SageBrush
Posts: 3854
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:28 am
Delivery Date: 13 Feb 2017
Location: Colorado

Re: Well new mexico governor decided to make electricity unaffordable

Mon May 06, 2019 1:21 pm

Oilpan4 wrote:The only person saying anything about AGW being a hoax on here is you.

Did you vote for Trump ?
Then you accept his message or do not take responsibility for your vote.

Same difference to me.
2013 LEAF 'S' Model with QC & rear-view camera
Bought off-lease Jan 2017 from N. California
Car is now enjoying an easy life in Colorado
03/2018: 58 Ahr, 28k miles
11/2018: 56.16 Ahr, 30k miles
-----
2018 Tesla Model 3 LR, Delivered 6/2018

SageBrush
Posts: 3854
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:28 am
Delivery Date: 13 Feb 2017
Location: Colorado

Re: Well new mexico governor decided to make electricity unaffordable

Mon May 06, 2019 1:24 pm

Oilpan4 wrote:That's only your delusional green washing.
The cute little 4 hour battery supply will hopefully be able to send out a warning to peoples phones before it goes off line.

No, that is PNM and Exel (among many, many other utilities) saying that is what they need to replace fossils with clean energy.

READ their IRPs
2013 LEAF 'S' Model with QC & rear-view camera
Bought off-lease Jan 2017 from N. California
Car is now enjoying an easy life in Colorado
03/2018: 58 Ahr, 28k miles
11/2018: 56.16 Ahr, 30k miles
-----
2018 Tesla Model 3 LR, Delivered 6/2018

Oilpan4
Gold Member
Posts: 474
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:51 pm
Delivery Date: 10 May 2018
Leaf Number: 004270

Re: Well new mexico governor decided to make electricity unaffordable

Tue May 07, 2019 11:41 am

SageBrush wrote:
Oilpan4 wrote:The only person saying anything about AGW being a hoax on here is you.

Did you vote for Trump ?
Then you accept his message or do not take responsibility for your vote.

Same difference to me.

I didn't vote for any one I was busy dealing with my father funeral and estate during the 2016 election.
This is the second or third time I have told you this.

You are the only one pushing AWG as a hoax.
No one else is saying anything to that effect.
You have a lot of problems man.
2011 white SL leaf with 2014 batt.
Chargers: Panasonic brick moded for 240v, duosida 16a 240v and a 10kw setec portable CHAdeMO
Location: 88103

SageBrush
Posts: 3854
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:28 am
Delivery Date: 13 Feb 2017
Location: Colorado

Re: Well new mexico governor decided to make electricity unaffordable

Tue May 07, 2019 11:44 am

Oilpan4 wrote:
SageBrush wrote:
Oilpan4 wrote:The only person saying anything about AGW being a hoax on here is you.

Did you vote for Trump ?
Then you accept his message or do not take responsibility for your vote.

Same difference to me.

I didn't vote for any one

Whom did you support ?
Whom would you have voted for ?

Why do you ignore the cost of pollution and AGW ?
Go ahead, tell me your stance on AGW and by all means, back it up with science.
2013 LEAF 'S' Model with QC & rear-view camera
Bought off-lease Jan 2017 from N. California
Car is now enjoying an easy life in Colorado
03/2018: 58 Ahr, 28k miles
11/2018: 56.16 Ahr, 30k miles
-----
2018 Tesla Model 3 LR, Delivered 6/2018

GRA
Posts: 10174
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Well new mexico governor decided to make electricity unaffordable

Tue May 07, 2019 5:37 pm

SageBrush wrote:
GRA wrote:We simply can't build PV/wind and the necessary transmission and storage infrastructure etc. fast enough

It is much, much cheaper, and much, much faster to to build renewables than nuclear.

That is the case now, but wasn't always so, both France and the U.S. having increased capacity at a higher rate for a longer time with nukes than anyone has yet achieved with renewables. Again, Smil has the figures in "Energy Transitions". I'll just mention that France has the lowest GHG emissions per capita of any industrialized country, by a wide margin. Their nukes have a relatively low CF (77% vs. 92% for U.S reactors) owing to the fact that France regularly uses them for load-following. Then there's the quantities of steel and cement (and their associated fossil-fuel emissions) needed for construction, far less in the case of a nuke compared to wind or PV, thanks to the much higher power density of nukes.

[quote="SageBrush"]On the order of 10:1 for each.[/.quote]
We've certainly managed to increase the cost of nukes, partly through incompetence/corruption, partly through improved safety requirements and partly through excessive litigation. France was able to get to 75% of their electricity via nukes (replacing oil after the '73 embargo) in 15 years through concentrating on just a couple of standardized reactor designs (both Westinghouse originally) and then building them in quantity. None of this suggests that nukes will be cheap, easy or without risk, but we know they can handle the baseload job at an affordable price (the cost of building the plants has skyrocketed, but the operating costs remain low), and as yet we can't accomplish that affordably with VR. So, while we can get to 66% or maybe even 80% zero-emission electricty with VR, at the moment we have no way to get to 100%.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

GRA
Posts: 10174
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Well new mexico governor decided to make electricity unaffordable

Tue May 07, 2019 5:55 pm

LeftieBiker wrote:You lost me at "unscientific fears." I'm out.

