|
Post by sod on Oct 26, 2013 19:48:38 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by Ed Leaver on Oct 27, 2013 12:16:12 GMT 9.5
Sod: Why on earth should solar (or wind) get the same treatment nuclear does? What do you think should be the goal of EU and UK energy subsidies? Why should an old technology get the same support a new one gets? Perhaps because the old technology can deliver a value the new one cannot? Ah. That is indeed the nub of it, and I appreciate your saying so. But perhaps you will not be surprised if UK DECC does not completely share your view? That might depend upon how one defines "keep giving". UK has not built a new nuclear power reactor in nearly nineteen years. The US, over thirty. For myriad reasons the cost of nuclear power generation has indeed increased. However, one mustn't confuse cost with value. Relevance? Beats me. But apparently some cultures actually value their land. [shrug] And STA's precise definition of "same level" is? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Okay, that was the 3 minute single. Let's spin the album version: Firstly and above all else one must agree upon the purpose of government energy subsidies. You have opined "The idea of a subsidy is simple: we give small amounts of money now and profit in the future, because alternative power gets cheaper." Now the idea of a subsidy may indeed be simple, but not that simple. UK DECC is not tasked to support every destitute unreliable die-by-night energy outfit. UK DECC is Britain's Department of Energy and Climate Change. These are not the same thing. Not that wind and solar do not have their role. They do, as Mr. Camaron and Mr. Davey have repeatedly reaffirmed. But DECC's charter is to provide for the safe electric energy Britain needs, when Britain needs it, at a least cost for British electric energy consumers, and (not incidentally) also meet Britain's perceived obligations toward mitigating climate change. To this end UK DECC is committed to procuring some 75 GW dispatchable, reliable, essentially carbon-free capacity (100% plant factor) by 2050. UK DECC has determined that such is simply not possible without substantial investment in new nuclear. Hinkley Point C is merely the start of that investment. The importance of dispatchability and capacity factor is discussed here. UK's Low-Carbon Future is briefly summarized here. STA should be careful what they pray for. Hypothetically, suppose Mr. Davey were to suggest Renewable Energy Association (of which STA is member) incorporate itself as a single electric energy provider and pose them this specific question: We (and they) may haggle over the details of such a hypothetical request-for-service. But such exemplifies the very real-world non-hypothetical questions with which Mr. Davey is faced.
|
|
|
Post by jagdish on Oct 27, 2013 15:03:26 GMT 9.5
Prices in N America and W Europe are higher. Reactors of same design are cheaper to build in Russia and China. They also beat others in tenders in middle east or Czech republic. Solar is cheaper as the work is largely outsourced to China! The risks should be cut by using it only in a distributed manner, preferably on rooftops. Russia is currently the biggest exporter of reactors and benefit of low prices should be availed of while still available. The prices vary with place, time, and circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by sods on Oct 27, 2013 18:11:38 GMT 9.5
Even without building anything, the UK kept giving massive subsidies to nuclear. 2.3 Billion per year! www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/fda9ea9a-ac29-11e2-a063-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2iuOgYrvaIf you want to give a subsidy for reliability, fine. Just do so. you can also give a special deal to a power source, which can deliver during winter nights. But what the DECC does, is somethingh completely different. They just picked a winner, no matter what. They just favour nuclear and ignore evidence, that shows that solar is cheaper, for example in Germany. They also use massively distorting pictures (like the landuse one) to make their point. (they don t have a real argument to support their move). Germany added 3.5% of consumptions in 3 years. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_GermanyIt is obvious, that the UK can do the same and that solar will provide more power than Hinkley can, before it is even build. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_the_United_KingdomFunny point: the lights did not go out in Germany!
