Is the scaremongering you hear from the agents of nuclear power true?

[kristopher]

The scaremongering you hear from the agents of nuclear are focused on three claims that they used first on Germany and now on Italy:
-Germany will suffer power outages
-Germany will import nuclear power from other countries, notably France
-Germany will build massive new coal plants to make up the shortfall

The German Environment Ministry has looked at that for them and the truth is that "Germany can close the reactors within five years and do so:
-Without power outages
-Without importing nuclear power from other countries
-Without building new coal plants
-With only a modest increase in the cost of electricity"

...Ironically, the conservative Merkel government has proposed the exit policy implemented by the previous red-green government of Social Democrats and the Greens. Merkel's conservative party rose to power in part on a platform of extending the operation of the existing reactors. Her policy on extending the reactors operating lives was tabled shortly before the Fukushima accident. The policy reversal is historic not only in Germany, but worldwide.

Critics of the reversal have charged that:
-Germany will suffer power outages
-Germany will import nuclear power from other countries, notably France
-Germany will build massive new coal plants to make up the shortfall

The analysis by the German environment agency was undertaken to specifically examine these questions. They concluded that Germany can close the reactors within five years and do so:
-Without power outages
-Without importing nuclear power from other countries
-Without building new coal plants
-With only a modest increase in the cost of electricity

The agency says that Germany can close the nuclear plants by faster development of its renewable sources of energy and the construction of 5,000 MW of new gas-fired generation. The new gas-fired generation will give the grid the necessary flexibility to meet demand while also preserving Germany's commitment to reducing its carbon dioxide emissions.

To the surprise of many critics of Germany's renewable energy program, the country is not a net importer of electricity. In recent years, Germany has been a net exporter of generation.

UBA's study found that electricity imports to Germany are based on price and not ...

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/06/we-can-do-it-says-german-environment-agency-on-nuclear-phase-out?cmpid=WNL-Friday-June10-2011

The Italian plan proposed by the government as a response to climate change was to move from their present 80% reliance on fossil fuels to a mix including 25% nuclear and 25% renewables. There is no reason to suppose that the scale of their their move away from fossil fuels will be reduced by the rejection of nuclear power. However it is probably going to affect the PACE of change, since in fact, renewables are less expensive and deploy faster than nuclear. That means that the referendum could reasonably be expected to reduce long term emissions more than the the government's proposal.

[TheWraith]

1. "Without building new coal plants"

Except for the SEVENTEEN new coal plants that they're already building, you mean?

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2011/06/10/German-nuclear-phaseout-means-more-coal/UPI-59131307714325/

Propaganda fail.

[kristopher]

3. Without building new coal plants period.

When will you learn that the same power structure that loves nuclear also loves coal. That is because with renewables they only make a small fraction of what they make with make with either nuclear or coal. You will note if you follow the news that the very first action (besides scaremongering claims of blackouts) that the utilities took was to initiate actions to sue the government for lost income.

Nuclear propaganda never ends.

[XemaSab]

16. Then why are renewables SO much more expensive per KWh?

:shrug:

[kristopher]

24. They aren't when there is a legitimately accomplished comparison.

And the trends are widening the gap daily.

[FBaggins]

27. I guess all those new fossil plants are being built on illegitimate comparisons...

...like dollars and cents.


Here's a hint for you re: understanding governments' actions:

They don't count costs that someone ELSE pays the same as they costs THEY have to pay (in which way they are much like corporations)... and they don't count costs that will be paid a generation or more in the future (when they won't be in office) the same as those that must be paid today (in which way they are much like CEOs who boost the short-term performance of their stock by risking the future viability of their company).

And THAT trend widens daily as well.

[kristopher]

35. You never did figure out how to read that graph, did you?

[FBaggins]

37. It isn't exactly hard to figure out. But YOU never figured out...

...that it's nothing more than a graphical depiction of his opinion. It doesn't add any data to the argument.

The fact that you try to use one depiction of his opinion to prove that wordier depictions of the same thing are correct makes clear where the confusion is.

[kristopher]

38. Okay...

California Energy Commission shows new nuke electric $0.17-0.34kwh + up to $3.40kwh for insurance

...The detailed study considered three forms of ownership: merchant plant, investor-owned utility, and publicly owned utility. Merchant plants are built to serve deregulated markets and assume a high degree of market risk. They may not be able to sell all their electricity at any one time if their price is too high. Investor-owned utilities are the traditional private companies serving a regulated market. In California, Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison are investor-owned. Publicly owned utilities are municipal utilities, like SMUD. Publicly owned utilities pay fewer taxes and have access to lower cost financing than either investor-owned utilities or merchant plants.