As opposed to scientifically-based ones, as nukes unquestionably have risks. But the total deaths due to all nuclear accidents plus Hiroshima and Nagasaki is several times less than the annual deaths worldwide due to coal pollution (plus mining of same), yet the public mostly ignores the latter while worrying excessively about the former. That's what I mean about "unscientific fears":
Energy accidents
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents

Energy resources bring with them great social and economic promise, providing financial growth for communities and energy services for local economies. However, the infrastructure which delivers energy services can break down in an energy accident, sometimes causing much damage, and energy fatalities can occur, and with many systems often deaths will happen even when the systems are working as intended.

Historically, coal mining has been the most dangerous energy activity and the list of historical coal mining disasters is a long one. Underground mining hazards include suffocation, gas poisoning, roof collapse and gas explosions. Open cut mining hazards are principally mine wall failures and vehicle collisions. In the US alone, more than 100,000 coal miners have been killed in accidents over the past century,[1] with more than 3,200 dying in 1907 alone.[2]

According to Benjamin K. Sovacool, 279 major energy accidents occurred from 1907 to 2007 and they caused 182,156 deaths with $41 billion in property damages, with these figures not including deaths from smaller accidents.[3]

However, by far the greatest energy fatalities that result from energy generation by humanity, is the creation of air pollution. The most lethal of which, particulate matter, which is primarily generated from the burning of fossil fuels and biomass is (counting outdoor air pollution effects only) estimated to cause 2.1 million deaths annually.

Be sure to look at the chart showing mortality rates per PWh, and then decide which techs are the most/least risks. Now, let me repeat, I am no fan of fission - if I thought we could do it all with renewables now or in the foreseeable future, I'd be the first to say dump the nukes (but only after we dump the coal, oil and NG).
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

SageBrush
Posts: 3854
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:28 am
Delivery Date: 13 Feb 2017
Location: Colorado

Re: Well new mexico governor decided to make electricity unaffordable

Tue May 07, 2019 6:01 pm

GRA wrote:That is the case now, but wasn't always so, both France and the U.S. having increased capacity at a higher rate for a longer time with nukes than anyone has yet achieved with renewables.
France is always brought up by the pro-nuclear group but they either do not know or decide not to mention that France is not building any new plants and is replacing those at end of service with renewables. This, despite the fact that they have invested truly huge sums into a nuclear industry that they try to export to other countries.

Does HInkley ring a bell ? France is smart enough to not eat its own dog food. From Wikipedia:
Hinkley Point C nuclear power station (HPC) is a project to construct a 3,200 MWe nuclear power station with two EPR reactors in Somerset, England.[3] The proposed site is one of eight announced by the British government in 2010,[4] and in November 2012 a nuclear site licence was granted.[5] On 28 July 2016 the EDF board approved the project,[6] and on 15 September 2016 the UK government approved the project with some safeguards for the investment.[7] The plant, which has a projected lifetime of sixty years, has an estimated construction cost of between £19.6 billion and £20.3 billion.[1][2] The National Audit Office estimates the additional cost to consumers (above the estimated market price of electricity) under the "strike price" will be £50 billion, which 'will continue to vary as the outlook for wholesale market prices shifts'.[8] Financing of the project is still to be finalised, but the construction costs will be paid for by the mainly state-owned EDF of France and state-owned CGN of China.[9]

That would be $8.2 USD per watt for yanks, although it does not include insurance, O+M, waste disposal or site remediation. As a nuclear proponent I'm sure you can estimate the cost of these undisclosed costs ? By the way, Hinkley Point C was announced by the government in 2010 and is "expected" to go online in 2027. All the other 7 nuclear plants also announced in 2010 are shelved as the UK has wisely pivoted to off-shore wind.

Oh, and the stable of nuclear plants currently operating in the UK ? Not a one of them is expected to reach the end-of-life schedule originally advertised due to safety issues.
Last edited by SageBrush on Tue May 07, 2019 6:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.
2013 LEAF 'S' Model with QC & rear-view camera
Bought off-lease Jan 2017 from N. California
Car is now enjoying an easy life in Colorado
03/2018: 58 Ahr, 28k miles
11/2018: 56.16 Ahr, 30k miles
-----
2018 Tesla Model 3 LR, Delivered 6/2018

GRA
Posts: 10174
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Well new mexico governor decided to make electricity unaffordable

Tue May 07, 2019 6:12 pm

RonDawg wrote:
LeftieBiker wrote:You lost me at "unscientific fears." I'm out.


I agree.