|
|
|
Post by quokka on Oct 27, 2013 22:14:23 GMT 9.5
Up until 2012, nuclear power supplied 2560 TWh of electricity to the UK. As we know (when we don't conveniently choose to ignore it) all energy technologies have external costs and coal has a much higher external cost than nuclear. In the absence of a nuclear program the UK would most likely have used coal. If we assume that the external cost of coal over and above that of nuclear to be just 2p/kWh then nuclear has avoided over 50 billion quid of external costs. A more realistic valuation of the external costs of coal would mean of saving of 100-200 billion in external costs due to the use of nuclear power. Perhaps more. Nuclear looks like a real bargain. Could be please stop presenting your opinion as fact. See the DECC publication Electricity Generating Costs 2013 for an account of methodology, data sources and assumptions. It's all there, including the all the supporting studies and documents. If you wish to critique it, then go ahead and do so, but enough of the hand waving. BNC is supposed to be evidence based.
|
|
|
Post by Ed Leaver on Oct 28, 2013 0:28:16 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Oct 30, 2013 5:13:23 GMT 9.5
Ed, you're wasting your time with Sod. He's just another troll. I'm not entirely sure why he hasn't been banned from this forum yet, as his writings violate multiple different scientific forum policies, apart from the fact that he is wasting valuable time from various intelligent and honest commenters like Ed. Ed, you just have to accept the fact that not everyone is living on the same planet as we do.
|
|
|
Post by jagdish on Oct 30, 2013 14:08:20 GMT 9.5
If your basic power is fossil fuels, coal and gas, you could reduce fuel consumption with cheap solar panels from China. If Germans have decided to go that way, so be it. Let the Chinese have the uranium so saved. They are burning as much coal as the rest of the world combined and need nuclear to produce more energy and build solar panels for sale. Let us hope they also succeed in fast reactors and recycling of uranium and gradually start saving on logistics of coal transport. As a major energy consumer their actions have an effect on our common atmosphere and is an example for other polluters.
|
|
|
Post by sod on Oct 31, 2013 18:04:32 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by sod on Oct 31, 2013 18:09:21 GMT 9.5
Ed, you're wasting your time with Sod. He's just another troll. I'm not entirely sure why he hasn't been banned from this forum yet, as his writings violate multiple different scientific forum policies, apart from the fact that he is wasting valuable time from various intelligent and honest commenters like Ed. Ed, you just have to accept the fact that not everyone is living on the same planet as we do. i am supporting my arguments with links and quotes. If you have any additional questions, please just ask. Ed is taking a different approach than most others here. He seems to admit that nuclear gets high subsidies, but thinks that this is useful, because nuclear offers advantages (like being more reliable during certain times of the year). I disagree with his approach, but at least it makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by quokka on Nov 1, 2013 8:28:55 GMT 9.5
All very interesting that 10MW+ PV plants in Germany get no feed in tariff. How many plants are operating under such terms? Is there a single one? How many under construction? Any at all? It seems nobody is interested. From PV Magazine: Germany: PV development continues to declineFurthermore as the article observes: For rooftop and ground-mounted systems that have a capacity between 1 and 10 MW, operators will only receive 9.88 cents per kWh October onwards. It is therefore expected that investments in this segment will be restricted to special circumstances, for example for self-consumption, in order to stay economical.
