One brazillion solar plants shut down in California - No one notices.

[NNadir]

The main reasons are that

1) the one brazillion solar plants have an extremely low capacity utilization. In fact, the things fail once every sideral day, sometimes - ironically when it is coldest - for more than 50% of the day.

2) Solar electricity is trivial form of energy and no one would dream of relying on solar electricity, unless of course you're talking about Mom's bartender's cousin's friend's hairdresser's dog's groomer's uncle's brother who lives off grid.

In other news, for several days this year, Spain, Portugal, France, Germany and Italy each experienced days where 0% of their energy was provided by wind power.

[thunder rising]

1. So let's build nukes, burn more oil, WE HAVE TO HAVE ENERGY IF IT KILLS US ALL

Well obviously not all. Just the poor bastids that don't have enough clout to keep it out of their neighborhood. I'd feel OK with nuke plants if every CEO of the companies had to live within 3 miles and their kids went to the nearest available school.

[NNadir]

3. Nuclear plants have the highest capacity utilization and the lowest external cost of any form

of exajoule scale energy.

They are cleaner, safer and more reliable than any other form of exajoule scale form of energy.

In fact, the only reason that solar's external cost is missed is because solar is, was, and probably will be for the next 50 years, a trivial form of energy.

If you want to know what the external cost of solar plants would be if solar were not a trivial form of energy, here's a picture:

[Javaman]

11. ...

http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2005/07/peak-uranium-and-thorium.html

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2379

[sabbat hunter]

28. I would be willing to live

3 miles from a nuclear power plant.

Sure as hell is better than living 3 miles from a coal, gas or oil fired one.

If we want to get out of our energy crisis we need to do the following
1) conserve
2) build wind, solar, geothermal and nuclear power plants

[JDPriestly]

2. What are you talking about?

[kristopher]

4. Comes across as a spammer for the nuclear industry.

Continually posts baseless criticisms of renewable energy while hyping what he claims is no external costs nuclear.

[Dead_Parrot]

5. So find out which renewables have a lower cost

should be easy.

Edit: For an encore, find out what the external cost is for the backup.

[kristopher]

6. We know which have lower external costs

The hard part is figuring how much lower the negative externalities of wind and solar are due to:

1) the inability to calculate far enough into the future to adequately capture the full costs of nuclear. Economic forecast on that time scale are not able to be meaningfully quantified. However, that doesn't mean these negative costs don't exist. They do and they are significant.

2) #1 is exacerbated by the extreme nature of the potential downside. How do you quantify the costs of nuclear proliferation or the potential toxic environmental consequences from widespread use of plutonium?

Just because these negatives are not quantifiable doesn't mean they don't exist.

I've seen the argument here that climate change/social collapse from energy shortages/fossil fuel pollutants are the avoided costs to be balanced against the negatives of nuclear power. We are supposed to accept the claims of the nuclear shills here that the costs of these vague threats are to be tallied as negative externalities in a cost benefit analysis of solar and wind.

That's a crock. The best available science tells us that wind and solar are economically and technically viable means of meeting the challenges posed by the problems being hyped to promote nuclear. They are peddling nuclear the same way an insurance mans sells insurance that isn't really needed - by stoking fear that is disproportionate to the actual risks.

We all evaluate risks differently, but I believe that mainstream science is not yet convinced that the threat from climate change and particulate pollution has reached a point to justify the risks associated with nuclear. Perhaps we'll learn something new tomorrow that will change the equation and we'll start a massive program to build a breeder reactor in every county in the country. But as things stand now, there are paths to meet the known threats that do not require us to risk those unquantifiable negatives.

[Dead_Parrot]

8. Yeah, you're right

Of course, we could look at the data from Externe, but they're just a bunch of nuclear shills as well, I expect.

Let's face it, 2,000,000 deaths a year from particulate pollution is nothing, really. And climate change? Drop in the ocean. In fact, many will.

Just a bunch of vague threats, nothing scary there. Lets not go stoking fear that is disproportionate to the actual risks. Must rush into these things, must we? There's not really a consensus on this, so let's do some more research, wait and see what happens, eh?

