|
Post by cyrilr on Jan 2, 2014 9:32:36 GMT 9.5
You did catch the picture of the new sarcophagus for Chernobyl I assume. Are all those folks deluded? Yes, they are. There's no risk to the public if there new sarcophagus were not placed. But it is not their fault; radiophobia is a historically ratcheted and collective thing. The whole world is scared of a millisievert. Correct, not by any sane rationale based on $/lives saved (which is about infinite for the sarcophagus). They are not hosing them down anymore, have you by chance been living under a rock the last two years? The answer to your second position is yes, they should. There is no risk in the water. It is not likely to kill even 1 person and not likely to kill as many fish as a single fishing ship if all of it were dumped directly into the sea. Interestingly, it turns out that the truth is exactly opposed to your vantage point. The advantages of nuclear are unique - energy density and reliability. There are no visible downsides of nuclear power, only visible upsides. For some reason people can't see it. It's strange, you'd think that a parking lot with some concrete casks that is the "troublesome"waste from powering a city for decades, would cause people to pause and think. But we can't think on nuclear. It's a devil in the mind, and who can speak well of the devil?
|
|
|
Post by Greg Simpson on Jan 3, 2014 9:07:00 GMT 9.5
"The Greens would probably like to dispense with gas as well"
Yeah, gas should not be a long term option.
|
|
|
Post by sod on Jan 3, 2014 21:11:08 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by Tom Bond on Jan 3, 2014 21:13:46 GMT 9.5
Some observations on Germany's transition plan to replace non carbon nuclear generation with non carbon renewable energy generation and reduce fossil carbon emissions.
This plan formulated in 1999 was based on a political belief but as Professor David McKay says, any energy plan must add up.
withouthotair.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/tedx-talk-people-power-area.html
In 1999 non carbon generation (mainly 20GW of nuclear) was 195TWh or 35% of a total of 560TWh.
Between 1999 and the end of 2012 Germany installed 33GW each of solar and wind for an estimated capital cost of 130B euros (2012 euros) using 2700 euros per kW for solar and 1300 euros per kW for onshore wind.
In 2012, electricity from all non carbon sources totalled 230TWh or 38% out of a total of 617TWh.
- 33GW of solar produced 28TWh or 4.5%. Capacity factor of 10%.
- 33GW of wind produced 45TWh or 7.5%. Capacity factor of 16%.
- 11GW of biomass and hydro produced 62TWh or 10%.
- 12GW of nuclear produced 99GWh or 16%.
So in 2012 solar produced just 4.5% of German electricity with non carbon energy production only increasing by 35TWh in 13 years.
Data from www.bmu.de/en/ however currently website is not available as it is being reconstructed.
Also see www.marklynas.org/2013/01/germanys-energiewende-the-story-so-far/
For 130B euros Germany could have added 26GW of nuclear to the existing 20GW in 1999 which could potentially generate 400TWh or 65% of 2012 production.
Instead Germany is constructing a fleet of new coal burning power stations which are needed to 'load follow' intermittent renewables.
www.pennenergy.com/articles/pennenergy/2012/08/rwe-s-2-200-mw-coal-fired.html www.pennenergy.com/articles/pei/2013/11/germany-initiates-new-generation-of-coal-fired-new-builds.html
With capacity factors of less than 20% for solar and wind it is these coal burning power stations, together with gas, that will be generating power the average of 80% of the time when there is no wind or sun, locking Germany into a fossil fuel future and rising GHG emissions.