|
|
|
Post by Nuclear on Nov 1, 2013 13:25:17 GMT 9.5
I also think that the UK government got shafted by EDF. Nuclear yes, but not at any cost. The projected price tag for Hinkley Point C is $13 Billion per reactor. In the UAE, the Koreans will build new reactors for $5 Billion a piece. Yes, they have access to cheap Pakistani labour there, but that can't explain the huge difference in construction costs compared to Britain. The DECC predicts that natural gas prices in the UK could range between $7/MMBtu and $16/MMBtu in 2030, presumably depending on how domestic shale development plays out. Even at $16/MMBtu, electricity from a new CCGT would be cheaper than from Hinkley Point C. Using the NREL LCOE calculator: CCGT at $7/MMbtu: Discount Rate: 10% Period: 20 years Capital Cost: $880/kW Capacity Factor: 90% Fixed O&M: $14/kW-yr Variable O&M: $0.000286/kWh Heat Rate: 5686 Btu/kWh (60% thermal efficiency) Electricity Cost: $55/MWhCCGT at $16/MMbtu: Discount Rate: 10% Period: 20 years Capital Cost: $880/kW Capacity Factor: 90% Fixed O&M: $14/kW-yr Variable O&M: $0.000286/kWh Heat Rate: 5686 Btu/kWh (60% thermal efficiency) Electricity Cost: $106/MWhOnshore Wind: Discount Rate: 10% Period: 20 years Capital Cost: $1500/kW Capacity Factor: 25% Fixed O&M: $11/kW-yr Variable O&M: $0.00645/kWh Heat Rate: 0 Fuel Cost: 0 Electricity Cost: $92/MWhHinkley Point C: Discount Rate: 10% Period: 30 years Capital Cost: $8125/kW Capacity Factor: 90% Fixed O&M: $70/kW-yr Variable O&M: $0.00049/kWh Heat Rate: 9221 Btu/kWh (37% thermal efficiency) Fuel Cost: $1.2/MMBtu Electricity Cost: $130/MWhThe strike price agreed upon by the government and EDF is $148/MWh at today's exchange rate. Rate payers do not profit from this deal at all. For electricity from new CCGTs to cost as much as from Hinkley Point C, the natural gas price would have to rise to $20/MMBtu, which is a 100% increase over today and way above even the DECC's own pessimistic price projections for the year 2030. This back-of-the-envelope calculation reveales that even for the mid-term future, natural gas is bound to be more economical. Instead of subsidising Hinkley Point C, the UK should expand the use of natural gas (baseload CCGT) in the electricity sector, supplemented by onshore wind as a hedge against escalating fuel prices. Forget offshore wind and solar. At the same time, R&D into 4th Generation nuclear should be increased, so that new, more economical and improved reactor models are ready for commercialisation after 2030. Cost estimates: www.nrel.gov/analysis/tech_lcoe.htmlen.openei.org/apps/TCDB/www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/65698/6658-decc-fossil-fuel-price-projections.pdfycharts.com/indicators/europe_natural_gas_price
|
|
|
Post by Nuclear on Nov 1, 2013 17:47:45 GMT 9.5
In 2012, onshore and offshore wind accounted for 5.3% of the UK's annual electricity production. 1.47% were supplied by hydroelectric power plants. Another 4.52% were produced by other renewables, mostly biomass combustion and landfill gas. Coal's share was 41%, gas' 28%, nuclear's 20%. That means the electricity grid's carbon intensity is approximately 10g*0.11 (renewables) + 10g*0.2 (nuclear) + 450g*0.28 (gas) + 900g*0.41 (coal) = 500g/kWh. The 2030 target is a 30% reduction, which means the emission intensity has to be reduced to 350g/kWh. This can be achieved by expanding nuclear, expanding renewables, expanding gas at the expense of coal while keeping nuclear and renewables constant or all of the above. What is the cheapest option? The UK's electricity demand is projected to remain close to flat until 2030. Currently, the LCOE hierarchy of the large-scale non-coal power generation options is Gas ($55 - $106) < Onshore Wind ($92) < New Nuclear ($130). If all nuclear stations are retired as scheduled, and no new build of 3rd generation nuclear occurs, only Sizewell B will still produce power in 2030. That would drop nuclear's share in the mix to 2%. At the moment, onshore wind is cheaper than new nuclear. Given the UK's good wind resources, onshore wind alone should be able to provide close to 30% of the UK's annual electricity without too much curtailment. That would mean that on some days of the year, virtually all of the country's conventional power plants would have to throttle down to accomodate that much wind electricity. The UK grid is suited to the integration of large amounts of wind power, because it already contains a high number of flexible gas plants. Since solar and biomass are not cost-effective, I decided to not include them in my estimate for 2030. According to my back-of-the-envelope calculation, the most cost effective generation mix to reach the 2030 target of 350g/kWh would be: Hydro: 1.5% Nuclear: 2% (Sizewell B) Wind: 20% Gas: 77.5% Reaching the 80% reduction target in 2050 (100g/kWh) would require a massive expansion of renewables or factory produced nuclear