Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.

[S'toon]

Except that you forget that Nuclear can be less expensive. I'd argue that it is easier to make nuclear less expensive than to replace all of that with winter usage with wind. Using a horrible cost example makes the argument convincing for sure for the anti-nuclear side.

"As Germany found..." that when they shut nuclear plants they build more coal plants. Despite a huge solar push - largest in the world. Germany has built (ing) more coal generation than their solar generating capacity and wind combined.

Japan is building 41 new coal plants. Not a typo. Why? Because their electricity use is up so much? No.

Now remind me - is burning coal bad? Is it responsible for the most carbon intensive electricity generation? Is it responsible for more deaths per GWH generated? By a factor of 1000 over nuclear?

Wonder why Germany didn't just build more wind and solar? Or Japan?

I'd argue that if Germany can't do enough wind/solar in 2015/16, good luck in the USA. Sure we could build enough wind. We could also stop using electricity. But it isn't happening. And it won't.

Not true. Germany's building coal plants as a result of closing nuclear plants is a myth put out by global warming deniers to "prove" that green energy sources aren't viable.

The truth is Germany has build some coal power plants, but they were planned and building started well before the nuclear plant closures.

The truth is, since German actually canceled the construction of coal plants since they closed the nuclear power plants.
Germany builds minus six coal plants after nuclear phaseout

 

[David_Cary]

The Germany story isn't that simple and you probably know that.

Fact - CO2 emissions in 2015 were higher that 2009. Cherry picked data? - sure. But look at 25 year data - the majority of the reductions were 1990-2000. The last 15 years have been pretty flat. Emissions climbed in 2015.

Anyone would agree that Germany has done some great things. But coal emissions are on the rise as nuclear is shutdown. Germany actually looks quite horrible when you factor in the costs. Want to discuss how much electricity costs in Germany? But even costs vs rates - complicated. I mean, we could cut emissions 10% in 2017 just by jumping to Germany's rates but that isn't going to happen.

30% renewables - and emissions rose in 2015? And the last 5 years isn't good at all.

Shutting down nukes tends to drive carbon up. You can hand wave about building more wind but just look at the reality of Germany the last 5 years. And they have essentially zero EVs. Their transportation segment has made zero progress in 25 years - so now they start doing EV's. Can they build wind fast enough? - no.

Germany’s greenhouse gas emissions and climate targets

As far as nuclear's cost, you can certainly look at our experience and make that case. But you can also appreciate that costs can come down and will. Modular has momentum. Custom vs factory built. Kind of like EVs...

I pick all of the above when it comes to reducing pollution and carbon.

 

[SageBrush]

Fact - CO2 emissions in 2015 were higher that 2009. Cherry picked data? - sure. But look at 25 year data - the majority of the reductions were 1990-2000. The last 15 years have been pretty flat. Emissions climbed in 2015.

What is the point of cherry picking data quoted out of context ?

Try this article



Here is the context you are missing

According to preliminary calculations made by the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Energiebilanzen (AG Energiebilanzen) – Working Group on Energy Balances (Energy Balances Group), energy consumption in Germany peaked at 13,306 petajoules (PJ), which translates into 454.0 million tons of coal equivalent (Mtce), in 2015. This equals an increase of 1.1 % compared to the previous year.

The increase is primarily due to the weather, which was slightly cooler than the much milder previous year, and the associated higher demand for heating energy. According to estimates of the AG Energiebilanzen, the increase in consumption resulting from the positive economic trend (+1.7 %) and the growth in population (+1 million people) was compensated by gains in energy efficiency. If adjusted to the weather conditions, last year’s energy consumption would have actually decreased by an estimated 0.4 %.

As measured by the original values and when compared to the previous year, the macroeconomic energy productivity weakened considerably again in 2015: While the energy productivity in 2014 was almost 7 % higher than in 2013, it improved by only 0.5 % in 2015. Adjusted to the temperature effect, though, it amounted to more than 2 % which was, once again, on par with the longterm trend (1990 to 2014: Almost 2 %).

And finally, a summary table for the past 3 decades of source electricity production:

 

[SageBrush]

Oh... and about that meme considering the cost of clean energy:



Germany invested in energy efficiency and production and is now reaping the rewards. The trend will continue

 

[TheTalkingMule]

The Germany story isn't that simple and you probably know that.

Fact - CO2 emissions in 2015 were higher that 2009. Cherry picked data? - sure. But look at 25 year data - the majority of the reductions were 1990-2000. The last 15 years have been pretty flat. Emissions climbed in 2015.

Germany was also a net electricity exporter to the tune of 50TWh($2.5B) in 2015, that was likely not the case just a few short years ago. The Germans are doing things right and just need battery tech to scale to make the next big leap.

 

[Skotty]

Nuclear today is much like EVs were before Elon Musk. Everyone thought they were crappy, expensive, and a lost cause. If an Elon Musk of Nukes came along those beliefs might quickly be proven wrong.