Also the continued mining of coal requires forced relocations of communities, 30,000 people by 2045.
www.dw.de/lignite-still-germanys-primary-energy-source/a-16854175
Germany continues to be an example to the world of an energy plan that does not add up.
|
|
|
Post by sod on Jan 3, 2014 22:01:15 GMT 9.5
|
|
peterc
Thermal Neutron
Posts: 30
|
Post by peterc on Jan 4, 2014 4:56:42 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Jan 4, 2014 5:30:26 GMT 9.5
Wrong. Your links mentions that coal prices have dropped. So coal power will be slightly cheaper. Feed in tariff payments still increase. You know, I've never seen Sod make a single statement that is supported by Sod's internet links. Perhaps our little troll has trouble reading? Must be that anti-nuclear veil of Sod that prevents Sod from reading simple sentences.
|
|
|
Post by sod on Jan 4, 2014 7:10:49 GMT 9.5
sorry, no long reply tonight. But the problem with that Spiegel article is simple: it is garbage. (just take a look at the gold cable on the title) The simple truth is, that the majority of people will not know how much they pay for electricity and will not even notice a massive increase in power price. It is just a brilliant way to scare people. And just to remind you of the start of this discussion, in reality nuclear (Hinkley) is more expensive than solar PV is. www.badische-zeitung.de/nachrichten/wirtschaft/solarstrom-billiger-als-atomstrom-edf-fordert-privilegien--74452164.htmlThere is absolutely no connection between these two and i did not claim there was one. The simple truth is, that people are being told that alternative power is binging up the cost of electricity, when only a few profit from the real decrease in price that it is offering.
|
|
|
Post by sod on Jan 4, 2014 7:17:04 GMT 9.5
You know, I've never seen Sod make a single statement that is supported by Sod's internet links. Perhaps our little troll has trouble reading? Must be that anti-nuclear veil of Sod that prevents Sod from reading simple sentences. What problem do you have with reading that headline? "German Power Costs Seen Dropping for Fourth Year on Glut: Energy" www.businessweek.com/news/2014-01-03/german-power-costs-seen-dropping-for-fourth-year-on-glut-energyThe feed in tariff paid by average consumer does still increase. the reason is, that Germany used subsidies to get a new technology going. Try reading the full article. Then you might understand, why big power companies are counter attacking alternative power. And you might also understand, that the real reason for the current situation is the failure of the carbon price.
|
|
|
Post by sod on Jan 4, 2014 18:35:55 GMT 9.5
Some observations on Germany's transition plan to replace non carbon nuclear generation with non carbon renewable energy generation and reduce fossil carbon emissions.
This plan formulated in 1999 was based on a political belief but as Professor David McKay says, any energy plan must add up.
withouthotair.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/tedx-talk-people-power-area.html
In 1999 non carbon generation (mainly 20GW of nuclear) was 195TWh or 35% of a total of 560TWh.
Between 1999 and the end of 2012 Germany installed 33GW each of solar and wind for an estimated capital cost of 130B euros (2012 euros) using 2700 euros per kW for solar and 1300 euros per kW for onshore wind.
In 2012, electricity from all non carbon sources totalled 230TWh or 38% out of a total of 617TWh.
- 33GW of solar produced 28TWh or 4.5%. Capacity factor of 10%.
- 33GW of wind produced 45TWh or 7.5%. Capacity factor of 16%.
- 11GW of biomass and hydro produced 62TWh or 10%.
- 12GW of nuclear produced 99GWh or 16%.
So in 2012 solar produced just 4.5% of German electricity with non carbon energy production only increasing by 35TWh in 13 years.
Data from www.bmu.de/en/ however currently website is not available as it is being reconstructed. Germany is now getting an amount of alternative power from wind and solar, which most people here would have considered impossible some years ago. That is called an "investment". And the investment had the effect to bring down the price of wind and solar power. Within just a little more than one decade, alternative power has become a rival to nuclear power in electricity produced. It is utterly unclear, whether a single nuclear power plant could have been build in that amount of time, under current conditions! Those 130 billion euros might not have been enough to clean a single nuclear desaster. www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-07/fukushima-137-billion-cost-has-tepco-seeking-more-aid.htmlGermany did not abandon nuclear power because of some hysteric green lunatics. The final decision was made by a conservative chancellor (Merkel) after the Fukushima disaster and an assessment of german nuclear power plants. The majority of these plants were in planning or even in the building process already. The rise of coal power is produced by the cheap cost of coal. This is a side effect of CO2 certificates being much too cheap but it is also caused by the success of alternative power. (which drive down demand and price of coal) a rise of nuclear power would have had a similar effect in Germany. In no way are those coal plants a backup for alternative power. and your "20% capacity factor =80% coal calculation" is just completely false. (capacity might overlap) There also are good news on coal: thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/12/23/3101911/german-utility-coal-power/
|
|
|
Post by Tom Bond on Jan 5, 2014 12:04:07 GMT 9.5
Sod I am not going to reply to your ramblings on my post as they make little sense to me, but perhaps others can understand your rationale. Instead I will make some observations on the global emergency which currently faces human civilisation.
