a lot of nuclear electricity and a lot of eco-electricity don't fit together as economic concepts

[kristopher]

“...a lot of nuclear electricity and a lot of eco-electricity don't fit together as economic concepts"

When Germany decided to continue down the path of shutting down their nuclear fleet instead of extending its life as the right-leaning Merkel government had attempted to do, we heard much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the nuclear fan club. One of the most oft heard refrains was how it was counterproductive to global efforts against carbon emissions.

That I disagree is no secret as I've often referred to the interchangable nature of nuclear and coal, and how a fundamental obstacle against shutting down coal is the perpetuation of the system of centralized thermal generation by false promises that nuclear will save us. These promises not only routinely misrepresent bassic central facts like GHG abatement efficacy, but they ignore the heavy external baggage and myriad unsolved problems related to cost, waste, proliferation and safety that plague the industry; thereby only serving to aid in retaining the centralized coal/nuclear system, not actually solving the climate crisis.

This 2010 paper was written to examine the consequences of Merkel's stated intention to change long standing policy and extend the life of the nation's nuclear fleet well beyond the designated shut down date of 2022. The policy had not yet been finalized at the time of publication. It obviously predates the Fukushima meltdowns and the consequnt reversal of Merkel's first reversal of nuclear policy. "Systems for Change: Nuclear Power vs. Energy Efficiency & Renewables?" is by Antony Froggatt with Mycle Schneider collaborating.

This paper makes the point that far from hindering our response to carbon emissions, an "all of the above" energy policy fails to provide a planning clarity that is essential to effecting a rapid buildout of a sustainable, renewable global energy infrastructure. The fundamental economic incompatibility of nuclear and renewable systems is (like so many other inconvenient truths) something the nuclear industry routinely tries to sweep under the rug.

...Many systemic issues have not been thoroughly investigated yet when it comes to compatibility or incompatibility of the centralized nuclear approach versus the decentralized efficiency+renewables strategy. What are the consequences for grid development or how do choices on grid characteristics influence power-generation investment strategies? To what extent is the unit size co-responsible for structural overcapacities and thus a lack of incentives for efficiency? How do government grants/ subsidies stimulate long-term decision-making? Will large renewable power plants reproduce the same system effects as large coal/nuclear plants?

The present report presents the basic situation and raises questions that urgently need to be addressed. Successful energy policy will have to address the energy service needs of people in a much more efficient way than has been done in the past, as increased competition for ultimately finite fossil fuel leads to higher energy prices for all. For too long, energy policies have aimed at “supply security” of oil, gas and kilowatt-hours, rather than general access to affordable, reliable and sustainable services like cooked food, heat and cold; light ; communication; mobility; and motor torque...

You can download it with this link: http://boell.eu/downloads/Froggatt_Schneider_Systems_for_Change.pdf

[freshwest]

1. It's more about social power than generating electricity. It defunds the MIC and the banks. Thanks.

[kristopher]

2. Yes, there is that, but the paper is more about the systemic mechanism of centralized generation

So it's a bit more complicated than just money to banks and the MIC. I hope you have the time to look over the report closely it is well worth the effort. It is specific to Germany, but the general issues are universal and they are very important to making an informed decision about our energy choices.

[freshwest]

3. I know it is, just being quick there. Thanks for the pdf.

[AtheistCrusader]

4. How do you feel about centralized thermal generation such as commercial concentrating solar and geot

hermal?

I guess it would be better called thermal capture, rather than generation, but on the 'interchangeable' aspect of nuclear thermal power generation, against coal, the same principles apply. Torresol's 24h generation solar plant is indistinguishable from a 20mw coal plant, grid interaction-wise.

Please note I am neither attacking concentrating solar (a better use of space and heat storage, than PV), nor am I bolstering nuclear power. I simply believe you have latched onto a flawed or inconsistent comparison here.

[kristopher]

5. How many 20MW coal plants are out there?

That is about 580MW shy of the lower end of a range extending from 600MW to several gigawatts.

Instead of the same empty "I don't believe it" type remarks where you compare apples and oranges, why not read one of the several references I've provided you and make a comment with some actual thought behind it.

[AtheistCrusader]

6. Simply a matter of current scale.

You did not address my point, you simply attacked me (actual thought, bla blah). We WILL see 600mw and larger concentrating solar plants in the future.

Geysers Geothermal plant in California produces over 725mw, with comparable uptime (almost precisely comparable) to worldwide nuclear power average uptime.

So, do you have the same criticism for Geysers (an operational plant), as you do for nuclear power, being 'interchangeable with coal'?