reactors after 2030. By 2050, unabated gas' share would have to drop to below 20% to reach this goal. That's why until then, the most prudent course of action would be to make small, affordable, modular nuclear power reactors commercially viable while building wind and gas plants to reach the interim emission reduction targets. If affordable SMRs become a reality, the two decades up to 2050 would see nuclear expanding at the expense of gas and wind. When Sizewell B is retired in 2055, a whole bunch of SMRs would hopefully provide most of the country's electricity. Don't bother with new GW-scale third generation nuclear, it's a) not economical and b) not necessary. gastopowerjournal.com/markets/item/1729-uk-electricity-demand-to-remain-%E2%80%9Cclose-to-flat-until-2030%E2%80%9D-bloomberg-new-energy-finance#axzz2jNV1dyLBwww.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-T-Z/United-Kingdom/#.UnNarRD66kc
|
|
|
Post by quokka on Nov 1, 2013 19:17:15 GMT 9.5
The UK Committee on Climate Change has repeatedly said that 50g CO2/kWh by 2030 is probably required to meet the UK emissions targets which are some of the most ambitious anywhere. 350 g CO2/kWh is guaranteed failure.
80% reductions by 2050 is a target for all emissions - not just from electricity generation.
|
|
|
Post by Nuclear on Nov 1, 2013 20:41:45 GMT 9.5
I can't see how 50g/kWh will be possible by 2030. It would require virtually all of the country's electricity to come from low-carbon sources. It would call for a much more massive investment effort into low carbon baseload than currently underway.
It's also questionable to pair high shares of wind with high shares of nuclear, as envisioned by the DECC. The low capacity factor of wind and its intermittency would lead to the nuclear plants being crowded out of the market at times of high wind output, because wind's marginal cost is essentially zero. This would further increase electricity bills, since the nukes would have to recoup their capital costs over fewer kilowatt-hours. Wind should be paired with plants with low capital and high marginal costs ... i.e. gas. How is gas with CCS looking cost-wise?
|
|
|
Post by Ed Leaver on Nov 2, 2013 2:27:33 GMT 9.5
I can't see how 50g/kWh will be possible by 2030. It would require virtually all of the country's electricity to come from low-carbon sources. It would call for a much more massive investment effort into low carbon baseload than currently underway. It's also questionable to pair high shares of wind with high shares of nuclear, as envisioned by the DECC. The low capacity factor of wind and its intermittency would lead to the nuclear plants being crowded out of the market at times of high wind output, because wind's marginal cost is essentially zero. This would further increase electricity bills, since the nukes would have to recoup their capital costs over fewer kilowatt-hours. Wind should be paired with plants with low capital and high marginal costs ... i.e. gas. How is gas with CCS looking cost-wise? You are absolutely correct, save for your unfounded pessimism of your first sentence. From his public statements, one would surmise Mr. Davey is highly aware of your subsequent assertions. And when found, I suspect the answer to your ultimate question -- "How is gas with CCS looking cost-wise?" -- will address some of the cost criticisms leveled at HPC. I don't yet have a good answer, as apparently all commercial scale CCS experiments have been shelved over cost and sequestration issues ... But the estimates I've seen run from 25% to 75% increased fuel usage just to drive the process, which in no case can be 100% efficient, or even the 98++% effective efficiency attained by nuclear and wind. 40%? 80%? I don't know. Which doesn't mean the CC part is not being done, at least on some level. We need to look for the reference and PR pages, but I believe there are two small fossil plants in Texas that capture part of their CO2 for sale to the local oil industry, which has an existing CO2 pipeline distribution system for use in tertiary extraction. Find that, and they can probably provide estimates for the efficiency and cost of their carbon capture, and the price being paid by their customers. In there also should be oil industry estimates of the cost of distributing such CO2, and cost per MMCF to inject into a well. It won't be precisely what we need, as tertiary oil recovery isn't quite as simple as pumping massive amounts of CO2 down one well and great green gob$ of oil out the next. But you are asking the right questions: what will CCS cost, how effective will it be, and just what will be its sequestration requirements? At that point the unreliable proponents may (at their discretion) estimate how much overbuild and extra transmission requirements will be needed to provide Britain's required amounts of actually useful energy, while meeting her mandated CO2 emissions budget.
