It is time to replace all of the old style nuclear power plants with Passively Safe Gen IV reactors

[txlibdem]

The recent earthquake and tsunami damage in Japan underscores the need for us to immediately begin a full throttle effort to build new Generation IV reactors, power plants that are Passively Safe (unlike the reactors in Japan that were built in 1971).

"An explosion occurred at the 40-year-old Daichi 1 reactor"
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/12/us-japan-quake-nuclear-qa-idUSTRE72B2ET20110312

The plant was built in 1971 and 1974, which means that their design is from the 1960s, (ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi#Reactors). These older reactors need to be replaced with newer designs that cannot have a meltdown. We need a nuclear "Moon Shot" that would channel huge amounts of scientific and government resources into replacing all of the old reactors while at the same time adding new Generation IV nuclear power plants to provide for increases in demand.

We have several options to choose from: Pebble Bed Modular Reactors; LFTR, Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors; SMRs.
==========================
Pebble Bed Modular Reactor, "The PBMR is characterised by inherently safe features, which mean that no human error or equipment failure can cause an accident that would harm the public.<3>" (ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBMR )
==========================
LFTR, or Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor, does not use Uranium for fuel which is said to have only a 100 year supply left in the ground. Thorium is so abundant and is more efficient during reaction so a smaller amount of thorium creates the same amount of power. We have a 1,000 year supply of Thorium -- if we're not regularly flying to the asteroids and the Kuiper Belt by that time then we don't deserve to have clean and reliable electrical power.

It sounds like a "new" thing, unproven? Wrong:

"The liquid fluoride reactor had tremendous safety and performance advantages over solid-fueled reactors, as well as a remarkable versatility in potential fuels. A proof-of-concept fluoride reactor was built and operated in 1954 at Oak Ridge. It was called the Aircraft Reactor Experiment (ARE), and it demonstrated that fluoride reactors had the chemical and nuclear stability that Briant and his colleagues had predicted."

http://www.energyfromthorium.com/history.html

The truth? They ended the Thorium reactor research because you cannot use them to make nuclear bombs.

And the amount of Thorium needed to provide all the power you will use in your lifetime?

"Thorium, they say, provides all the carbon-free energy of uranium - about 300 times more, actually - with almost none of the guilt.

Thorium plants cooled with molten fluoride salt would leave a fraction of the nuclear waste compared to the uranium-fueled, water-cooled plants in use today. In addition, thorium plants can't melt down and don't produce reliable fuel for bombs.

...snip...

And compared to coal?

"The amount of thorium it would take to power my whole life is the size of a marble that would fit in my hand," Sorensen said. "The amount of coal that would power my life would bury my yard to 30 or 40 feet.""

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/science/stories/2010/03/07/thorium-art-gc67nvgb-1.html

An amount of Thorium the size of a marble is all it would take to provide your power needs for your entire life. Now that's a fuel we need to start using.
============================
SMRs, which are built in a factory under constant QA scrutiny and therefore will bring down the costs of nuclear power. They are shipped by rail to the location and placed in an underground bunker, then the whole thing is sealed by several feet of concrete and steel and then more soil is piled on top of that. SMRs can be used both for heat and electrical power so medium size cities can finally have an affordable, safe and stable source of electricity. In northern climes the heat from the reactor can be used to heat building interiors (as they do in Europe) to further reduce dependence on fossil fuels in winter.

"As the World Nuclear Association notes, the SMR design will be factory-made and shipped to site by rail, then installed below ground level. "It appears that this may take over from IRIS as the company's small reactor, since the entire reactor comprises one factory-made module, apparently about 25 metres high and 4 metres diameter," the organization adds.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is currently reviewing six SMR designs—including the NuScale, the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor, Toshiba's 4S, the Hyperion, GE Hitachi's PRISM reactor, and Babcock & Wilcox's mPower reactor (for more on these designs, see "Are Smaller Reactors Better?" in POWER's November 2010 issue)."

http://www.powermag.com/POWERnews/Westinghouse-Launches-Small-Modular-Reactor-Design_3477.html

This details the reduced cost of SMRs:

"The upside of small nukes lies in cutting not only greenhouse gases (nuclear power produces little to nothing in the way of emissions) but also costs. Chu pointed out that small reactors like the ones built by Hyperion are sold as ready-made, turnkey devices, which will likely keep construction costs down. Hyperion estimates it will take $100 million to build and 25 employees to run one of its plants, compared with the $4 billion to $6 billion in capital needed to build a traditional plant and the roughly 300 people needed to run one."

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/02/nuclear-roundup-hyperion-power.html

[Fledermaus]

1. Its time the nuclear industry started paying for their own insurance.

Instead of standing on the backs of the tax payer.

[Confusious]

15. They do already

Not surprising you don't know that.