The CEC's 186-page report, "Comparative Costs of California Central Station Electricity Generation" , found that a 1,000-megawatt pressurized water reactor would generate electricity in 2018 from as little as $0.17 per kilowatt-hour to as much as $0.34 per kilowatt-hour. These results are startling: Most renewable technologies today, even solar photovoltaics (PV), generate electricity for less than that. Only a municipal utility could generate nuclear electricity for less than the cost of solar PV.

Currently, Germany pays between $0.31 and $0.41 per kilowatt-hour for electricity from solar PV, which means that the cost of solar-generated electricity today is equivalent to the cost estimated by the CEC for a nuclear plant beginning operation in 2018. And all observers, even critics, expect the cost of solar PV to continue declining during the next decade.

And what about insurance?

In an unrelated study for the German Renewable Energy Association, consultants found that nuclear reactors are effectively uninsurable. The 157-page report by Versicherungsforen Leipzig estimated that the premium necessary to insure a nuclear reactor from accident would cost from $0.20 per kilowatt-hour to a staggering $3.40 per kilowatt-hour...

http://www.grist.org/nuclear/2011-06-04-nuclear-power-is-expensive-and-uninsurable

Now, do I really need to post the already-below-coal price for wind or the cost of negawatts?

[FBaggins]

40. So now you have two opinions. Congratulations

How many hundreds exist on the other side? How many PRO renewables sites are there that are arguing over exactly when parity will occur but who have it many years in the future? Are they nuclear fans?

This is a constant M.O. with you. You find a minority opinion that you agree with and consider it to be the new accepted and definitive standard on the subject... proof against all disagreement... the matter is now settled.

Pretty ridiculous really.

[AtheistCrusader]

28. Nice deflection.

Would have been better if you had pointed to initial investment costs in adding solar/wind/etc, and the spin-down costs of offlining nuclear plants, which would both be passed on to the consumer.

[kristopher]

36. It isn't a deflection

It is relevant data presented visually.

Want it another way?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=297691&mesg_id=299722

[AtheistCrusader]

39. Social impact is not relevant to the question that was presented to you.

It does not factor into $/kwh.

The more correct answer is, it costs money to spin down a reactor. A lot of money.
That doesn't mean it's not worth doing, but it impacts the transition to renewables, on top of the construction cost of the renewables.

Spinning down a coal plant costs less, I would imagine, so lower initial impact.

[FBaggins]

41. Nor is it in any way an objective standard. n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

42. "Calculated by author"

lol

[kristopher]

45. Is there a cost analysis that isn't calculated by the author?

That objection is absurd.

[AtheistCrusader]

47. Need source.

I'll look again, but if you open his entire spreadsheet, the social cost thing is highly subjective.

[FBaggins]

48. Of course there are.

Most researches cite authoritative sources.

But I guess when the authoritative sources don't agree with you... you've got to make up your own sources.

A bit like publishing your own "science". Oh wait... that's Busby, isn't it? :)

[kristopher]

46. The graph also presents $$ cost comparisons. But you knew that...

[FBaggins]

49. Cost comparisons from where?

With what assumptions?

[AtheistCrusader]

50. I'm not going to say it's wrong, but I certainly can't validate it.

I need the source data. That wasn't forthcoming last time I looked at this slide.

[kristopher]

76. I don't recall seeking your validation. nt

[Wilms]

5. Talk about failure, your link does not support what you wrote.

Seventeen happens to be the number of nuclear plants in Germany. It's also the percentage of electricity supplied via renewables.

As to new coal plants, your link did encourage searching the Washington Post which reports:

More than a dozen new coal-burning plants were already planned around Germany over the next several years, many of them cleaner replacements for old plants that have reached the end of their life spans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/germanys-make-or-break-energy-experiment/2011/06/06/AGr2RLOH_story.html

Not trying gloss over the challenge. But let's conduct the discussion with facts. OK?

[TheWraith]

6. They're also building 17 new coal-fired plants.

As it happens, I grabbed the first link about Germany's new expansion of coal power, not the one with the specific 17 plant citation. Sue me.

[kristopher]

7. Prove it.

The German Environment Ministry has looked at that for them and the truth is that "Germany can close the reactors within five years and do so:
-Without power outages
-Without importing nuclear power from other countries
-Without building new coal plants
-With only a modest increase in the cost of electricity

The statement by the Environment Ministry is not ambiguous.

[Taft_Bathtub]

9. Merkel: Germany needs more fossil fuel plants

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576375154034042070.html

BERLIN—Germany needs to build twice the number of new fossil-fuel power plants than the government previously had earmarked in order to secure energy security while exiting nuclear power, Chancellor Angela Merkel said Thursday, while sticking to ambitious emission-reduction goals.

"If we want to exit nuclear energy and enter renewable energy, for the transition time we need fossil power plants," Ms. Merkel said in a parliamentary declaration on her government's decision to phase out nuclear power. "At least 10, more likely 20 gigawatts need to be built in the coming 10 years."