I personally think CCS will play an absolutely crucial role in saving the planet. I also suspect CCS will be so expensive and inefficient that by mid-to-end century essentially the only fossil fuels that may be burned (and still meet RCP 4.5, let alone 2.6) will be the relatively small amounts needed to co-fire CCS biomass. That combination could be effectively paired with wind, the amount of wind generation then being limited by the amount of available (storage + demand mismanagement + sustainable biomass), and might make valuable contribution to peak loads. The substantial remaining on-demand energy requirement being made by nuclear. But you are correct: it makes no sense whatsoever to directly pair wind with nuclear. There is no benefit over nuclear alone. But the public wants wind, and Mr. Davey needs public support.
|
|
|
Post by Ed Leaver on Nov 2, 2013 3:11:05 GMT 9.5
Sod: the analysts you selectively quoted from your Bloomberg and Guardian links take the business-as-usual position: low-carbon alternatives are more expensive than fossils => low-carbon alternatives are bad. This is their job and is to be expected. Do you share their position? Unlike you, the Bloomberg and Guardian reporters did bother to print Mr.Davey's reply. From Bloomberg: The BAU analysts are betting that in the 2020s fracked gas will be plentiful, carbon taxes will be nil, and the EU carbon-credit scheme will remain collapsed. How do you bet? Before you reply, do please read Introduction to Electric Power, a moderately brief pedagogical essay specifically written for occasions such as this. I shall have a few questions when you are done. Thanks, Ed
|
|
|
Post by Nuclear on Nov 4, 2013 15:36:04 GMT 9.5
You are absolutely correct, save for your unfounded pessimism of your first sentence. From his public statements, one would surmise Mr. Davey is highly aware of your subsequent assertions. And when found, I suspect the answer to your ultimate question -- "How is gas with CCS looking cost-wise?" -- will address some of the cost criticisms leveled at HPC. I don't yet have a good answer, as apparently all commercial scale CCS experiments have been shelved over cost and sequestration issues ... But the estimates I've seen run from 25% to 75% increased fuel usage just to drive the process, which in no case can be 100% efficient, or even the 98++% effective efficiency attained by nuclear and wind. 40%? 80%? I don't know. I'd call it realism, rather than pessimism. I did some online research on the projected cost of retroffitting an advanced CCGT with CCS equipment: www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfmThe EIA seems to think that a CCGT fitted with CCS equipment would be able to outcompete a new nuclear power plant, assuming, of course, that fracking continues to prevent a substantial increase in natural gas prices. www.cmu.edu/epp/iecm/rubin/PDF%20files/2011/Rubin-Zhai_NGCC-CCS%20costs_CCS%20Conf_3%20May%202011.pdfApparently, fitting a CCGT with CCS equipment would roughly double capital costs and reduce plant efficiency by 7% to 10%. The CCS equipment would remove 90% of the CO2 from the exhaust stream. So retroffitting advanced CCGTs with CCS would drop thermal efficieny from 60% to 50%. A CCGT-CCS would emit 45g/kWh, which makes it technology suitable to a decarbonised power grid. CCGT-CCS at $7/MMbtu: Discount Rate: 10% Period: 20 years Capital Cost: $1760/kW Capacity Factor: 90% Fixed O&M: $14/kW-yr Variable O&M: $0.000286/kWh Heat Rate: 6824 Btu/kWh (50% thermal efficiency) Electricity Cost: $76/MWh CCGT-CCS at $16/MMbtu: Discount Rate: 10% Period: 20 years Capital Cost: $1760/kW Capacity Factor: 90% Fixed O&M: $14/kW-yr Variable O&M: $0.000286/kWh Heat Rate: 6824 Btu/kWh (50% thermal efficiency) Electricity Cost: $137/MWh Hinkley Point C: Discount Rate: 10% Period: 30 years Capital Cost: $8125/kW Capacity Factor: 90% Fixed O&M: $70/kW-yr Variable O&M: $0.00049/kWh Heat Rate: 9221 Btu/kWh (37% thermal efficiency) Fuel Cost: $1.2/MMBtu Electricity Cost: $130/MWh So under the high gas price scenario, the electricity produced by a CCGT with CCS would be $7/MWh more expensive Hinkley Point C's, but still under the strike price of $148/MWh. Supporting Hinkley Point C with such a high strike price seems to be a massive bet on high gas prices and CCS not playing out as expected. If gas prices do not rise in line with the DECC's high-price scenario, HPC will be a burden which has to be carried by rate payers for many years to come.