[Wilms]

18. Gambling on nuclear power: How public money fuels the industry

snip

All operating nuclear power plants in the U.S. were built with substantial public subsidies. These included large subsidies to research and development, plant construction, uranium enrichment, and waste management. Since its inception, the industry has also benefitted from government programs to shift key risks of the nuclear fuel cycle away from investors and onto taxpayers.

A handful of studies have quantified subsidies to the nuclear-power industry over the decades, indicating aggregate subsidization at well over US$ 150 billion, and a subsidy intensity (government support per kWh output) normally exceeding 30% of the market value of the energy produced.

These subsidies have enabled our existing commercial reactors to remain viable power providers, but only with additional capital write-offs. These write-offs have occurred not only through bankruptcies, but in the form of compensation for "stranded costs" as well. Basically, a cost was considered stranded if it made a plant uncompetitive at the time the electricity industry was being deregulated. Nuclear generation accounted for large share of total stranded costs in the United States, with nearly US$ 100 billion (2007$) of nuclear-related infrastructure deemed uncompetitive transferred as a liability to be bailed out by ratepayers. Although the industry frequently points to its low operating costs as evidence of its market competitiveness, this economic structure is an artifact of large subsidies to capital, historical write-offs of capital, and ongoing subsidies to operating costs.

snip

http://www.globalsubsidies.org/en/subsidy-watch/commentary/gambling-nuclear-power-how-public-money-fuels-industry

[Confusious]

29. DOE numbers on subsidies

subsidies

nuclear $.00159 per KWh generated
solar $.02434 per KWh generated
wind $.02337 per KWh generated

[Wilms]

30. But there are no "economies of scale" for alternatives compared with nukes.

And we have the decommissioning costs to consider.

[Confusious]

34. It's all in there, cost wise.

If you want, you can also consider the fact that a new nuke plant will run for 80 years at that price, but wind and solar will have to be replaced every 20, and around that price.

[Wilms]

37. Why don't you offer a link for the unbiased Dept of Nuclear Energy cite.

Or a better one.

[kristopher]

45. You've correctly identified the fallacy in his argument

Here is what I wrote elsewhere:

The price of nuclear subsidies is also worth looking at. Nuclear proponents will tell you the subsidies per unit of electricity for nuclear are no worse than for renewables. That statement omits the fact than nuclear power has received the lions share of non fossil energy subsidies for more than 50 years with no apparent payoff; for all the money we've spent we see a steadily escalating cost curve for nuclear. When we compare that to renewables we find that a small fraction of the total amount spent on nuclear has resulted in rapidly declining costs that for wind are already competitive with coal and rapidly declining costs for solar that are competitive with natural gas and will soon be less expensive than coal.
http://www.1366tech.com/cost-curve/

In other words: subsidies work to help the renewable technologies stand on their own but with nuclear they do nothing but prop up an industry that cannot be economically viable.


Another factor that truly limits the utility of Confusion's numbers to our understanding of the true situation is found in the report he is trying to misuse. Which is, BTW:
Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 2007
April 2008
Energy Information Administration Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric, and Alternate Fuels
U.S. Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585

It is on page 92 and reads:
"Direct subsidies to electricity producers that provide incentives to investment in generation technology of a specific fuel type are assigned to electricity production in their entirety and are included in the $5.1 billion of subsidies allocated to electricity production by fuel type."

So your first point about scale is spot on. The numbers Confusion presented are this years production divided by this years allocation of (a very incomplete) DOE version of what counts as a "subsidy".

What is trying to be countered is this:


Full report: http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear_subsidies_report.pdf

This shows that when we look at lifetime subsidies against lifetime production of nuclear power the subsidies nuclear has received are worth more than the average value of the electricity produced.

That's right. We paid for every kilowatt of nuclear power twice, once through the utility and once through the tax man.

You won't hear that from the nuclear industry.

[Confusious]

51. Sophistry, selective use of facts

You're a fanatic, fanatics ignore reality in favor of their own, and I don't trust fanatics.

I.e. nice selective picking of a number there. Doesn't match the total 16.6 billion in subsidies for 2007.

[Wilms]

52. Thanks kristopher.

You can almost smell it when someone tries to "misuse" data, as has Confucious.

It ain't going to happen overnight. But it's time to start decommissioning nukes starting with the oldest/most vulnerable units.

That alone is going to cost another fortune.

[Confusious]

53. Check your nose

The smell isn't coming from my side.

[Wilms]

54. You're free to challenge the post. n/t

[Confusious]

56. I did

Kris quotes 5.1 billion in FUEL subsidies (who uses fuel? a nuclear plant. who doesn't? renewables), when the actual total subsidies was 16.6 billion for all forms of energy, with renewables getting the lions share per KWH generated.

Selective use of facts. par for the course.

