Nuclear power

[nwdiver]

So, again, not to beat a dead horse, but I don't see the point of getting people to draw lines in all of the cost snow, if it contributes to distraction from the CO2 problem.

Hmmm... trying to decide if you honestly don't get my point or....

My WHOLE premise is based around CO2 displacement... I'm sure that if Georgia Power had $100B sitting around they would love to replace their aging fossil fuel fleet with a shiny new fleet of carbon free AP1000s... but $$$ don't grow on trees...

This isn't the difference of 'a few cents' this is a difference of '10s of PERcent' like ~50%.

Georgia decided to build 2GW of nuclear for $10B... which became $12B... which is now ~$14B... to displace ~4.5M tons of CO2 per year... starting in 2020... hopefully (fingers crossed)

For $14B you could have ~12GW of solar up and running in Georgia before Vogtle exports its first kWh displacing ~8.5M tons of CO2 per year.... Yeah, you're gonna need storage at some point but by the time you do solar will be so cheap that the costs (sorry, CO2 DISPLACEMENT) will STILL be ~2:1...

Why spend $14B to displace 4.5M tons when you can spend $14B to displace 8.5M tons?

If the argument is that solar isn't scalable... that's patently false...

 

[miimura]

People love to avoid thinking about the way power is actually made in this country. If CA can't get much past 1% solar generation (not some crazy momentary peak stat), it'll be another 10+ years before the rest of the country does the same. All states don't think, or have sun, or have load profiles, or "winter", like CA but we are witnessing ourselves federally go ahead and knee-cap nuclear as though "tomorrow will be different". Not a smart move. Not with the 30% coal, and the 30% natural gas targets EPA has already been leaked as delaying.

This year the EIA said California reached 5% solar production.

California has become the first state in the U.S. to rely on solar energy for more than 5% of its electricity, the federal government’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported yesterday.

According to EIA, photovoltaic and concentrating solar power plants greater than 1 MW in capacity generated a record 9.9 million MWh in 2014, boosting solar production to more than 5% of California’s wholesale electric generation, compared to just 1.9% in 2013.

The report does not include most rooftop arrays in the state or other distributed solar projects less than 1 MW, which totaled approximately 2.3 GW at the end of 2014, according to the California Public Utilities Commission.

from California hits 5% solar, offsets hydro losses due to drought: pv-magazine

I would really like to see something like the CA-ISO load curves that include demand that is offset by solar behind the meter.

 

[3mp_kwh]

This year the EIA said California reached 5% solar production.
from California hits 5% solar, offsets hydro losses due to drought: pv-magazine

I would really like to see something like the CA-ISO load curves that include demand that is offset by solar behind the meter.

That's good news. Glad it's higher. So, it sounds like CA is marking time against its hydro losses, then?

"For $14B you could have ~12GW of solar" Nwdiver, if you are going to quote solar at around 90 cents/watt, you are quoting the STC rating.

Clean Power Plan final, on nuclear:
-EPA threw out the small 5.8% of nuclear, it was counting in its proposal.
-EPA threw out new nuclear entirely, as potentially diluting CO2.
-They included the limited in-construction projects, as being dilutive when they start.
-Uprated plants dilute, but only by the amount of the uprate
-The rate-based denominator went from a mix of many sources, down to two (essentially coal and natural gas)
-By being only coal and natural gas, and by giving states the option to go with a strict rate-based plan, nuclear can be retired by natural gas, and lower carbon intensity by the math of the calculation (more NG, less coal, better rate-based accomplishment). A nuclear dependent state, like NY, doesn't have to mind its rising mass-based emissions so long as it goes with a rate-based SIP, or FIP.
-By not requiring the newly included mass-based cap option, states can have uncapped emissions

What is mostly disturbing about the plan is how EPA and NRDC have divined "Clean". It is clear these people HATE nuclear. nwdiver and I can go back and forth, but I think he understands existing nuclear is much more economic, than new. It's much cheaper to fuel. Maybe there are more people than just he, and I, with respect to how this works with CO2. We've been denied further debate. EPA called it behind by about a $6/ton carbon price, in its proposal (remember, Obama's office wants a ton's price to be scored at $43). In the final, they argue it is "inappropriate" to consider existing nuclear as lowering existing CO2, but IMO were negligent in not addressing how fossil production can, and will, backfill lost reactors. So, why wouldn't it have a roll in a carbon dioxide policy?