|
|
|
Post by Nuclear on Nov 4, 2013 16:10:58 GMT 9.5
Another large, often underestimated challenge will be the decarbonisation of heating and its impact on the electricity grid, since the preferred technology to achieve this is electric heat pumps. However, over the course of the year, heat demand varies considerably. Heat production would thus require a lot of additional generating capacity. The problem is that this capacity would sit idle for large periods of time (during the summer, at night). The average capacity factor would be 60% or lower. Unabated gas would be the best option in this case, but it's not a low carbon energy source. Nuclear would be far from economical at such low capacity factors. What would be?
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on Nov 5, 2013 8:11:57 GMT 9.5
Another large, often underestimated challenge will be the decarbonisation of heating and its impact on the electricity grid, since the preferred technology to achieve this is electric heat pumps. However, over the course of the year, heat demand varies considerably. Heat production would thus require a lot of additional generating capacity. The problem is that this capacity would sit idle for large periods of time (during the summer, at night). The average capacity factor would be 60% or lower. Unabated gas would be the best option in this case, but it's not a low carbon energy source. Nuclear would be far from economical at such low capacity factors. What would be? Whenever cycles of supply and demand are out of step, either storage or production capacity has to be idle for some of the cycle. Single stage gas turbines (well, OCGT anyway) seem to be the currently preferred reserve, with relatively low capital plant and high cost of fuel to be paid only when consumed. This makes more sense when the cycle time is an hour or a day as in the case of solar, but it would be up to a month for tidal, and the preparation for the northern winter implies a cycle time of one year! Perhaps that is a case for intermediate fuel to be stockpiled instead of idling plant. Being synthesized year-round would maintain a steady demand on the grid, while providing energy from the stockpile when heating is required. METHANOL could be a stock raw material for the production of transport hydrocarbons, plastics etc, so seems to be a logical storage for heating purposes. It might even be piped through the suburbs.
|
|
|
Post by Ed Leaver on Nov 5, 2013 14:25:02 GMT 9.5
Thanks Nuclear, fascinating and welcome developments in CCS, didn't think it could be that efficiently. Very good news. I'm not sure the heat-pump-demand-higher-in-winter concern is a one. AC is (usually) a heat-pump as well, in demand only during summer. In new construction the two are frequently combined using the same pump and thermal reservoir. (In dry climates evaporative coolers also work very well. I sure like them.) Switching from fossil heat to heat-pump would increase winter usage, but might result in more balanced yearly load. Spring and Autumn remain a problem, of course. Save for outdoor enthusiasts...