[Confusious]

49. right here

top 'o the google

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/execsum.pdf

[PamW]

59. Not true in actuality

All operating nuclear power plants in the U.S. were built with substantial public subsidies. These included large subsidies to research and development, plant construction, uranium enrichment, and waste management. Since its inception, the industry has also benefitted from government programs to shift key risks of the nuclear fuel cycle away from investors and onto taxpayers.
========================================

One has to be careful who you get these figures from, and what they count as a "subsidy".

Many of the groups that make these calculations include all the money that the USA spends
on nuclear weapons as a "subsidy" to the nuclear power industry.

You mention "uranium enrichment" as a "subsidy". Because enrichment is such a sensitive
technology, if you can enrich uranium to 4% reactor fuel, you have the technology to
enrich to 93% nuclear bomb fuel. So the Government retains ownership / operation of the
enrichment facilities - but it charges the nuclear power industry for enrichment
services. So the nuclear power industry does pay its way on enrichment.

You mention also the waste management. Again, the anti-nukes always fail to mention that there
is a special tax on nuclear generated electricity paid by the nuclear utilities. That money
goes to the Government in what is called the "Nuclear Waste Fund". Google the 3 word in quotes.
Last I looked, as confirmed by the following article from Reuters, the nuclear industry has
paid into the fund $24 billion dollar more than the Government expended. That's actually a
subsidy of the US Government by the nuclear industry:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/05/usa-nuclear-waste-idUSN0519035620100405

Finally there is the issue of insurance. The Government set insurance requirements for
nuclear power plants based on a "worst case" study by Brookhaven National Lab back in the
'50s. Brookhaven made a conservative over-estimate of the damage. They even assumed that
the power plant didn't have a containment, which they are required to have.

But the insurance amounts determined by Brookhaven were too low for the anti-nukes. They
wanted to kill the nascent nuclear industry at its inception by requiring levels of insurance
that were way, way, way beyond anything that could actually happen. It's like requiring
that you be insured for a billion dollars of automobile liability insurance instead of the
$100K to $300K that is common. Perhaps many here would like that - it would sure cut down on
the number of cars, since only billionaires would be able to afford to drive.

The Price-Anderson Act defines a "second tier" of pay out in the case of an accident, above
the amounts that the utilities carry from commercial underwriters. What the anti-nukes always
fail to mention is that even if the Government paid out on this second tier, that the
Price-Anderson Act provides for the Government to be reimbursed by the nuclear utilities.

The second tier coverage that the anti-nukes call a "subsidy" has to be paid back if it is
ever expended, and according to the scientists, will never be needed in the first place.
That's not much of a "subsidy".

PamW

[kristopher]

64. The author is one of the leading authorities on subsidies (of all kinds) in the country

But of course you are as well informed on subsidies as he is, after all, you have google!

I'll bet you know as much about subsidies as you do about time required to complete reactors, eh?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x278601

[FBaggins]

2. III+ would be good enough.

I'm not aware of any significant part of this event that would have stumped them.

[joshcryer]

39. III+ would've been safter, but it'd also be making waste.

Might as well nip that in the bud while we're at it!

[yourout]

3. +1....posted similar thing only to get shouted down.

LFTRs are the way to go.

[kristopher]

5. When do you expect NRC approval for that; 20 or 30 years from now?

What a foolish idea.

[yourout]

8. China is starting on one now. The US built one in the 60s at Oak Ridge but....

it was more or less useless as a source for enriched plutonium so it was shutdown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment

[kristopher]

11. The question was specific.

It has taken almost 15 years to get approval of the first of the Gen 3 reactors, and they were much further along in the global marketing pipeline than Gen4 is. So how long do you suggest we wait for a pig-in-a-poke with no independent data at all behind it? All we have is a nuclear enthusiast rush to promote small reactors as it has become clear over the past 2 years that the nuclear revival is a complete economic flop that will NEVER be a competitive technology.

By the time the SMRs are approved electricity from renewable energy will probably average less than 10 cents a KWH delivered and there will, as now, be absolutely no market niche for the nuclear.

We just don't need nuclear. Period.

Why do you WANT it?

[txlibdem]

27. By the time the SMRs are approved electricity from renewable energy will be less than 10 cents a kWh

That's great but energy from SMRs will be 5 to 7 cents a kWh by that time. Of course, I'm projecting the same as you are: neither of us knows for a fact what the cost of energy will be.

I've been on record since my first posts here on DU that we need nuclear power (but not the business-as-usual, cost overruns and construction costs out the wazoo Gen II or Gen III designs). But we also need to go full tilt to build as much solar PV, solar thermal, wind (onshore and offshore), geothermal power, wave power, and tidal power that we can possibly build. At the same time, we need to make every effort to improve the energy efficiency of our buildings (super insulated, passive solar design, daylighting, solatubes, LED lighting, energy efficient appliances, geothermal heating and cooling, solar water heaters, etc).

In other words, we need all of our swords in this fight or we will not win against the entrenched interests of coal and oil.

