BP Solar to start building world's largest solar power plant in Portugal

[jpak]

http://news.money.msn.co.uk/article.aspx?as=article&f=afx_uk_company_news&t=3581&id=1248235&d=20050913&do=http://news.money.msn.co.uk&i=http://news.money.msn.co.uk/mediaexportlive&ks=0&mc=5&ml=mh&lc=en&ae=windows-

LISBON (AFX) - BP PLC unit BP Solar will begin building the world's biggest solar energy power station in Portugal next year, Portuguese officials said.

"The construction of the station will begin in 2006, it is irreversible," Moura mayor Jose Maria Pos-de-Mina was quoted as saying by Lusa news agency.

The plant is expected to be completed in 2009 and will have a total cost of 250 mln eur.

<snip>

The plant will have 350,000 solar panels spread over 114 hectares near the southern town of Moura and will be able to produce 62 megawatts, more than six times the largest existing solar power station in Germany.

<not much more...>

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Well if that doesn't prove that peak oil is upon us, I don't know what

it will take to wake the naysayers up.

------------------------------------------------------
URGENT yet easy! Hold the government accountable for Katrina's aftermath
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4736062

Save the gulf, then save the nation! http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/electionreform.htm

[jpak]

4. This "world record" will not last long...

Siemens is building a 116 MW PV facility in Portugal...

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iberian.html

<snip>

Spain was the world's second-largest producer of wind power in 2004, behind Germany, with the energy source meeting 6 percent of Spain's total electricity demand. Spain has some 8,300 MW of installed wind capacity, with an additional 57,000 MW in various stages of planning, development, and regulatory approval. Endesa plans to invest over $2 billion on renewable generating capacity in Spain in the next four years, adding to the wind farms already operated by the company in Portugal and Italy.

In order to attract investment in renewables projects, the Portuguese government established a new tariff regime, which awards higher rates per kilowatthour depending on technology and monthly usage. Iberdrola is developing a 75-MW wind farm and is negotiating permits to install another 174 MW at the site. In May 2004, Iberdrola also acquired an 18-MW wind farm in Catefica from Spain’s Gamesa. In June 2004, Portugal's Ministry of Economy provided a reported $51.4 million grant to fund 20 wind park projects, with a combined installed capacity of 244.5 MW. Portugal has also invested into solar power, taking advantage of natural conditions in the country. Construction began in 2004 by BP Solar on a 64-MW solar power plant in Moura, majority owned by the municipal government; BP Solar expects to complete the project by 2009. In 2005, a consortium led by Siemens announced that it would build a solar plant on the site of an old pyrite mine near Beja; with an installed capacity of 116-MW, the facility would be the largest solar power plant in the world. Portugal has also been on the forefront of wave generation. Portugese energy group Enersis planned to install the world's first commercial wave power generators off the coast of Povoa de Varzim by the end of 2006.

<snip>

:)

[SteppingRazor]

2. Yay!

It may not be much, but it's always good to see the big oil companies nodding in the direction of alternative energies. I'll take what I can get.

[NNadir]

3. 62 Mega"watts" * 0.2 capacity loading = 12.4 real megawatts.

250 million euros for 12.4 real watts, $20 Euros/watt.

The cost for a putative 1000 megawatt plant (not that anyone will be stupid enough to ever build such a thing) that would be equivalent to two small coal plants = $20 billion Euros or about 1/2 the gross national product of the entire nation of Bangladesh.

What a victory for humankind!

Toys for rich boys.

Well, maybe it will do better than 20% in capacity loading, since global climate change is transforming Portugal into a desert.

[jpak]

5. Boo frickin' hoo

:rofl:

[NNadir]

6. Laughing now?

Gee and this a week after crying and crying and crying about oil from the fossil fuel apologists.

"Oh my God! Oh my God! The Oil Platforms! The Oil Platforms! Oil Prices in Maine! Shit! What are we going to do?!?!"

Of course, if I didn't understand anything about numbers, I'd laugh like an idiot when exposed to them too.

We don't know of course, who exactly is being scammed by this boondoggle, but we know that something is rotten in Denmark, Denmark being a country that buys electricity from nuclear France whenever the wind isn't blowing.

Now if I spent my days lying drunk under the table to avoid stray cosmic rays, I wouldn't be able to get a sense of the electrical generating demand of Portugal was. But I'm not a giggling drunk, and I can easily find the figure: 30,889 gigawatt-hours, or or 1.1 X 10^17 J in 1995.

http://externe.jrc.es/Portugal+Aggregation.htm

So what percentage of Portugal's power will be provided by magical solar power at a cost of $250 million euros?

Well the solar plant is rated in magic solar "watts" at 62 megawatts. So even if through prayer the members of the The Chanting and Promising Squad were able to add to their list the promise that they can stop the sun at noon over Portugal (and why shouldn't they - they can promise endlessly with almost no delivery), they would produce 62 megawatts X 1,000,000 X 31,557,600 = about 2 X 10^15 J.

So even the world's largest solar plant will not provide 2% of Portugal's power demand under the already ridiculous condition that the magical members of the Greenpeace drinking club could stop the sun in place and blow away all clouds.

Actually the real number, generously assuming a 30% capacity loading in the new Portugese desert is about 0.5% of Portugese power. An that's 0.5% of a country whose total electrical average demand is less than 4000 megawatts.

That's pathetic after 40 years of blabbing about what solar "will" do.

We'll just add Portugal to the list of other countries that will spend a great deal of money on the scam for no real result.

[jpak]

7. Is there some reason why Portugal is investing

in PV farms, wind farms, wave energy farms and upgrading existing hydroelectric plants????

and not investing in nuclear power????

a country that has no coal, no oil, no uranium and no natural gas reserves?????

are they STUPID????

please enlighten us...

:beer:

[NickB79]

8. Because they can buy nuclear-generated electricity from France

On cloudy days when the PV grid is at a minimum, you buy electricity from France's nuclear-powered energy grid right next door, just like the rest of continental Europe does.

It's actually pretty smart from a legislator's point of view. Politicians know that building a reactor could be political suicide from the outcry caused by anti-nuclear activists in the next election, so they build a PV plant that pleases the green party members despite the fact it provides only a fraction of the power a nuclear plant could. They then buy nuclear-generated electricity from France to make up the difference and sidestep the entire issue, thus ensuring their future political careers. After all, when was the last time you've heard of a European environmental group calling for the boycott on the purchase of French electricity?

[jpak]

10. Bullshit

In 2003, Portugal consumed 44.3 Bkwh and generated 44.0 Bkwh of electricity - the remainder they purchased from Spain - not France.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iberian.html

With a future mix of PV, wind, wave and hydro, the Portuguese will have a robust and diverse base of renewable generation capacity that will be able to buffer mismatches between production and supply.

More power to them...