Human activity, mainly energy generation is consuming 14 billion tonnes of fossil carbon fuel annually, and dumping 35 billion tonnes of CO2 waste into the atmosphere. The rate of emissions growth in the 21st century is 3% annually, up from 1.5% in the latter 2 decades of the 20th century.
To achieve the IPCC AR5 RCP2.6 scenario, fossil carbon fuel use needs to be reduced to zero before the end of this century. This will give 420ppm CO2, about 2 degrees C of warming and a sea level rise of about 0.5m by 2100. Palaeoclimate records of the early Pliocene 5 million years ago when CO2 levels were about 400ppm, global temperatures were 3 degrees higher and sea levels 15 metres to 25 metres higher than today. Difficult for human civilisation to adapt, but maybe manageable. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliocene_climate
To reduce fossil carbon use to zero by 2100 requires every non carbon energy technology that is available. As the globes 6th highest CO2 emitter, Germany's policy of closing non carbon nuclear power stations and opening fossil carbon coal burning stations is counter productive to this emissions reduction objective.
If we continue the current 'business as usual' we risk the IPCC AR5 RCP 8.5 scenario with CO2 atmospheric concentrations of above 900ppm and rising by 2100. This will give about 4 degrees of warming and a sea level rise of about 1m by 2100 and rising into the 22nd century. Palaeoclimate records of the Eocene Climatic Optimum 50 million years ago when CO2 levels were also 900 ppm show global temperatures 12 degrees higher and sea levels 80 metres higher than today. A climate change of this magnitude is not only high risk for human civilisation but also the human species. commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
If human civilisation (and perhaps the human species) is to survive we need energy transition plans that add up.
|
|
|
Post by sod on Jan 6, 2014 2:29:31 GMT 9.5
Sod I am not going to reply to your ramblings on my post as they make little sense to me, but perhaps others can understand your rationale.
If Germany had decided to build new nuclear power in 1999, we would most likely have not a single new nuclear power plant today. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_PlantAnd if they finally come online, we know from the Hinkley plant (which is the topic of this discussion!!!), that they produce power at a HIGHER price, that solar PV.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Bond on Jan 6, 2014 9:56:09 GMT 9.5
Sod
My previous statement is confirmed by your latest post.
If Germany had commenced a nuclear program in 1999, 13 years ago a number of plants would be on line by now, France constructed 58 plants in 20 years! You only need a small number of plants to generate vast quantities of power.
The 8GW of nuclear capacity prematurely retired, generate (with a capacity factor of 90%) the same quantity of electricity annually (63TWh) as 72GW of solar (with a capacity factor of 10%). On the current planned rate of build Germany will achieve 72GW of solar sometime during the 2030s.
Meanwhile solar and wind continue to be subsidised through the feed in tariff by German electricity consumers who pay the second highest rate for electricity in Europe (after Denmark). The solar/wind subsidy in 2013 totalled 20B euros and will be 23B in 2014 or 6.24c/kWh. Note these subsidies are locked in for 20 years after installation, that is say 20B for 20 years or at least 400 billion euros!
www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/03486cb0-3587-11e3-b539-00144feab7de.html#axzz2pZOjfnSl
Thus Germany will take 30 years and 100s billions of subsidies to construct sufficient solar capacity to replace the 8GW of nuclear that was retired prematurely.