Or is this a completely empty argument, that pales in comparison to a better argument on the risks of nuclear power, for fuel production, actual use, and fuel disposal? Or the costs of nuclear power, from planning, licensing, construction, maintenence, and end of life?

There's literally a dozen better arguments you could be making, rather than one that can be recycled and used BY RENEWABLE FOES to shit on concentrating solar, geotherm, and others, bolstering status quo (coal).

[kristopher]

7. When you take the time to read the OP and respond to the content...

...we can talk. The case is clearly made there and I have no interest in playing your half-assed diversionary games when the topic is already well documented and posted.

[AtheistCrusader]

8. Not going to play your game.

Yes I read it. Yes I put 'actual thought' into my response.

Your premise could be used to attack Geysers and other renewable, CENTRALIZED power generation points for clean and renewable energy.

Why? Why take that route? It's petty-ante shit, compared to all the other reasons nuclear and coal are risky/bad bets, long term.

[kristopher]

9. The game is saying "premise" when it is a conclusion of analysis of economic realities.

That analysis is the core of the paper. You are trying to avoid that at all costs and reduce the issue to an oversimplification that you can try to use to support nuclear power - AGAIN.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. Why are you attacking renewable power?

That subject line is a more accurate statement, than your accusation that I am supporting nuclear power.

I quite clearly specified that I am NOT supporting Nuclear power, TWICE, and suggested better vulnerabilities specific to nuclear power be exploited.

Hydro is also a great example of centralized power, even if not thermal. Centralized power, by itself, is not a bad thing. Period.


I will re-review your link and highlight weaknesses in it's conclusion. No one will use the output you have cited SIMPLY to criticize nuclear power. It will be leveraged against centralized renewables. You should probably stop that.

[kristopher]

11. You are yet again mis-stating what the root of the conflict is.

Your claims that you aren't continuing to work for nuclear power are pretty hollow when you spend all of your time trying to defuse the arguments against it using nothing more than sophistry and your alleged position against it.

You should probably stop that.

[AtheistCrusader]

12. Your synopsis leading into the study, does not directly reflect the study.

It touches on utter rubbish. The only economic incompatibility between nuclear and renewables is the great sucking vortex of costs around nuclear plants, and all levels of the fuel cycle, for state subsidies, and ratepayer dollars.

In all other ways, different centralized clean power sources are just damn fine, as PART of a diverse grid.
I'm only partway through the linked study, but so far, it doesn't directly speak to some of the things you stated in your intro.

[kristopher]

13. And yet you provide no specifics that can be discussed...

You pretend you are engaging in a discussion then you pull something like this and disappear.

At least you are true to form.

[AtheistCrusader]

14. I have never 'dissapeared'.

Nor have I this time. I'll get back to you when I have time to read the whole thing in depth.

[kristopher]

15. You apparently read enough to draw some sweeping conclusions

But not enough to actually discuss the basis of those conclusions.

That makes something less than perfect sense, so you'll forgive me for thinking poorly of your intent.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. I skimmed through it pretty quickly.

Didn't see all of your assertions. Please have paitence, I will go over it in detail point by point, later tonight or tomorrow morning. Household duties come first. That's the nice thing about forums, they allow for delayed communications, in conversation form.

[AtheistCrusader]

18. As suspected.

Support for your "I've often referred to the interchangable nature of nuclear and coal" does not appear in the article.

It boils down to this:

"Overcapacity kills efficiency incentives.
Centralized, large, power-generation units tend to
lead to structural overcapacities. Overcapacities
leave no room for efficiency.

Flexible complementary capacity needed.
Increasing levels of renewable electricity sources
will need flexible, medium-load complementary
facilities"


Wundebar. Problem is, coal can be scaled up and down much more easily than reactor output. See Chernobyl reactor #4. Given their druthers, nuclear plant operators will keep reactor output flat as a board for as long as fuel conditions allow, whether the electricty goes into the grid, or who cares where. Coal plants DO NOT.

The article you linked is great, and is a devastating attack on Nuclear Power, but basis that attack on real things, like construction cost overruns, subsidies that outweigh clean alternatives by a factor of 40 per KWH of capacity constructed, R&D expenditures many multiples higher than R&D in all clean sectors combined, dangers of the reactor failing, and the mess the entire fuel cycle leaves behind, cost overruns, weapons proliferation, and on and on.


MOREOVER, the article in no way lends credence to base load type power generation in Hydro, Geotherm, Concentrating Solar, or other 'base load' renewables being interchangeable with coal. Even though all can be quickly idled like coal, where Nuclear cannot, and is instead often exported due to it's preferentially static output.