[NickB79]

13. You should read your link more carefully

From your link:

"The largest share of Spain's electricity generation came from conventional thermal plants, followed by hydroelectricity."

Just to be clear, are you saying it's better to use electricity derived from Spanish coal, vs. electricity derived from French nuclear plants?

"Both Spain's electricity generation and consumption have grown considerably in recent years, nearly double the growth rate experienced in Western Europe as a whole. The rising electricity consumption has strained Spain's electricity infrastructure, with several major blackouts attributed to supply shortages or transmission grid malfunctions."

It doesn't look like Spain can keep exporting electricity for much longer at their increasing rate of consumption. This means Portugal may not be able to rely on them to make up the difference in lack of electricity for long.

And then there is also this:

"In 2003, Spain consumed 822 Bcf of natural gas. Natural gas consumption in the country has risen dramatically since the 1980s, and Spain has one of the fastest-growing natural gas markets in the world. Between 1993 and 2003, Spain's natural gas consumption grew by 266 percent, driven mostly by the large-scale introduction of gas-fired power plants. The Portuguese natural gas sector has also grown considerably over the past few years. Consumption was nearly non-existent prior to 1997, but in 2003, consumption of natural gas reached 105 Bcf. The increase in natural gas consumption can be attributed to the construction of import infrastructure, namely the Sines liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal and Maghreb-Europe pipeline (see below), which connects the Iberian Peninsula to Algerian natural gas sources."

As has been pointed out here and on other forums on DU, natural gas prices are skyrocketting as worldwide supplies dwindle. It appears that Peak Natural Gas will hit before or at the same time as Peak Oil. When those gas-fired electrical plants have to burn more expensive, more difficult-to-find natural gas, what will step in to fill that gap? A 12.4 MW power station does not seem to be much more than a drop in the bucket for what they may need to replace in the next decade or two.

[jpak]

15. The OP is about Portugal - not Spain

Portugal doesn't import nucular electricity from France.

They import <0.7% of their annual electrical consumption from Spain - big whoop.

Nice try though!!!!..

[NickB79]

16. I realize that

I stated that Portugal would buy extra electricity from French nuclear plants. You said that was bullshit because Portugal buys extra electricity from Spain, which doesn't have nuclear reactors. My last post was to point out that buying electricity from Spain is a non-sustainable position for Portugal to be in.

"They import <0.7% of their annual electrical consumption from Spain - big whoop."

So, it's not a big deal they import a portion of their electricity from Spain, even though previously it was important enough for you to say bullshit and post a link saying how they buy extra energy from non-nuclear Spain?

[hunter]

28. Spain imports more electricity from France than it exports to Portugal.

Of course it's easy to game the numbers of electricity grids, as Enron and others did to the great loss of people in California.

Spain does have nuclear power plants, and about 15% of their electricity is nuclear. Politically they are in the same position as other European nations, still claiming they will phase out nuclear power at some indefinite time in the future, "...tomorrow, tomorrow, I love you tomorrow, you're always a day away!"

[Oerdin]

25. I see things have not changed.

As I recall JPAK was the fellow running around claiming that the world's supply of nuclear material was going to be exhausted in 10 years and so claimed nuclear wasn't worth looking at. JPAK, do you still think elements which have half lives of millions of years are suddenly going to disappear in 10 years? :lol:

My friend, I am afraid your anti-nuclear rants have only succeeded in convincing me that the American public school system does an even worse job with science then I ever thought possible.

[jpak]

26. I was correct and you deliberately misquoted what I said

I never said the world would run out in 10 years.

That is a fucking lie.

Sorry, but that's what it is...

I stated what the World Nuclear Association stated - that there will be a 11% shortfall in uranium supply by 2013....

Here's the article I quoted....

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_us&refer=&sid=aGJLN8TbZ8qI

<snip>

Commercial stockpiles of the fuel dropped 50 percent between 1985 and 2003 because mine output couldn't keep up with demand, according to a September report by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Mine expansions may not meet demand, boosting prices for uranium at miners such as Cameco Corp., the world's biggest, and Energy Resources of Australia Ltd.

<snip>


``Inventories are falling and there has been little response to that in the way of more mine supply. Our contract prices have risen to reflect the spot price rises.''

<snip>

``We've got customers who are highly-concerned about the supply chain of uranium,'' said WMC's Brook, who's also in charge of the company's uranium marketing. ``I can assure you the pricing that they have in mind is not going backward. Our expansion and one planned by Cameco won't fill the gap'' between supply and demand, he said.

<snip>

World demand will outpace supply by 11 percent in the decade ending in 2013 as inventories decline, the World Nuclear Association estimates.

<end snip>

One has to be "just a little silly" to take that to mean "uranium will run out in 10 years"...

:rofl:

[NickB79]

9. It's funny to pay 20 Euros/watt for electricity?

That's ~$24.50/watt in US dollars.

$24/watt of electricity?!?!?! I can't even begin to imagine what my electricity bill would be if I had to pay that much here. Are all Portugese walking around with $100 bills hanging out of their pockets? Even if this plant runs for 50 years without issue, that is still an incredibly high price per watt compared to other means of energy production.

Even with draconian conservation measures, those kinds of prices would put all but the richest of Americans into poverty. Boo frickin hoo indeed.

[jpak]

11. Ummm

250 million euro for 62 MW of peak capacity comes to ~4 euro per peak watt - not $24/watt.

Considering that they will NO fuel costs and minimal O&M costs, it's a good deal for Portugal...

[NickB79]

12. Key words: peak capacity

As NNadir pointed out, the overall capacity is only 12.4 MW, not 62 MW.

My car may be able to do up to 45 mpg, but that doesn't mean that's the true gas mileage in real-world conditions. Similarly, 62 MW is not true performance in real-world conditions, such as rain, clouds, or nighttime.

[jpak]

14. Gee, someone better tell the Portuguese about that

:rofl:

...and that "calculation" is bogus...

That facility will operate at ~62 MW - not ~12 MW - for several hours around local solar noon nearly every day - and even longer if the modules are mounted on trackers.

Was that bogus calculation based on empirical solar insolaion data (peak sun hours per day, total insolation per day, annual cumulative insolation, etc.) for the plant site?????

nope

Does anyone expect PV modules to produce electricity at night???

nope - but some people apparently do...

That bogus "calculation" was pulled out of someone's Larouchian ass.

If people want to believe these Fairy Tales - fine - but some of us know better...

[NickB79]

17. Once again: "for several hours around local solar noon"

62 MW at it's peak operating period does not translate into an average output of 62 MW. In other words, this plant can't replace a dirty 62 MW coal-fired plant watt for watt, can it?

