The Remarkable Progress of Renewable Energy

[Tigers!]

View attachment 17024

Over 9000 dead via solar!
When will they learn not to sleep atop those panels?

 

[lpetrich]

I don't know where that graphic's numbers come from. Especially its death-toll numbers.

I've found  Cost of electricity by source, which repeats several estimates. The more recent ones for wind and solar tend to beat nuclear by a sizable margin. Here are the BEIS results for 2015, in GBP/MWh:

• Wind (Onshore) 47 - 62 - 76
• Natural Gas (Combined Cycle) 65 - 66 - 68
• Solar (large-scale PV) 71 - 80 - 94
• Biomass 85 - 87 - 88
• Nuclear (PWR) 82 - 93 - 121
• Wind (Offshore) 90 - 102 - 115
• Natural Gas (Open-Cycle Turbine) 157 - 162 - 170

 

[steve_bank]

Solar is hazordous, you can fall of a roof while working on pamels. A solar panel can fll om you. A gust of wind can blow you off the roof.

I did know somebody in the 70s who got injured. He made his own solar heating panels pumping water through the panels. He oopend a line and the water burned him.

tidal power.

http://www.tidalenergy.eu/tidal_energy_uk.html

It is estimated that tidal power could generate around 20% of Britain's requirements.
There are great practical challenges associated with this form of hydropower and only around twenty sites in the world have been identified as being ideal locations for large scale tidal power arrays.
Eight sites are to be found in Britain, potentially making the UK a key player in the World Green Energy market. The Severn, Dee, Solway and Humber estuaries are all potential sites for tidal energy generating barrages in the UK, while Islay and the Pentland Firth are to host tidal turbine arrays. The Pentland Firth, the narrow run of water between the north-east tip of Scotland and the Orkney islands, is possibly the best place in the world to generate electricity from the movement of the tides.
Scotland and the UK generally are seen as world leaders in tidal energy research, but the US and Canada are both investing heavily in the field.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ty-generation-energy-renewables-a7922141.html

https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/2016/10/tidal-and-wind-energy-in-the-uk

https://www.energy.gov/articles/turbines-nyc-east-river-will-provide-power-9500-residents
As part of the Roosevelt Island Tidal Energy project, 30 turbines are being installed along the strait that connects the Long Island Sound with the Atlantic Ocean in the New York Harbor. The project, led by Verdant Power, Inc., is the first ever commercially licensed tidal energy project in the United States.

The turbines are scheduled to be fully installed by 2015 and will use the flow of the river and tides to generate 1,050 kilowatts of electricity -- this power will be delivered to 9,500 New York residents.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't know where that graphic's numbers come from. Especially its death-toll numbers.

I've found  Cost of electricity by source, which repeats several estimates. The more recent ones for wind and solar tend to beat nuclear by a sizable margin. Here are the BEIS results for 2015, in GBP/MWh:

• Wind (Onshore) 47 - 62 - 76
• Natural Gas (Combined Cycle) 65 - 66 - 68
• Solar (large-scale PV) 71 - 80 - 94
• Biomass 85 - 87 - 88
• Nuclear (PWR) 82 - 93 - 121
• Wind (Offshore) 90 - 102 - 115
• Natural Gas (Open-Cycle Turbine) 157 - 162 - 170

If I'm following the page correctly these are the numbers for that much generating capacity. In the real world you also have to consider up time. Unfortunately, for solar and wind the up time numbers are very bad. Note, also, that this doesn't even touch the real problem with solar and wind--that you can't simply switch them on when needed. When the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine you've got a big problem.

 

[bilby]

I don't know where that graphic's numbers come from. Especially its death-toll numbers.

If only it said at the bottom of the graphic. Oh well.

I've found  Cost of electricity by source, which repeats several estimates. The more recent ones for wind and solar tend to beat nuclear by a sizable margin. Here are the BEIS results for 2015, in GBP/MWh:

• Wind (Onshore) 47 - 62 - 76
• Natural Gas (Combined Cycle) 65 - 66 - 68
• Solar (large-scale PV) 71 - 80 - 94
• Biomass 85 - 87 - 88
• Nuclear (PWR) 82 - 93 - 121
• Wind (Offshore) 90 - 102 - 115
• Natural Gas (Open-Cycle Turbine) 157 - 162 - 170

Installed capacity doesn't equal electricity generation. Nuclear has a 90%+ capacity factor. Wind struggles to get to 30%. Solar can't even expect 20%. Multiply the wind number by three, and solar by five. And then think about what happens on a cold, still night in January.