Away from the NRC and FERC, this was EPA's chance to put the knife in. They changed the 30% coal, 30% natural gas target, in 2030, to 27% coal and 33% natural gas. How much time do we have?

 

[nwdiver]

"For $14B you could have ~12GW of solar" Nwdiver, if you are going to quote solar at around 90 cents/watt, you are quoting the STC rating, which is bullsh!t. I think you know you are overstating by a factor of at least 4X, and people shouldn't be too surprised i don't aways find your posts genuine.

Hmmm... well...

- $14B/12GW = ~$1.16/w a target that would be challenging but achievable for utility scale solar to go online by ~2020
- STC is the power output at 'Standard Test Conditions' which IS accounted for in ANY energy calculations.
- My claim was;

For $14B you could have ~12GW of solar up and running in Georgia before Vogtle exports its first kWh displacing ~8.5M tons of CO2 per year.... Yeah, you're gonna need storage at some point but by the time you do solar will be so cheap that the costs (sorry, CO2 DISPLACEMENT) will STILL be ~2:1...

Don't get hung up on STC vs NOCT... energy output varies A LOT by location and weather... plug the number into PV Watts with location that gives you a fairly conservation estimate on production.

12GW installed commercially in Georgia with single axis tracking would produce ~20TWh/y. An AP1000 at 90%CF would produce ~8TWh/y. Those numbers ARE NOT 'bullish!t' by any stretch of the imagination.

So.... $14B.... would you rather produce 20TWh/yr of clean energy or 16TWh/yr? AND that's just the CAPITAL cost... commercial solar may not have an O&M of ZERO... but it's certainly A LOT less than nuclear.

 

[eledille]

That really depends on the specifics of the renewable generation. In a sufficiently large geographic area, some percentage of renewables like wind power can behave like a baseload generator. I imagine the same applies to solar as load following..

This is a myth.

This guy analyzed actual wind data to see what would happen if one somehow managed to interconnect three wind generation areas on different continents. The impact on variability is minimal, there is still a 7 % probability of the combined output being below 10 %. And the costs of such a system would be *cough* substantial. Search for "super grid" to find the relevant part, though the whole article is very interesting.

All of Europe often experiences the same weather, particularly in winter. Cold, overcast and calm weather can cover all of Europe for weeks.

 

[cwerdna]

Not sure if these have been posted yet...

Thanks to a Google search that something else reminded me of, I stumbled across TEPCO : Decommissioning Plan of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power which led to TEPCO : News | Photos and Videos Library - Videos, which has an insightful video.

 

[Robert.Boston]

This is a myth.

This guy analyzed actual wind data to see what would happen if one somehow managed to interconnect three wind generation areas on different continents. The impact on variability is minimal, there is still a 7 % probability of the combined output being below 10 %. And the costs of such a system would be *cough* substantial. Search for "super grid" to find the relevant part, though the whole article is very interesting.

All of Europe often experiences the same weather, particularly in winter. Cold, overcast and calm weather can cover all of Europe for weeks.

Both "baseload" and "myth" are overly strong terms. Interconnecting renewables over a wide geography undoubtedly decreases variability, but at the same time that variability never falls to the ideal zero of baseload plants. Even baseload fossil-fueld plants need backup reserves in case they should have a mechanical or fuel supply issue.