I state this simply because I find it deceptive for the average reader going over this and similar news reports. Most readers would come to the erroneous conclusion that this solar plant can replace 62 MW of power derived from another source, such as a fossil-fuel plant. It has nothing to do with the realization that solar doesn't work at night. Most people know that much about solar power. When I first started reading about power generation from solar plants, I assumed that the wattage listed was the average, not the peak possible. I assumed the plants were generating enough electricity during the day that the loss of it during night averaged out to the listed wattage. Other people I spoke with in collge believed the same thing. Even college-educated students were making this common mistake; what conclusion do you think the average American would draw?

I have no objections to the use of solar power; I support any and all alternatives to fossil fuels, be they solar, wind, hydroelectric, nuclear, wave power, etc. However, I just want a bit more accuracy in reports on the subject of alternative energy, and I feel the methods used by solar power proponents are not entirely forthcoming for the average American to fully understand. And I don't think it is in the best long-term interests of solar proponents to not be perfectly clear on the electrical potential of solar, even if it is less than one would like to hear.

[BeFree]

18. Yeah clarity would be nice

So lets look at a 62 mw nuke or coal plant. Said plant CAN produce 62 mw. Except when its undergoing maintenance. Sometimes such plants are down for months at a time. That means 0 mw being produced while costs for the plant keep piling up. These facts are one reason private investors have shied away from investing in nukes. So, to be clear, a nuke plant may be rated at 62 mw but in reality it may be closer to annual production of 10 mw. And let's not forget the valleys of demand when all that excess electricity created by a rated 62 mw plant is wasted.

Solar applications produce power when it is needed the most: When people are awake. It's a damn good fit. Too, lets be clear, solar panels can be rotated from east to west to receive the sun's rays from sun-up to sun-down, so the idea that only at noon are they working is a fabrication.

Peak demands come during the day, and solar, done right, will reduce the peak demands on other generators and create an environment where other generating plants can be run at a more economical pace, reducing wasted excess electricity, therefore creating less pollution.

[NickB79]

20. What coal or nuclear plant is down 8 hrs a day, every day of the year?

No matter how much you rotate your panels or site your PV plant, you lose at least 1/3 of a 24-hr day to nightfall.

Can you list a running commercial nuclear plant that is only producing 1/6 of it's rated megawattage? From everything I've read, nuclear plants have been producing close to 100% of their rated outputs.

What are the "other generating plants" you propose to run at night to create less pollution?

[BeFree]

21. Clearly

Nuke plants are producing power. And waste.

When a nuke plant goes down, it takes forever to get it restarted, while the sun will shine each and every day.

Interesting too, is the fact that any generator is usually run at max whether the product is needed it not. So, there's a lot of waste.


"What are the "other generating plants" you propose to run at night to create less pollution?

That wasn't my assertion. What I said, and you did not understand, was that other generators can be run closer to the needed level all day with a backup of solar during the day which fills in the peak demands helping the other generators to reduce fuel use and thus, pollution.

Solar has a niche in the grid. A niche which should be promoted and expanded upon, if only they would allow it.

[jpak]

19. Lame and disingenuous

There are >250,000 PV equipped homes in the US - not counting weekend cabins, businesses, etc.

Were these homeowners "deceived" when they purchased their PV systems???

Did they REALLY expect that the 1 kW or 2 kW or 4 kW system (or 100-1000 kW systems in the case of commercial arrays) they purchased would produce the same amount of electricity as a comparably-sized gas generator????

nope

...well Gee - what DID they do????

They did their calculations.

First they estimated their electrical needs by summing the demand from all the appliances and lighting in their home (kWh per unit time).

Then they used empirical solar insolation data to estimate the number of hours of peak sun each day, month and year for their locale.

Then they determined the quantity of PV modules required to meet their estimated electrical demands based on the insolation data (kWh per unit time).

To do this the used the rated full-sun output from each module (i.e., the name plate peak capacity).

What is so fucking mysterious about this???

Is it a Greenpeace Twit Conspiracy????

You can pick up a copy of Home Power magazine and the same process is repeated in article after article written by solar home owners.

The Portuguese have a very good idea how much power (MWh per year, etc.) they expect to yield from their PV arrays.

...and to take the "mystery" out of power output from renewable power systems - most news reports use the "number of homes" metric to report their electrical output.

...i.e., "this (wind farm or PV array) will supply the electrical needs of X-thousand homes".

There is no deception here - and appeals to ignorance are just plain lame...

[phantom power]

22. Since you agree with the difference between peak and "effective" power...

would you also agree that if (1) PV eventually costs $1/watt (a goal which has not yet been achieved) and (2) The effective power ratio for PV is 20%, and (3) we wish to replace, say, a gigawatt coal fired plant, then we would in fact have to pay $5 billion dollars for the PV panels, plus the cost of the facility for storing energy for the hours and/or days when the PV is not producing power?

[jpak]

23. No I don't agree

The 20% effective power ratio is bogus - how many kWh or MWh a PV system produces depends on a lot of variables - local climate, latitude and season, tracking or fixed arrays, etc.

Does PV need storage or nighttime back-up??? Of course it does. But not until total intermittent renewable generating capacity exceeds 20-30% of the total grid generating capacity.

Once that milestone is reached, back-up can be provided incrementally by small scale sustainable biomass (Maine for example generates >20% of its power from waste-wood-fired generators)...

or biogas (from landfill, livestock farms or sewage treatment plants)...

or small scale hydroelectricity (again, Maine produces >20% of its power from low-head hydro)...

or hydrogen fuel cells (like they do on the Norwegian island of Utsira)...

http://www.hydro.com/en/press_room/features/utsira_lighthouse.html

or trash-to-energy plants (again, Maine produces ~10% of it electricity from refuse) .

Wind farm power output often compliments PV output (again in Maine, highest mean wind speeds and duration are in the winter months when PV output would be at their seasonal minimum).

Some of these things exist today, some will have to be built in the future and some of it is a matter of system integration. The bottom line is that the need and cost and scale of storage systems or backup generating capacity for renewable power systems are not a known quantities and are going to vary depending on location and grid generating mix.

Energy efficiency programs and time-of-demand management could reduce the need to replace fossil-fired generating capacity on a one-to-one basis and reduce the need for back-up generating capacity for renewable energy systems.

Some technologies - like solar domestic hot water systems, which posess their own low-cost heat storage systems - could eliminate substantial electrical power or natural gas demands altogether.

so no, I don't agree at all...

[Oerdin]

24. 62megawatts peak is what on average?

OK so this 250 million euro plant ($305,349,000) produces a tiny 62 megawatts at peak capacity. What is it's average out put in one day (a full 24 hour period) so we can compare the capacity utilization with other forms of power. The fact that it takes 114 hectares to generate this paltry sum shows just how crap solar power really is for electricity production.