[kristopher]

7. If you have an assertion to make, then make it.

You are implying something by editing your post after I answered it.

Please state your assertion clearly. While you are at it, it would be courteous to give a meaningful response that addresses the points raised in my post. If I'm incorrect, then please educate me. If not, then acknowledge that and make your next point.

[Dead_Parrot]

9. Fine, here it is in plain English

Go and find out the external costs of different means of producing power, per joule or kW/h

Then go and find out what other forms of power are used when the fist tier aren't availible.

Then go and find out what causes climate change, and what it implies.

Then come back and tell us about known threats, vague threats, stoking fear, mainstream science, and economic forecasts.

[kristopher]

10. Now you are dragging in fossil fuels, and changing the parameters of the OP

The question isn't what are the externalities of FF, the question was what is the comparison between the alternatives with which we will replace fossil fuels. No one argues fossil fuels aren't bad, but you are making the false claims that those problems are so severe that only nuclear energy can solve all associate problems in such a timely enough manner. You make the absurd assertion that we should ignore the obvious dangers of widescale deployment of plutonium breeder technology while criticizing massively more benign renewables with pictures of children standing in front of a garbage heap and similar emotionally driven nonsense.

Yes, lots of people die from particulate pollution, does that mean we ignore the relative risks when we select it's replacement? of course not. But that is exactly what you are proposing.

Sure nuclear has a good safety record, that's because one minor failure can be catastrophic and the industry is organized with a devoutness that any religion would envy. However, the more we bring on line the more we inevitably increase the odds of catastrophic failure occurring. Whether it is in the area of security, faulty construction, faulty materials, or a drunk operator, error will find it's way into the system. And that doesn't even begin to address nuclear proliferation that is an inevitable consequence of using the only economically rational fuel choice - plutonium.

Basing claims of future external costs on external costs to date is simply dishonest. In fact, your entire argument is so riddled with dishonest claims and false rationalizations where you totally ignore broad areas of technical capabilities and renewable energy resources that your motives are extremely suspect.

You may be a person truly convinced the world is going to end tomorrow, but what you are not is a rational proponent of positive environmental change.

[phantom power]

12. Convince me that wind or solar have lower external costs than nuclear.

[BeFree]

13. Ok

But since you think nukes are gonna save us, tell us first how many and at what costs, how much waste and where the fuel will come from and go to for the nukes, then we can do a proper comparison.

Meanwhile, I'm gonna go outside and enjoy the free sunshine. Off the grid, as it were. C'ya.

[Zachstar]

14. He said convince him, Not say ok and fire back a stupid question.

Take the time to write a convincing post with PLENTY of unspun facts. Or take your crap elseware.

[kristopher]

15. It isn't a stupid question.

I've outlined the argument against widespread deployment of nuclear energy in this thread and other threads. The only response by the nuclear spammers is either incoherent ranting of a series of one-liner posts pretending to reasonable dialogue.

The question you deride is precisely the correct question: Explain how the problems listed are to be addressed. Failing that, it is self evident that the negative externalities of wind and solar are orders of magnitude lower than nuclear power.

[Zachstar]

16. Stop with the crap and take the time to make a post.

He said "Convince me that wind or solar have lower external costs than nuclear."

So just do it and stop the crap.

[phantom power]

17. It's not self evident to me.

I don't think it's at all self evident what the true impact of large-scale deployment of wind, solar, tidal, wave power, etc, etc, etc, is. The observation that radioactive materials can kill people, or give them cancer, does not constitute an argument about relative scales of impact per unit of energy delivered.

Talking about people who have died, or contracted cancer, from nuclear energy externalities, only makes sense if we can compare it to the number of people who will die from side-effects of a large-scale renewable energy industry. I actually doubt there will be comprehensive data on that until the current renewables boom plays out for another decade or so.

As for answering questions about nuclear power, we have provided answers time and time again. We could leave our spent nuclear fuel where it is now, and it will create only a modest impact between now and when it decays. But there are better things we could do. Reuse it, namely.

The current state of affairs makes it hard to have this conversation for real. I cannot find even rudimentary information about the environmental impact of manufacturing a wind turbine. Much less the total impact of a renewables industry large enough to matter. The only attempt at a principled comparison that I'm aware of, the ExternE project, is still far from complete.

