Like the illusion of Wall Street, with its vast and powerful investment banks, now shuttered, China too is an illusion perpetuated by the Globalists that gave us the 15,000 mile Caesar salad, poisoned cat food and lead based paint on babies' pacifiers. Like the illusion that money would come from thin air to always push housing prices higher, China has spent a generation pursuing its illusion. Pursuing an unattainable dream to be like the West, while 6000 years of its carefully shepherded top soil blows into the sea.
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 1:46 pm Post subject: Re: Great article - running the numbers on renewables
It's basically a pro-nuke piece.
If you don't share this particular techno-fantacy, the overwhelming result is that supply side solutions just don't cut it. What is needed is massive reductions on the demand side. Essentially, this means turning away from the age of the car, living in much colder houses...returning to the lifestyle of the early 20th century.
Believe it or now, many people managed to be happy during that time (and earlier) and many people today are failing to attain happiness (note the huge increases in anti-depressant drug use.)
Last edited by dohboi on Tue Jun 24, 2008 1:53 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: Apr 09, 2007 Posts: 6374 Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 1:48 pm Post subject: Re: Great article - running the numbers on renewables
Very interesting article, especially the conclusion:
"On a level economic playing field with a strong price signal preventing the emission of CO2, we don’t get a diverse solution, we get an economically optimal solution that delivers the required power at the lowest cost. And when ‘clean coal’ and nuclear go head to head on price, it’s nuclear that wins. (The capital cost of regular dirty coal power stations is £1 billion per GW, about the same as nuclear; but the capital cost of clean coal power, including carbon capture and storage, is roughly £2 billion per GW.) Offshore wind also loses to nuclear, but I’ve assumed that onshore wind costs about the same. My final plan is a rough guess for what would happen in a liberated energy market with a strong carbon price.
This plan has a ten-fold increase in our nuclear power over 2007 levels. 110GW is roughly double France’s nuclear fleet. I included a little tide because I believe a well-designed tidal lagoon facility can compete with nuclear power. In this plan, Britain has no energy imports except for the uranium…"
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 8:14 pm Post subject: Re: Great article - running the numbers on renewables
dohboi wrote:
It's basically a pro-nuke piece.
If you don't share this particular techno-fantacy, the overwhelming result is that supply side solutions just don't cut it. What is needed is massive reductions on the demand side. Essentially, this means turning away from the age of the car, living in much colder houses...returning to the lifestyle of the early 20th century.
Believe it or now, many people managed to be happy during that time (and earlier) and many people today are failing to attain happiness (note the huge increases in anti-depressant drug use.)
I'm pro-nuke as long as they aren't everywhere and they aren't the 'solution' as they are dangerous and require another finite resource.
Just getting rid of private cars and providing renewable energy powered public transportation would give us a lot of relief on our energy problems.
People in the early 20th century were also very class divided(though that hasn't changed much.), in poor conditions, vulnerable to simple disease, and lacking clean water.
They made do but many of them would probably have grasped to our lifestyle if they could have.
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:49 am Post subject: Re: Great article - running the numbers on renewables
It's possible to supply Germany with nearly 100% renewable energy (and current technology) and this is one of the most "energy densely populated" countries in the world (Japan and Netherlands need more energy per land area).
And it is a country without strong resources on solar radiation, hydrogen, geothermal energy or wind power.
If it can be done for Germany, it can be done 10 times easier in the US which has a lot more resources on renewable energies.
Of course it would be more expensive compared to today's energy mix, but imho(!) I would be willing the estimated prices (if the industry could do with that prize is another story).
But hey,oil and natural gas aren't going to become stronger...
Germany has one huge advantage in further planing of the electricity production. German government has decided to shut down of all of our nuclear reactors by 2021 (Germany ist still one of the biggest producers of nuclear energy, in 2007 production of nuclear energy dropped unexpected by nearly 19%, during some weeks almost 1/3rd of our reactors have been shut down and that didn't cause any problems) so the Government is FORCED to find alternative options to nuclear power NOW and build new power plants (fossil or renewables) NOW.
If it gets really bad and we do need more energy (because people can't get any heating oil and have to with to electricity for example), Germany has the option just to use the existing reactors for some years longer, while other countries have to built new reactors fist and that takes a long time now and would probably simply be impossible, if THTF really badly (doom scenario)
Joined: Nov 06, 2007 Posts: 759 Location: Illinois
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:03 am Post subject: Re: Great article - running the numbers on renewables
cephalotus wrote:
Germany has one huge advantage in further planing of the electricity production. German government has decided to shut down of all of our nuclear reactors by 2021 (Germany ist still one of the biggest producers of nuclear energy, in 2007 production of nuclear energy dropped unexpected by nearly 19%, during some weeks almost 1/3rd of our reactors have been shut down and that didn't cause any problems) so the Government is FORCED to find alternative options to nuclear power NOW and build new power plants (fossil or renewables) NOW.