Your claim of nuclear power being interchangeable with coal is simply false, and this article in no way supports it. Again, I suggest you stop repeating it.

[kristopher]

19. Again nothing but your assertions defending nuclear power.

No evidence, no facts, nothing of substance. Coal and nuclear are interchangeable from the view of utilities and criticisms in the paper are just as applicable to large scale coal as they are nuclear. That you don't like the fact that they are two sides of the same centralized coin doesn't change anything.

Perhaps if you learned to express your thoughts better it would help foster real dialog; your post is so disjointed it is almost incoherent.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. Hogwash.

Find me a nuclear plant that gets idled like these coal plants, to say nothing of daily variability, which coal is suited to and nuclear is not:

http://www.power-eng.com/articles/2010/08/firstenergy-idle-coal-plants.html

They get idled for safety concerns. They get idled for maintenence and refueling. They do not get idled to wait for future demand, and bolster energy prices. They are too costly to screw around like that.


The incompatibility between nuclear and renewables has fuck-all to do with coal, and everything to do with the inflexible output (0vercapacity) and costs of nuclear power. Costs which are higher per KWH in all categories, loans, licensing, construction (with overruns), R&D, fuel cycle, and draw-down costs at the end of it's life time. Costs which eat into public and ratepayer dollars that could buy MORE capacity in clean power categories. All things properly cited and highlighted by your linked article.

Nuclear and coal are less interchangeable than geothermal and coal, from an operational standpoint. If you want to talk about power sources that ARE interchangeable with coal from an operational standpoint, we have to talk about things like geotherm and hydro. Which, of course, would be a failed comparison around GHG output.

[kristopher]

21. Are you seriously trying to argue that nuclear and coal are NOT "baseload" generation?

Again, a rant is not a cogent argument and to use your words, your rant has "fuck-all" to do with the similarities of coal and nuclear for the entrenched energy industries.

"Baseload" is an economic artifact of a GRID BUILT AROUND LARGE SCALE CENTRALIZED THERMAL GENERATION.

That economic artifact and the conditions and economic incentives that extend outward from having a GRID BUILT AROUND LARGE SCALE CENTRALIZED THERMAL GENERATION is the point of incompatibility with renewables.

Here is the simple thought process of the utilities:
We can't get rid of coal because we need "baseload".
If we absolutely MUST get rid of coal because of GHG emissions then we can plug in nuclear because we need "baseload".
If we have to shut down nuclear then we have to have coal because we need "baseload"

With a decentralized renewable grid, there is no "baseload" economic niche. It is that economic niche that "crowds out" renewables.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. Then cite something that supports that, because the item you linked does not.

Even though you mentioned it in the lead-in.


Base load power is a great idea, and will never be completely replaced, as some percentage of total power production. Tidal, is base load. Hydro is base load. Concentrating solar with 24h production capability is base load. Geothermal is base load. PV with storage like pumped hydro can be considered base load, to a degree.

All of these power sources (and more) are capable of steady, 24h production and allow us to leverage highly variable power sources like wind to an even greater degree. All are capable of making inroads against coal and even nuclear, if we make a couple changes, before we even talk about a smart grid*.

The presence of coal and nuclear as baseload power does not inhibit renewables. The low cost of coal (which should be taxed/made less cheap to subsidize clean power) and the high subsidy of nuclear power are blocking renewables. NOT the idea or practice of having some amount of your basket of power production be base load capable.

THERE ARE CLEAN FORMS OF POWER IN PRODUCTION RIGHT NOW THAT PROVIDE BASE LOAD CAPACITY.



*Yeah, we should be doing this, but it is not specifically necessary to eliminate coal and even nuclear power entirely.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtheistCrusader]

24. And again you ignore: some renewables ARE BASELOAD.

It's like we aren't even speaking the same language. Washington State is a great example: 72% of our power comes from renewable hydro. CENTRALLY PRODUCED renewable hydro. Kinetic capture or thermal generation is irrelevant for our purposes here, because the TYPE of power only speaks to its environmental impacts, risks, or costs. The grid is agnostic to these issues.

We are taking the LAST COAL PLANT IN THE STATE offline this year, forever. Hanford and some other reactor's days are numbered. And good fucking riddance.

Some states can't use hydro, great. There are OTHER renewables that can and are increasingly providing baseload capacity. The geothermal plant in Cali I cited multiple times upthread is a great example, currently over 700mw of output. Concentrating Solar plants are creeping on up in production as well, largely due to storage mechanisms improving over time, like molten salts, and possible pumped hydro. Even WIND can be nudged into 'baseload' status, with storage like pumped hydro.

All baseload really means is a reliable uptime of continuous power.