It's also in part a matter of amortisation. If you take a short time horizon, nuclear looks worse because it has almost all of its costs at the construction phase, and lasts a long time - a typical cost over ten or twenty five years evaluation will make it look very expensive. But over the lifespan of the plant, it's much cheaper.

And with nuclear, you needn't buy storage or pay for natural gas backup. (and tolerate the carbon emissions that implies).

 

[steve_bank]

You have to look at total long term costs. Beyond regulation issues nukes have a hight cost to build and maintain. A nuke plant has a limited lifetime.

 

[bilby]

You have to look at total long term costs. Beyond regulation issues nukes have a hight cost to build and maintain. A nuke plant has a limited lifetime.

EVERYTHING has a limited lifetime. Nuclear power is the longest lived method of making electricity so far developed.

And yes, you are right, you have to look at total long term costs. Which makes nuclear cheap.

 

[steve_bank]

Over the years there has been anti nuke protests and demonstraions.

Never heard of any pro nuke demonstraions, and before this a pro nuke activist.

 

[steve_bank]

You have to look at total long term costs. Beyond regulation issues nukes have a hight cost to build and maintain. A nuke plant has a limited lifetime.

EVERYTHING has a limited lifetime. Nuclear power is the longest lived method of making electricity so far developed.

And yes, you are right, you have to look at total long term costs. Which makes nuclear cheap.

SGas fired trurbines are easy to maintain and replace if needed. Over here I belive a nuke license only has a finite time before decommissioning. Trojan on the Columbia river was demolished, as have others.

Nukes haqve a place as part of an overall plan that puts renewable first.

 

[KeepTalking]

Over the years there has been anti nuke protests and demonstraions.

Never heard of any pro nuke demonstraions, and before this a pro nuke activist.

The above argument seems to engage in at least one, if not multiple, logical fallacies. I fail to see how not having heard of "pro nuke demonstrations" or "pro nuke activists" is in any way a compelling argument against nuclear power.

 

[bilby]

Over the years there has been anti nuke protests and demonstraions.

Never heard of any pro nuke demonstraions, and before this a pro nuke activist.

There have also been anti-vaccine protests, anti-GMO protests and anti-fluoridation protests.

Indeed it's hard to find a single scientific advance that has been implemented without public protests.

There are plenty of luddites in the world. Most these days are completely unaware of the irony that they use the Internet as the medium for much of their activity.

 

[bilby]

You have to look at total long term costs. Beyond regulation issues nukes have a hight cost to build and maintain. A nuke plant has a limited lifetime.

EVERYTHING has a limited lifetime. Nuclear power is the longest lived method of making electricity so far developed.

And yes, you are right, you have to look at total long term costs. Which makes nuclear cheap.

SGas fired trurbines are easy to maintain and replace if needed. Over here I belive a nuke license only has a finite time before decommissioning. Trojan on the Columbia river was demolished, as have others.

Nukes haqve a place as part of an overall plan that puts renewable first.

Gas turbines are also expensive.

Everything's easy to do if you have unlimited funds. A nuclear reactor is fundamentally quite simple; It has few moving parts, and many of the components are necessarily very robust indeed. The working life of a properly maintained nuclear power plant can easily be two or three times that of a gas turbine plant.

The first nuclear plants were built in the 1950s, so of course some are now at the end of their lives. They should be replaced with new plants built using modern designs.

There is no power generation technology that hasn't seen any of its plants decommissioned and demolished.

Please feel free to make a point - if you have one to make.

 

[steve_bank]

Over the years there has been anti nuke protests and demonstraions.

Never heard of any pro nuke demonstraions, and before this a pro nuke activist.

The above argument seems to engage in at least one, if not multiple, logical fallacies. I fail to see how not having heard of "pro nuke demonstrations" or "pro nuke activists" is in any way a compelling argument against nuclear power.

Thank you for a deep enjoyable afternoon belly laugh. It is not an argument it is an observation.

Go nukes ! Go Nukes! Nukes nukes nukes nukes roared the crowd.

In the USA power plants are for profit. If there was solid basis for reliable return on investment we would see nukes being built. Regulations are a minor issue. Here in Washington there is a site where a nuke was started and abandoned, costs rose and with electricity prices it would not have been profitable. You pass by the cooling towers on the way to the coast.

It is different in France I believe where the power generation is a national utility. The govt can create a national nuke system without having to be profitable. France is energy poor and nukes were a good option for them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WNP-3_and_WNP-5

I-394 was aimed directly at the five nuclear projects being built by WPPSS, with the Statement For, written by supporters, citing the rise in the estimated construction budget for the five plants, which had grown from an initial estimate of US$4.1 billion to US$24 billion.[4] Despite being outspent by a margin of nearly seven-to-one,[6] I-394 passed overwhelmingly,[7] meaning that WPPSS would have to submit future bond issues to the public for a vote. Prior to I-394, WPPSS had the authority to issue bonds without voter consent as a municipal corporation.[6]

 

[steve_bank]

Things that initially seem simple in principle often turn out to be expensive to develop.