The UK strike prices for various renewable energy technologies can be found here.
www.gov.uk/government/news/record-investments-of-40-billion-in-renewable-electricity-to-bring-green-jobs-and-growth-to-the-uk
Note the solar strike price is 120 pounds per MWh.
The Hinkley C strike price is 92.5 pounds per MWh.
With respect to solar/nuclear costs I rest my case, energy plans really need to add up.
|
|
|
Post by Ed Leaver on Jan 6, 2014 12:38:10 GMT 9.5
Now now, Tom. Let's not hold out false hope. Unreliable capacity does not make reliable power.
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Jan 6, 2014 20:54:28 GMT 9.5
You know, I've never seen Sod make a single statement that is supported by Sod's internet links. Perhaps our little troll has trouble reading? Must be that anti-nuclear veil of Sod that prevents Sod from reading simple sentences. What problem do you have with reading that headline? "German Power Costs Seen Dropping for Fourth Year on Glut: Energy" www.businessweek.com/news/2014-01-03/german-power-costs-seen-dropping-for-fourth-year-on-glut-energyThe feed in tariff paid by average consumer does still increase. the reason is, that Germany used subsidies to get a new technology going. Try reading the full article. Then you might understand, why big power companies are counter attacking alternative power. And you might also understand, that the real reason for the current situation is the failure of the carbon price. You've misunderstood Sod, as usual. The feed in tariff is a seperate surcharge on electricity for consumers; it is not included in raw power sales prices in the spot market. It's perfectly possible for raw power prices to decrease 1 cent/kWh due to cheap coal, and the feed in tariffs increasing due to more expensive solar and wind on the grid, by 5 cents/kWh. Net is an increase of 4 cent/kWh for consumers. Industry has so far been exempt from paying this price for unreliable unproductive electricity. That was the ONLY sane thing about Germany's renewables plan. Now they're trying to retract that, which will scare away heavy industry from Germany (as has already occured recently). Here in the Netherlands, an aluminium smelter has recently gone bankrupt. The cause: high electricity prices. Root cause: poor energy policy - no reliable nuclear plants, only expensive unreliable renewables being built and old inefficient fossil plants kept running, and a pricing policy to make electricity more expensive to discourage use (its clearly working to some extent as the aluminium smelter has reduced energy usage by 100% now).
|
|
|
Post by sod on Jan 7, 2014 3:50:21 GMT 9.5
Sod
My previous statement is confirmed by your latest post.
If Germany had commenced a nuclear program in 1999, 13 years ago a number of plants would be on line by now, France constructed 58 plants in 20 years! You only need a small number of plants to generate vast quantities of power. you did not check the timeline. zero new nuclear power plants would be online by now, if Germany had made the decision to reenter that market in 1999. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Timelineyour calculations are way off. The way feed in tariffs work, a price increase will LOWER the money we have to pay. The Hinkley plant plan expects prices to double over the next 10 years. did you factor this into your calculations? At the same time, solar and wind have been getting cheaper. so 20 years from now, we will pay a much lower price than today. And you forgot those solar PV panels, that have been paid for, but which still provide power... (let us not even start talking about the advantages the German subsidies brought to other countries) so here is the cheap trick you are using: you assume, that those old nuclear plants (which were taken off, because even the conservatives thought that they are not secure) would not need a single euro of investment. you then try to replace it with solar PV, which is the most expensive option. Why not look at wind? It is becoming the biggest source of electricity in multiple countries. www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/06/wind-power-spain-electricity-2013we need the price, when Hinkley goes into service. (2025???) and there is a european market for electricity. So you have to factor in the German price (of solar), which is lower already TODAY.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Jan 8, 2014 10:33:00 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by Bas on Jan 8, 2014 22:54:31 GMT 9.5
1. ...The feed in tariff is a seperate surcharge on electricity for consumers; ... 2. ...Industry has so far been exempt from paying this price for unreliable unproductive electricity... 3. Here in the Netherlands, an aluminium smelter has recently gone bankrupt. The cause: high electricity prices. Root cause: poor energy policy - no reliable nuclear plants, only expensive unreliable renewables being built Cyill, These statement are not correct: 1. Feed-in-Tariff (FiT) is the guaranteed rate that renewable produces get during a certain period if they fulfill certain conditions. E.g. for solar in Germany €99/MWh if the installation is between 1MW and 10MW (above 10MW no FiT; market prices), during a period of only 15years (after that market prices). The surcharge due to renewable is called the Energiewende levy. That is now ~€50/MWh. 2. Only specific industries that use lots of electricity (e.g. aluminum smelters) are exempted from the Energiewende levy in Germany. 3. Our only aluminum smelter went bankrupt because it cannot compete against the German smelters that get substantial cheaper electricity in Germany! Their wholesale prices are much lower. So we in NL should have followed the German policy, than the smelter would still exist. The last plan to save the smelter was to install a dedicated cable to connect to the German grid (our Dutch government was prepared to deliver investment guarantees), but the cable showed to be expensive (~€35million) and to take too much time (at least 2 years) to save the plant.