It is not the boogeyman. Variable power like direct to grid wind or PV, without storage, can meet base load type power in the middle, as the grid improves.

Re-read the summary in your original link, tell me if I am wrong: the incompatibility between nuclear and renewables is all about cost, and the inflexibility of the reactor output. And when I say cost, I mean in terms of ratepayer and public dollars pissed away at a rate of 40:1 that could have purchased off the shelf renewables, today. Subsidies at every step of the fuel cycle. Loan guarantees. R&D dollars, etc.

The grid is important, conservation and efficiency are important. But baseload power is not the principle problem.

[kristopher]

25. You are wrong.

You are ignoring the information provided and persist in deliberately misconstruing the meaning of "baseload.

I've made my point clearly and your obfuscation is evident to any fair minded reader, so there is no point in going on.

[AtheistCrusader]

26. Have a good night.

If your dismissal had any weight at all, you could point to support for it, in your own linked article.

The summary is there, in the article linked in your OP for all to see.



World English Dictionary

base load
— n
Compare peak load the more or less constant part of the total load on an electrical power-supply system



base load capacity of course, being the ability to meet that constant load at all times.

[kristopher]

27. Up to old tricks, eh?

[AtheistCrusader]

28. Keep it up.

You linked a great article. You led into it with a statement that is not supported by the article. I called you on it.

If you hadn't made that reach on the lead in, my only response to your original post would have been 'Great article, thanks.'.

[kristopher]

29. You called me on nothing.

Your lack of knowledge or deliberate denial of the facts says nothing about anything outside of you.

"...a lot of nuclear electricity and a lot of eco-electricity don't fit together as economic concepts"

[AtheistCrusader]

30. You asked me to provide sources. I did.

I linked an article to the easy idling of coal plants, which you will not find done for price control reasons for nuclear power. This highlights a way in which nuclear and coal are not interchangeable.

This also supports the article YOU linked, which discusses nuclear power's inherent overcapacity.

You have NOT repaid that by citing anything in your linked article that supports the contention that nuclear and coal are interchangeable.

I maintain they are not. I can point to further examples, such as KEEPING nuclear in WA, and getting RID of coal, and other situations.

I highlighted the conclusions in your own linked article, that point to the risks/side effects of the fuel used in Nuclear power, and the direct competition for money (at a higher rate per KWH of installed capacity) being the incompatibility between nuclear and renewables. You have yet to rebut any of this, aside from attacking me/my motives personally.



Do you really think that I can 'shill' for the Nuclear industry, by out of one side of my mouth stating that nuclear and coal are not interchangeable, and out of the other side of my mouth, re-iterating the 40:1 cost differential between installed KWH of nuclear or renewables? How would that work even?

I have repeated, verbatim, over and over, over a dozen disadvantages of nuclear power compared to renewables, and agree with the market incompatiblity between renewables and nuclear power cited in your linked article.

Yet you attack me. Whatever.

[kristopher]

31. At least you've brought some order to the chaotic earlier presentation

You write that "easy idling of coal plants" is not done for nuclear for "price control reasons" and that "this highlights the way that coal and nuclear are not interchangeable."

No, it doesn't. It is a claim you are making that is 1) irrelevant and 2) untrue.

Item 2 first and to be clear about your claim this if from your source,

"The move is designed to reduce operating costs and provide more predictability while maintaining availability for future operations, as needed. From September 2010 through August 2011, the affected units will operate with a minimum three-day notice and in response to customer demand, such as during the summer and winter. Beginning in September 2011, the Bay Shore and Eastlake units will be available as peaking units for approximately 18 months, while the Ashtabula and Lake Shore plants will be temporarily idled.

Germany is doing that or proposing to do that with at least one of the reactors scheduled to be pulled out of service.

Under the new plan, Germany's seven oldest reactors, which are already offline under a nuclear moratorium announced by Chancellor Angela Merkel in mid-March after the Fukushima disaster, will not resume operation. The Krümmel nuclear plant in the state of Schleswig-Holstein, which has been offline following an accident in 2009, will also be permanently shut down.

One plant, possibly Philippsburg I in the state of Baden-Württemberg or Biblis B in Hesse, will, however, be kept in "standby" mode as a reserve should extra energy be needed. It would be used to produce energy if there appeared to be a risk of power shortages, for example on cold, gray winter days when there is little solar energy available and when neighboring countries have little energy available for export, due to their own needs.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,765594,00.html

Your unsupported assertion is false.

Item 1 is more important to the issue however, because it is the point you have repeatedly ignored to insert your straw man argument just shown to be false.

The utilities have few choices to retain their position as a bottleneck through which all consumer electricity flows - it is either oil, coal, nuclear or natural gas.