[kristopher]

18. If you can't find it, then you aren't looking.

This graph is based on technology that is three generations old, deployed offshore, which means it is in a good wind location. Offshore wind delivers a capacity factor of around 44% vs onshore at 30-33%.
The models being deployed now offshore are 3.0 -3.6Mw per turbine. The ones in testing phase are around 7Mw/ per turbine.



Energy return on investment (EROI), economic feasibility and carbon intensity of a hypothetical Lake Ontario wind farm


"Although the energy demands used from the Wind Power Note and Elsam studies are normalized on a per-MW basis, it is not assumed nor suggested that the energy requirement for a wind turbine is linearly proportional to its capacity rating. No evidence suggests that this is the case; rather, it can be assumed that larger turbines will require proportionally less energy during their life cycles than smaller turbines. This is a likely result of economies of scale energy cost savings. However, each of the four turbines analyzed (in the Wind Power Note, Elsam and this analysis) are within a half-megawatt of capacity rating. Thus, the margin of error will be much smaller than if an analysis of a 100 kW turbine was performed using this method. Additionally, the goal of this analysis is to provide a reasonable approximation of the energy requirement and energy return on investment (EROI) expected for turbines used in a Lake Ontario wind farm. As the farm remains hypothetical, a close approximation is the extent of what can sensibly be achieved, and certainly well suited for this initial analysis.


Table 3: Per turbine energy requirement, production, EROI, and energy payback period.

Table 3 provides a breakdown of the predicted energy requirements of the GE 1.5 MW and Vestas 1.65 MW turbines using the values from the Wind Power Note and Elsam studies. In relation to their expected lifetime power production, an EROI of between 28.3 and 36.7 is calculated for the GE turbine and between 30.5 and 39.6 for the Vestas turbine. The average energy requirement is about 4.22 million kWh for the GE turbine and 4.64 million kWh for the Vestas turbine. The energy payback period for both turbines is less than one year."

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_return_on_investment_%28EROI%29%2C_economic_feasibility_and_carbon_intensity_of_a_hypothetical_Lake_Ontario_wind_farm


And this from an older study of land based wind farms by the editor of the article above. This analysis iss basesd on technology this is literally antiquated,:

Energy from Wind: A Discussion of the EROI Research
"...The EROI for wind turbines compares favorably with other power generation systems (Figure 3). Baseload coal-fired power generation has an EROI between 5 and 10:1. Nuclear power is probably no greater than 5:1, although there is considerable debate regarding how to calculate its EROI. The EROI for hydropower probably exceed 10, but in most places in the world the most favorable sites have been developed....
...Another reason that larger turbines have a larger EROI is the well-known "cube rule" of wind power, i.e., that the power available from the wind varies as the cube of the wind speed. Thus, if the wind speed doubles, the power of the wind increases 8 times. New turbines are taller than earlier technologies, and thus extract energy from the higher winds that exist at greater heights. Surface roughness -- roughness determined mainly by the height and type of vegetation and buildings -- reduces wind velocity near the surface. Over flat, open terrain in particular, the wind speed increases relatively fast with height...."
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/10/17/18478/085