Solar is good for things like heating water for swimming pools or even replacing gas powered water heaters in homes and it has nitch applications for remote areas not hooked up to the power gride but for mass market applications it is a rich man's toy which just won't meet our energy needs. Nuclear, hydro, geothermal, and wind are the way to go for nongreen house gas producing power. Unfortunately, hydro, geothermal, and wind depend upon there being certain geographic or geologic features which aren't found in very many places. That means for most of us nuclear power is the only real option we have for electricity which doesn't cause global warming.

[NNadir]

27. Update: Portugal failing to meet Kyoto goals. Country being destroyed.

I thought it would be telling to add this factoid to this wonderful news about another "world's largest" solar plant.

I saw this linked in another thread, where it died:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x42729

Now to link within the link: http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32172

LISBON, Feb 15 (IPS) - There is little good news on the environmental front in Portugal, which has been afflicted by severe drought and forest fires for nearly three years, and is making poor progress towards climate change goals.

Between 2003 and 2005, a total of 900,000 hectares of forests burned down in Portugal...

...In Portugal, there seems to be no solution in sight for failure to comply with the treaty. The latest assessment carried out under the National Plan for Climate Change (PNAC) indicated earlier this month that in the most optimistic scenario, Portugal's emissions in 2010 will be nine percent higher than the permitted level...


...Fernándes said the "big culprits" are the transportation industry, whose emissions will be 105 percent higher in 2010 than in 1990, and the residential and tertiary sectors, major consumers of fossil fuels whose emissions will be 86 percent higher in 2010 than in 1990. By comparison, emissions by the construction industry and the industrial sector overall will be 40 percent higher...

Even with yet another "world's largest" solar plant now to be constructed, Portugal's contribution to global climate change will be 9% higher than permitted under Kyoto.

This is another data point on how very problematic it is to wave one's hands and claim that the fantasies of the 1970's have anything to do with the reality of the present.

They are still fantasies.

[jpak]

29. Update - Portugal still has no uranium reserves

and would have to import foreign reactor technology and fuel.

Not an option...

Furthermore, transportation (cars & trucks) and residential energy use - not fossil fueled power plants - are to blame for Portugal's "Kyoto Failure".

The price of oil and gas - and not stupid nucular power - will take care of that....

[NNadir]

30. Update: Magical thinking is still dangerous. Some data on Portugal.

This thread, as I understand it, is to celebrate the "world's largest solar plant," which according to the title article, is in Portugal.

I assume that the desired inference was that the world's largest solar plant would represent some progress on global climate change.

Now we read that Portugal's government cannot even imagine meeting its Kyoto commitments. This, by the way, comes many months after the announcement of the "world's largest solar plant."

Now, I am sure that the government of Portugal is aware that they have the world's largest solar plant being built, meaning that, since they are announcing the inability to meet their Kyoto targets, they know that solar capacity is insufficient to address the international climate crisis. I am used to hearing tortured logic, but the coupling of these statements is unavoidable.

QED.

Let's look at Portugal's carbon dioxide/energy picture in detail.

In 2003 Portugal emitted 62.15 million tons of carbon dioxide. The 1990 level (the Kyoto target) is 44.06 million tons. Thus Portugal as committed to a reduction in carbon dioxide of 18.09 million tons.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls

We also see that in 2003 Portugal consumed 5.89 million tons of coal, the primary use for coal worldwide being to produce constant base load electricity.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table14.xls

In general, coal is about 10% ash (which is often toxic) and therefore the amount of carbon in this coal can be assumed to be 5.9 million tons * 0.9 = 5.3 million tons. The atomic weight of carbon is 12 and the molecular weight of CO₂ is 44 thus we can see how much carbon dioxide in Portugal is attributable to coal. It is 5.3 X 10⁶ tons * 44/12 = 19.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. Thus Portugal could meet its Kyoto targets by simply eliminating coal.

By the way, Portugal imports all of its coal. It produces none. Thus the claim in the post to which I am responding that Portugal has no uranium reserves is on it's face rather absurd under the circumstances:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table25.xls

Portugal consumed 44.1 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity in 2003, or about 0.16 exajoules. This works out to an average power requirement of about 5000 Megawatts.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table62.xls

The Japanese, who, like Portugal, have no uranium reserves, have been building ABWR (Advanced Boiling Water Reactors) at around 1300 MWe, two of the four reactors it connected to the grid in 2005, Shika 2 (1304 MWe) and Hamaoka 5 (1325 MWe), being of this size. (The other two reactors were a little over 1000 MWe each.)

(The Japanese, who like Portugal, border the sea, have led the world in the development of technology to recover uranium from seawater. Almost all the work done on amidoxime resins is theirs.)

Therefore Portugal could meet it's Kyoto goals by building just 4 ABWR and even have a little electricity left over for export.

I don't have any idea what Portuguese are thinking about any of this, but their country is dying. Their "world's largest solar plant" is likely to be in a nearly uninhabitable desert.

My continuing thesis is that solar energy is ill prepared to address the on going global climate change crisis.

QED. Again.

[jpak]

32. The Portuguese are indeed guilty of Magical Thinking

In addition to the 62 MW PV farm under construction, they will also build a 116 MW PV farm (starting this year)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/renewable/Story/0,2763,1477722,00.html

Use of domestic PV is growing as well...

http://www.quintadoriodao.com/eng/solarpower.html

Portugal in 2003 had only 300 MW of wind turbine capacity - by 2010 that will increase to 3750 MW...

Portugal is expected to have 50 MW of wave power capacity by 2010...

http://www.terradaily.com/news/energy-tech-05zzzzzzzzzj.html

and 400 MW of new small hydro by 2010...

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/portugal.html

A domestic solar hot water systems could reduce a Portuguese household's electricity consumption by ~4-5000 kWh per year.

As for consumption of oil and gas - Portugal imports virtually all it consumes. As the price goes up, conservation will reduce consumption - dramatically.

Interestingly, Portugal no plans to build nuclear power plants...

THE TWITS!!!!!

:rofl:

[NNadir]

37. Again, I merely note that the Portuguese cannot meet their Kyoto goals.

Obviously the recitation of peak "megawatts" of "expected" "could" and "by 2010" figures have not given the Portuguese any hope of addressing the crisis of global climate change that is destroying their country. They have come right out and said it.

Some people may find that grounds for rolling on the floor laughing but I basically find it tragic, since I really don't regard global climate change to be a laughing matter. I am sure that there are many people in Portugal who feel very much the same.

Again, in case we missed it the first time, here are the figures for the coal consumption of every country on earth, including Portugal:

http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/publications/WD/WIND23V_FOCUS_july_aug.pdf

The Portuguese commitment to the failed strategy of replacing nuclear power with renewables is over 20 years old dating back to 1984:

Carlos Pimenta: CEEETA has been working for 20 years to promote a green perspective on energy management, both in production and on the demand side. A number of us – engineers, economists, university researchers - took a very firm stand in 1984 against the installation of nuclear power plants in
Portugal. We analysed the models and found major flaws in the way the assumptions were being used. Our alternative scenario involved a mixture of increased renewables, demand side management and the introduction of natural gas. We presented that as a much better option to building four nuclear plants.

http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/publications/WD/WIND23V_FOCUS_july_aug.pdf

One wonders what kind of "university researchers" were involved in this cockamamie "analysis" in 1984. Probably people way outside their area of competence, biologists maybe, given that their conclusions were demonstrably wrong.