[txlibdem]

9. Foolish idea: Bad mouthing all new energy sources so we have to continue using coal

NRC can only slow down construction here in the USA, #1. It could take 10 years for NRC approval, but there is a possibility that the severity of global climate change we are now seeing the beginning of, coupled with a more favorable attitude in government circles could speed things along a bit.

You have a point that the molasses-like action at the NRC will result in these much-needed power plants being built in Asia and Europe before they can power homes and businesses here in the USA.

But the tone of your post, like most of them, is to cast doubt on new energy sources, leaving us with coal as the dominant source of electrical energy. I don't like the sound of that one bit. Please join the rest of the world in trying to end the evil reign of coal dominance. We need to end coal before global climate change destabilized the world and causes the end of us.

[kristopher]

12. Nope. Just sick of the bullshit unreal claims from the nuclear industry

Just like the one you make in the OP. I propose moving off of coal NOW - with technology that is affordable and financable NOW.

Existing renewables can do the job so the REAL question is why the fuck are you trying to pretend they can't and trying to tell us to wait for 30 years for nuclear pie in the sky?

[txlibdem]

17. Existing renewables can do the job -- with 24 hour storage and excess capacity

Do not confuse a 24 hour power source like nuclear with an intermittent one like wind and a 5 hour per day source like solar PV. Solar Thermal would be the closest thing but even that will need excess capacity built in and energy storage.

That is all I ask: compare the costs of a 24 hour power source with a 24 hour power source. I think that's fair.

[kristopher]

19. How many times does that nuclear industry canard have to be shot down?

Trying to act is if the "grid" is the same as a single generator is a complete mischaracterization of the way the system works and you KNOW it. It is totally false and trotting it out is a childish attempt to defend the indefensible.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x626150

Wind Power Myths Debunked
Special production of The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
http://www.ieee-pes.org/images/pdf/open-access-milligan.pdf

[FBaggins]

20. Don't know... we haven't gotten to "once" yet.

It isn't a canard. Storage is a signifcant issue in moving anywhere beyond about 20% penetration of wind/solar. And even if you were to pretend that this wasn't the case... you need incredible amounts of excess capacity.

Pretending otherwise is simply not credible.

[kristopher]

21. That isn't what the experts say.

You need to read the IEEE link.

[FBaggins]

23. Once again... that's only true...

when you reduce "experts" to "the six guys who agree with me".

Your circular logic is irrefutable... but not because it isn't wrong. :)

[kristopher]

24. Well let's see you produce an authoritative rebuttal

All you ever do is try to smear people who are obvious experts. Their work speaks for itself and it competely refutes your anonymous internet pronuclear-industry bullpuckey.

[FBaggins]

26. No problem. Can do.

Hey... wait a minute.

Aw you sly one. You almost got me there.

I forgot that you have the same standard for "authoritative" as you do for "expert".

All you ever do is try to smear people who are obvious experts.

Lol... you're kidding, right?

You stick out a single paper published by three scientists in a NYAS journal (and dishonestly present that as the opinion of the NYAS... but that's a different topic) and insist that it is authoritative... then you entirely ignore the work of dozens of scientists from all over the world that represents the actual opinion of the authoritative source on the subject.

And you've got the chutzpah to claim that I'm the one smearing obvious experts?

Just too funny for words... and it's hardly the only example. It's your bread-and-butter M.O.

[kristopher]

32. That definitely sounds like

the call of a dead parrot.

[FBaggins]

35. Nah.

He's "pining for the fjords"

But seriously folks. Is there any source that you would accept that doesn't already agree with you?

Heck, I've used your own sources half a dozen times and you turn a blind eye to it. That 20% figure was FROM your source for goodness sake.

[kristopher]

38. 20% was in the report, yes; but your use was pure fiction.

Fantasy.

Confabulation.

[FBaggins]

58. Not at all... in fact it was a direct quote.

I don't remember how long ago it was, but I took on of those statements verbatim and put it in my mouth rather than theirs (IOW, I didn't cite them or credit them with a quote), and you violently attacked the notion as entirely baseless and contradicted by the facts.

I don't remember whether I ever actually dropped the bomb on you but it was hillarious to watch. Even your own sources aren't authoritative if you don't agree with their conclusions.

[kristopher]

65. No, you didn't. Perhaps you should try reading it again.

[FBaggins]

67. You didn't know THEN that it was a direct quote...

...why would your opinion of same be relevant NOW?

I mean.. I can see why you would WISH that to be so... but how often does wishing make it so?

[kristopher]

68. It wasn't a direct quote.

You substituted "renewables" for "wind".

There is a huge difference.

[FBaggins]

69. No I didn't.

I copied and pasted.

I learned from the master after all.

You may be thinking of the post from yesterday (which wasn't inteded to be a quote). This was at least a few months ago.

[kristopher]

70. You are shown to be totally wrong, but you were right "at least a few months ago"

Right.

