Green Energy Revolution Megathread

[derspiess]

Does the cost for wind power in the UK take into account subsidies, back-up power/energy storage, power grid modification, and waste and decommissioning?

Not to mention the cost in dead birds.  Bird lives matter.

What's your problem with birds?

Don't look at me.  Valmy is the bird killer.  I'm merely calling attention to the issue.

[derspiess]

[Valmy]

Don't look at me.  Valmy is the bird killer.  I'm merely calling attention to the issue.

Nah. You know nothing about the issue. You couldn't care less about the issue. You are just trolling for the LOLZ.

That meme just shows how dishonest people are about this issue. That is just whataboutism at its finest. But it also shows they know where the wind is blowing...so to speak.

[Valmy]

other human caused bird deaths like those done by domestic cats.

lulz

The overwhelming number of birds 'killed by humans' every year are killed by domestic cats. Something like 60 million. Obviously wind farms kill a tiny percentage of that but the difference is that domestic cats are usually killing small birds numerous birds whereas wind farms are killing larger endangered ones.

The primary short term strategies are siting the sites away from areas those birds usually fly and design the turbines to be as unappealing to them as possible.

[derspiess]

Don't look at me.  Valmy is the bird killer.  I'm merely calling attention to the issue.

Nah. You know nothing about the issue. You couldn't care less about the issue. You refuse to discuss the issue. You just want to troll for the LOLZ and post juvenile unfunny memes to show how you can be hip like the teenagers.

Chillax.  I didn't know the bird thing would get under your skin so much. I'll stop.

I have no problem with adding "green" energy sources into the mix and letting them compete on an even ground with fossil fuel energy sources.  If it means cheaper electricity, let 'er rip. 

[The Minsky Moment]

If you actually care about the environment then nuclear is obviously the best option that can work on any significant scale and could be expanded relatively quickly.

Relatively quickly?  Median construction time are 7-8 years and recently have been on the rise.  That doesn't include any required regulatory pre-approvals.  There is also a huge capital commitment that would be problematic if many plants were put into construction at the same time.  Also a big increase in the number of operating reactors would proportionally increase the amount of uranium that needs to be mined and then processed, and the waste that needs to disposed - all steps that raise environmental concerns.

[Malthus]

The problem with nuclear is the risk - not environmental risk, but financial risk.

Nuclear plants have huge up-front investment costs and enormous risks of political and regulatory interference - all before a single penny in income is earned.

Ironically, the very pace of advances in technology in this area make these risks even higher - new nuclear plant concepts are coming out, it seems, every year, that make plants safer and more economical; so if you invest now, you risk investing in an immediately obsolete plant. Yet you have to earn your investment back and earn a profit over the life of the plant, which may be 20-30 years.

This makes it difficult for any but committed governments to take the risks. 

Nuclear has some environmental risks of course, but they pale to insignificance besides those of the most obvious alternatives.

[HVC]

I blame homer simpson

[The Brain]

If you actually care about the environment then nuclear is obviously the best option that can work on any significant scale and could be expanded relatively quickly.

Relatively quickly?  Median construction time are 7-8 years and recently have been on the rise.  That doesn't include any required regulatory pre-approvals.  There is also a huge capital commitment that would be problematic if many plants were put into construction at the same time.  Also a big increase in the number of operating reactors would proportionally increase the amount of uranium that needs to be mined and then processed, and the waste that needs to disposed - all steps that raise environmental concerns.

France could do it quickly, so it's hardly impossible. We're not talking about putting up a few wind turbines but actually supplying the majority of electricity. Good luck getting there with wind and solar in 20 years.

The environmental concerns, while real in the sense that they exist, are not rational. The environmental impact of nuclear power is tiny. And there are huge quantities of uranium in the Earth's crust, if uranium prices rise enormous amounts will be commercially available, and since fuel is a very small part of the cost of nuclear power fuel price could rise a lot without a huge impact on total costs.

Do I think nuclear power is a realistic option? Of course not, it's politically impossible. People hate and fear nuclear power, much due to the massive amounts of desinformation and hostile propaganda that has been going on for decades (much of it from people in the know, you can't get research grants/consulting gigs in radiation protection related fields if people aren't scared shitless). People in general accept risks in other power sources that are orders of magnitudes bigger than in nuclear. It's not rational, but citizens are under no obligation to be rational.

[The Minsky Moment]

France could do it quickly, so it's hardly impossible.

Back in the 1970s maybe.
The last 2 power stations to go into operation in France had lag times of 11-16 years between commencement of construction and COD.

Since then France has been pushing the EPR which has been plagued by insanely long overruns.  The French one long passed double the budgeted amount, is over six years late and is still yet to begin operation.