That is more than the generation capacity of Belgium, which in 2009 had capacity to generate more than 17.3 gigawatts, according to the Union of the Electricity Industry, a Europe-wide sector group.

Previously the German government had spoken of a need for an additional 10 gigawatts in fossil-fuel generation capacity. The extra amount would be in addition to 10 gigawatts already in construction or in planning that should be completed by 2013, Ms. Merkel said.

[kristopher]

11. REad the article linked in the OP.

I can't post more of it because of copyright issues, but it deals specifically with the procoal aspect of Merkels government and the validity of her statements.

[Taft_Bathtub]

15. The part about the ministry not commissioning the report?

I don't see how that negates at all that Merkel just said they need new coal power plants. There's nothing ambiguous about her statement, they need lots of new coal plants to make up a 17.3 GW shortage.

[FBaggins]

17. You just don't get it do you?

If BP produces a report and the EPA prints it... who cares if the President says that he's going to do something else and he and his cabinet send that plan to Congress? Who does he think he is?

:sarcasm:

[kristopher]

19. The part about the rightwing policies pushing both nuclear and coal and how...

...her statement is a reflection of her party's preference, not a reflection of what Germany must or will do.

The paper prepared by the Environment Ministry makes it clear. Why do you think Wraith declines to repost his source for those supposed coal plants that he claimed were being built. It's because it included the information that those coal plants are being blocked by local governments. Much as the reopening of the nuclear plants are being blocked by local governments there.

You are aware that Merkel's government just got trounced in one of its most solid local areas of support, right?

[Wilms]

10. Ya got a link, or what?

[kristopher]

13. Wraith posted a link before but...

It showed the proposed plants you mention. It ALSO showed that they all seemed to be proposals that have been on the books for a while that have been going nowhere - they were being rejected locally.

[Wilms]

22. That happens from time to time.

Their own link disproves their posted assertion. It's weird. :shrug:

[FBaggins]

2. How can you compare the Italian plan to the German one?

How many reactors did Italy close after the vote?

Right now the "Italian plan" is "let other countries produce electricity for us"... not really a change there.

[kristopher]

4. Obviously you have no idea what the discussion is actually about.

I explained it in the OP. They get 80% of their electricity from fossil fuels, another 10% from imports and 10% from other sources.
To respond to climate change the government put forth a plan to replace 50% of their current generating mix with 25% nuclear and 25% renewables.
The referendum was a rejection of the nuclear. Given that renewables are less expensive and deploy faster than nuclear this could reasonably be expected to accelerate the pace of - and reduce the cost of - the transition over the plan with the nuclear component.

[FBaggins]

14. You'll have to blame the OPer if it isn't clear.

Take it up with him.

this could reasonably be expected to accelerate the pace of - and reduce the cost of - the transition over the plan with the nuclear component.

You often seem to replace reality with what your plans would be. Have you noticed that? You seem to think that once a country gets around to rejecting nuclear power, they must agree with you 100% and the obvious choice is building nothing but renewables from now on. That's why when Japan said they were going to boost renewable generation you assumed that they would be getting rid of nuclear power as fast as possible. So when I posted an article that said that Kan was going to announce that they were sticking with nuclear power in their long-term plan... you just assumed that it had to be wrong. You couldn't fathom how that could be.

Then there was Germany. You knew that they were going to accelerate the retirement of their reactors and just assumed that this meant that renewables would get essentially all of the "business" from now on. Stories that they would import more... or burn more coal... and build more fossil generation were obviously all nuclear spin because that's not how you would do it. Yet the senior elected official in Europe made clear that this wasn't their plan. They were going to need replacement fossil generation in very roughly the same amount as the nuclear power that they were cutting. You couldn't come to grips with that. How could they say that? Didn't they see that the renewables industry (there IS a renewables industry, right?) had just told them that it was possible to give THEM all of the business by 2017? If they say it's possible that must by what's going to happen, right?

Then there was China. Some guy went to jail for accepting bribes and you assumed "that must have been why they started down the nuclear path... that will end now" yet their next energy plan only boosted the amount of nuclear power they projected. Then they planned to rapidly increase their renewables generation and you assumed that this would cut down their plans for nuclear power. After all... that's what you would have done and if they're expanding renewables they must agree with you, right? But then their next plan expanded nuclear power even farther. Then Fukushima came but they continue on with their nuclear plans... and you just don't get it.

Now Italy (a particularly fickle country politically) has voted not to produce something that it already wasn't producing and wasn't due to produce for at least a decade. If YOU were making the decision, it's clear that they would go with all renewables for that 50% replacement.

You can't see that it's just as likely that they simply won't replace 50% of their current generating mix any longer.

[kristopher]

20. No, Baggins, I blame that on deliberate efforts to be obtuse on your part.

[LAGC]

8. kristopher, I love your passion and idealism.

But seriously, sometimes I think you've drank the funny Kool-aid.

You have great vision of the goal-posts, just not so much all the messy intermediate steps before getting there.

[kristopher]

12. And I think you need a new hobby besides hectoring me.

[XemaSab]

18. Any time anyone posts anything that is remotely questioning

of your plan to transition to 100% renewables worldwide within the next 5 years you respond with complete outrage that anyone could possibly doubt our ability to effect this change by the end of Obama's second term.

Meanwhile, most of us come to this forum to learn and discuss the issues. I, for one, have learned many things about energy by spending time here, and I am open to learning more in the future. You, on the other hand, came here with the proverbial Hammer of Wind and so all environmental problems we have in the world look to you like nails.

I'll make you a deal: if we (as a society in the US) can overcome the storage problem in the next 5 years in a way that allows us to effectively store solar and wind power for 24-hour use and begin a phase-out of oil and coal, I'll buy you a bottle of your beverage of choice and I'll happily eat crow. Deal?

Meanwhile, can you please stop putting all the other people in this forum into the basket of shills for Big Coal and personal enemies of planet earth?

[AtheistCrusader]

30. If your intent was to de-escalate

I would have left out that first paragraph.

Otherwise I agree with your sentiment.

[kristopher]

43. There was no intention to de-escalate

The same thing has been going on for years now.

I was going to ignore it, but since you responded and agreed to the false technical premise of the comment, I wanted to address it yet again.

Citing energy storage as some sort of expensive obstacle to the deployment of renewable energy is a favorite point of misinformation from the proponents of centralized generation. It is false to claim that dedicated is needed and it is pure rhetorical misdirection to say that "massive amounts" of storage are required" since both "massive amounts" and "required" are ambiguous terms that are placed in a context making it appear that the niche for storage is somehow a unique obstacle.

In fact storage is just that, a niche. It does now and will in the future provide valuable services to the grid. However, the effort to build out renewable generation sources is independent of the exploitation of that niche; which will develop through the normal economic opportunities the services provided by storage represent.

[XemaSab]

52. What do you think v2g is if not a massive, expensive form of energy storage?

It's an interesting idea, and it's something I learned about from reading YOUR posts.

I'm eager to see where this technology goes in the future, but the US is clearly not even close to implementing such a system. Maybe in 20 years? 30 years? But not today.

The only other large-scale form of storage that is currently feasible is pumped hydro, but I don't think that will work well in California. We don't have enough water to play with as it is, and building huge reservoirs is an environmental nightmare.

[kristopher]

53. That comment continues your erroneous view of storage

You should read the post you're responding to for comprehension, because you haven't internalized what it says.

As for Vehicle to Grid (V2G), it is a concept that examines the way electric vehicle batteries function within both the present centralized grid structure and one built around distributed generation from renewable sources.

Automobiles, both fossil fueled and electric, represent a "massive" pool of stored energy.

In the case of fossil fuels, the energy they store is not compatible with other, electrically oriented systems.

In the case of battery electric or fuel cell electric vehicles, the stored energy is compatible with other, electrically oriented systems.

That compatibility is means that more uses can be found for the stored energy that automobiles carry around.

A synonym for usefulness is value - so we can say accurately that this increased utility makes the vehicle itself more valuable than a fossil fueled vehicle.

People ALREADY purchase vehicles with the intention of storing energy to accomplish the primary objective of transportation. The cost/value of the vehicle, therefore, is established.

While electric vehicles are currently more expensive than internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, the higher price results from initial establishment of a market and manufacturing - not from any aspect of design or material that will endure.

Once a solid supply chain, manufacturing and distribution base is established, in a direct comparison of current usage both electric vehicles themselves and overall ownership will be less expensive than for ICEs (the higher energy efficiency of EVs means lower energy cost/mile). To that we can add ANOTHER layer of benefit that derives from ancillary services such as V2G that are not available to ICEs.

The move from the present ICE fleet to electric vehicles can be described accurately as one where there will be decreased costs and added benefits when compared to ICEs.

[kristopher]

74. You might want to read this.

http://cleantechnica.com/2011/06/15/electric-vehicle-owners-to-get-cash-back-for-selling-power-to-the-electric-grid-in-denmark-10000/#comment-100966

Electric Vehicle Owners to Get Cash Back for Selling Power to the Electric Grid in Denmark (~$10,000)...

[kristopher]

44. Delete duplicate

[Nederland]

21. I guess it depends on how you define "new"

If you define "new" as a plant that no one has contemplated building at this point in time, then perhaps it is true that Germany will build no "new" coal plants to cover the power loss from the shutdown of nuclear plants.

If however, you define the word "new" as a plant that does not exist today but will be built at some point in the future, then it is definitely NOT true that Germany will build no "new" coal plants.

Rather than quibble about the definition of words, a better question is this: will the percentage of Germany's electricity that is derived from burning coal go up or down over the next decade. My bet is that it will go up, but only time will tell.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[Nederland]

25. If there was...

...you'd get one every time you posted.

[LAGC]

26. Yeah, we're all "sock puppets" if we happen to disagree with you.

Why don't you do something useful instead of questioning the motives of other posters and erect a wind turbine in your backyard? Preferably so that it obstructs your scenic view.

[txlibdem]

29. That's the best advice I've heard in weeks

It goes under the heading of put your money where your mouth is. Erect one or more wind turbines in your back yard, preferably so that it obstructs your scenic view.

Were I to follow that advice the only scenic view I'd care about is the little money maker in my back yard --every time the wind blows!

[AtheistCrusader]

31. 35 foot height restriction

And several hundred dollars worth of permits.

Kinda puts a damper on this for me, in my backyard.

[txlibdem]

32. True, especially when good winds are at 50' and preferably 100' tower height

We have the same thing here in my part of Texas: your tower cannot be tall enough nor placed so as to fall on any structure on your property nor tall enough to fall outside your land boundaries. That pretty much leaves anyone with less than 1 or 2 acres out of the picture.

I could, however, deal with Honeywell's WT6500 roof-mount wind turbine (http://greenlivingideas.com/2010/02/03/home-wind-power-counter-honeywell-gearless-turbine).

[AtheistCrusader]

33. Yep, going to be something like that or vertical axis solution

one way or another, if I'm going to have anything on site.

[txlibdem]

34. The WT6500 has a 2mph cut-in speed

What that would mean for me is that it would make at least a little power nearly every day of the year. Very seldom do we get zero wind speed on my street: the wind gets channelled down my street and it all comes right toward my roof.

[AtheistCrusader]

51. 6 grand for a 500 watt...

The cut in speed is really attractive. Probably can be had a little cheaper somewhere. (7 grand at Ace Hardware lol)

That's getting down to a very do-able price point.

[kristopher]

54. Trying to poison the well for large-scale wind by pushing worthless rooftop systems?

The economics of small scale wind are horrible.

The economics of large scale wind are great.

Nuclear supporters like to push small rooftop systems. My belief is that they do so in order to cast wind power, overall, in a bad light; counting on people believing that the economics of small scale wind apply to large scale wind.

[AtheistCrusader]

55. No, they are independent issues.

I can't put up a tower that reaches 150 feet into sweet wind.

The two systems aren't comparable. Seriously, are you on my nuts for wanting to generate some power at point of use?

[kristopher]

62. My point was clear.

You are promoting a discredited renewable system that will cost 10X, 20X 30X the price of grid electricity. While there may be some off-grid applications where it is desirable to go in the small scale direction, any reasonable person looking into wind who starts with such a system is likely to conclude wind energy, as a whole, is too expensive.

That is false message #1 that the nuclear industry tries to spread - that alternatives to nuclear are not viable.

And like I said, every time it is brought up here, it seems to be nuclear proponents who are doing it.

[AtheistCrusader]

63. Stop listening to the voices.

I am not promoting a GODDAMN THING. I am looking at a specific solution, out of pocket FOR MYSELF. I am not promoting it for general widespread solution to our power needs. I am not promoting it for any wild imaginary threat to commercial wind turbines you may have in your head.

Just stop it. It's embarrasing to watch.

Commercial wind IS VIABLE. Period. Point of use wind and solar are, depending upon the DESIRES OF THE CONSUMER viable as well, but the cost/scale is different.

[kristopher]

64. There are no "voices" just your words that you set forth...

...in the context of a larger, ongoing discussion.

You wrote:

6 grand for a 500 watt.. The cut in speed is really attractive. Probably can be had a little cheaper somewhere. (7 grand at Ace Hardware lol) That's getting down to a very do-able price point.

[AtheistCrusader]

65. 6 grand for that 'turbine' is VERY ATTRACTIVE.

as in A GOOD THING. (the ONLY dig I took was at Ace Hardware for wanting literally a grand more than other sources for it)

This is a fucking GOOD THING. What is wrong with you? This in NO WAY relects upon the costs or benefits of commercial wind.


(I put turbine in single quotes because technically it isn't a turbine, but meh, it's awesome.)

[kristopher]

67. Attractive by what standard? $1.50/kwh electricity?

Hey, go for it. If you think that's a bargain it is no wonder you're in the nuclear camp.

[AtheistCrusader]

69. Attractive by 'I have power no matter what the utility does'.

As well as 'I have carbon neutral power, even though my utility is dragging ass'.

Some of us would love to take our houses off the power grid entirely.
I don't expect it to be a bargain. Who says It is?

When did I encourage a single person to go rooftop, over public policy encouragement of utility level renewables? One post. Go ahead.

[AtheistCrusader]

66. Next you'll tell me that shelling out extra money for cutting edge LED lighting is poisoning the wel

l for conservation on (whatever bullshit) because it's cost scale is bad at the moment.

Crimony.

[kristopher]

68. Go ahead and tug on that red herring...

Small scale wind is limited by physics and isn't going to get better, period.

LED on the other hand, is an emerging technology that shows great promise.

Nuclear simply sucks on every front.

[AtheistCrusader]

70. Small scale wind is viable for some things.

It IS getting better. For some consumers, it's stonking great. What I do with the cash in my pocket to reduce my consuption or generate power on-premises is MY OWN FUCKING BUSINESS.

Bother someone else.

[kristopher]

75. That's what I said upthread - it has some applications.

Rooftop wind for a home to ensure emergency power or to supplement the grid, however, are not those applications. You are extremely knowledgeable about energy prices and you are well informed on the physical characteristics of the various energy options, therefore you certainly know wind at rooftop height sufficient to provide meaningful power is almost nonexistent. You know full well that what seems to be minor differences in wind to a casual observer are actually deceptive measures of power since a doubling of wind speed delivers an 8 fold in power, and a halving of wind speed results in an 8X decrease in power.

You are also fully away that the energy density of wind is so low that the area needing to be swept for power must be much larger than most laypeople realize, and that any system that could be mounted on a rooftop will not produce worth a damned unless the wind blows at a speed that would be inhospitable for daily living.

You also know that when the premium conditions are not present the output of a rooftop system is going to disappoint and piss off anyone that buys one.

You KNOW those things.

You also work assiduously on this forum to promote and defend nuclear power while doing all you can to cast renewable energy in a bad light.

You said upthread something to the effect of "you don't know me". No, I don't, not in the flesh. But I do know well the anonymous presence you bring to this forum and the message that presence seeks to impart.

[AtheistCrusader]

77. One correction

"You also work assiduously on this forum to promote and defend nuclear power while doing all you can to cast renewable energy in a bad light."

It has been some time since I have promoted anything like an expansion of nuclear power, and in fact, I have called for the shutdown of about 17 US reactors, possibly more based on recent real-world experience.

But on that last bit you stated, you're going to have to cite something, if you think I am going to let that stand. I have questioned one thing about large scale wind only: materials required to construct a wind farm of equivalent baseload, compared to that of a centralized turbine. (Translates into mining, another issue I am concerned about.)

I have NEVER posted a single negative thing about, for instance, concentrated solar. Search high and low, you'll not find anything negative from me. Same for Geothermal. Same for tidal. Same for Hydro. (exception of one negative comment I made about the Sendai dam breaking)

While I may have concerns about large scale wind farm utilization, they are not blockers. I have also supported stripping financial incentives from the nuclear industry and handing it over to wind/etc.

Much of you concern about the 'message' my presence seems to impart, is apparently imaginary.

[kristopher]

78. All you have to do is read this thread.

It provides an excellent example of the passive-aggressive role you've recently elected.

You used to be far more direct, but it's a an odd thing that happened; those posts all just "disappeared" for no apparent reason. However, some have been preserved from "The Vanishing". Here is one; you wrote:

Unfortunately, I am crippled by this perception of reality, that truly 'clean' power is not ready to take over the generating capacity of nuclear power in this nation. To say nothing of the coal power.
I will quite happily support building more nuclear power plants for now, if it means taking coal generating capacity offline. We didn't deploy enough wind turbines, last year, as a nation, to replace the base generating capacity of a single nuclear power plant. Almost, but not quite. (baseplate generating capacity isn't high enough)

...When wind/solar are ready to take over base generating capacity, they will. Nothing can stop it. In the meantime, we need power. We need power for jobs, to keep Americans employed, and manufacturing here. We need power for schools, and homes, etc.

And my reply

Let's reorganize that into a succinct argument:

1) truly 'clean' power is not ready to take over the generating capacity of nuclear power in this nation. To say nothing of the coal power.

2) We didn't deploy enough wind turbines, last year, as a nation, to replace the base generating capacity of a single nuclear power plant.

3) I will quite happily support building more nuclear power plants for now, if it means taking coal generating capacity offline.

About 1) above: True, we haven't built enough "truly 'clean' power" to replace completely replace nuclear or coal yet. Neither have we built, in 50+ years of effort by the nuclear industry, enough nuclear to replace coal. This is an irrelevant and nonsensical point when the question is what we do going forward and its inclusion demonstrates to me that you are engaged in justifying a predetermined conclusion rather than actually considering the problem of our future energy supply on its merits.


About 2) above: We added more than enough wind last year to produce the electricity produced by a nuclear plant. In fact, if you compare the amount of wind we've added in the time it takes to build one nuclear plant (avg. 12 yrs) you'll see that we've installed 38GW of wind in that time, which equals the output of somewhere between 10-15 nuclear plants.
If you look at the rate of installation you can see that we added as much last year as in the first 5 years of the buildup.

US wind capacity
1999 2GW
2004 7GW
2007 17GW
2009 35GW
2010 40GW

In 2002 the fission industry claimed they could get 5 reactors on line by 2010 with proper policy support. They got everything they asked for and much, much more besides with an attached goal of only 1 (one) plant on line by 2010.
They haven't even come close. Fukushima had nothing to do with the failure, either. The nuclear projects are rejected by the market because they are bad investments in terms of both money and carbon reduction.

So that leads us to your point 3) above. There are many other reasons renewables are preferable to nuclear, but I've limited this to your statements. Please explain why you think we should invest in the less productive technology rather than the more productive technology and how such thinking is consistent with the altruistic goals that are at the heart of what is meant by liberal as it was used in your post.

[AtheistCrusader]

79. Your post, in that thread, was where the conversation was deleted.

It was so, due to personal attacks. I am not an admin, and do not have that power. I was too busy discussing the issue with you to worry about petty shit. We were getting somewhere on my criticism of the baseplate capacity rating of wind farms, when the thread was destroyed.

Note I have not flipped out about baseplate/actual utilization since, since I learned something from that thread.

I do not know if you were able to read my last response before it was deleted, but I had thanked you for going off-script, and sitting down and doing the math and explaining your position on that matter of what the wind turbines could produce, versus what they DO produce.


In this thread, you may notice, I compared distributed utilization to a single centralized turbine. It is power source agnostic. COULD be nuclear, sure, but it can just as easily be another heat source, like concentrating solar, or a kinetic source like hydro (unfortunatey pretty much tapped out in this country already) or stored PV/wind in various pumped energy storage means.


How you read my personal enthusiasm for a rooftop energy source like wind, into trying to cast aspersions against all of wind power, including utility level centralized wind farms, I am still puzzled. I COULD have made such a disingenious comparison, and by all means I would expect to be reamed for it, but I did not. That 'turbine' is a good deal, at that price, with that wind cut-in speed and wattage, for some people/applications (me). And my interest is not just my own personal rooftop, but things like cell towers, remote forest service areas, etc. At no time did I exhort anyone to, for example, go out and buy these for installation on every house as a solution to our energy needs. (However, coupled with things like EV's as a home battery source, tied to the grid, it's a possibly feasible item, since charge controllers will already be present in the home)

The only dissapearing posts related to me, have been in threads where personall attacks were rampant. I do sometimes alert on some posts, but it is not a regular thing. I actually have pretty thick skin. For what it's worth, I once suspected you of purposely seeding threads with personal attacks, so if it went awry, you could have it deleted by alerting, but now that I have calmed down in butting heads with you, I don't actually believe that you do that intentionally, it just is. Not everything is a conspiracy.

Edit: Part of my recent 'mellowing' on nuclear power has literally been the failure of my early predictions of how Fukushima would not go 'bad'. Fukushima is several times worse than my understanding of the plant's designs could allow, I have eaten copious amounts of crow on the subject, and am incorporating that failure into a concept that I believed from a very young age to be clean, the future, and a technically surmountable challenge in the safety department. Not an easy thing to revise.

[txlibdem]

71. Wow! That was some back-and-forth between you two

Very enlightening about the poster who claims to be *for* a distributed grid of mostly renewable energy sources.

[AtheistCrusader]

72. Frankly, I'm astounded.

I mean, if I HAD made the contention that wind power sucks, and is too expensive, predicated upon the cost/benefit of solely rooftop applications, ok. I could see the objection, if I made no distinction between rooftop and commercial (or as he says 'large scale') wind power.


But I didn't do that. It's like entire posts are imagined out of thin air.

[txlibdem]

73. Yup. Sometimes ya gotta just scratch your head and say, "Whatever."

Have a nice day anyway! :hi:

[Yo_Mama]

56. Right now Germany is importing energy

And if France has to throttle back output enough from its nuclear plants this summer due to drought it is possible that Germany could see blackouts this summer. The grid operators are warning that there may be blackouts this winter in the south. It really depends on how the solar and wind is performing from day to day.

No matter what Germany does, the issue of timing is important. They can't shut down old sources without new sources coming online without taking the risk of power shortages. Electricity prices are already rising, and along with everything else Germany's manufacturers are now lobbying to have a subsidy on the electricity costs.

Germany is planning a major upgrade of its grid, and some new lines from the Baltic (offshore wind) to help with the deficit. They will also be running existing thermal plants at higher rates than they otherwise would this summer. The developments in Germany are very interesting and very fast:
http://www.germanenergyblog.de/

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/editorial/T110607004233.htm

There's an interesting podcast up on the issue here:
http://www.energyiq-online.com/nuclear/podcasts/total-energy-revolution-germany-to-shut-all-nuclea/

[kristopher]

57. Right now France is importing energy

France will be hurt far more by their nuclear shutdown than Germany will.

Germany has been planning for this transition for more than a decade. Merkel tried to turn back the clock to enhance the profits the businesses and utilities with vested interests in nuclear and coal. She demonstrated that she was willing to trample all over the wishes of the public to do it.

If people want to ignore that it is their right to do so, but it doesn't alter the dynamics of the situation nor the technical abilities that were expressly identified by the Environment Ministry study. If there are problems, they will be the responsibility of the pronuclear/coal policies of the Merkel government as it continues to attempt to, as much as it is able, delay and obstruct rapid deployment of renewable energy generation.


The German Environment Ministry has looked at that for them and the truth is that "Germany can close the reactors within five years and do so:
-Without power outages
-Without importing nuclear power from other countries
-Without building new coal plants
-With only a modest increase in the cost of electricity"

[Yo_Mama]

58. I haven't been following Italy - it moves a little slower

For Germany:
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110603/full/news.2011.348.html?s=news_rss
In the short-term, carbon emissions will rise.

In the short term, Germany has ramped up spare capacity at existing coal-fired plants, and has also started importing electricity from France and central Europe, says Dietmar Lindenberger of the Institute of Energy Economics at the University of Cologne, Germany. His group is currently performing an energy analysis for the German government.
...
Put the targets together, and renewable energy sources still won't quite fill the gap created by nuclear's absence. This means that Germany will probably need to buy in electricity and build new gas or coal plants. The country already has enough gas and coal plants under construction to provide 10 gigawatts for 2015, but this is merely to replace old plants, says Lindenberger.

Part of Germany's problem is that it is not prime territory for solar. I wonder why they don't build plants in Spain and import the electricity? Maybe the transmission lines aren't there?

The current German energy plan, aside from the immediate shutdown of the seven old plants, is really a return to the old plan so over the decade they should be closer to goal. But how they'll cover in the interim is still in question:
http://www.germanenergyblog.de/?p=3588

The whole reason they reversed course last year and decided to extend was that they had an interim problem. They need time to build the new fossil fuel plants and redo the grid, and in Germany it takes forever to do these projects. Court cases.

[kristopher]

59. Is the scaremongering you hear from the agents of nuclear power true?

The German Environment Ministry :

Germany can close the reactors within five years and do so:
-Without power outages
-Without importing nuclear power from other countries
-Without building new coal plants
-With only a modest increase in the cost of electricity

[Yo_Mama]

60. That's not quite accurate

This is the DENA Grid Study II, which was done in 2010. When they did it they were still on the old plan (phase-out of nuclear power), so it is pretty much the new plan, so when you read it you can ignore the stuff about the new plan (Sept 2010) changes. This is as official as it gets:
http://www.uwig.org/Summary_dena_Grid_Study_II.pdf

DENA is the German Energy Agency:
http://www.dena.de/en/

If you read through that, they are going to expand lignite plants (locally produced brown coal), cut their hard coal plants, redo their grid, expand energy storage, build a lot of offshore wind, expand onshore wind, cut some of their gas capacity, expand a bit on biomass trying to use it for balancing, and rely on the wider market. The major diversion from plan is that the solar buildup occurred far more quickly than planned, which is surely helping them now - but won't help in the winter all that much. They are also hoping to use capacity for pumped storage in other countries, as well as a more flexible system for power exchanges between local grids.

Obviously it will take time to fully redo the grid, but they have some of that time because some of the major modifications are needed for offshore wind, and they are still building that capacity.

Germany is interesting because it is working so hard on this, and has been.

The major problem I see right now for Europe is that Scotland ended up taking surplus from France to cover its power shortages over the winter. At some point, if European countries keep doing this, France is going to run short on power.

This winter we will find out how their PV is working for them, because unfortunately they are pretty northern and they have those long nights with which to contend.

[kristopher]

61. Your comment isn't "accurate"; it attempts to ignore the political situation

The political situation is one where the pronuclear/coal interests have had an upper hand in government for several years; and they have intentionally been steadily chipping away at and obstructing progress on the renewable path. The plan you refer to is their blueprint for going forward.

However, the over-reach by Merkel's coalition has completely shifted the political dynamics (see recent election results) and the focus of public attention is now directed at this specific policy area in a way that almost certainly precludes the execution of that plan. The Environment Ministry study outlines an alternative strategy and elections going forward are almost certain to center on the choice between the two. And since we know without doubt that the goals of the public line up with the technical abilities outlined in the Environment Ministry study, it seems reasonable to think that the losers on this issue will be the procoal/nuclear faction.

[kristopher]

80. Kick