|
|
|
Post by Bas on Jan 9, 2014 2:34:08 GMT 9.5
The high costs of nuclear are depicted by the new UK Nuclear Power Plant (Hinckley). About 75% of all costs of that NPP are subsidized during 35years! Even electricity produced by offshore wind is cheaper.
The subsidies for the new UK NPP at Hinckley:
1. Inflation corrected guaranteed price of €111/MWh. With 2% inflation that is €135/MWh at the start of Hinckley in 2023 and €172/MWh in 2035, halfway the guaranteed period.
Solar Feed-in-Tariff (FiT) now €100/MWh (installations between 1MW and 10MW) during 20years. Long term (based on the last 35years) decrease ~8%/year. All experts expect that this decrease continues. So in 2023 solar FiT €44/MWh. Assume 4% decrease after that, than in 2035 €27/MWh.
Whole sale prices here now ~€40/MWh, The market (prices of futures) for 2018 show further decreases. UK now has high whole sale price, but that will come down with more interconnection capacity.
So the strike price carries a subsidy of at least (135-45)=€90/MWh at the start of Hinckley in 2023 and at least €120/MWh half way the guarantee period.
2. Government loan guarantees for €12billion. Commercial interest rate is at least 8%/a higher without the guarantees. That implies the tax-payers pay those 8% invisible. Until things go wrong! Then they loose the 12billion. So those 8% is insurance premium, actually a subsidy of €1billion per year. Assume the loan is paid off during the life-time, than the subsidy is €500million/year.
3. The insurance premium for accidents is subsidized. In ~12,000 reactor years, 4 reactors created accidents with a damage of ~1trillion total. Chernobyl was in thin populated area. Fukushima had 99% of the winds towards the ocean. Hinckley is in dense populated area with major winds towards London.
That imply similar accident at Hinckley can easily create €3trillion damage. So a premium of €1billion/a per reactor. Assume the new reactors are 10 times more safe, then the subsidized premium is €200million/year for the new NPP (2 reactors).
4. Decommission and radio-active waste subsidies. Sellafield has a stockpile that costs ~€120billion to organize it. Experience in Germany and France show that a permanent store will costs at least €350billion (also reservations for next generations that have to monitor and take action if necessary). Assume Hinckley produce ~3% of it in those 35 years, than it is a subsidy of €300million/year.
--- Total subsidies ~€1billion/year. The NPP may produce ~25,000GWh/a (90% utilization, which assumes all goes well). Hence subsidy 2+3+4 alone are €40/MWh Together with the strike price subsidy of at least €110/MWh the total subsidy for the new NPP is: ~€150/MWh (=15cent/KWh), or €3.750billion/year during 35 years, which totals to a subsidy of €130billion for the new UK NPP!
