potential) would need to cover 100% of total energy needs on those days when cloud and solar resources happen to both be absent.  That is another GW of generation potential, the gas fired power plant would have to operate somewhere between 35% and 60% capacity factor over the course of a year depending on optimum/non-optimum renewable generation.

If you wanted to pipe in electricity you would have to build a 1000 mile HVDC transmission conduit for this power which would have an appreciable line loss of about 6% total generation plus the normal losses from transformers and distribution (about 10%)

A nuclear power plant would be 1GW of power generation shared between 2 500W systems whose shutdown schedules are offset so that their impacts are minimized.  Their capacity factors would be about 90%.

To build out the transmission, distribution system, renewable power generation systems (including transport to site) it would take twice as long for the solar and wind generation systems to earn back their embedded emissions as nuclear (their embedded emissions are comparable) and when you include the 1GW gas-fired plant, burning fossil fuels and releasing methane, you won't reach neutral GHG emissions (compared to coal) until sometime around 45 years after you start.

nuclear power plants reach neutral GHG emission (compared to coal) after about 8 years of operation.
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #237 on: March 30, 2016, 08:27:16 AM »
Quote
so by your estimation of capacity factors, even with the most optimum placement and integrated operation of resources you would have to manufacture 2GW renewable (solar + Wind) generation capacity to cover about 75% of a 24 hour manufacturing cycle that required 1 GW of energy inputs.

US onshore wind (more recent installations) are reporting capacity factors from the mid-40% to over 50% level.  If you want to produce one GW then you'd need to install about 2.2 GW in nameplate.

PV solar with tracking is running about 30%, so to get a GW you'd need to install about 3.3 GW in nameplate.

But the installed cost for each is so low compared to nuclear that the produced electricity is well under 50% as much per GWh.

Quote
Current studies of natural gas fired generation state that it takes 25 years for a natural gas power plant with 4% fugitive methane gas emissions to become global warming equivalent to a coal power plant.  Since your 2 GW of renewables does not operate on a perfect schedule the natural gas power plant (absent of other storage potential) would need to cover 100% of total energy needs on those days when cloud and solar resources happen to both be absent.  That is another GW of generation potential, the gas fired power plant would have to operate somewhere between 35% and 60% capacity factor over the course of a year depending on optimum/non-optimum renewable generation.

The Sun shines (median area in US) about 19% of the time.  With tracking that's going to get closer to 23%.  The wind has a much higher number hours of production.  If wind farms over a moderate area are connected to the grid then they produce about 85% of the time.  I suspect your 35% to 60% estimate is very high.

Since we'd install a mix of wind and solar we wouldn't need 2.2 GW of wind and 3.3 of solar. One of each plus one of CCNG would like see us using gas 20% of the time.  That brings us up to $4.16 installed price.  It might make sense to overbuild wind and solar some in order to get gas down to 10% or less. 1.5 GW of each wind and solar plus CCNG would cost $5.70.

Compare that to $9.42 for a GW of nuclear and a GW of CCNG to back it up.

Getting gas down to 10% for the wind/solar solution would mean roughly the same in fuel cost for CCNG as with nuclear.

Quote
If you wanted to pipe in electricity you would have to build a 1000 mile HVDC transmission conduit for this power which would have an appreciable line loss of about 6% total generation plus the normal losses from transformers and distribution (about 10%)

Perhaps a 1,000 mile line if we were bringing wind from the Midwest to the NE.  But there probably  is no need to do that.  Your loss number is high for the US.  The EIA says 7% for transmission and distribution combined with most be distribution.  Remember, nuclear has some transmission costs and would suffer then same amount of distribution loss.  And distributed (rooftop) solar has no transmission costs or losses.

Quote
A nuclear power plant would be 1GW of power generation shared between 2 500W systems whose shutdown schedules are offset so that their impacts are minimized.  Their capacity factors would be about 90%.

Doesn't work that way.  If you've built two reactors then you need that power.  If one reactor goes down there has to be reserve capacity ready to step in and replace it.  Reactors go offline unexpectedly much more often than most people realize.  Sometimes two go off at the same time.

Quote
To build out the transmission, distribution system, renewable power generation systems (including transport to site) it would take twice as long for the solar and wind generation systems to earn back their embedded emissions as nuclear (their embedded emissions are comparable) and when you include the 1GW gas-fired plant, burning fossil fuels and releasing methane, you won't reach neutral GHG emissions (compared to coal) until sometime around 45 years after you start.