Since 1984, Portuguese coal consumption, all Portuguese coal being imported has risen by 800 percent, representing the entire Kyoto commitment figure that Portugal stands unprepared to address because of the magical thinking of people like the fellows in CEEETA. This is a real result of magical thinking.. All humanity, but Portugal in particular, is suffering for it. I note that none of these people have the intellectual integrity to refer to the fact that they were out to lunch in the past. Incredibly, they continue to insist that they are right.

The thesis that the renewable energy is incompetent to address the crisis of global climate change is proved by the Portuguese performance, not contravened by that performance. A listing of further renewable plans at the same time that Portugal is provide any evidence of its ability to meet the Kyoto goals further supports this contention:

Portugal committed to a renewable energy strategy twenty years ago and failed to produce results.

There is no evidence that Portugal will produce results in the future. In any case the point is moot, since the country may simply end up being depopulated through desertification.

I repeat, in case anyone finds themselves unable to think this through rationally, no nation, with the exception of those with unusual resources, like Iceland, will be able to eliminate its global climate change impact without the agency of nuclear power. Certainly there are renewable strategies that can replace some peak capacity, but they are clearly and demonstrably insufficient to address the grand scale of this international on going crisis.

A listing of 50 peak "MW" here and 166 peak "MW" there will not change this fact. Moreover the unit of energy, again is still not the peak "watt." It is still the joule, as in exajoule, just like it was last month, just like it was last week, just like it was yesterday, just like it is today, and just like it will be next year and in 2010. This is a unit of physics and generally the only place that the laws of physics can be suspended is in fantasies and dreams.

[jpak]

39. What about Japan??? All those new nukes didn't do squat...

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/29526/newsDate/14-Feb-2005/story.htm

<snip>

Tokyo originally pledged to cut emissions by 6 percent from 1990 levels. Instead, emissions have risen by 8 percent since then, the environment ministry says.

According to the UN Framework on Climate Change, though, levels have risen by 12.1 percent, which Japan says is due to different calculations. While the figures look bad, Japan is hardly the worst offender.

<snip>

:rofl:

Portugal is doing the right thing...

[NNadir]

44. Only Monaco has done worse than Portugal on greenhouse emissions.

Portugal exceeds its Kyoto commitment by 29%, Japan by 16%.

The data is readily available on line, where the units are million metric tons of carbon dioxide: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls

The failure of the renewable strategy to address global climate change is shown graphically very easily:




http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/1226/Climate_change:_The_challenge_continues.html

Portugal is, among the countries shown, has done more poorly on this score than every other nation except Monaco.

I note that of the 5 top nations shown that have the largest percentage growth in carbon dioxide emissions, only one of them, Spain, has nuclear capacity. Japan is 11th on this list.

A more telling statistic is the carbon intensity of the two economies. Carbon intensity for those who are unfamiliar with it, or choose to ignore it on religious grounds, is a measure of how much wealth a country produces per unit of carbon dioxide generated.

On this score too, Portugal is seen to have failed in its renewable energy strategy when compared with Japan. The unit here is, or should be, obvious: "Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide per Thousand 2000 U.S. Dollars Using Market Exchange Rates" The figure for Japan is 0.25 and over twice as large for Portugal, 0.58.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1gco2.xls

Japan actually matched Portugal in terrible carbon intensity for one year, 2002. This was the year that many Japanese nuclear reactors were shut because of falsified documents in the industry. When the matter was resolved, and all of the reactors were restored to the grid, Japan cut its carbon intensity by half. Thus we have real data on the impact of nuclear energy on Japan's carbon intensity.

One can sort the excel spreadsheet linked above to determine the nations with the lowest carbon intensity: Here are the first 15 nations:

1. Chad
2. Congo (Kinshasa)
3. Cambodia
4. Switzerland
5. Mali
6. Bermuda
7. Cayman Islands
8. Uganda
9. Lesotho
10. Sweden
11. Macau
12. Japan
13. Norway
14. Saint Kitts and Nevis
15. France

Some of these countries obviously achieve these results by relying on human and animal muscle for their energy. France and Sweden both use nuclear power to generate more than 50% of their electricity. Switzerland generates 40% of its electricity by nuclear means, and most of the rest by hydroelectricity. Norway has no nuclear power, but lots of hydroelectric power. Japan has already been discussed in this context.

Portugal is number 53 among nations of the world, slightly worse than that nation of SUV worship, the good ole' USA #49.

Chad has no nuclear power plants. When you strip it all away, Chad, a nation hugely impacted by global climate change, is what the renewable fantasy will make for all of us. Like Portugal, Chad is rapidly being overtaken by desert.

Life expectancy in Chad is 47.6 years.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107403.html

[jpak]

46. Portugal's renewable energy plan has not "failed"- Magical Thinking Indeed

It has just begun to be implemented.

The 62 and 116 MW PV arrays are under construction - as are the 3000+ MW wind and wave farms, etc.

How these installations can "fail" before they have been built is beyond silliness.

BTW: Japan's annual GHG emissions dwarfs Portugal's emissions - by a wide margin.

1,205 million tonnes of CO2 for Japan vs. 62 million tonnes for Portugal.

I also note that Portugal's CO2 emissions declined by 3 million tonnes per year from 2002-2003 whereas Japan's CO2 emissions GREW by 14 million tonnes over the same period.

Failure indeed...

:rofl:

On edit: I also note that Portugal's GHG emissions have declined below 2000 levels (by 0.8 million tonnes) whereas Japan's emissions have grown by 38 million tonnes since 2000.

[NNadir]

47. What part of the Portuguese announcement on Kyoto can you not understand?

Again, the Portuguese have announced that they will have to purchase carbon credits, that they cannot meet the Kyoto goals, and so on.

I note that any decline in Portuguese carbon dioxide levels cannot be attributable to renewable energy, since the figures for renewable increases in that period are known: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table17.xls

The increase in Portuguese renewable energy was in the period between 2002 and 2003 and the period between 2000 and 2003 were respectively 0.00058 exajoules and
0.0019 exajoules. In percentage terms, these figures represent 0.4% and 1.2% of Portuguese electrical consumption of 0.16 exajoules, which is consistent with renewable energy production in all of the world's countries.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table17.xls

The decrease in Portuguese CO₂ output is probably best explained by the fact that Portugal began to import natural gas in 1999.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tablee3.xls

Natural gas can be burned more efficiently than coal or oil, although it is still a dirty fuel.