The new Hinckley NPP will deliver for €175/MWh in 2023 and €212/MWh in 2035 (2% inflation). While the wholesale market price will be less than €50/MWh in 2023 and probably even lower in 2035. This all implies ~75% subsidy on the turnover of the NPP.
|
|
|
Post by Bas on Jan 9, 2014 3:04:20 GMT 9.5
Looking at the costs and subsidies for new nuclear as calculated in my previous post, it is clear that German consumers will pay far less for the Energiewende than UK consumers for new nuclear in their grid!
Old nuclear is only cheap because they transfer the insurance premium of the enhanced risks of their old unsafe NPP's to consumers. That transfer is invisible until disaster strikes, and that strike will happen taking into account the high rate of smaller nuclear accidents, and the two disasters.
So the Netherlands should follow Germany and close the only NPP that we have fast. Especially since it is one of the oldest and most dangerous NPP in Europe. Being situated in a polder, 6meter below sea level if the dike brakes, which happens once in 5000years according to the Dutch authority. So then all electricity will fail and the emergency generators are below sea level... Hence the EU stress test recommended higher dikes, which is not realized. The NPP does not want to pay and the Dutch regulator (NRC) is a fake.
|
|
|
Post by Bas on Jan 9, 2014 3:14:05 GMT 9.5
Now now, Tom. Let's not hold out false hope. Unreliable capacity does not make reliable power. Ed, Since that unreliable capacity (wind+solar) took steam in Germany, the reliability of their electricity supply doubled! They had ~30min/a total outage time per customer connection. Now it is ~15min/a. Thanks to more distributed generation (many wind and solar installations), whose production is well predicted by grid management. They use weather forecasts and they also see wind/solar production gradually change in their area with the speed of the wind. So they see a flawing wind entering their area and passing through at e.g. 20km/h. Similar with clouds. That imply accurate prediction of wind+solar production for the next 2hours. So little spinning spare needed. While a 1.5GW NPP can stop in a second, so those need huge spinning spares. Compare that with nuclear countries France, UK and USA. Reliability in UK, France 4 times worse (60min./year outage of av. customer connection) and USA at least 8 times worse.
|
|
|
Post by Bas on Jan 9, 2014 4:14:16 GMT 9.5
Germany is the only major country that reached already it's Kyoto targets of 20% CO2 reduction in 2020 compared to 1990. They now exhaust ~25% less compared to 1990. USA now exhaust ~10% more CO2 compared to 1990. So the targets of the Energiewende are: 1. All nuclear out (done in 2023); 2. Democratize electricity supply (big utilities create the danger of NPP's). So mainly household rooftop solar, wind turbines by local farmers, etc. 3. More renewable. So each year ~5GW wind+solar is installed, and the share of renewable goes up with ~1.5%/year. That rate will go up once the grid adaptation is ready in ~2017/18. Then the speed of NPP closure's is increased as well. 4. Affordable costs. Important in order to keep public support. By now ~90% of the public supports the Energiewende. (one of the reasons it takes 50years to reach 80% renewable). 5. Less GHG /CO2. Germany surpassed Kyoto targets already. Btw Austria experienced similar damage from Chernobyl and has banned all electricity generated by nuclear. No import, neither transit, neither temporary storage, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Ed Leaver on Jan 9, 2014 6:44:37 GMT 9.5
Thank you, Bas. That is what we suspected.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Jan 9, 2014 11:17:11 GMT 9.5
Starting from www.iea.org/statistics/statisticssearch/I searched, on the right, for a graph of German electricity generation by fuel. In this way one obtains a pdf from which one can form one's one opinion. Incidentally, the source used by bas regarding cancers has be most seriously called into question. Those interested in thoughtful sources might care to begin with Wade Allison's Radiation and Reason.
|
|
|
Post by edireland on Jan 9, 2014 12:09:38 GMT 9.5
The problems with the Hinkley Point's FIT contract are absolutely nothing to do with the 'costs of nuclear power'.
It is just that EDF saw the Government coming a mile away.
The government is ideologically committed to using 'private' capital to build the reactors rather than just using state money. Run the costs of the reactors using the gilt rate which is currently below inflation over 30 years and watch what happens to the price of energy. You end up with an energy cost around €40/MWh.
And Blackouts in the UK are never due to lack of generating capacity. They are due to companies tripping out equipment on 'safety grounds' because it is cheaper than planned maintenance that has to be published in advance in newspapers et al. Grid reliability in Britain is falling because the lower energy prices after privatisation were purchased by the slashing of the capital investment budget that the CEGB maintained as it viewed its primary purpose to 'keep the lights on' - equipment is wearing out and now National Grid and the Distribution Network Operators are demanding more money to replace it.
As to the idea of using Solar in the UK, I hope you are willing to accept ~60GWe of OCGTs as backup, since you know... peak grid demand in the UK occurs in the dark - last full year I have data for (2012-2013) it was about December 12th at roughly 1700-1730 hours, with sunset occuring at roughly 1620 at the latest.
In December, a month where we have multiple recorded incidents of very little wind due to jet stream fluctuations (the year before last for example)
So Sun is definitely out and Wind is unreliable. You are going to need rather a lot of backup power, even more once heating has to go all electric to escape fuel imports.
Once you have enough gas turbines to support the grid by itself, the question becomes is it worth bothering with the renewables at all? We are going to be in hock to various oil sheikhs either way since we will be needing fuel at the coldest time of the year when things are most critical anyway.
EDIT:
Additionally Wind power recieves subsidies on top of the FiT which rather change the picture.
|
|
|
Post by Ed Leaver on Jan 9, 2014 16:29:56 GMT 9.5
And there you have it: unreliable capacity does not make reliable power. Reliable power is made by reliable sources: thermal plant (fossil, nuclear, biomass) and hydro. Unreliable renewables (wind and solar) can reduce fossil fuel and biomass consumption, but cannot replace the required capacity. They are also a good match for extending hydro, but hydro is limited and again unreliable renewables cannot reduce the net required reliable (thermal+hydro) capacity. Extending the grid beyond the U.K. does not help much. Any particular thermal plant can fail and go off line. As can any grid substation. But not all of them, or -- barring nationwide calamity on scale of Great East Japan Earthquake -- anywhere close. The UK has 16 reactors generating about 18% of its electricity. That doesn't count coal (boo, hiss) or natural gas (hi$$). But when the entire U.K. is becalmed, all U.K. wind turbines stop. Outside of mid-day or during cloudy weather, all solar also stops. Unreliables may be made less so with storage. But as with the requisite reliable fossil+hydro capacity, storage costs are not part of the unreliable strike price. What is the value of unreliable power? What does it cost to make it useful? And what is the purpose of this exercise?
|
|
|
Post by sod on Jan 9, 2014 21:14:53 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by Bas on Jan 9, 2014 23:50:12 GMT 9.5
And there you have it: unreliable capacity does not make reliable power. ... Unreliables may be made less so with storage. But as with the requisite reliable fossil+hydro capacity, storage costs are not part of the unreliable strike price. What is the value of unreliable power? What does it cost to make it useful? And what is the purpose of this exercise? Ed, Unreliable do make reliable power. That operates even without interconnections and with small areas as shown at Islands with 100% renewable. Germany experienced significant improvement in reliability when wind+solar took steam (since 2003)! Now at least 4 times more reliable than UK. " ...the value..." If all subsidies are taken away, renewable (inc. storage) is far cheaper than nuclear. Please check my posts regarding Hinckley Point C. Furthermore nuclear creates disasters that may hamper the whole economy (London evacuated with 'wrong' winds), and produce radiation which damage the health of next generations in huge areas as I showed in previous posts here. Renewable does not! May be some technician falls down a wind turbine or roof, but he did choose that job with that risk. While nuclear hits innocent citizens that never chose any such risk. So the value is: much cheaper, tremendous less risks especially for the generations after us. " What does it cost to make it useful?" The Germans spent ~200million dollar to scenario studies in the hot debate period between 1987 and 2000 (when they decided to the present 50year scenario). They concluded: - relative low extra costs compared to coal/gas (and of course significant cheaper than nuclear). - relative slow transition (in 50years to 80% renewable = 1,5% more/year) preferable as that implies little extra costs. So it will ensure continued public support. That support did grow from ~60% towards ~90% now. " And what is the purpose of this exercise?" 1 - Less air pollution & damaging radiation; so improved health. 2 - More sustainable economy, so generations after us can use oil, coal, etc. for plastics etc., as well. No longer parasite the earth 3 - Less GHG / CO2 which may help against climate change. Although: For NL it seems that climate change is economic favorable (the increase of water know how export delivers more than raising the dikes cost). And I'm not sure about that, may be we move into ice age.