If it gets really bad and we do need more energy (because people can't get any heating oil and have to with to electricity for example), Germany has the option just to use the existing reactors for some years longer, while other countries have to built new reactors fist and that takes a long time now and would probably simply be impossible, if THTF really badly (doom scenario) regards
Uh, I don't think that is an advantage. I think it is a disadvantage. Not only do they have to provide renewable energy for energy growth, but now they have to replace all of that nuclear energy too, at a time when power plants are climbing fast in price. That could explain why they are building 20 new coal power plants. If you ask me, they are making a mistake by mothballing their nuclear industry. Those nuke plants represent a large capital investment, they should milk them for all their worth. Also, renewables are not a big enough share of energy yet to pick up the slack. _________________ The oil barrel is half-full.
Joined: Jun 03, 2004 Posts: 127 Location: Great Britain
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:45 am Post subject: Re: Great article - running the numbers on renewables
Saying something can be done is quite different to doing it in practice. We can go to Mars, the technology exists, but doing it is quite another. I can't see us being able to afford the tens/hundreds of billions when we're in a depression. Also as the oil price increase the cost of building nuclear power stations is going to rise. All those metals don't mine themselves...
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 4:28 am Post subject: Re: Great article - running the numbers on renewables
cephalotus wrote:
It's possible to supply Germany with nearly 100% renewable energy (and current technology) and this is one of the most "energy densely populated" countries in the world (Japan and Netherlands need more energy per land area).
And it is a country without strong resources on solar radiation, hydrogen, geothermal energy or wind power.
Unfortunately renewable energy is intermittent.
Sometimes the wind blows strong and sometimes weak.
Relying on 100% renewable energy would require some type of massive temporary energy storage system.
I can't find any info on what this energy storage system would cost!
Would it be a gigantic battery or a pumped water storage system?
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:59 am Post subject: Re: Great article - running the numbers on renewables
cube wrote:
Unfortunately renewable energy is intermittent.
Sometimes the wind blows strong and sometimes weak.
Relying on 100% renewable energy would require some type of massive temporary energy storage system.
I can't find any info on what this energy storage system would cost!
Would it be a gigantic battery or a pumped water storage system?
Even that problem was already tested in Germany.
A mix of 60% wind-energy, 15% photovoltaics and 25% (bio)gas could provide 100% of Germanys demand in the electricty system.
Storage system is the already existing pumped water storage .
This was tested for 2006 with 1/10.000 of real demand and real wind, solar and biomass plants including 1/10.000 of Germanys already existing pumped water storage capacity.
The next "kombikraftwerk" simulation will also include geothemal and water energy.
Not included is actuale a demand managment system (there is a new law that will enforce the use of smart metering systems in households), not included is the use of electrc cars in a vehicle2grid system and it does not include more efficieny.
The price?
At the moment wind energy costs 9ct/kWh (slowly rising again), solar ~45ct/kWh (declining fast) and biomass ~20ct/kWh (rising).
I'm actually paying around 20ct/kWh, medium sized industries pay around 15ct/kWh in Germany.
The big question is -in my opinion- if we could provide ~150TWh/a out of biogas. That seems to be unlikely, especially if you want to grow biomass also for biofuels.
On the other hand I assume that there still will be some natural gas left in 20-30 years.
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 8:29 am Post subject: Re: Great article - running the numbers on renewables
kublikhan wrote:
Uh, I don't think that is an advantage. I think it is a disadvantage. Not only do they have to provide renewable energy for energy growth, but now they have to replace all of that nuclear energy too, at a time when power plants are climbing fast in price.
yes. But wouldn't it be nice to have a plan B that will work immediately if everything else fails. Try to get rid of them, but if we can't provide alternatives fast enough just use those plants longer that you already have.
Code:
That could explain why they are building 20 new coal power plants. If you ask me, they are making a mistake by mothballing their nuclear industry.
import rate of U235: 100%
import rate of lignite: ~0%
coal power is also cheaper than nuclear power if you cover all costs. The good thing about our "old" nuclear power plants is that they are already payed of, so if U3O8 gets very expensive (demand can't be met by mining since many years), let's say 1000$ or 2000$/kg those power plants could still operate on a profit, because the capital costs are already payed .
Those how build new nuclear power plants have now to pay an arm and a leg for it (as you said there is a HUGE price increase) and it would be difficult for the to compete with the old already existing cheap plants.
There is also next to no technological advantage in efficiency between old an new nuclear plants, those are still somewhere between 30% and 38(?)%,
On the opposite new coal plants reach an efficiency up to 50% (without CCS), this gives an advantage over older ones (~35%) or Chinese coal plants (~25%), even if the new plants are much more expensive to build than the older ones.