I obviously should avoid repeating yet again the distinction between peak power and energy, since it seems to beyond comprehension in the present setting. I do note that the new Portuguese desert will increase the capacity loading of Portuguese solar plants. They may hit as much as 30% under this unhappy scenario, which would be unusually large for such capacity, since last I looked, the sun still goes down and the wind still stops blowing.

Although some people apparently are incapable of understanding this distinction, I will nonetheless walk the audience through an energy calculation demonstrating how much energy this is. People will have to appreciate the following mysterious conversion factors. A watt is an SI unit equal to one Joule/second. A minute contains 60 seconds. An hour contains 60 minutes. A day contains 24 hours. Thus a day contains 86,400 seconds. A megawatt is a million watts. Thus in one day, a Megawatt produces 24 X 60 X 60 X 1,000,000 = 86,400,000,000 J/day or, given that there are 365.25 days in a year, 31,557,600,000,000 J, rounded using standard prefixes (tera = 1 X 10¹²), 31.6 terajoules. Let us imagine that the wind will howl through the new Portuguese desert 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, which is not really true, but we are operating by fantasy, not reality. 3000 MW of capacity is 0.09 exajoules, or 56% of Portuguese electricity if operating continuously.

But again NO renewable capacity operates continuously. The representation that it does, the continuous appeal to units of power rather than energy, is a pretense and an illusion, a scam, used to maintain the renewable fantasy by people who understand almost nothing about energy and risk.

In any case the claim of 3000 MWe apparently is news to the Portuguese government, since they have not announced that "we cannot meet our Kyoto goals now but we will by 20xx because of new renewable capacity." They have, again, said something quite different.

In any case, the figures for carbon intensity that I have provided elsewhere in this thread show that the Portuguese policy decided in 1984 to forgo nuclear power in favor of renewables has failed. Japan has the 11th lowest carbon intensity in the world.

One can dance as much as one wishes to deny this reality, but it is to no avail as evidenced, yet again, by the Portuguese announcement that it has NO strategy to meet Kyoto targets.

Finally, I have not said that the nonexistent facilities have failed. Neither have they succeeded either, since they still don't exist. An expectation of whether or not they will succeed is predicated on past performance. I have simply said that the entire renewable strategy is failed.

The entire renewable fantasy has relied completely upon predictions about the future. When you look at all these predictions, going back more than 5 decades they have all failed to predict what will happen. I see no reason why, in the face of a global climate change catastrophe, of which Portugal is just one manifestation, that we should suddenly find this wishful thinking believable. The emergency is too serious.

[jpak]

49. Dissembling nonsense

Unlike nucular Japan, Portugal's GHG emissions have actually declined below 2000 levels.

...and, they will decline even further once the renewable energy systems already under construction are built.

also...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x43095

:rofl:

Finally, Portugal is not relying on one renewable technology, but a diverse mix of wind, wave, hydro, PV and solar thermal that compliment each other.

They know what they are doing...

[NNadir]

52. No, the carbon intensity of Portugal is twice as bad as Japan's as shown.

Post #44 shows that the 1984 decision by Portugal to forgo nuclear power in favor of renewables (which are largely still not here by the way) simply created a coal economy in Portugal.

The renewable strategy failed.

Since apparently the numbers in Post #44 were poorly understood, I will repeat them here: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1gco2.xls.

Portugal is on line 90. It's carbon intensity has increased by 20% since 1984.

Japan is on line 217. It's carbon intensity has remained constant since 1984.

Portugal's 1984 renewable decision was a failure.

An explanation of the units is found in post #44. They should not be too mysterious, and I think they should be easy for any rational person to understand.

In 1984 Portugal imported 0.66 million metric tons of coal. In 2003, it imported 5.89 million metric tons. As shown elsewhere, the recent tiny decline in CO2 has nothing at all to do with renewable energy, which has failed to produce significant energy since 1984. Instead the reduction has everything to do with a switch to natural gas for some electrical capacity. It's not that Portugal has become so good, but that they aren't quite as atrocious as they have been.

They would need to reduce their carbon intensity by a factor of more than two to equal Japan.

Excuse me for saying so but, if after twenty-two years of talk, all Portugal can produce for its grand renewable decision in 1984 is 0.008 exajoules of renewable energy, http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table17.xls, and this is a source of pride(!?!?) then there's some awful doublethink going on here.

[jpak]

53. Kyoto was open for signature when???? 1997????

...and what is the goal - reductions relative to 1990 emissions????

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#Details_of_the_agreement

When did Portugal begin its renewable program????? 2005????

....and the 180 MW of PV has not been built yet????

How can this be failure???? (it can't)

1984 emissions are irrelevant to Kyoto - yet another ridiculous red herring.

Unlike nucular Japan, Portugal has reduced its GHG emissions without the use of stupid nucular power.

According to self-styled pro-nucular activists this is impossible.

Could it be that they are WRONG?????

I think they are...

Let's examine the Experimental Evidence.

Since 1997 the following countries have have pursued renewables and conservation in lieu of stupid nucular power: Sweden, Germany and Denmark...

Since 1997 they have reduced CO2 emissions by:

Sweden = -4.6 million tonnes
Denmark = -15.3 million tonnes (a 21% reduction!!!)
Germany = -34.46 million tonnes

http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/carbon.html

The following countries have large stupid nucular power programs: La France, US, UK, Japan, Russia, South Korea and China.

How did they do since 1997????

Their CO2 emissions increased by the following amounts....

UK = +4.2 million tonnes
La France = +27.2 million tonnes
South Korea = +40.7 million tonnes
Japan = +49.6 million tonnes
Russia = +149.1 million tonnes
US = +259.4 million tonnes
China = +502.8 million tonnes

The Experimental Evidence is clear...

Stupid nucular power has failed to reduce GHG emissions.

....and Renewables have.....

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[NNadir]

54. I have already explained that Portugals renewable decision dates to 1984.

The post in question is my post #37 where Portuguese anti-nuclear activists are quoted about their 1984 successful push to prevent nuclear capacity in Portugal.

It is not a new program, and predates Kyoto by 13 years. This means that Portugal had a 13 year head start and failed.

I am not surprised that this is being ignored in the present context. If I were trying to argue an untenable position I would also ignore reality in favor of fantasy.

Portugal has the worst emissions program in the world.

None of the countries you have listed have reduced emissions via renewable means. All have significant nuclear capacity with the exception of Denmark, which is an insignificant provider of energy, less than an exajoule for the entire country.

Again, the measure is energy intensity. The most efficient carbon intensive first world nations are Japan (#3), Switzerland (#1), Sweden (#2) Norway (#3) and France (#5).

With the exception of Norway, all have significant nuclear capacity. Switzerland, Sweden and Norway all have significant hydroelectric capacity.