|
|
|
Post by Bas on Jan 10, 2014 0:36:24 GMT 9.5
The problems with the Hinkley Point's FIT contract are absolutely nothing to do with the 'costs of nuclear power'. ... using state money. Run the costs of the reactors using the gilt rate ... and watch what happens to the price of energy. You end up with an energy cost around €40/MWh. ... Solar in the UK, I hope you are willing to accept ~60GWe of OCGTs as backup, ... ... even more once heating has to go all electric to escape fuel imports. Edireland, " problems with the Hinkley Point's FIT contract are absolutely nothing to do with the 'costs of nuclear power'" Brussels cannot allow UK to continue with Hinckley, because the 75% subsidy on the electricity generated by Hinckley falsifies competition (I remember UK once was pushing those strict competition rules). UK/France governments must have something special in the pocket for Germany, as otherwise Merkel will not agree with a rule change. She declared already against, though not very openly (Germany is in the fire-line once Hinckley turns into a Fukushima). So I think the problems have everything to do with the costs. May be you can explain why you think not? "... using state money. Run the costs of the reactors using the gilt rate ... You end up with an energy cost around €40/MWh" That is created by the government loan guarantees. As I showed (read my post) that implies the tax-payer subsidizes Hinckley with ~€1billion/year (in addition to the strike price)! " ... Solar in the UK, I hope you are willing to accept ~60GWe of OCGTs as backup, ..." You should spend some millions for scenario studies. If German and Denmark can do it, and even Scotland is heading towards 100% renewable, why UK not? You may put a high capacity power line to Norway. Norwegian Statkraft will be very happy to serve UK with pumped storage. Especially since their trade with Germany brings little earnings (due to over-capacity whole sale prices stay low the whole time, even pumped storage facilities in Germany make losses now). I do not understand that Cornwall along the coast is not filled with solar panels as: - they have excellent sun (better than NL, N-Germany); and - UK Feed-in-Tariffs are ~50% higher than those in Germany. " ...Once you have enough gas turbines to support the grid by itself..." You do not need that at all, as shown by good scenario studies! " ... even more once heating has to go all electric to escape fuel imports." With high wind+solar capacity installed: When the sun shines and/or the wind blows, wholesale prices go down towards near zero (as Germany shows). That makes electricity-to-fuel/gas conversion plants economic. And that fuel/gas can be used for transportation and heating and stored. Scotland has or is building a power-to-fuel pilot plant. In Germany several power-to-gas pilot plants (using different methods to create synthetic gas) that inject the gas in the national gas grid. Furthermore BMW/Audi have 2MW power-to-car-fuel pilot plant running. Those produce fuel that is used by their cars. In general those plants are put in places where a lot of CO2 is available. So behind a power plant that burns biomass/waste, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Ed Leaver on Jan 10, 2014 2:08:21 GMT 9.5
Sod: I stated no opinion about the reliability of the German grid. I do hold an opinion about the degree of Germany's carbon reduction, what it has, and what it will cost.
Nor do I hold the United States forth as an example of how to do it better. We may be, or we may not. Either way, our present path will dead end long before attaining the required distance. As, I believe, will Germany's.
My own goal is to avoid climate catastrophe. I wish all of us to succeed.
|
|