 

[eledille]

Both "baseload" and "myth" are overly strong terms. Interconnecting renewables over a wide geography undoubtedly decreases variability

Yes, but by a surprisingly small amount. I didn't say that interconnection doesn't decrease variability, I said it's a myth that you can get baseload quality power by interconnecting.

but at the same time that variability never falls to the ideal zero of baseload plants.

And that's precisely the problem. No matter how you connect the wind farms, there will still be periods of nearly zero output, and those periods are still painfully long.

Further, for one region to feed wind power into another region, overbuilding is required - the region that has wind now needs to power both itself and its neighbors. This murders the capacity factor when the wind is actually blowing, and it requires a grid that is capable of dynamically disconnecting unneeded generation capacity.

Even baseload fossil-fueld plants need backup reserves in case they should have a mechanical or fuel supply issue.

True, but that argument fails to take into account the fact that mechanical problems and fuel supply issues usually happen one at a time, whereas wind and solar frequently disappear completely across vast regions. Fuel can relatively easily be stored if supply is irregular or can't be trusted. On the other hand, fuel supply problems was what prompted France to switch to nuclear.

Two more articles based on real world data:

UK only
Europe-wide

 

[nwdiver]

And that's precisely the problem. No matter how you connect the wind farms, there will still be periods of nearly zero output, and those periods are still painfully long.

Further, for one region to feed wind power into another region, overbuilding is required - the region that has wind now needs to power both itself and its neighbors. This murders the capacity factor when the wind is actually blowing, and it requires a grid that is capable of dynamically disconnecting unneeded generation capacity.

Two more articles based on real world data:

UK only
Europe-wide

WOW... these counter-arguments are so full of straw men it's a fire hazard... :wink:

NO ONE is claiming wind can carry the grid;

NO ONE is claiming solar can carry the grid;

NO ONE is even claiming solar + wind can carry the grid;

The claim is that ENOUGH solar + ENOUGH wind + ENOUGH storage + demand response + hydro + geothermal + biofuels... etc WILL carry the grid.... eventually.... ~2040.

The resolution on those charts was too low to discern the duration and timing of the 'lack' of wind. Low wind usually means high pressure which = sunshine. Wind AND solar compliment each other VERY well. Still... no doubt there will be the occasional period that lacks wind and sun long enough that our storage capacity is depleted and the grid fails. Which would be terrible because the grid is 100% reliable now... right? No... grid 1.0 is TERRIBLY vulnerable to single point failures and cascading problems. Grid 2.0 will be FAR more dynamic with distributed generation and storage. Sure, Grid 2.0 (if dominated by renewables) might see more failures due to lack of supply but if those failures are fewer than when supply can't get to demand would that be called an improvement? We're already gaining experience in predicting these events... so like a severe storm that is expected to knock out power it's unlikely we'll be caught unprepared.

Do you really think a $7B nuclear plant is the right type of generator to leave idle until we need it a dozen or so times a year?

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

This is a myth.

This guy analyzed actual wind data to see what would happen if one somehow managed to interconnect three wind generation areas on different continents. The impact on variability is minimal, there is still a 7 % probability of the combined output being below 10 %. And the costs of such a system would be *cough* substantial. Search for "super grid" to find the relevant part, though the whole article is very interesting.

All of Europe often experiences the same weather, particularly in winter. Cold, overcast and calm weather can cover all of Europe for weeks.

I don't think we have the same definition of myth. Per the paper I linked earlier, there's a ~12+% chance the output of baseload coal will be at 0% in the states(~50/50 scheduled maintenance and unscheduled outages). That makes <10% output 7% of the time look outstanding. It's about half as likely to happen, and when it does, at least some power is being generated.

I'm not denying that certain regions may be better able to benefit from distributed renewable generation. But to say that distributed wind as baseload is a myth when it has greater availability than baseload coal seems to be a bit of a stretch.