I'm fine and stand behind going all classic renewables. Okay. Lets go. But that doesn't change the fact that there is nothing wrong with nuclear if it would just be done right. To make a long story short, fission should have standardized designs using safer latest generation breeder reactors or similar to utilize more of the fuel and minimize the waste. And fusion should have more R&D support. Progress in fusion is slow but real. And it could eventually revolutionize the nuclear industry. The always 40 years away (or similar) argument is not a good argument against fusion because progress isn't stalled; it's just slow. But progress is progress.

Mastery of nuclear power is a requirement for an advanced space faring civilization. Need to keep working on it. Even if all civilian power is solar, still need to work on it. Besides, how is the navy going to power it's submarines and aircraft carriers? They won't be using solar panels.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

Besides, how is the navy going to power it's submarines and aircraft carriers? They won't be using solar panels.

Why not? The ocean's surface is an extremely inviting "roof".

Speaking of Germany..... I think I saw the last generation U-boat developed for WWII was a massive battery bank with diesel recharging.

 

[nwdiver]

Nuclear today is much like EVs were before Elon Musk. Everyone thought they were crappy, expensive, and a lost cause. If an Elon Musk of Nukes came along those beliefs might quickly be proven wrong.

Mastery of nuclear power is a requirement for an advanced space faring civilization. Need to keep working on it. Even if all civilian power is solar, still need to work on it. Besides, how is the navy going to power it's submarines and aircraft carriers? They won't be using solar panels.

Nuclear power has a 'First Principles' problem... that's something that even Elon can't fix. There will never be an Elon of Fuel Cells... and there will never be an Elon of Nuclear...

I agree 100% that nuclear power is very very will suited to powering ocean going vessels. I operated a nuclear reactor on an Aircraft carrier for ~6 years. I would absolutely support a company seeking to build small reactors for cargo ships. That makes A LOT of sense. Nuclear is just very poorly suited to generating electricity on land compared to other alternatives. IMO companies like NuScale should focus more on marine reactors than utility reactors. The main problem as always is cost... the Navy abandoned their nuclear cruisers because they were too expensive to operate...

I agree that 'nuclear' power is necessary to travel beyond Jupiter... but certainly not 'thermal' nuclear power. That's another lethal problem with nuclear power as it exists... they're all thermal power plants... i.e. they generate heat and use that hear to generate power.... meaning that for every unit of useful electricity they have to dispose of >1 unit of waste heat. As climate change makes cooling sources less reliable this is becoming a larger and larger issue.

If there's an Elon of nuclear... here is his task... find a way of converting nuclear to electricity without heat as an intermediate step and keep costs below $2/w. Then nuclear will be competitive with wind and solar... que the mission impossible theme song...

 

[woof]

find a way of converting nuclear to electricity without heat as an intermediate step and keep costs below $2/w.

Aneutronic fusion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is what the LPP project (yes, I know, don't shoot me okay?) are trying to achieve. Dunno about costs.

 

[nwdiver]

Aneutronic fusion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is what the LPP project (yes, I know, don't shoot me okay?) are trying to achieve. Dunno about costs.

.... yep... que the mission impossible theme song

 

[SageBrush]

Amory Lovins, on the economic rationale of closing Diablo Canyon.
The most interesting point is that the decision is by the utility PG&E and not outside forces.

Sounds like the nuclear subsidy was curtailed, although the policy paper mentions the growing influence of CCAs in their decision. As in: communities have the political power to choose their power source(s).

The Joint Proposal to shut down the plant is worth reading. Just the decommissioning cost is ~ $3.8B, to be passed on to the consumers ! And people wonder why building new nuclear plants is idiotic.

 

[nwdiver]

The Joint Proposal to shut down the plant is worth reading. Just the decommissioning cost is ~ $3.8B, to be passed on to the consumers ! And people wonder why building new nuclear plants is idiotic.

It's bad... but not that bad... PG&E has ~$2.8B in a decommissioning trust set aside for Diablo Canyon. That may grow to ~$3.8B by the time Diablo Canyon is shutdown. They are permitted to invest that money in some low risk ventures so it does earn a return and they are required to keep adding to it so it's possible it could double over the next 8 years...

But those funds were collected from ratepayers and if they fall short someone else will have to pick up the tab.

This is also another example of the path to hell being paved with good intentions... It makes sense to require nuclear plant operators to set aside a certain amount per kWh generated to pay for eventual decommissioning costs... over the years plants have built up very large decommissioning trusts to the point that most older plants are worth more dead than alive even if they are still profitable to operate. There needs to be an independent review board to ensure that nuclear plants aren't being prematurely 'euthanized' to collect on the life insurance.

 

[SageBrush]

It's bad... but not that bad... PG&E has ~$2.8B in a decommissioning trust set aside for Diablo Canyon. That may grow to ~$3.8B by the time Diablo Canyon is shutdown. They are permitted to invest that money in some low risk ventures so it does earn a return and they are required to keep adding to it so it's possible it could double over the next 8 years...

