tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post3090973634507550149..comments2024-03-07T02:00:01.582-05:00Comments on NEI Nuclear Notes: The Heritage Foundation on The Costs of EnergyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-50795803094028868112008-06-24T03:50:00.000-04:002008-06-24T03:50:00.000-04:00I think solar power's best application would be fo...I think solar power's best application would be for desalination in Middle Eastern Muslim countries.<BR/><BR/>Such countries may be reluctant to build nuclear reactors for fear of Israeli airstrikes, and desalination doesn't need 24/7 power as one can simply store desalinated water during the day for release at night.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-82693258242139244072008-06-20T13:27:00.000-04:002008-06-20T13:27:00.000-04:00I don't think the authors are necessarily trying t...I don't think the authors are necessarily trying to pit nuclear against renewables. If the Southwest is a great place for solar, that's fine, but the sun still doesn't shine 24 all the time. <BR/><BR/>I think the point is that if you have to build nuclear to back up wind and solar, why not just have nuclear and not waste the money building wind and solar? If wind and solar are more economically efficient, then so be it, but I think we all know that's simply not true.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-12146591628594417372008-06-20T13:04:00.000-04:002008-06-20T13:04:00.000-04:00But the Southwest on the other hand will be a grea...<I>But the Southwest on the other hand will be a great place for it (solar anyway). </I><BR/><BR/>Only for the economics challenged. Installed systems run at over $8 per watt. The highest estimates for new nukes come in under $5.<BR/><BR/>At 20% capacity factor (solar) vs. 90% (nuclear) that makes solar 7 times more expensive.<BR/><BR/>That's also ignoring lifetime. 45 years out of a nuke is proven, with pretty good odds of 60. Solar is an unknown, with at least 25 for the panels, but certainly not 60.Matthew Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15356555039783850503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-52561724602198733732008-06-20T12:54:00.000-04:002008-06-20T12:54:00.000-04:00Here is my take on why renewables won;t save us - ...Here is my take on why renewables won;t save us - I tried to post it as a comment to GreenOptions, but it didn't pass through, so I post it here:<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>The "renewables", while useful contribution to the mix, IMHO unfortunately cannot power major part of our grid in a foreseeable future. Most importantly due to their chaotic nature, with available capacity typically 10-30%. I suggest looking up a time profile of a wind or solar plant. <BR/><BR/>There is no solution to energy storage as yet on the scale necessary. The energy storage proposed by the Grand solar plan, Eurosolar and other is CAES:<BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_energy_storage <BR/><BR/>Unfortunately CAES systems do not scale to GW range as other systems (such as pumped hydro), they are limited to suitable geological locations (perhaps more than pumped hydro), and actually they are not just a storage, but need natgas (as opposed to pumped hydro): "The McIntosh CAES plant requires 0.69kWh of electricity and 1.17kWh of gas for each 1.0kWh of electrical output [1](a non-CAES natural gas plant can be up to 60% efficient therefore uses 1.67kWh of gas per kWh generated."<BR/><BR/>[NB: CAES depends heavily on both natgas fuel and old used oil/natgas wells. Oil industry must love that. How surprising, isnt it?]<BR/><BR/>Any form of energy storage is and will be very expensive (and CAES with the grave dependency on natgas is particularly bad), that is requiring large amounts of non-renewable resources, in addition to the non-renewable materials and energy spent on the devices transforming dilute renewable energy flows to usable electricity. A wind mill requires about 5-10 times the amount of steel and concrete as a nuclear power plant, to produce the same amount of electricity. CSP, cheaper than photovoltaincs, but significantly more expensive than wind, will need even more of this on-renewable resources. "Renewables" is a nice catch phrase, but wind mills are indeed (made of) non-renewable resources, as much as steel, plastics (from oil and natgas) and (mostly) coal as a primary energy input. <BR/><BR/>Back to the problem of chaotic nature of wind and solar: the contemporary solution is matching about 80% of the wind installed generation capacity by<BR/>peaking plants which run as spinning reserves when the wind blows (grid regulation is a complicated issue, but this is a typical case unless a grid has major contributions of hydro). Coal and natgas burners are obvious choice, most of their costs are in the fuel. <BR/><BR/>Unless we come up with some (fantastically) economic for of energy storage, renewables are dependent on fossil fuels, in particular on natural gas. The difference between 1.17kWh of natgas for each 1.0kWh of electrical output with CAES or 1.67kWh of gas per kWh without CAES (assuming we have all the geological locations we need), is not that important, as the amount of energy in known resources of both natgas and oil is similar.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps a solution could be accommodated by a bunch of small reactors which can vary power output rapidly (such as the Adams Engine engine), constructed nearby wind warms and solar plants. However in this case it would be perhaps cheaper and more efficient to just run the reactors at their maximum capacity compatible with the grid demand, saving all the non-renewable resources and other complications concerning the wind mills...<BR/><BR/>The hypothetical transition to solar + CAES is therefore a transition from coal to natgas burning, which is even less sustainable than coal, and certainly not affordable: natural gas is the most efficient oil substitute, therefore the prices move along. Natgas now trades above $12/MBTU, while the typical price range assumed for future natgas just a couple of years ago was $6-8 ... <BR/><BR/>regards<BR/>O.Ondrej Chvalahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02031684443136544972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-1505584307946978432008-06-20T11:06:00.000-04:002008-06-20T11:06:00.000-04:00Definitely good to see more positive writing about...Definitely good to see more positive writing about nuclear power, although I do object with their conclusion that "It is therefore difficult to conclude that wind or solar power should be built at all." There are certain places, like the Southeast as they mention, that are not the best places for wind and solar. But the Southwest on the other hand will be a great place for it (solar anyway). <BR/>I don't think our prospects are improved when the argument is framed as solar/wind v. nuclear since this is typically the way extremists tend to do it. All of these types of generation have their ups and downs but at the some time think that nuclear will play a much larger role than many are expecting and that evidence from Europe's struggles in utilizing solar and wind are supporting that belief.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com