 

[eledille]

I don't think we have the same definition of myth. Per the paper I linked earlier, there's a ~12+% chance the output of baseload coal will be at 0% in the states(~50/50 scheduled maintenance and unscheduled outages). That makes <10% output 7% of the time look outstanding. It's about half as likely to happen, and when it does, at least some power is being generated.

I'm not denying that certain regions may be better able to benefit from distributed renewable generation. But to say that distributed wind as baseload is a myth when it has greater availability than baseload coal seems to be a bit of a stretch.

I wrote this in response to Robert.Boston yesterday:

"True, but that argument fails to take into account the fact that mechanical problems and fuel supply issues usually happen one at a time, whereas wind and solar frequently disappear completely across vast regions."

There is a big difference between losing a single powerplant at a time, with any one having a 12 % outage probability, and having a 7 % chance of losing 90 % of an entire continent of wind (or solar). The first situation produces a requirement of having something like 12 % extra generation capacity, the second situation requires total backup.

In the first situation, the collective availability is high, even though the availability of any single plant is not. This is because the probability of one plant being down is independent of the probability of the other plants being down at the same moment. Wind does not behave like that. Neither does solar, at least where I live. Calm and rainy days are not uncommon either.

Sorry, I forgot, that 7 % chance was spanning the globe, not a mere continent.

 

[eledille]

The claim is that ENOUGH solar + ENOUGH wind + ENOUGH storage + demand response + hydro + geothermal + biofuels... etc WILL carry the grid.... eventually.... ~2040.

I'll get to that eventually.

The resolution on those charts was too low to discern the duration and timing of the 'lack' of wind.

I had no problems reading them. Are you sure you didn't just close your eyes?

Low wind usually means high pressure which = sunshine. Wind AND solar compliment each other VERY well.

I beg to differ. Take a look at these two graphs from page 3 of this article: Renewable Intermittency Is Real | POWER Magazine

This proves that the combination of wind and solar is just as unreliable as wind alone, or solar alone, in Germany. To be precise, there are several days in a row where wind and solar combined deliver almost zero power. The rest of Europe is no different, and the same goes for most inhabited regions of the world.

You would need to overbuild by 750 % of average demand just to generate enough total energy. This is due to the rather unimpressive, but unfortunately real, capacity factors of 0.17 (wind) and 0.11 (solar). Note that this assumes that a perfect storage system exists, and that this system is able to absorb power spikes of 750 % of average demand.

More fundamentally, building wind and solar systems takes quite a bit of energy, and at capacity factors that low it's unclear that they can achieve a sufficiently high EROEI to be able to power society, when you remember to count the energy requirements of building and operating the storage system.

Grid 2.0 will be FAR more dynamic with distributed generation and storage. Sure, Grid 2.0 (if dominated by renewables) might see more failures due to lack of supply but if those failures are fewer than when supply can't get to demand would that be called an improvement?

Which leads to the following interesting question: How do you plan to restart the grid? Scenario: The grid is down. You have lots of smallish, distributed generators. Hint: A dead grid looks a bit like a giant short circuit. You need to restart and synchronize a large amount of generation capacity before you can re-energize the grid.

By the way, using italics instead of all caps avoids giving the impression of SHOUTING.

 

[nwdiver]

This proves that the combination of wind and solar is just as unreliable as wind alone, or solar alone, in Germany. To be precise, there are several days in a row where wind and solar combined deliver almost zero power.

By the way, using italics instead of all caps avoids giving the impression of SHOUTING.

Dude... who is proposing that solar + wind alone can carry the grid? NO ONE.... sorry... no one; I have this really handy 'shift' button that lets me do caps... I don't have an italic button.

What point are you failing to get at?

- We should stop installing wind and solar?
- We should pay ~twice as much for nuclear?
- Or do you enjoy stating the obvious point that we need storage... in a really weird round about way...

The ENERGY... sorry... the energy is there... you just need to capture it and disperse it as needed and/or consume it when available...