Again, and again and again and again, here is the table of carbon intensity:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1gco2.xls

It is in excel format can be sorted by column AA which is the data for 2003. I have not considered third world nations that provide renewable energy through muscle and are impoverished (like Chad) although I have listed these nations in an earlier post which apparently escaped comprehension.

My thesis is that renewable energy as an alternative to nuclear in the combat against global climate change is a fantasy.

QED. Again.

[jpak]

55. The experimental evidence is clear - nucular has failed!!!

And failed miserably!!!!

And EU Directive 2001/77?EC which set Portugal's goals for renewable energy was not enacted until....ummmm...2001 - NOT 1984.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/portugal.html

another stupid anti-solar red herring squashed...

:rofl:

[NNadir]

56. Again, I have provided an account from the Portuguese from 1984.

This was when the decision was made to forgo nuclear energy in Portugal for a renewable strategy.

Incredibly, the participants in this dubious bit of stupidity are proud of this action, and have posted an account of their contention for which they got government support in 1984. The links to the Portuguese involved is still in Post #37.

I, at least, have enough of a sense of reality to be deeply ashamed of my participation in anti-nuclear stupidity in the 1970's and 1980's, but then again, I am analytical and not religious.

Nuclear energy provides energy on an exajoule scale, had done so for decades and is being expanded on an exajoule scale. I find it rather curious that the same people who declare forms of energy that have not produced on an exajoule declare them "successes," only to then turn around and declare nuclear energy a failure.

Exajoule. :scared: Boo!

The world has accepted by consensus the claim that nuclear energy is an important part of the energy future, as is evidenced by new reactors that came on line in 2005, reactors that easily exceed the renewable capacity worldwide installed in 2005.

One, of course, wishes that the renewable energy industry could be more successful than is indicated by the increase in production worldwide of only 0.065 exajoules between 2002 and 2003. I note that one 1300 Megawatt nuclear reactor running at 100% capacity, as many do for a period of over a year, can produce 0.04 exajoules all by its little self. Thus two such nuclear reactors easily exceed the world increase in renewable capacity.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table17.xls

(The conversion factor between billion kilowatt-hours and exajoules is still 3.6 X 10¹⁵ joules per billion kilowatt-hour and an exajoule is still 10¹⁸J and the world demand for energy is still 440 exajoules.)

I don't wish the renewable industry bad luck. On the contrary, I would love to see it succeed but I am tired of the attempt to substitute vapid promises for delivery. But I do reject completely the wishful thinking that claims that it is in any way competent to address the immediate crisis of global climate change. The lives of every human being, and most living things are at stake.

The Portuguese have failed in their attempt to address global climate change and have more or less confessed as much. They do not offer a renewable energy promise to account for future compliance. They freely and frankly admit they cannot do it. Promoted to the position of European President, and no doubt devastated by the desertification of his country, the former Portugese Prime Minister asks Europe please to consider nuclear energy.

If I were defending an absurd position on the subject of Portuguese energy and environmental performance, and if I clearly knew very little about Portugal, I might attempt to deny what the Portuguese themselves say about their country.

Portugal's new production of renewable energy from 2002 to 2003 measured 0.0006 exajoules. I'm sure that no one realizes better than the Portuguese themselves that this is not enough.

[jpak]

57. Germany reduced its CO2 emissions with renewables

http://www.energybulletin.net/5000.html

as did Denmark and Sweden.

Claims to the contrary are bullshit....

[NNadir]

58. Again we must appeal to the data, in exajoules to see what is correct.

These are not claims but data.

Once again the spreadsheet giving this data is easily called up:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table17.xls

Germany's entire non-hydro renewable production totaled as of 2003, 0.11 exajoules. This was up 0.014 exajoules from the previous year.

Thus the entire renewable energy industry in Germany produces less than 0.8% of German energy, which was 15.0 exajoules.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tablee1.xls

Nuclear energy, assuming 30% thermal efficiency, produced 1.7 exajoules of primary energy in Germany, 0.56 exajoules of electricity.

Germany produced 2.01 exajoules of electricity in 2003. The shares for nuclear energy and non-hydro renewable electricity are respectively, 28.1% and 5.6%. Note that German law requires power companies to purchase renewable electricity at rates that are as much as 5 times as large as busbar power for nuclear energy and for coal energy.

Germany has made some progress through efficiency, if one looks at the long term. In the period between 1999 and 2003, German carbon intensity was 0.45-0.46 metric tons of carbon dioxide for each $1000 (US 2000) of GDP. As recently as 1997 the efficiency was as high as 0.50. This is real progress. However Germany has a long way to go before it reaches the carbon intensity of France, which was 0.30. The last time France's carbon intensity was as poor as Germany's is now was 1983, which I note is around the time France's nuclear power ambitions began to be realized. (France increased nuclear power production by 1.02 exajoules in this period.)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1gco2.xls

I note of the nations in Western Europe that have lower carbon intensity than France, there are three of them only Norway lacks nuclear power. I note that France is the nation among the top 4 in Europe, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, and France, that generates the smallest segment of its energy through hydroelectricity.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table15.xls

As always, I certainly applaud increases in energy efficiency, especially when it translates into the important issue - given the exigency of the incalculable crisis of global climate change - of carbon efficiency. I think the case is clear that Germany has made some small gains here in the last decade. However Germany would completely lose any such gains by eliminating the nuclear segment of its energy production. It is a fantasy to say otherwise. Germany, if it wants to be a responsible world citizen should increase its nuclear capacity so that it can measure up to countries like France, that have been achieving high carbon efficiency for decades.

It would be relatively easy to scream expletives in an attempt to make my point, but recently I have come to the conclusion that this, however much fun it might be, is intellectually unsatisfying. Such an approach can in no way offer what a clear appeal to the data, and careful analysis of the data, can offer. Of course it is time consuming to review such data, and to have to refer to it constantly because it is poorly comprehended by those with dogmatic approaches. However I believe that such an appeal offers overwhelming support for my argument and makes it iron clad, even titanium clad. Because I regard this argument as important, I am willing to repeat it as often as is necessary in the face of obvious distortions of reality. One would hope that the population in general would be able to see through such distortions readily, but I have seen that urban myths, when unchallenged, are reified unless clarified. Therefore I intend to challenge them all whenever I see them. This is the best I can do for my children.

[jpak]

59. LOL!!! Germany, Sweden and Denmark did not reduce their GHG emissions

by building new nuclear power plants.

They did it by investing in renewables and conservation - period.

Reality.

[NNadir]

60. The data, I think, is clear on this matter.

One need only correctly interpret it.

I think the figures in exajoules for renewable production are very clear. They are all numbers that are tiny fractions of one.

Interested parties only need read my previous posts, which refer repeatedly to data rather than dogmatic statements.