But those funds were collected from ratepayers and if they fall short someone else will have to pick up the tab.

This is also another example of the path to hell being paved with good intentions... It makes sense to require nuclear plant operators to set aside a certain amount per kWh generated to pay for eventual decommissioning costs... over the years plants have built up very large decommissioning trusts to the point that most older plants are worth more dead than alive even if they are still profitable to operate. There needs to be an independent review board to ensure that nuclear plants aren't being prematurely 'euthanized' to collect on the life insurance.

Yep,

I was saying that the decommissioning costs amount to a large fraction of alt-energy capitalization for the same (gross) energy production.

So, for example,
Diablo equivalent energy is about 6 GW of best and cheapest wind that costs about 10B to build.
So just the eventual decommissioning of a new nuclear plant are 38% of the wind power installation cost.

Crazy. Hard to imagine nuclear being built if not for political corruption.

 

[SageBrush]

Now this is interesting ...
An open letter by leading scientists and environmentalists to keep Diablo Canyon open. James Hansen and Kerry Emanuel are among the signatories.

I'll have to take some time to read the letter carefully.

 

[miimura]

Now this is interesting ...
An open letter by leading scientists and environmentalists to keep Diablo Canyon open. James Hansen and Kerry Emanuel are among the signatories.

I'll have to take some time to read the letter carefully.

I took a quick read and the thing that stood out to me was that they were comparing Diablo Canyon's output to 2014 renewable output. I think we all know that in the middle of 2016, the renewable generation output is significantly higher than it was in 2014. I think that if they can show conservative projections that new renewable generation will exceed the output that they want to take offline, then there is no reason to keep Diablo Canyon going. The State should also evaluate the opportunity cost to ratepayers of continued operation vs. decommissioning.

 

[nwdiver]

'Paradigm Shift' in the Utility sector.

Utilities are increasingly turning to wind and solar to add generation; Which means they require more flexibility from generators which means nuclear is under increasing pressure. Hard to see a path to success for nuclear. This is what well meaning climate scientists like Hanson are missing... I don't think they grasp the limitations of nuclear power plants. We need a generator we can shutdown for months when it's not required then quickly fire up with little notice.

On the other side there are many nuclear advocates that couldn't care less about climate change and are trying to find a way to generate electricity with nuclear power...

 

[SageBrush]

'Paradigm Shift' in the Utility sector.

Utilities are increasingly turning to wind and solar to add generation; Which means they require more flexibility from generators which means nuclear is under increasing pressure. Hard to see a path to success for nuclear. This is what well meaning climate scientists like Hanson are missing... I don't think they grasp the limitations of nuclear power plants. We need a generator we can shutdown for months when it's not required then quickly fire up with little notice.

I give Hansen and Emanuel a lot more credit.

OTOH, the letter was written in 2014 and Diablo is not closing until 2025 so the differences in intent are a lot more imagined than real. Mostly it says that given a choice between coal and nuclear, these scientists choose nuclear that is already on the ground and running well. I wonder if they would choose nuclear over NG.

I tend to to choose short-term nuclear over coal too, but not over short-term NG. NG is bad, but coal is awful. And to the extent that nuclear impedes new alt energies coming online because of partial overlap covering demand -- well, I say dump nuclear.

 

[SageBrush]

This is a great website for the curious how California's transition to Alt-energy is proceeding.

Nuclear is well known to be inflexible supply, but the graphs appear to show that hydro and imports (mostly coal) have much of the same character. I imagine the imports are due to supply contracts. Can anybody explain hydro ?

 

[nwdiver]

Nuclear is well known to be inflexible supply, but the graphs appear to show that hydro and imports (mostly coal) have much of the same character. I imagine the imports are due to supply contracts. Can anybody explain hydro ?

Hydro is very flexible but also very cheap so the only reason to curtail hydro is if it's not required. I do believe there's a minimum level below which a dam must bypass water to ensure sufficient flow is maintained downstream.

Coal is slightly more flexible than nuclear but still designed as base load and no where near as flexible as nat gas. I've never worked at a coal plant but it's still a thermal plant so I would imagine it takes over a day to go from cold shutdown to online.

 

[Jeff N]

This is a great website for the curious how California's transition to Alt-energy is proceeding.

Nuclear is well known to be inflexible supply, but the graphs appear to show that hydro and imports (mostly coal) have much of the same character. I imagine the imports are due to supply contracts. Can anybody explain hydro ?

I don't know much about how hydro is managed but I can make up an answer that feels good...

My guess is that they want to keep the water flow outfall into the river at a relatively steady rate for environmental reasons. So, based on incoming rainfall and snow melt they plan how much water to flow through over an extended period of time.

In recent years, due to the drought in California, the hydro power generation has fallen considerably.