You're assuming a lot of transmission would need to be built.  Fact is, a lot of solar is installed close to point of use and large solar farms are often built close to existing transmission lines.  We're freeing up transmission capacity as we close coal plants.

Now that we've learned more about wind resources with higher hub heights it's likely we'll see wind farms installed in areas like the SE states where we believed onshore wind was not feasible.  No significant transmission needed.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #238 on: March 30, 2016, 08:29:44 AM »
Jai, do you realize that you quoted my request to you...

Quote
You give us your numbers for an all-nuclear grid and for an all-renewable energy grid.  And then I'll tell you if I think your numbers look reasonable.

... and then ignored that request and went back to beat on issues already largely covered?

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2078
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 116
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #239 on: March 30, 2016, 05:43:25 PM »
And you do realize that it is the only issue that matters. right?

you simply do not have the daily wind resource available in the southeast states to perform the energy schedule that your model supports.  The transmission losses are Seimens' values for High-Voltage Direct Current transmission (2.6% per 500 miles) then you have distribution and additional transmission losses from additional transformer and inverter controls. (additional 11%)

from your own calculation you would need (at an optimum) 2.2GW of installed wind generation capacity, 3.3 GW of installed solar capacity and 1 GW of installed natural gas capacity plus either 1,000 miles of installed HVDC distribution (assuming it is going from IOWA to a manufacturing center in Athens GA) OR you would have to produce it off shore and provide it through HVDC from a shorter distance but with a much greater infrastructure buildout associated with an offshore 2.2 GW windfarm. 

Even using the most solar/wind favorable assessment of LCOE, this additional buildout necessary to duplicate a 24/7 production cycle makes the entire renewable system 3 times more expensive and 4 times larger from a GHG foot print perspective (compared to nuclear).

Quote
If Nuclear power is the source of this buildout then the GHG footprint is reduced by (at least) a factor of 4.  That is ALL that matters with regard to climate change.

Once this buildout is complete this energy system (renewable) can be utilized for the additional energy needs of an electrified transportation and manufacturing sector transformation of our national infrastructure.

Remember, this is only 1 of 9 manufacturing hubs that need to be built so that the societal decarbonization project can achieve its moonshot target of 85% emissions reductions in 15 years (after new generation comes online to power the manufacturing hub).

attempting to do a cost comparison from a simple kWh contracted values is not a valid methodology.  You must use the value for LCOE when comparing different generation sources.  If you want to throw out the EIA's LCOE values, then you can attempt to reproduce their values, using their methodology with different assumptions but you cannot pretend that a kWh to kWh comparison of existing sources is apples-to-apples when considering new generation.

Currently, utility scale solar (without subsidies) has a projected LCOE of 11 cents per kWh in 2019 (source brattle group:  http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/brattle-group-study-residential-pv-will-be-double-the-cost-of-utility-scale)



but again, I must stress, the entire point of my original post was that the associated emissions by doing this renewable energy buildout to replicate a 24/7 manufacturing cycle was prohibitive to the goal of emissions reduction on a 20-year timeline. 

I have provided all of the information necessary to support this and your assertions of higher wind turbine placements in the U.S. southeast or 'cost effective' offshore wind farm arguments are not only incorrect, they border on deceitful.



Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5778
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 811
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #240 on: March 30, 2016, 08:06:24 PM »
I spoke to a professional utility engineer. His comment was : "I got more than a dozen banks calling me daily wanting to finance wind and solar, even natgas peakers to back them up  There are zero banks willing to finance new nukes, absent huge guarantees and incentives. So what do you think I am going to build ? It's no use for nuclear advocates to scream at me to build nukes, until they can persuade banks to finance them."



Bruce Steele

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1908
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 505
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #241 on: March 30, 2016, 08:07:00 PM »
Bob Wallace
ASIF Upper Class
Posts: 1108


Re: The Degrowth Imperative
« Reply #70 on: September 21, 2014, 05:29:30 AM »
Europe peaked in CO2 emission many years ago.  The US peaked in 2005.  China appears to be hitting peak coal and has started a major movement to put their drivers into EVs.

Even India appears to be backing off coal use.

Coal stocks have lost half their value in the last two years as the market seems to be collapsing.

The levelized cost of energy of leading PV technologies has fallen by nearly 20% in the past year, and nearly 80% in the last five years.

Onshore wind costs have fallen dramatically.  More than 15% in the past year and nearly 60% in the last year.

Renewables are rapidly becoming less expensive than fossil fuel generation.

It will take a little while for this to show up in annual CO2 emission numbers.  But it looks like we'll be on the down slope within five years.