[FBaggins]

72. Getting late... you should get some sleep

You appear to be hallucinating.

OTOH... you probably have the same definition for "shown to be totally wrong" as you have for "expert" and "authoritative".

One great big living circular reasoning fallacy.

Have a good night.

[kristopher]

71. What is the per unit pay difference between a bump and an OP?

[FBaggins]

73. What's zero divided by zero?

What am I thinking? Asking a rabid anti-nuke to do basic math?

[txlibdem]

6. I didn't see your OP, sorry to duplicate

It's easy to be drowned out by the zealous posters jumping at any chance to post anti-nuke propaganda. There have been dozens of posts rehashing the same tired old anti-nuke garbage. Sorry your good post got lost in that textual trash heap.

The statement that makes me 100% behind LFTR: they cannot be used to make nuclear bombs.

[yourout]

7. It wasn't an OP.....just a reply.

[kristopher]

4. Logic fail

Nuclear isn't needed. Period. We have all the energy we need in renewable resources and it is both less expensive and much faster to deploy than nuclear whether it is Generation 3 or 4.

It is idiotic to pursue nuclear power with its problems when a completely viable and carbon free system can function around renewable energy.

It is crazy.

[RC]

10. Can your renewable power a ship?

Does you renewable take up farm land?
Can your renewable power a large city, 24/7/365?
Can your renewable that powers a ship, also power a small city? Our nuclear ships can.

[kristopher]

13. Yes yes yes yes.

We WILL move our personal transportation sector to electric vehicles and greater use of public transport.

Heavy power applications that require portable, stored energy can be served by *advanced* biofuels such as ethanol, biodeisel from sources like algae.


I'd suggest you review the information here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x626150

[AtheistCrusader]

33. Ah, you like to burn your food as fuel. I see.

That seems like a fantastic plan.

[kristopher]

41. No, I prefer to use things like your bullshit.

What advanced biofuels require isn't corn, it is carbon.

Since you don't know what role biofuels will play it is clear you have no idea whether the renewable energy you eschew is good or bad. Therefore it begs the question of why you would be such an ardent and vocal supporter of nuclear power without such knowledge. That is especially the case since your stated goal is environmental in nature - AGW. You are willing to dismiss what every expert agrees we should do in favor of specious arguments being made by the nuclear industry affiliated bloggers that you echo.

[AtheistCrusader]

42. I would love it if the algae thing worked.

So far it doesn't.

Without that, you are talking growing MASSIVE amounts of biofuels, and the primary for small vehicles is of course, ethanol. That cuts into food production. It's cutting into food production RIGHT NOW.

What about large ships? What are you going to power them with? Rapeseed oil? What?

[kristopher]

43. Wrong and wrong again.

Algae does "work" and so do a number of other advanced biofuel approaches for storing energy in liquid hydrocarbons - and they are all predicated on being fed by waste streams; garbage and sewage if you will. Why they can exploit even the most nasty of waste streams, for example things like recycled nuclear bloggers or worn out, bigoted teabaggers.

The small vehicle fleet is moving to electric drive, not biofuels.

The advanced biofuels program is aimed specifically at fueling the agricultural, heavy transport, and construction industries. It is what Chu was working on, you know?

So, how about explaining why you are so ardent a supporter of nuclear power when you clearly know next to nothing about the energy sources you are trying to smear? Is it a tribal thing? If so, what tribe do you see yourself belonging to?

[AtheistCrusader]

44. Worldwide that isn't accurate.

Brazil runs quite a bit of domestic household vehicles on ethanol. Most of their vehicles run on anywhere from E25 to E100. Granted, they use sugar cane, not corn. Brazil is moving toward E100 in all small vehicle fleets. Electric is not primary.

Specific to the US, we use corn. 10+ billion gallons worth per year in biodiesel and ethanol. At 424 gallons per acre of farmland. That is significant. Electric drive is not adequate for all uses. It will certainly help. Technically, since I live in WA, I could give a rip about nuclear for the most part. What we can't get from our dams, we can get from wind. The rest of the country isn't so lucky to have our hydroelectric backbone. I'm a much bigger proponent of hydro, but I can face facts, there are few sites left to develop, and areas of the country where it is totally unsuitable.


And no, I don't see the algae system actually working, in production, anywhere. Coming soon(TM) I hope?

Edit: I like tidal power, does that count for anything, tribal-wise?

[kristopher]

46. Are you incapable of undestanding the word *advanced*?

I guess with such limitations as that exhibits we can presume that the simplicity of nuclear power as a solution to AGW is what appeals to you? You think we will just unplug the coal plants and plug in our bright shiny glowing nuclear facilities, no?

[AtheistCrusader]

47. Over time, some percentage, yes.

Until CSP and wind can take a bigger chunk out of the pie, it's the best way to reduce our carbon footprint.

Useful at least until we've consumed de-milled warheads, yes?