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on Nov 7, 2013 18:36:44 GMT 9.5
EdIreland said: "BWRs came about as part of the Army Atomic power programme that wanted mobile reactors to provide power for bases." Mobile reactors? This sounds intriguing. It evokes images of pieces arriving on site on the back of trucks, being bolted together and later unbolted by men with spanners. Only concrete left behind, perhaps all underground. Do you have any more details on the story, perhaps a link?
|
|
|
Post by sod on Nov 17, 2013 16:54:55 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by Ed Leaver on Nov 18, 2013 8:53:30 GMT 9.5
Hi Sod -- and welcome back to your thread! Before addressing your selective quotes, and discussion of how Production Tax Credits are implemented here in the States, could you kindly answer for us the following: 1. Please define "capacity factor". 2. Please define "dispatchability". 3. Please define "keeping the lights on." Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by sod on Nov 18, 2013 22:14:34 GMT 9.5
Hi Sod -- and welcome back to your thread! Before addressing your selective quotes, and discussion of how Production Tax Credits are implemented here in the States, could you kindly answer for us the following: 1. Please define "capacity factor". 2. Please define "dispatchability". 3. Please define "keeping the lights on." Thanks! I don t know what is the purpose of this, but here you go (wiki quotes) Dispatchable generation refers to sources of electricity that can be dispatched at the request of power grid operators; that is, generating plants that can be turned on or off, or can adjust their power output on demand. The net capacity factor of a power plant is the ratio of its actual output over a period of time, to its potential output if it were possible for it to operate at full nameplate capacity indefinitely. Japan has switched off 53 nuclear power plants and the lights kept on. So the world keeps moving, without Quad Cities plant and without the financial Hinkley plant disaster!
|
|
|
Post by Ed Leaver on Nov 19, 2013 4:36:22 GMT 9.5
Hi Sod -- and welcome back to your thread! Before addressing your selective quotes, and discussion of how Production Tax Credits are implemented here in the States, could you kindly answer for us the following: 1. Please define "capacity factor". 2. Please define "dispatchability". 3. Please define "keeping the lights on." Thanks! I don t know what is the purpose of this, but here you go (wiki quotes) Dispatchable generation refers to sources of electricity that can be dispatched at the request of power grid operators; that is, generating plants that can be turned on or off, or can adjust their power output on demand. The net capacity factor of a power plant is the ratio of its actual output over a period of time, to its potential output if it were possible for it to operate at full nameplate capacity indefinitely. Japan has switched off 53 nuclear power plants and the lights kept on. So the world keeps moving, without Quad Cities plant and without the financial Hinkley plant disaster! The world continues to warm as well. So just what does this mean, to "keep the lights on"?
|
|
|
Post by sod on Nov 19, 2013 6:41:49 GMT 9.5
That term has no meaning to me. It is a popular nuclear myth, that switching of (or not building) a single nuclear reactor will turn of all the lights. ( no surprise, ' nuclear "lights go off" ' gets 7 million hits on google) The truth is, Japan switched them all of and the lights kept on. And that was a country iun a disater situatin and with zero grid support from other countries. We could switch off all nuclear power and not a single light would go off. ----------------------- And all your questions have absolutely no connection to the topic of this discussion. We learned that new nuclear (Hinkley plant) comes at a price of double the market value, plus massive guarantees, no additional insurance and compensation for inflation. We learned (quad cities plant) that old and pied off nuclear also can not deliver power at market price but STILL needs subsidy support. So we know already, that Hinkley plant, after 35 years of massive subsidies will just demand more.
|
|
|
Post by Ed Leaver on Nov 19, 2013 7:05:51 GMT 9.5
That term has no meaning to me. It is a popular nuclear myth, that switching of (or not building) a single nuclear reactor will turn of all the lights. ( no surprise, ' nuclear "lights go off" ' gets 7 million hits on google) The truth is, Japan switched them all of and the lights kept on. And that was a country iun a disater situatin and with zero grid support from other countries. We could switch off all nuclear power and not a single light would go off. ... So, what does it take to "keep the lights on"?
|
|
|
Post by quokka on Nov 19, 2013 17:43:22 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by sod on Nov 19, 2013 20:53:39 GMT 9.5
|
|