Watch the leading indicators.  It takes a while to slow, stop, and reverse large systems."
 Logged

Bob, we have gone thru this before. I don't think we are going to " be on the down slope in five years"
Even the EIA shows an increase in "US Energy related CO2 " . With lower fuel prices transportation CO2 is also on the rise and the EIA doesn't include those numbers. There was a lot of press coverage when the EIA said we were decreasing CO2 in 2013 and not squat about the increases since. They are part of the machine IMO and as such they are apologists for  the energy business and infrastructure developers. I just do not believe their numbers !
 If you go check the trillionth ton.com site you will see we are about ready to cross the 600Gt carbon threshold. We would now need to be declining by ~ 2.7 % per year CO2 emissions worldwide and we are still increasing at an ever greater rate. See Mauna Loa.
 I miss Ccg and JimD. Neven is focusing on the sea ice so long as we can keep this civil. I miss topics like " The degrowth imperative " and I know I am way off topic and I will call it quits on this page .

 http://www.trillionthtonne.org/

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3330
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 612
  • Likes Given: 409
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #242 on: March 31, 2016, 01:05:10 AM »
"I miss Ccg and JimD"

For what it's worth, me too, Bruce!
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #243 on: March 31, 2016, 09:19:20 AM »
Jai, take a look at the DOE wind resource maps for 140 meter hub height.  The Southeast has a lot of good wind resources.
--

Here's what Siemens says about HVDC losses -

Quote
HVDC transmission has typically 30-50% less transmission loss than comparable
alternating current overhead lines. (For comparison: given 2500 MW
transmitted power on 800 km of overhead line, the loss with a conventional
400-kv AC line is 9.4%; with HVDC transmission at 500 kV, it is only 6%, and at
800 kV it is just 2.6%.)

I'm pretty sure the 2.6% loss includes conversion losses.  Your 11% conversion loss is, I'm fairly sure, a number from older conversion equipment.  I'm trying to find a source but everything I've turned up so far is behind a paywall.  I've  got only this bit from a Google search  -

Quote
Typical converter station losses for CTL technology are below 1%....

My recollection is about 0.75% going up and going back down.

Quote
Even using the most solar/wind favorable assessment of LCOE, this additional buildout necessary to duplicate a 24/7 production cycle makes the entire renewable system 3 times more expensive and 4 times larger from a GHG foot print perspective (compared to nuclear)

There's no need to overbuild wind or solar by 3x.  And this is why -

Quote
Once this buildout is complete this energy system (renewable) can be utilized for the additional energy needs of an electrified transportation....

EVs will provide a very large dispatchable load.  Cars spend about 90% of their time parked.  Between plugging in while parking at home and at work there will be plenty of opportunities to sell production not needed by non-vehicle demand to drivers.

BTW, the EIA just published a paper today responding to the criticisms they've received.  I haven't had time to read it carefully but they admit to making significant cost mistakes.  I think it's time we put their LCOE guesses to bed.

The Battle LCOE you link is specific to Excel's Colorado service area.  It's not representative of the entire US. 

http://brattle.com/system/publications/pdfs/000/005/188/original/Comparative_Generation_Costs_of_Utility-Scale_and_Residential-Scale_PV_in_Xcel_Energy_Colorado%27s_Service_Area.pdf?1436797265

One would want to look at the insolation levels for that area and whether the solar industry is mature enough to minimize cost via efficiency.  In the sunny parts of the US unsubsidized utility solar is already around 6c/kWh and falling.  About three years ahead of Battle's lower end price.  The City of Palo Alto is in the process of completing a PPA for solar at 4c/kWh.  Adding back in the subsidy that makes the unsubsidized selling price about 5.25 c/kWh.  And, remember, selling prices are higher that LCOE costs as they contain extra components such as solar farm owner profits.

Quote
I have provided all of the information necessary to support this and your assertions of higher wind turbine placements in the U.S. southeast or 'cost effective' offshore wind farm arguments are not only incorrect, they border on deceitful.

Oh, please. Don't go all jerk on us.  I'll post the 140 meter hub heights for you to see tomorrow. 

Denmark now has the cost of offshore wind down as low as 68 euros per MWh.  They are installing in shallower water and closer to shore which lowers cost but they have not yet started using the very large and less expensive per MWh offshore turbines being developed.

Siemens is claiming that they can drive the cost of offshore wind below 10c/kWh by 2020.