[Confusious]

55. I like tidal power, does that count for anything, tribal-wise?

If you're not 100% against nuclear and 100% for renewables (don't question them at ALL)

then no, it counts for nothing.

[AtheistCrusader]

57. I'm 50/50 for now.

Until nuclear is totally obsolete.

[txlibdem]

14. Renewable sources without 24 hour storage will not replace current power plants

Let's compare apples to apples, not apples (nuclear power) to apple seeds (the limitless potential of renewable energy).

The costs of renewable energy *PLUS* 24 hour energy storage will exceed the cost of LFTR and SMR nuclear power plants.

When connected in a very large wind farm, the energy output that can be considered stable power amounts to 23% of the nameplate capacity. With energy storage that amount could be increased: more study on that is needed. But as things stand now, we need 4 times the installed wind turbines than we originally thought and that adds to the cost when compared with nuclear power plants, which operate at 90% output.

Solar PV works when the sun is shining and the weather is at least mostly clear. Most parts of the country receive fewer than 5 hours a day of peak power out of their solar panels. The cost of the panels (plus accessories and installation) makes solar PV too expensive for 90% of homeowners yet you would need a large enough array to provide 24 hours of electricity in that 5 hour "window" of peak sunlight.

Solar Thermal will also need energy storage but I'm tired of typing. You know how to google...

Compare apples to apples.

[kristopher]

16. How many times does that nuclear industry canard have to be shot down?

Trying to act is if the "grid" is the same as a single generator is a complete mischaracterization of the way the system works and you KNOW it. It is totally false and trotting it out is a childish attempt to defend the indefensible.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x626150

Wind Power Myths Debunked
Special production of The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
http://www.ieee-pes.org/images/pdf/open-access-milligan.pdf

[txlibdem]

22. Your second link proves my point

See figure 5 and figure 3 in your 2nd linked article (http://www.ieee-pes.org/images/pdf/open-access-milligan.pdf) and you will see that the wind output is highly variable -- and would need energy storage in order to provide reliable power output on the same level that a nuclear power plant does. All I am asking is to compare apples to apples, stable 24/7 power output to stable 24/7 power output. Is that so unfair?

BTW, the canard is repeatedly linking the same old article (your first link) dozens and dozens of times, even though it has been thoroughly debunked time and time again. It proves nothing.

[kristopher]

25. You debunk nothing - that is a totally empty claim

As stated treating the grid as if it is a single generator (which is what you are doing) is idiotic and WRONG. They are two different things. Prove your case or stop making the false claims. Making half-assed claims with no actual reasoning or evidence behind them seems to be all you can muster. The question is specifically addressed and the answer is related to figure 7. Figure 3 and 5 simply help define the problem.

Your claim is explicitly refuted.

"The question of whether wind needs storage ultimately comes down to economic costs and benefits. More than a dozen studies analyzing the costs of large-scale grid integration of wind come to varying conclusions, but the most significant is that integration costs are moderate, even with up to 20% wind-energy penetration, and that no additional storage is necessary to integrate up to 20% wind energy in large balancing areas. Overall, these studies imply that the added cost of integrating wind over the next decade is far less than the cost of dedicated energy storage, and that the cost can potentially be reduced by the use of advanced wind-forecasting techniques.

Wind Power Myths Debunked
november/december 2009 IEEE power & energy magazine
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MPE.2009.934268
1540-7977/09/$26.00©2009 IEEE

By Michael Milligan, Kevin Porter, Edgar DeMeo, Paul Denholm, Hannele Holttinen, Brendan Kirby, Nicholas Miller, Andrew Mills, Mark O’Malley, Matthew Schuerger, and Lennart Soder

http://www.ieee-pes.org/images/pdf/open-access-milligan.pdf

[txlibdem]

28. So you are admitting that you only want 20% of our energy from renewables

Did I read your post right? Did it say that your goal stops at 20% renewable energy? Where will the rest of the electrical power come from? Could it be...... COAL?

My objection is based on your claim of 100% renewable energy generation. Yet your post "debunks" my objection with the shining goal of 20% energy generation?!? I ask you again, please join the rest of the world in working to end the dominance of coal and other fossil fuels.

[kristopher]

31. Do you think that you score points when the text you falsely quote is right there?

What a piece of work you are josh.

[txlibdem]

36. When the text you quote is, indeed, right there

Your quoted info states, "even with up to 20% wind-energy penetration, and that no additional storage is necessary to integrate up to 20% wind energy in large balancing areas."

I think we need to focus our efforts toward getting 100% off of fossil fuels, not just 20% as your post states. I'm not sure why your post claims a false quote when it is a direct quote, word for word. Strange how that cut-and-paste stuff works sometimes...

[kristopher]

40. My pleasure

Your string of falsehoods are growing so long it is hard to keep track of them all.