Quote:
Those nuke plants represent a large capital investment, they should milk them for all their worth. Also, renewables are not a big enough share of energy yet to pick up the slack.
renewable energies have grown from 11,7% share to 14,2% share from 2006 to 2007. (water: 4,3%)
During the same time nuclear power has decreased from 26,3% to 22,1%.
The government's plan is to have 30% of the electricity from renewables by 2020 and 50% by 2030. We are already ahead of this plan.
During several weeks 6 of our 17 remaining nuclear reactors have been shut down (some of them unexpected) without any problems. Germany has been a net exporter of electricity in 2007.
Electricity demand has grown only by 0,1% from 2006 to 2007, so the demand side is more or less stable (heat pumps and electrical vehicles could change that, but both make excellent devices for demand management systems and renewable energies would benefit from them.)
I do believe that nuclear IS an option for many countries, especially those that have large areas, enough cooling water and (most important) a secure supply on U235 for the next 40-50 years.
It is extremely unlikely that Germany will built a new nuclear reactor. Maybe some of the old plants will run longer than expected.
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:00 pm Post subject: Re: Great article - running the numbers on renewables
"I do believe that nuclear IS an option for many countries, especially those that have large areas, enough cooling water and (most important) a secure supply on U235 for the next 40-50 years."
You forgot one other crucial requirement:
competence
If your country can't:
run wars and occupations of comparatively tiny countries
run its emergency management agency
prevent regular massive flooding along its major waterways
prevent a major city from being destroyed by a very predictable weather event
rebuild the same city
keep major bridges from suddenly crumbling beneath hundreds of unwary travelers
keep even the richest fifth of its populace in as good health as the poorest fifth of the populace of the UK
run a fair national election
.
.
.
(add your favorite example of gross, criminal incompetence here)
.
.
.
if it can't manage any of these very straightforward projects--things successfully managed by many many other countries--how in the name of GWB can anyone remotely think that this country is in any position to tell its people that it can be trusted to safely
build,
operate,
decomission,
mine fuel for,
transport fuel for,
transport and store forever toxic waste of
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:11 pm Post subject: Re: Great article - running the numbers on renewables
dohboi wrote:
if it can't manage any of these very straightforward projects--things successfully managed by many many other countries--how in the name of GWB can anyone remotely think that this country is in any position to tell its people that it can be trusted to safely
build,
operate,
decomission,
mine fuel for,
transport fuel for,
transport and store forever toxic waste of
dozens of new nuke plants?
Because operating nukes is profitable. Using socialized means to efficiently deal with health care/infrastructure/etc isn't... It's not like we can't, it's that we don't because those who influence policy makers want it that way. According to another poster Canada is facing something similar w/ it's social health care, ie budget cuts and whatnot at the urging of guess who, in order to claim that changes are needed and private health care could do a much better job. I wonder where they got that idea from... _________________
Joined: Jan 03, 2005 Posts: 1212 Location: western Wisconsin
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:24 pm Post subject: Re: Great article - running the numbers on renewables
Isn't nuclear energy economically feasible only if the government subsidizes liability insurance for the industry, and waste storage and transportation costs are ignored?
And what about the carbon footprint of uranium mining and refining?
The nuclear reactor that runs the power plants at my home is 93,000,000 miles away, a reasonable distance, and has been functioning well for billions of years. But it can still give you a good sunburn if you don't take precautions.
Joined: Apr 09, 2007 Posts: 6374 Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:11 pm Post subject: Re: Great article - running the numbers on renewables
cephalotus wrote:
It's possible to supply Germany with nearly 100% renewable energy (and current technology) and this is one of the most "energy densely populated" countries in the world ...
If it can be done for Germany, it can be done 10 times easier in the US which has a lot more resources on renewable energies.
Its a lovely fantasy.
However, in the real world Germany is closing nukes to (1) build coal-fired power plants, even though they release much more CO2.
and (2) building natural gas pipelines to bring in gas supplies from the Russian Federation.
Germany's future path is clear...Germany is failing to honor their commitments under the Kyoto Treaty and becoming MORE dependent on fossil fuels, not less.
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 8:13 pm Post subject: Re: Great article - running the numbers on renewables
WisJim wrote:
Isn't nuclear energy economically feasible only if the government subsidizes liability insurance for the industry, and waste storage and transportation costs are ignored?
Not AFAIK. Do you have any sources for that? The liability insurance is proportional to the risk, which is anecdotally very low, and will likely only drop w/ newer reactors. Waste storage and transportation costs are the biggest problem w/ a once through fuel cycle, which in and of itself is wasteful in the first place.
WisJim wrote:
And what about the carbon footprint of uranium mining and refining?
Depends on the mining equipment and inputs ironically enough. Even w/ mining equipment powered by electricity I suppose on electricity from coal it would still relatively high, however that's a chicken and egg deal, since we can't switch to energy production methods that emit fewer GHGs w/o first using the energy from the higher GHG methods we have currently. _________________
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