The thing with nuclear power is despite all the safeguards you put in, if it goes wrong, it goes VERY wrong. And the effects will last years...half-lifes. There's a region of northeast Japan that will be basically uninhabitable for generations because the "one in a million" chance scenario actually did happen.

Hardly a one in a million chance, the risk of that happening in a tsunami had been pointed out previously. A very simple design change could have eliminated the risk, short of a tsunami that would have essentially flooded the entire area east of the mountains and killed millions of people. Yes, Tepco and the government regulators who let them continue business as usual have a lot to answer for. As to uninhabitable for generations and going very wrong:
. . . The release of radioactive isotopes from reactor containment vessels was a result of venting in order to reduce gaseous pressure, and the discharge of coolant water into the sea.[5] This resulted in Japanese authorities implementing a 30-km exclusion zone around the power plant and the continued displacement of approximately 156,000 people as of early 2013.[4][6] The number of evacuees has declined to 49,492 as of March 2018.[7] Large quantities of radioactive particles from the incident, including iodine-131 and caesium-134/137, have since been detected around the world. Substantial levels have been seen in California and in the Pacific Ocean.[8][9][10]

The World Health Organization (WHO) released a report that estimates an increase in risk for specific cancers for certain subsets of the population inside the Fukushima Prefecture. A 2013 WHO report predicts that for populations living in the most affected areas there is a 70% higher risk of developing thyroid cancer for girls exposed as infants (the risk has risen from a lifetime risk of 0.75% to 1.25%), a 7% higher risk of leukemia in males exposed as infants, a 6% higher risk of breast cancer in females exposed as infants and a 4% higher risk, overall, of developing solid cancers for females.[11][12]

Preliminary dose-estimation reports by WHO and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) indicate that, outside the geographical areas most affected by radiation, even in locations within Fukushima prefecture, the predicted risks remain low and no observable increases in cancer above natural variation in baseline rates are anticipated.[13] In comparison, after the Chernobyl accident, only 0.1% of the 110,000 cleanup workers surveyed have so far developed leukemia, although not all cases resulted from the accident.[14][15][16] However, 167 Fukushima plant workers received radiation doses that slightly elevate their risk of developing cancer.[15][17][18] Estimated effective doses from the accident outside of Japan are considered to be below, or far below the dose levels regarded as very small by the international radiological protection community.[19] The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation is expected to release a final report on the effects of radiation exposure from the accident by the end of 2013.[18]

A June 2012 Stanford University study estimated, using a linear no-threshold model, that the radioactivity release from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant could cause 130 deaths from cancer globally (the lower bound for the estimate being 15 and the upper bound 1100) and 199 cancer cases in total (the lower bound being 24 and the upper bound 1800), most of which are estimated to occur in Japan. Radiation exposure to workers at the plant was projected to result in 2 to 12 deaths.[20] However, a December 2012 UNSCEAR statement to the Fukushima Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Safety advised that "because of the great uncertainties in risk estimates at very low doses, UNSCEAR does not recommend multiplying very low doses by large numbers of individuals to estimate numbers of radiation-induced health effects within a population exposed to incremental doses at levels equivalent to or lower than natural background levels."[21]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster

Note that there is considerable debate within the medical community over whether a Linear Non-Threshold applies, as there are various places around the world (including some cities in the U.S.) that have higher background levels of radiation than Chernobyl, and have had large populations living in the area for generations and in some case millennia, without showing any increased risks.

So there are real risks with nukes, but they pale in comparison to the risks of air pollution. The difference is the deaths from the latter are usually non-spectacular but constant, while the occasional accident in the former gets all the attention. It's like people who are terrified of flying owing to the occasional and always heavily reported accident, but who think nothing of getting in their cars and commuting every day, even though the latter activity is statistically far more risky.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

SageBrush
Posts: 3854
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:28 am
Delivery Date: 13 Feb 2017
Location: Colorado

Re: Well new mexico governor decided to make electricity unaffordable

Tue May 07, 2019 6:22 pm

GRA wrote:So there are real risks with nukes, but they pale in comparison to the risks of air pollution.

I choose neither, and so should you.
2013 LEAF 'S' Model with QC & rear-view camera
Bought off-lease Jan 2017 from N. California
Car is now enjoying an easy life in Colorado
03/2018: 58 Ahr, 28k miles
11/2018: 56.16 Ahr, 30k miles
-----
2018 Tesla Model 3 LR, Delivered 6/2018

GRA
Posts: 10174
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Well new mexico governor decided to make electricity unaffordable

Tue May 07, 2019 6:38 pm

SageBrush wrote:
GRA wrote:So there are real risks with nukes, but they pale in comparison to the risks of air pollution.

I choose neither, and so should you.

You are free to make your choice based on your analysis of the situation just as I will based on mine, but unless/until we can get the majority of the world's populations and governments to agree with either of us and act accordingly, it doesn't matter.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

Return to “Environmental Issues”