In the first post you claim "renewables" require 24 hours of storage which is false, as the IEEE engineers clearly state after a complete specific explanation of how WIND (but you can't ignore solar, biomass, biofuels, wave, current, tidal or geothermal; all of which are dispatchable) fits into the grid up to 20% WIND penetration.

Just because their study capped at 20% for wind doesn't mean there is some drastic collapse of the integrity of the grid if wind goes to 30% or more. In fact as they explain, "In a power system, it is necessary to maintain a continuous balance between production and consumption. System operators deploy controllable generation to follow the change in total demand, not the variation from a single generator or customer load. When wind is added to the system, the variability in the net load becomes the operating target for the system operator. It is not necessary and, indeed, it would be quite costly for grid operators to follow the variation in generation from a single generating plant or customer load. “Backup” generating plants dedicated to wind plants—or to any other generation plant or load for that matter—are not required, and would actually be a poor and unnecessarily costly use of power-generation resources."

Got that? It "would actually be a poor and unnecessarily costly use of power-generation resources" they said.


That is exactly the same for storage. It directly addresses your claim and solidly refutes the contention regarding some massive amount of storage being needed.

Your appeal to capacity factor is also an industry canard; one that you pile on the first falsehood about storage. There is no special unique benefit to building a generator with a high capacity factor. What is important that involves capacity factor are the overall life cycle costs of the delivered electricity. When analysis is based such a full life cycle assessment nuclear is already the most expensive and is rising while renewables are competitive and dropping.

So as I said, you are using your first false claim to inappropriately inflate the cost of renewables in an attempt to create the untrue impression that there are huge external costs hidden in the renewable scenario. That is untrue.


Given your stated objectives for calling for new generation to supplant fossil fuels here is no basis for your support for nuclear power in the science.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x626150

[txlibdem]

48. Again with the 20% renewables -- that leaves COAL as the dominant energy source in USA

Is that what you want? It isn't what I want: I've called numerous times for a mix of nuclear power plants, solar PV, solar thermal, wind (both offshore and onshore), tidal power, wave power, and geothermal power generation. Those are the *only* energy sources that I want to have to rely upon in the future. Those are the energy sources that produce zero green house gases and will (if we get rid of fossil fuels soon enough) will save this planet from the worst consequences of our current energy mix.

It's not too unreasonable to expect a plan for 100% renewable energy generation to provide the 24/7 stable power levels that our society demands. But you post a link and a quote that highlights the lofty goal of 20% wind, and that is with variability that could "easily" be managed by the grid operators. That's a non-starter when utilities are contemplating their future power needs. You surely understand that electrical supply must (MUST!!!) absolutely match demand on a millisecond-by-millisecond basis, that a dip in supply could cause transmission equipment failure, blackouts, brownouts, etc., with devastating consequences for the reputation of the power utility and the electronic equipment in homes and businesses.

I reject your analysis that we'll just have to deal with a highly variable supply from wind. Your own EEE link shows a huge difference in output from winter to summer months. There is no escaping the facts. We will need huge quantities of excess capacity in solar to make up for the months when wind is producing less energy. And in order for utilities to be able to count on stable power output from renewable sources they will demand energy storage. Trot out all the "experts" to say different if you'd like to: I'm talking about human psychology here. Utility companies have too much at stake to fail to demand energy storage of sufficient size to enable them to rely upon a certain output. That may not necessarily be 24 hours worth of energy storage once enough wind farms are all interconnected into the high voltage transmission grid but there will be required energy storage. It's just not logical to assume that these companies are going to have that uncertainty hanging over their head when all they have to do is demand energy storage before signing contracts.

The coal industry does not want any talk of energy storage for renewable energy sources. Coal industry executives know that the lack of energy storage (and therefore the lack of stable power output) will doom renewables to be a niche player in the energy mix.

[PamW]

60. Gross Misunderstanding!!!

Trying to act is if the "grid" is the same as a single generator is a complete mischaracterization of the way the system works and you KNOW it. It is totally false and trotting it out is a childish attempt to defend the indefensible.
=======================================

The above shows a gross misunderstanding of the type of protection that the
redundancy of a grid. Redundancy is only effective against
random failure modes, and not systematic failures.

It's trivially easy to see that if you networked a bunch of solar power plants
together in a grid, it doesn't help. At night time, ALL the solar power
plants go down, i.e. fail. "But I've networked them all into a grid", says kristopher.

It hasn't been "debunked". People can plainly see that if all your power plants
fail at night because they are solar plants and can't see the sun, then the fact that
you've networked them into a grid is useless.

This is just a gross misunderstanding of when networking / redundancy helps or doesn't help.
Kris is inappropriately applying a technique ( redundancy ) that helps random failures,
to a system which has systematic failures - i.e. all the solar plants fail at night.

Now one could also include other renewables like wind turbines in the mix. However, if you
have enough wind turbines to carry the load at night, and wind turbines work just as well in
the day as they do at night - then just use your wind turbines both day and night and forget
the extra expense of building guaranteed unreliable solar.