The fossil fuels are being phased out and that leaves nuclear. The renewable options that provide dispatchable power are localized by geographic availability and cannot be looked to as widely available. They are therefore useful, but not a replacement for coal or nuclear. The advantage they do offer is the ability to ramp up and down rapidly without the significant efficiency penalty attached to the thermal systems.

Then you have the issue of size. The economics of both coal and nuclear propel the construction of very large units with the consequences to turbine shaft design I spoke of earlier. Note the three day notice requred to bring the coal plants on line.

From the point of view of the people who make the rules and the money on power generation, coal and nuclear are interchangeable. To paraphrease what was said to introduce the OP, "A lot of large thermal electricity and a lot of eco-electricity don't fit together as economic concepts".

[AtheistCrusader]

32. Untrue?

I post an article wherein a UTILITY voluntarily idled a coal plant, hoping to fill capacity later with it, after prices rise (which sounds 4th and inches from price fixing to me, lacking only an accomplice).

You link an article wherein a utility was ordered by the state to discontinue, but standby.

Hardly equal. I looked high and low, I found no instances of nuclear power plants being voluntarily idled by utilities over these sorts of market conditions. All were either safety related shutdowns, or maintenence/fuel related shutdowns.

Moreover, I do not know what 'standby' means to that reactor. "The leader of the Social Democrats, Sigmar Gabriel, called the plans "dubious." He said he did not know of any nuclear plant that could be operated in a standby mode. "These are ideas that have little to do with the technological reality," he said. " It appears I am not alone. Can it be fired up to production in 3 days? I doubt it, but am interested in further information. Again, I point to your own article defining nuclear power as inflexible overcapacity.


As an aside, Germany's draw-down of nuclear power is quite a bit more orderly than pro-nuclear sources have indicated. Well done. I will not miss these German reactors, if coal continues it's decline, while the reactors are replaced with renewables.

"The utilities have few choices to retain their position as a bottleneck through which all consumer electricity flows - it is either oil, coal, nuclear or natural gas."

I disagree. In fact, even commercial wind lends itself to this. From electrical co-ops like my district, up to regional/county utilities, commercial wind also bottlenecks through a central utility. A smart grid is irrelevant to this point.


I find myself in better agreement with your re-phrasing of the earlier statement:
"From the point of view of the people who make the rules and the money on power generation, coal and nuclear are interchangeable." Though I would still argue that coal output is more flexible than nuclear, presenting more opportunity for everything from market manipulation, to begging for more subsidy for nuclear.


"A lot of large thermal electricity and a lot of eco-electricity don't fit together as economic concepts".
I agree, but I think we differ somewhat on what value constitutes 'a lot'.

[kristopher]

33. What does the idling issue have to do with anything?

It doesn't. As I said it is irrelevant to the discussion about the conflict between centralized generation and distributed generation.

I'm starting to think you simply don't understand the interplay of the characteristics of the various generating options since you routinely try to force characteristics of one type of generation inappropriately onto another. For example, your use of wind as an example is not valid. When it is all said and done, there will be a role for utilities in transmission and distribution, but when a grid is designed around the concept of locating generation near the end user and scaling it to the needs of the end user, the role of the utility is dramatically reduced. Just because "wind" is supplying bulk electricity to the grid, that doesn't mean it is the same as other bulk providers like coal and nuclear or hydro.

Think of it this way: When China finally got around to doing a comprehensive national renewable resource assessment they immediately took a definitive step to change the structure of their developing grid. They made the energy from renewable energy sources first in line to be purchased by utilities. The reason they did that was to orient the grid around the characteristics of the renewable sources, forcing the large scale thermal sources to find their economic niche in the market left available by the generating structure that developed once all renewables were making their contributions.

Before the change they had, as we do, prioritized the purchase of large scale thermal; leaving renewables to find an economic niche in the gaps left by nuclear and coal. They made that change for a very specific reason - the one I'm trying to help you see.

I think I've overestimated your understanding of the way grids are put together and the depth of your knowledge regarding characteristics of the different components of grids. In my case, I've studied it so much that it is, literally, a dynamic picture in my mind. If lack of depth is the issue obstructing your vision I can't help you any more than I have, for on your part, you aren't actually trying to learn. You are more interested in finding any narrow point that you think sounds similar and then proceeding as if your reclassification actually has a broader meaning. Nuclear isn't baseload, wind is the same as centralized thermal - those are just examples of how you are fundamentally unable (or unwilling) to hold a coherent picture of the system's elements and their interrelationship in your mind.

[SpoonFed]

17. *yawn* n/t