Nuke plants tend to be a custom design each time around. I can tell you from managing defense projects costs for things like drawings and quality control add up quickly. You could treat nuke construction like an apartment building and plumbing, is that what you propose?

Welding for nukes requires certified welders, inspection, documentation, and testing.

 

[bilby]

Things that initially seem simple in principle often turn out to be expensive to develop.

Nuke plants tend to be a custom design each time around. I can tell you from managing defense projects costs for things like drawings and quality control add up quickly. You could treat nuke construction like an apartment building and plumbing, is that what you propose?

Welding for nukes requires certified welders, inspection, documentation, and testing.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/06/21/if-innovation-makes-everything-cheaper-why-does-it-make-nuclear-power-more-expensive/amp/

 

[steve_bank]

Things that initially seem simple in principle often turn out to be expensive to develop.

Nuke plants tend to be a custom design each time around. I can tell you from managing defense projects costs for things like drawings and quality control add up quickly. You could treat nuke construction like an apartment building and plumbing, is that what you propose?

Welding for nukes requires certified welders, inspection, documentation, and testing.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/06/21/if-innovation-makes-everything-cheaper-why-does-it-make-nuclear-power-more-expensive/amp/

Having been in manufacturing, the primary issue with that is called 'economy of scale'. As volume increases material costs drop. That will never happen with nukes. Add to that nukes tend to be one of a kind design. Nuclear grade materials and metal fabrication are expensive. It is all custom work. You can't directly generate steam, heat exchangers are required that provide radiation isolation.

Even if you built 100 nukes ar once economy of scale will likely not buy you much.

Commercial jets went through a development curve from about 1950 to today's safety level of commercial flight. Many failures and crashes in service operations slowly led to change and safety. The number of nukes that can potentially be built will not be enough.

The practical approach I believe is France. I think all the plants have a common design and control room. That helps but still does not get costs down.

Turbines for natural gas can be purchased. Steam boilers are simple and not demanding in materials.

No such learning curve is possible with nukes. There is little if any competition in nuclear power as is in auto manufacturing and commercial jets.

The technical experience in nukes is very limited and specialized.

 

[lpetrich]

That's another nice thing about renewable energy sources. Wind energy and solar energy cannot fail as catastrophically as nuclear reactors can. Consider this: Best Wind Turbine CRASH/FAIL Compilation HD 2016 - YouTube

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's another nice thing about renewable energy sources. Wind energy and solar energy cannot fail as catastrophically as nuclear reactors can. Consider this: Best Wind Turbine CRASH/FAIL Compilation HD 2016 - YouTube

Yeah, nukes suffer from the one big boom problem. Kill 100 people at once, or kill 1000 people one at a time. Unfortunately, society tends to vote for the latter.

 

[bilby]

That's another nice thing about renewable energy sources. Wind energy and solar energy cannot fail as catastrophically as nuclear reactors can. Consider this: Best Wind Turbine CRASH/FAIL Compilation HD 2016 - YouTube

Yeah, nukes suffer from the one big boom problem. Kill 100 people at once, ever, or kill 1000 people one at a time every single year. Unfortunately, society tends to vote for the latter.

People are fucking stupid.

If two people get sunburn and one falls of a roof, while installing solar panels, that's literally a worse "disaster" than Fukushima.

 

[steve_bank]

That's another nice thing about renewable energy sources. Wind energy and solar energy cannot fail as catastrophically as nuclear reactors can. Consider this: Best Wind Turbine CRASH/FAIL Compilation HD 2016 - YouTube

Yeah, nukes suffer from the one big boom problem. Kill 100 people at once, ever, or kill 1000 people one at a time every single year. Unfortunately, society tends to vote for the latter.

People are fucking stupid.

If two people get sunburn and one falls of a roof, while installing solar panels, that's literally a worse "disaster" than Fukushima.

You are correct, some people are fucking, even criminally, stupid. That has to be the most hands down most idiotic argument I have ever seen, and I have seen a lot.

The area around Fukushima is a contaminated wasteland. Risk from radiation was minmal due to swift evacuation. You can look at Chernobyl. It too is a wasteland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster

Costs to Japanese taxpayers are likely to exceed 12 trillion yen ($100 billion).[273] In December 2016 the government estimated decontamination, compensation, decommissioning, and radioactive waste storage costs at 21.5 trillion yen ($187 billion), nearly double the 2013 estimate.[274]