However, wind turbines also work / don't work at the behest of Mother Nature. One can
not be guaranteed that the wind will be blowing.

Additionally, the renewable proponents have been guilty of "double counting". If the wind
turbines in northern California go down for lack of wind, they say, "It's OK - we are networked
to the wind turbines in southern California." The problem is the residents of southern California
are already using those turbines. You need to have "excess" capacity.

The amount of excess capacity you need is inversely proportional to the capacity factor.
Wind turbines don't operate anywhere close to a capacity factor of unity. So you have to
"overbuild" wind turbines by a large factor.

Additionally, the energy from wind turbines goes as the cube of the wind speed.
If your wind turbine puts out its rated output at a max wind speed of 50 mph, then what
does it do at 25 mph? The simple minded answer would be half power, and is wrong.

At 25 mph, you have half the air mass going through your turbine per unit time. However,
the energy content of that air will be quartered. Remember kinetic energy goes
as the square of the speed.

So you have half the mass flow at one quarter the energy per unit mass. Therefore you
get only one eighth the power at 25 mph that you get at 50 mph.

So if we had only wind and solar, where do we get our energy on windless nights?
Of course, the proponents say there are no windless nights, but we know better.

PamW

[kristopher]

66. Solar at night is not a "random failure"

Nor is it a "systemic failure".

It is merely another characteristic that the grid operator incorporates when building the energy mix.

That is just one obvious example of how this screech you've plagiarized from Dr. Greg is complete hogwash.

That applies to the wind information also. While the information about the physical properties of wind energy is correct, the application of that to the way electricity from wind is integrated into a grid is little more than taking a long walk off of your too short pier of rationality.

Give the Doc our regards.

[madokie]

50. Just not going to give up are you

The better part of being a man is accepting fault.
What we need to do is spend the money and time on research and development and building out with what we know that works already. No more wasted money and time on nukes!

[PamW]

62. You've got "what works" backwards....

What we need to do is spend the money and time on research and development and building out with what we know that works already. No more wasted money and time on nukes!
==============================

You've got "what works" backwards. At the present time, nuclear power is safely and
reliably providing about 20% of our current electric energy demand. It works.

On the other hand, wind and solar are down near 1%. Because of their intermittent
nature, some solution has to be found to address the fact that, unlike nuclear and
fossil, wind and solar do not work 24/7.

The renewable energy industry hasn't even begun to deal with the scale-up of these
renewable from a trivial percentage to something significant where they need to take
into account the variable nature of renewable energy. Currently, reliable fossil and
nuclear are back-stopping the variable renewable sources.

Contrary to your ill-founded claim above, renewable solar and wind have never
shouldered a significant fraction of the electrical energy demand, yet you want to
say "they work".

Nuclear power in the USA has reliably shouldered about 20% of the demand. It has done
that safely. The USA has had a single commercial nuclear power accident of any significance,
Three Mile Island, in which nobody was either killed or injured. That accident was over
3 decades ago. For those 3 decades, the nuclear safety record has been perfect.

The airline industry doesn't even have a record that good. Can the airline industry say,
"We've only had one crash, 30 years ago, and nobody was killed or injured". Yet nobody is
calling for a ban on air travel.

Why don't we do what our scientists think is best? So many have been calling the
Republicans dumb for not following what the scientists say. It's time for Democrats
to stop being hypocrites and believe in what the scientists tell us.

PamW

[PamW]

61. The IFR - Integral Fast Reactor is another option

In addition to LFTR, the IFR should also be considered an option:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html

As Dr Till states, the IFR has already been demonstrated by Argonne National Lab
to be inherently safe. The NRC isn't going to need a long time to license
an IFR, since Argonne National Lab has already done the bulk of the work.

Here's a link to an e-mail discussion on the IFR vs. the LFTR.
Professor Per Peterson is the chairman of the Nuclear Engineering Department
at University of California - Berkeley:

http://www.thesciencecouncil.com/index.php/george-stanford/195-the-ifr-vs-the-lftr-an-exchange-of-emails

So many are concerned by the mere existence of plutonium. The IFR can be configured as
an "actinide burner". It can transmute actinides like plutonium into very short-lived
daughter isotopes.

PamW

[txlibdem]

63. I like the IFR for its ability to burn up the spent fuel currently being stored

That would be a perfect use of an IFR in my view, move it from place to place burning up the long-lived isotopes and leaving only short-lived residual waste. Meanwhile it is generating electrical power. Win, win.

Then when the waste is all used up and the Generation IV or Thorium cycle power plant is built on that site the old-style reactors will be safely shut down, their remaining fuel burned up by the IFR and then the IFR is packed up and moved on to the next oldest reactor to start all over again.

IFRs could be pivotal in replacing all of our old reactors and safely destroying all the stored spent fuel rods and other waste.