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=78265
Cavallo 1995:
Description/Abstract Wind-generated electricity can be fundamentally transformed from an intermittent resource to a baseload power supply. For the case of long distance transmission of wind electricity, this change can be achieved at a negligible increase or even a decrease in the per unit cost of electricity. The economic and technical feasibility of this process can be illustrated by studying the example of a wind farm located in central Kansas and a 2,000 km, 2,000 megawatt transmission line to southern California. Such a system can have a capacity factor of 60%, with no economic penalty and without storage. With compressed air energy storage (CAES) (and with a negligible economic penalty), capacity factors of 70--95% can be achieved. This strategy has important implications for the development of wind energy throughout the world since good wind resources are usually located far from major demand centers.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005JGRD..11012110A
Archer & Jacobson 2005
Abstract
The goal of this study is to quantify the world's wind power potential for the first time from data. Wind speeds are calculated at 80 m, the hub height of modern, 77-m diameter, 1500 kW turbines. Since relatively few observations are available at 80 m, the Least Square extrapolation technique is utilized and revised here to obtain estimates of wind speeds at 80 m given observed wind speeds at 10 m (widely available) and a network of sounding stations. Tower data from the Kennedy Space Center (Florida) were used to validate the results. Globally, ~13% of all reporting stations experience annual mean wind speeds >= 6.9 m/s at 80 m (i.e., wind power class 3 or greater) and can therefore be considered suitable for low-cost wind power generation. This estimate is believed to be conservative. Of all continents, North America has the largest number of stations in class >= 3 (453), and Antarctica has the largest percent (60%). Areas with great potential are found in northern Europe along the North Sea, the southern tip of the South American continent, the island of Tasmania in Australia, the Great Lakes region, and the northeastern and northwestern coasts of North America. The global average 10-m wind speed over the ocean from measurements is 6.64 m/s (class 6); that over land is 3.28 m/s (class 1). The calculated 80-m values are 8.60 m/s (class 6) and 4.54 m/s (class 1) over ocean and land, respectively. Over land, daytime 80-m wind speed averages obtained from soundings (4.96 m/s) are slightly larger than nighttime ones (4.85 m/s); nighttime wind speeds increase, on average, above daytime speeds above 120 m. Assuming that statistics generated from all stations analyzed here are representative of the global distribution of winds, global wind power generated at locations with mean annual wind speeds >= 6.9 m/s at 80 m is found to be ~72 TW (~54,000 Mtoe) for the year 2000. Even if only ~20% of this power could be captured, it could satisfy 100% of the world's energy demand for all purposes (6995-10177 Mtoe) and over seven times the world's electricity needs (1.6-1.8 TW). Several practical barriers need to be overcome to fully realize this potential.


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TH1-4N7RY2T-9&_user=260508&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000015498&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=260508&md5=263c93fcf3a4e293a1f66f1864850ef4
Abstract
Kempton 2007
Electric-drive vehicles can provide power to the electric grid when they are parked (vehicle-to-grid power). We evaluated the economic potential of two utility-owned fleets of battery-electric vehicles to provide power for a specific electricity market, regulation, in four US regional regulation services markets. The two battery-electric fleet cases are: (a) 100 Th!nk City vehicle and (b) 252 Toyota RAV4. Important variables are: (a) the market value of regulation services, (b) the power capacity (kW) of the electrical connections and wiring, and (c) the energy capacity (kWh) of the vehicle's battery. With a few exceptions when the annual market value of regulation was low, we find that vehicle-to-grid power for regulation services is profitable across all four markets analyzed. Assuming now more than current Level 2 charging infrastructure (6.6 kW) the annual net profit for the Th!nk City fleet is from US$ 7000 to 70,000 providing regulation down only. For the RAV4 fleet the annual net profit ranges from US$ 24,000 to 260,000 providing regulation down and up. Vehicle-to-grid power could provide a significant revenue stream that would improve the economics of grid-connected electric-drive vehicles and further encourage their adoption. It would also improve the stability of the electrical grid.



Now it's your turn, you don't get a pass by claiming "just let it lay where it is and we'll be ok." I've laid out a number of the issues related to the risks associated with nuclear energy - address those risks directly and comprehensively or STFU.

[phantom power]

19. I guess I didn't make myself clear. I'm not talking about EROI.

I'm talking about environmental impact.

[kristopher]

20. The most comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment ever done

http://www.mms.gov/offshore/

Proposed Cape Wind wind farm.

[phantom power]

21. OK, I read it...

I kid, of course. It's 700 pages.

It appears to cover installation, operation, maintenance and decomissioning. The biggest toxic risk appears to be oil spills, or transformer coolant spills. I didn't notice any probability assigned to those, or projected consequences, although I might have missed it in there. We'll probably have to wait and see what eventually happens.

As regards wind power, I suspect the biggest impact shows up in manufacturing. Raw materials extraction through the factory, as it were.

[kristopher]

22. The oils used are either mineral (baby) oil or vegetable (soy) oil.

Both are relatively benign if spilled. Plus, the quantities are small on the scale we're accustomed to with petroleum transport.