The claim is that ENOUGH solar + ENOUGH wind + ENOUGH storage + demand response + hydro + geothermal + biofuels... etc WILL carry the grid.... eventually.... ~2040.

The question isn't can it be done... the question is how much is 'enough'....

It's not like this is necessarily going to be a 'planned' thing... every year we have more wind more solar and more storage. At some point in ~10 years we'll go a few days without fossil fuels supporting the grid. Then in ~15 years a few weeks. Then a few months.... then only on rare occasions...

 

[AntronX]

The claim is that ENOUGH solar + ENOUGH wind + ENOUGH storage + demand response + hydro + geothermal + biofuels... etc WILL carry the grid.... eventually.... ~2040.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You better get crackin', nwdiver.

 

[nwdiver]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You better get crackin', nwdiver.

With pleasure;

The ENERGY is there... it's just a matter of matching supply with demand... why would anyone think that's some kind of impossible feat? Elon does a pretty good job explaining this when the power wall was unveiled.

 

[AntronX]

With pleasure;

View attachment 90594

The ENERGY is there... it's just a matter of matching supply with demand... why would anyone think that's some kind of impossible feat? Elon does a pretty good job explaining this when the power wall was unveiled.

Ah, that's obvious. Explain how are you going to tap that 23,000TWy and feed it into my power outlet:
1. At availability 99.97% or better
2. At cost equal or cheaper than existing fossil tech
3. At near zero CO2 emissions.
4. Within 50 years
I expect to see total cost, natural resources and scale of mobilization required. Anything else is just dreaming.

 

[nwdiver]

Ah, that's obvious. Explain how are you going to tap that 23,000TWy and feed it into my power outlet:
1. At availability 99.97% or better
2. At cost equal or cheaper than existing fossil tech
3. At near zero CO2 emissions.
4. Within 50 years
I expect to see total cost, natural resources and scale of mobilization required. Anything else is just dreaming.

LOL... that's not something that can be explained in a thread...

MIT does a really good job.

1. Batteries + Demand Response + other complimentary sources like wind etc
2. Solar @ ~$3/w is cheaper than fossil fuels we're <$2/w now... ~$1/w in ~3 years.
3. Well... if solar energy payback is <4 years then....
4. We're doubling installed solar/wind capacity every ~3 years...

While I think 100% is attainable in ~35 years... you can't ignore the fact that solar is growing very rapidly... it's currently doubling every ~2.5 years. Costs are still falling...

- Why would that growth slow?
- Where do you see it leveling off?

In terms of the future of nuclear... how does a plant that costs >$5/w survive economically if it's only needed when the sun isn't shining, the wind isn't blowing, the batteries are drained and the pumped storage reservoirs are dry?

Let's say we can only get to ~80% renewables... which I admit is probably ~10x easier than 100%... that remaining 20% isn't 'base load'... it's used sporadically... perhaps not at all for months at a time... nuclear is the worst fit for that scenario.

 

[nwdiver]

OK... time for a pro-nuclear post...

Here's a Tesla.... and ~15B miles of Tesla fuel :biggrin:

 

[SmartElectric]

Here's a Tesla.... and ~15B miles of Tesla fuel :biggrin:

A picture is worth a thousand words, that picture shows a fuel which needs thousands of years before it becomes less toxic if any accident were to happen to it during manufacture, use or storage.

Here's a picture of nuclear fusion capture technology which supports 200,000 km of driving per year.

 

[mspohr]

Ah, that's obvious. Explain how are you going to tap that 23,000TWy and feed it into my power outlet:
1. At availability 99.97% or better
2. At cost equal or cheaper than existing fossil tech
3. At near zero CO2 emissions.
4. Within 50 years
I expect to see total cost, natural resources and scale of mobilization required. Anything else is just dreaming.

This guy (David MacKay) does a good job of covering the entire field of energy use and generation and some paths to sustainable energy.
http://www.withouthotair.com/
It's not something that you can cover quickly but this guy does it in a few hundred pages.