The numbers for renewable energy are rather telling, both as absolute numbers and - despite the desperate lexicon of their apologists - percentage terms.

One hears every once in a while a remark, from religious people, that goes like this: "God said it. I believe it. And that settles it." This religious remark, of course, is nonsense, like all religious remarks..

Most people who think dogmatically are pretty much the same. They would be funny if they weren't so dangerous.

[NNadir]

31. Here is a photograph of Sabugalite named for Sabugal, Portugal.

This uranium mineral was first discovered in Sabugal, hence it's name. It is also now known in France and other places.

Sabugalite is a mixed uranyl phosphate/vanadate.

A mineralogical description of this mineral can be found here:

http://www.uraniumminerals.com/UTh/Sabugalite.htm

The link within shows Portuguese samples of this mineral. Anaconda announced plans in 1998 to mine uranium in Portugal at Nisa:

http://www.wma-minelife.com/uranium/articles/art291.htm

Portugal has a long history of producing uranium. In the era before World War I, uranium mines were worked primarily to produce glazes for pottery, colored glass (some of the yellow glass in the stained glass windows of European Cathedrals is uranium based) and, after the work of Madam Curie, to provide radium. As tensions in Europe rose, the Austrian-Hungarian empire which then controlled the Czech uranium mines threatened French access to the Joachimsthal uranium mines. The French radium industry, initiated by the Curies, subsequently began to obtain some of their uranium from Portugal.

As I noted earlier in another post in this thread, Portugal could very nicely produce all of its electricity from just 4 or 5 nuclear reactors and so actually the country would not require huge amounts of uranium to fuel these reactors. A typical nuclear reactor uses about 100 MT of uranium to fuel itself for periods close to two years. Portugal is actually in a better position than Japan, which produces huge amounts of electricity via nuclear means with no native uranium.

In any case, the claim that Portugal has no uranium is demonstrably false.

I cannot help but to note that much of the anti-nuclear case consists entirely of stuff that has simply been made up. When you scrutinize anti-nuclear propaganda the claims of which it consist almost always fails to hold up to the light of day. I really am at a loss to discover any rational basis, in a time of a severe global climate change crisis, for the opposition to nuclear power. It must be some kind of religion.

[jpak]

33. That mine could support a *single* 500 MW nuclear plant

for ~40 years.

or a *single* 1000 MW plant for ~20 years.

That uranium would have to be exported for enrichment and fuel fabrication and what will they do with the spent fuel????

again - not a solution for Portugal...

[NNadir]

38. I am unimpressed by another statement that is as wrong as the statement

"Portugal has no Uranium reserves."

In any case, debate over the obviously false statement "Portugal has no uranium reserves" is ridiculous and totally irrelevant to the question of whether Portugal could fuel 4 reactors. Many nations have nuclear power capacity without having uranium reserves. In fact the nation with the third largest nuclear capacity, Japan, a country that is rapidly expanding its nuclear energy program, has no uranium reserves. Indeed the 5 reactors that Japan put on line in just 2005 could meet all of Portugal's electrical needs. The absence of Japanese uranium resources has in no way precluded them from ordering another 12 reactors. I have no idea why that seems to be mysterious, but I guess I am relying on the assumption of rationality.

I have exploded anti-nuclear myth after anti-nuclear myth, which is relatively easy to do, since all of these myths are increasingly desperate. There is no rational way to account for the anti-nuclear position in the time of the global climate change crisis. It must be some kind of religion.

[jpak]

40. Some Kind of Religion

Taken straight from Michael Chrichton's playbook...

What horseshit...

[NNadir]

45. Reference to Micheal Crichton is another case of "guilt by association."

I am absolutely certain that my view of global climate change is very different than his.

He pretends it doesn't exist. It does.

Others pretend that it can be solved by magic. It can't.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[NNadir]

50. And I am just pointing out indifference to global climate change.

People who care about global cliamte change don't even listen to RW radio - I know I don't.

Instead, they think or rational solutions.

[rfkrfk]

34. who supplies the 'spinning reserve' ?

my basic complaint about solar and wind is...

there is no provision for,
what happens when there is an outage? due to clouds or whatever

I'm getting kinda tired of freeloaders.

does this situation have an arrangement
with customers that can be disconnected?

[jpak]

35. In Portugal, it will be hydroelectricity

They currently have ~4500 MW of small and large hydro capacity.

Even in the current drought, hydro still produces ~18% of Portugal's electricity...

Freeloaders indeed.

[rfkrfk]

36. that's reasonanble

hydro is nice, if you have it

[Dead_Parrot]

41. ROFL

Thanks, that's the funniest thing I've heard in weeks.

After the break: BHP Billiton announces plans to install solar panels at the bottom of it's mines...

[jpak]

42. Really???? - how odd

Scandinavia uses its hydro resources to manage variation in wind power generation.

It's simple - when the wind blows, you store water behind the dam.

When the wind dies, you release the water to produce electricity.

Funny how that works...

[Dead_Parrot]

43. You misunderstand...

There's nothing wrong with a wind/hydro combination: If you've got the terrain for lots of hydro, it's excellent.

It's the concept of relying on hydro in the rapidly desertifying Iberian peninsula I find funny (in a painful sort of way).

[NNadir]

51. And the point is that the world's largest solar station will do little to

address global climate change.

Next to nothing.

The Portuguese policy announced in 1984, over twenty years ago, is a failure.

By the way, the link is as dead as the notion that the world can be saved from the disaster of global climate change by renewable energy alone. Here however is a link to the same rather absurd story that works better than the rewable fantasy:

http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2005/09/13/afx2222150.html

Further noting how ridiculously priced this solar plant is, I note that 62 mega"watts" at $250M would be, even ignoring the low capacity loading, even in the new Portuguese desert, i.e. pretending that the plant is a 24/7 365 day per year plant, is the equivalent of a 1000MWe plant that cost over 4 billion dollars.

However the plant is actually likely to operate at 30% (generously assessed to allow for the desertification) capacity factor, representing a cost of $13 billion dollars for a 90% capacity loaded plant, such as a nuclear plant, would represent. At this price Portugal could easily but 3 or 4 nuclear plants and be done with it. But it seems they want to play silly games for no good purpose.

As the plant will actually produce, even as the world's largest, an average power out put of about 20 megawatts, and as Portugal has an average power demand of around 5,000 megawatts, it is apparent that the plant will meet 0.4% of Portugal's electrical demand.

Again, it is the "world's largest."

It is easy to see why Portugal is incapable of meeting its Kyoto comittments and will need to continue to dump coal waste into the atmosphere, albeit while paying a carbon tax: "Magical thinking" continues in the country.

I can't understand why such simple calculations are met with such credulous insistence on the make believe.

Again, it must be some kind of religion. Tom Cruise could probably find some fertile ground around here.