Nuclear costs a lot more than 10c/kWh.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #244 on: March 31, 2016, 09:38:53 AM »
Bruce. take a look at the EIA historical record for US energy-related CO2 emissions.

https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/carbon/

Emissions peaked in 2007 and have fallen since then.  There was a 3.4% increase from 2012 to 2014 but the EIA estimates that emissions of carbon dioxide decreased by 2.4% in 2015 so we're on the way back down.  We're closing a lot of coal plants.  We're going to decrease energy-related CO2.

https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/carbon/

By the end of 2015 wind and solar had taken almost 5% of market share away from fossil fuels used for electricity generation compared to a few years earlier. 

As I said in 2014 -

Quote
It will take a little while for this to show up in annual CO2 emission numbers.  But it looks like we'll be on the down slope within five years.

We've been on a gradual downslope for about nine years.  Not a smooth, straight line but that isn't to be expected, is it?  Does the Arctic sea ice melt a constant amount more each year?

We should see some decrease in personal vehicle CO2 emissions due to higher efficiency requirements.  It make take a few more years before EVs and PHEVs create an easily seen drop in personal vehicle emissions.

Quote
Humanity’s greenhouse-gas output increased by just 0.5% in 2014, despite significant global economic growth, according to figures released on 25 November.

Carbon emissions increased by 3–4% per year in the first decade of the twenty-first century, but that growth has slowed dramatically over the past 3 years, report the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) and the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre.

http://www.nature.com/news/global-carbon-emissions-nearly-stalled-in-2014-1.18897

First we have to slow.  Then we have to stop.  And then we get to decrease.

Bruce Steele

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1908
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 505
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #245 on: March 31, 2016, 09:52:20 AM »
Thanks Bob, I know you are doing your best and I appreciate that. I just get very bummed sometimes. I have been a fisherman for a long time and with worldwide coral bleaching events and the conditions we are witnessing in our Calif. fisheries due to the effects of "the blob" and the follow-up El Nino I have been in a blue funk of late. Please see my posting on the  "Climate change , the ocean , agriculture and Food " page. The link has some graphics and pictures.
 Things are hitting hard in the oceans and we all know ocean heating will continue for a very long time after we do finally peak our CO2 emissions.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2016, 09:58:35 AM by Bruce Steele »

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2078
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 116
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #246 on: March 31, 2016, 09:58:14 PM »
Quote
One would want to look at the insolation levels for that area

Colorado solar insolation is about 24% greater than in the southern states, site selections can increase this significantly.



not that it really matters from a perspective of this endeavor (a correct societal cost of carbon being correctly applied would make such economic nuances meaningless) the LCOE differential of a 20% shift in capacity factor would produce an increase of about 12.5% in LCOE.

http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/tech_lcoe.html
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

oren

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6553
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2426
  • Likes Given: 2111
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #247 on: April 01, 2016, 10:59:29 AM »
First of all thanks for the interesting analyses and insights given here by both Bob (welcome back!).
I personally think both sides have merit, but that new nuclear should be avoided for additional reasons.
Planning horizons should be shortened due to expected increase in instability in the coming decades. In the US this may seem dubious but think of the rest of the world. In the 70s Saddam's Iraq built a nuclear reactor, supposedly for energy purposes, that Israel bombed just before it went online. Now imagine that nuclear reactor in the current unstable Iraq, or even in ISIS' hands. In the 80s the same Iraq built the Mosul Dam, in the current Iraq the dam has become a grave risk to the lives of millions, and its maintenance has almost ceased. Japan's Fukushima and Ukraine's Chernobyl will require unending mitigation efforts for decades to come. Ukraine is already on a path to collapse. Japan might go under its mountains of debt and currency printing. What happens then? Who will get left to continue the mitigation?
Bottom line, huge projects require a long planning horizon with the assumption of stability, which I think considering the current outlook for climate change and other monsters lurking on the sidelines is an assumption that should not be used.
In addition as we are in the middle of a revolution in wind and solar as well as storage, with costs decreasing annually. On the other hand nuclear is stable or even growing in costs. So it is risky to make the comparison on the economic front (though I don't think that's the main argument against nuclear).

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #248 on: April 05, 2016, 06:26:01 AM »
Quote
One would want to look at the insolation levels for that area

You chopped my statement.  the rest of the sentence was " and whether the solar industry is mature enough to minimize cost via efficiency."


Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #249 on: April 05, 2016, 06:41:01 AM »
I promised a wind at 140 meter hub height map a few days back.  And was then pulled away by the first showing of the Tesla Model 3.  Here's the map and I'm including an 80 meter hub height map for comparison.  By going higher the US finds a lot more harvestable wind.



.
.
.