[The Brain]

France could do it quickly, so it's hardly impossible.

Back in the 1970s maybe.
The last 2 power stations to go into operation in France had lag times of 11-16 years between commencement of construction and COD.

Since then France has been pushing the EPR which has been plagued by insanely long overruns.  The French one long passed double the budgeted amount, is over six years late and is still yet to begin operation.

Like I said, it's politically impossible. But if we as a society thought that stopping climate change was an actual real concern we could certainly do it 70s style. The laws of physics haven't changed. Build times and costs would drop a lot once you build not a couple reactors at a time but build 50 reactors of the exact same specs assembly-line style. The safety design and changes that today help make costs and build times rise are driven by demands that are not made of other power sources. Hydro can (and occasionally does) kill thousands in a single day, coal millions over time, without people caring. At the same time Three Mile Island, with no injuries, no deaths, and negligible environmental impact, is considered a major accident. That nuclear even exists today despite requirements that would simply shut down other power sources is very visible proof that the technology is inherently superior by any rational standard.

[The Minsky Moment]

But if we as a society thought that stopping climate change was an actual real concern we could certainly do it 70s style. The laws of physics haven't changed. Build times and costs would drop a lot once you build not a couple reactors at a time but build 50 reactors of the exact same specs assembly-line style.

Maybe . . .
There's about 450 active reactors with 400,000 MW of installed nuclear capacity now.
Even if you increase the average capacity per reactor, quite a bit, you'd need a lot more than 50 to make an appreciable dent.

Doubling capacity would mean adding another 400,000 MW.  Since nuclear generates around 11% of electricity worldwide, that only takes you to just over 20% (not taking into account replacement of existing capacity).  That would be very helpful although not close to a panacea.

According to the World Nuclear Association website - which I assume to be industry-friendly - construct costs per KW are about $5500 in the EU, $5000 in the US, and $3500 in China.  Since I doubt that even the most scaled up mass production program and regulatory corner cutting could get the world average much under China, $3500 is probably the floor for world average construct costs.

But lets say for the sake of argument you could get it down $2500.  You'd still have to spend $1 trillion just to find out if you were right.   That's a very expensive bet.

In point of fact it almost certainly wouldn't work out.  Take the US for example - doubling capacity would mean simultaneously starting construction on 100 new plants (or say 65 or so supersized ones).  Where's the labor going to come from to do that?  There's going to be a huge bottlenecks in skilled labor - most the accumulated industry know how resides in a few old fossils who retired years ago.

[The Brain]

But if we as a society thought that stopping climate change was an actual real concern we could certainly do it 70s style. The laws of physics haven't changed. Build times and costs would drop a lot once you build not a couple reactors at a time but build 50 reactors of the exact same specs assembly-line style.

Maybe . . .
There's about 450 active reactors with 400,000 MW of installed nuclear capacity now.
Even if you increase the average capacity per reactor, quite a bit, you'd need a lot more than 50 to make an appreciable dent.

Doubling capacity would mean adding another 400,000 MW.  Since nuclear generates around 11% of electricity worldwide, that only takes you to just over 20% (not taking into account replacement of existing capacity).  That would be very helpful although not close to a panacea.

According to the World Nuclear Association website - which I assume to be industry-friendly - construct costs per KW are about $5500 in the EU, $5000 in the US, and $3500 in China.  Since I doubt that even the most scaled up mass production program and regulatory corner cutting could get the world average much under China, $3500 is probably the floor for world average construct costs.

But lets say for the sake of argument you could get it down $2500.  You'd still have to spend $1 trillion just to find out if you were right.   That's a very expensive bet.

In point of fact it almost certainly wouldn't work out.  Take the US for example - doubling capacity would mean simultaneously starting construction on 100 new plants (or say 65 or so supersized ones).  Where's the labor going to come from to do that?  There's going to be a huge bottlenecks in skilled labor - most the accumulated industry know how resides in a few old fossils who retired years ago.

*shrug* And yet France managed to do it. Hell Sweden pretty much did it, we reached nuke+hydro (roughly 50/50) for our electricity needs. And that was without ANY previous experience of nuclear power. Maybe it's something in the cheese or surströmming.

Which other clean power sources have a better chance? Non-rhetorical. We're gonna have to do it somehow if we're serious about things.

I'm sure you understand but for other readers we may have with us: the 50 was just a number thrown out for completely identical units, for various reasons you might want to make small improvements between batches (which will be under construction simultaneously in a staggered way).

[Valmy]

Nukes are politically too compromised now.

[Tonitrus]

Nothing gives people the heebee jeebees like unseen radiation.  Dirty coal air?  Meh, been there, done that.