There is also an excellent long term radar study that was done in Europe of avian behavior when confronted with a wind farm. It clearly shows they fly around the farm or under the turbine blades.

You're right about the largest impact being in the pre-construction part of the life cycle. In the world of energy harvesting, it is a minute impact relative to the quantity of energy harvested.

[phantom power]

25. I've never really worried much about birds and bats.

Climate change is going to kill far more birds and bats than wind turbines ever could. In fact, we're seeing stories about bird and bat kills here in E/E all the time, and the climate fun has barely gotten started. Also, birds and bats are learning animals. They can mitigate the risk all by themselves, to whatever extent the risk exists.

I feel similarly about nuclear power: The threat of nuclear power externalities is nothing compared to the climate damage we might avoid by using it.

I still don't share your confidence that manufacturing wind farms will have a minute impact relative to the quantity of energy harvested. I don't know what that impact is, so I can't divide it by the energy to get a number.

After reading (some of) that EIA, I got to thinking about what was in it. What they reported was "things that can happen." And "resources that were in the area." What was missing was "probability of things happening." and "what would happen to those resources." For example, they reported on what kind of fish lived in the area. They did not report a probability distribution of fish deaths due to installation and operation of the wind farm.

But then, it would be very damned hard to come up with such a distribution. In fact, the universe being the computationally irreducible place it is, the only way to get good data is to start installing them, and see what eventually happens. We have data on the impacts of fossil fuels, and nuclear power, because we have installed a lot of it, and they've been operated for many years, so we have learned empirically.

Which brings me back to my current thinking: that we are just going to have to let renewable play out for a while, and we'll see what we see. Which was always going to happen anyway, since in the big picture nobody cares what I think about nuclear power or renewables.

[kristopher]

26. I don't know

"Which brings me back to my current thinking: that we are just going to have to let renewable play out for a while, and we'll see what we see. Which was always going to happen anyway, since in the big picture nobody cares what I think about nuclear power or renewables."

You're part of the current of humanity jusst like the rest of us.
Maybe this is what you're looking for: An Evaluation of The Wildlife Impacts of Offshore Wind Development Relative to Fossil Fuel Power Production Graduate thesis available at http://www.ocean.udel.edu/windpower/

[DainBramaged]

23. Is there any proof to the OP, or is this just another Brazillion joke?

References? Links? Oh, and FYI, the sun doesn't have to be out for solar to work, and yes Margret, solar panels ALL fail for more than 50% of the day due to

DARKNESS

!

[Kolesar]

24. Profits at the nuclear operator who faked inspection reports at Davis Besse roll in day and night

http://blog.cleveland.com/business/2007/10/one_convicted_one_acquitted_in.html

One convicted, one acquitted in Davis-Besse damage case

Posted by The Associated Press October 30, 2007 15:11PM
Categories: Breaking News, Energy, Impact

The Davis-Besse nuclear power plant near Port Clinton.

Read The Plain Dealer's previous Davis-Besse coverage.Toledo - A federal jury today found one of two former Davis-Besse nuclear plant workers guilty of hiding information about the worst corrosion ever found at a U.S. reactor.

David Geisen, the plant's former engineering design manager, was accused of misleading regulators in the fall of 2001 into believing the plant was safe. He faces up to five years in prison.

The same U.S. District Court jury acquitted a second former worker, private contractor Rodney Cook.

Both men sat with their hands folded in their laps as the verdicts were read.
Prosecutors said the men lied so that the plant could delay a shutdown for a safety inspection.

Months later, inspectors in 2002 found an acid leak that nearly ate through the reactor's steel cap. It's not clear how close the plant was to an accident.

After the discovery, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission beefed up inspections and training and began requiring detailed records of its discussions with plant operators.

[Terry in Austin]

27. NNadir, NNadir, NNadir

It's come to this? Really?

Time was, you'd put up some pretty interesting arguments. Wrong, but interesting. Actual arguments -- not this.

[jpak]

29. Ever since the charlatan NJ molten salt breeder reactor melted down

it hasn't been the same...

:evilgrin: