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 7:00 pm

SageBrush wrote:
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.

Sure, because they want to diversify, and they too have anti-nuclear groups.

SageBrush wrote: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.

Yup EDF has definitely been showing how not to do things with the current gen.

SageBrush wrote: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.

Sure, because we have added many safety requirements since they were designed and the cost of upgrading them is often not justifiable given the relatively short remaining life. Which says nothing about what a modern, safer plant could cost, although we know from the examples you've cited and some others that costs can easily spiral out of control through the combination of incompetence, corruption and litigation I've mentioned.

Speaking of other "plants that won't reach their intended lifespan, wind, especially offshore, has had major problems. Kentish Flats wind array had to have all its turbine gearboxes replaced within I think it was 18 months of installation, owing to corrosion problems. I imagine that may have thrown the LCOE calcs out more than a little:
Thanet Offshore Wind Farm gearbox faults 'solved'
https://www.bbc.com/news/10390377

. . . At the Kentish Flats, turbines have had serious maintenance problems and some are on their fourth gearbox. . . .

Sounds like some Teslas.

Then there was the problem with the attachment of the turbine towers to their bases:
Flaw hits hundreds of EU offshore wind turbines
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-offshore-wind-flaw/flaw-hits-hundreds-of-eu-offshore-wind-turbines-idUKTRE63M3H720100423

None of this is to suggest that wind, PV etc. aren't worth doing, but any new tech is going to have unknown problems that develop, which tends to turn the rosy predictions of their promoters as to the cost and speed of their replacement of the existing tech into optimistic fantasies - Sweden's still waiting for willow tree farms to replace all of their nukes. IIRR that plan's a decade or two overdue, and has long since been abandoned.

Oh, just to repeat, I'm not a nuclear proponent, I'm a reluctant nuclear supporter given that I don't believe we can both replace the existing fossil-fuel generating capacity while simultaneously expanding it considerably to do many of the things (e.g. land transport, domestic heating etc.) that we now mostly do with fossil fuels, in a very restricted timeframe while using only VR. I've read the claims of both camps. I find the arguments of those who say we need to hold our noses and support nukes for now as the best among bad options while we transition to be more persuasive. I'd love to be proven wrong.
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

Wed May 08, 2019 5:12 am

If money is no object, nuclear risks are ignored, and you have 15 - 20 years to wait to build a plant then be a nuclear supporter.
Nuclear is the *last* thing anybody would consider if they are in a hurry.

There might be a reasonable argument to keeping current nuke plants going for another 10 years or so but new ones ? Ridiculous.
Last edited by SageBrush on Fri May 10, 2019 3:39 pm, edited 1 time 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

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

Wed May 08, 2019 5:44 am

GRA wrote:
SageBrush wrote:
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.

Sure, because they want to diversify, and they too have anti-nuclear groups.

No.
As I told you, France will not expand its fleet and will not replace current plants with new nuclear. France is not "diversifying" (as if that was ever on the table), France has exited nuclear in the country. This is true despite their massive state subsidized and owned business. For all intents and purposes nuclear in France as an industry is dead. The reasons are economic (uncompetitive vs PV/wind) and a growing pile of expensive safety issues with their current fleet. France has a long and dirty history of propping up failing domestic industries to keep people employed and due to politics so you can be sure that their exit from nuclear was a difficult decision. Only the absolutely miserable state of nuclear forced their hand.

Lets see ...
EDF: A bad joke, dying
Westinghouse: BK
HItachi: exited nuclear
Toshiba: exited nuclear

UK: pivot to off-shore, new nuclear abandoned
France: new nuclear abandoned
Germany: new nuclear abandoned
Japan: new nuclear abandoned
US: last gasps with Vogtle (now there is a case study in stupidity.)

If people cannot sum up the arithmetic of nuclear costs, they can take a clue from the news.
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

WetEV
Posts: 2785
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: Well new mexico governor decided to make electricity unaffordable

Wed May 08, 2019 6:58 am

SageBrush wrote:If money is no object, nuclear risks are ignored, and you have 15 - 20 years per 3 GW then be a nuclear supporter.
Nuclear is the *last* thing anybody would consider if they are in a hurry.

There might be a reasonable argument to keeping current nuke plants going for another 10 years or so but new ones ? Ridiculous.


Until there is a reasonable solution to the 80% problem other than nuclear, we will need to replace current nuclear plants with new plants. And build more as well.

Nuclear is safer than coal, at least twice as safe, probably an order of magnitude safer. NOT counting climate risk.
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red

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

Wed May 08, 2019 7:10 am

WetEV wrote:Until there is a reasonable solution to the 80% problem other than nuclear, we will need to replace current nuclear plants with new plants. And build more as well.
The "80% problem" does not exist, anymore than the recent past wailing over the "10% problem", the "20% problem," the "30% problem," or the "50% problem" were actual barriers. It is shorthand for saying that the last 20% is more expensive TODAY than fossils using the current state of affairs.

Of course by the time we reach 80% (within a decade, if people get a clue) things will have changed a lot:
TOU will time shift demand to match generation
Regional sharing via UHVDC will flatten variability
EVs will provide a huge energy sink to soak up any remaining variability.
PV and wind (in particular off-shore) will continue to come down in cost.

As for the last couple of percent ? I'm not sure, but I don't care. Biofuels maybe.
It will NEVER be nuclear because "baseload" is not economic.
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

Wed May 08, 2019 4:29 pm

SageBrush wrote:
GRA wrote:
SageBrush wrote: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.

Sure, because they want to diversify, and they too have anti-nuclear groups.

No.
As I told you, France will not expand its fleet and will not replace current plants with new nuclear. France is not "diversifying" (as if that was ever on the table), France has exited nuclear in the country. This is true despite their massive state subsidized and owned business. For all intents and purposes nuclear in France as an industry is dead. The reasons are economic (uncompetitive vs PV/wind) and a growing pile of expensive safety issues with their current fleet. France has a long and dirty history of propping up failing domestic industries to keep people employed and due to politics so you can be sure that their exit from nuclear was a difficult decision. Only the absolutely miserable state of nuclear forced their hand.

Lets see ...
EDF: A bad joke, dying
Westinghouse: BK
HItachi: exited nuclear
Toshiba: exited nuclear

UK: pivot to off-shore, new nuclear abandoned
France: new nuclear abandoned
Germany: new nuclear abandoned
Japan: new nuclear abandoned
US: last gasps with Vogtle (now there is a case study in stupidity.)

If people cannot sum up the arithmetic of nuclear costs, they can take a clue from the news.

China, building nukes.
India, building nukes.
UAE, building nukes.
S. Korea, building nukes. etc.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx

Naturally, not all of these plants will be completed, and many will suffer delays and cost increases. Japan has re-started five of the nukes they shut down after Fukushima with plans to re-start more, using them to replace LNG imports.
Though 43 of Japan's pre-2011 total of 54 plants remain idled, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry said in 2017 that if the country is to meet its obligations under the Paris climate accord, then nuclear energy needs to make up between 20-22% of the nation's portfolio mix. 26 restart applications are now pending with an estimated 12 units to come back in service by 2025 and 18 by 2030
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/energy/nuclear/nuke-restarts-in-japan-to-replace-lng-imports/23733

and
Government figures in the 2014 Annual Report on Energy show that Japan depended on imported fossil fuels for 88% of its electricity in fiscal year 2013, compared with 62% in fiscal 2010. Without significant nuclear power, the country was self-sufficient for just 6% of its energy demand in 2012, compared with 20% in 2010. The additional fuel costs to compensate for its nuclear reactors being idled was ¥3.6 trillion. In parallel, domestic energy users have seen a 19.4% increase in their energy bills between 2010 and 2013, while industrial users have seen their costs rise 28.4% over the same period.[47]

In 2018 the Japanese government revised its energy plan to update the 2030 target for nuclear energy to 20%-22% of power generation by restarting reactors, compared to LNG 27%, coal 25%, renewables 23% and oil 3%. This would reduce Japan's carbon dioxide emissions by 26% compared to 2013, and increase self-sufficiency to about 24% by 2030, compared to 8% in 2016.[48]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Japan#Post-Fukushima_nuclear_policy

Of course, all such plans are subject to changes in government. The restarts are largely due to Shinzo Abe being the Prime Minister. Japan simply doesn't have enough renewable resources of its own (see below) to meet the demand, given its large population and limited land area.

In the case of China and India, both countries are also expanding renewables, but the only fossil fuels they have in abundance for baseload is coal. Again , which provides the greater actual risks, coal or nukes?

No argument that EDF has been demonstrating how not to build new ones, for some time. As for existing French nukes, they've got excess amounts of capacity, which doesn't help their costs:
A common criticism of French energy policy is that the country may have over-invested in nuclear power plants, requiring electricity export when French electricity demand is low or "dumping" in the French market, encouraging the use of electricity for space heating and water heating. This can be regarded as an economically wasteful practice.[4] However, as the adoption of electric cars, such as the French Renault Fluence Z.E., over internal combustion engine vehicles increases, reducing fossil fuel dependence, France's comparatively cheap peak and off peak electricity prices could act as a strong customer incentive that may spur the speed of the adoption of electric vehicles,[111] essentially turning the current perceived glut of relatively cheap fission-electricity into an asset, as demand for electric vehicle recharging stations becomes more and more commonplace.[112][113]

Due to France's very low-carbon power electricity grid, the carbon dioxide emissions from charging an electric car from the French electricity grid are 12 g per km traveled.[114] This compares favourably to the direct emissions of one of the most successful hybrid electric vehicles, the Toyota Prius, which produces carbon dioxide emissions at the higher rate of 105 g per km traveled.[114][115]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France

Now look at GHGs per capita: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita

If mass storage can be provided in the necessary quantities at an affordable price, and enough renewables are available to meet the demand, great. I don't see it, yet. The U.S., unlike Europe and Japan, does at least have enough renewables of its own to meet the demand even with our excessive energy use (about twice the E.U. average), owing to our large solar resources.
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.

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

Wed May 08, 2019 8:18 pm

Also search Saudi, may have heard something about them going nuclear not too far back.

Well my coop mailer came in they are putting the cost to generate wind power at 1.5 cents per kwh.
Works for me.
If all they wanted to do was meet increased demand with wind and use wind to replace retiring plants. That also works for me.
Looks like grid level solar installs are a waste of money until solar panels get even cheaper.
But at home owner level, roof top solar is ok to me. Since you can't put up your own wind turbine in most places (I might be able to get away with it).
Hell you can't even put up solar panels if you live under the rule of some nazi run HOA.
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

Thu May 09, 2019 1:43 am

Oilpan4 wrote:Also search Saudi, may have heard something about them going nuclear not too far back.

You did, but you missed the important details
https://thebulletin.org/2019/04/the-tru ... a-but-why/

SA is willing to pay in order to have a nuclear weapons program.
The Trumpers agree, in order to help Trump Jr out, to kiss SA ass, and to give the failing US nuclear industry something to do.

Got that ? The Trumpers are opening the door to nuclear arms in SA in order to ostensibly curb the nuclear arms ambitions of Iran. If the connection is not obvious to you, it goes like this: the trumpers want to embargo Iran but need SA to make up the oil production deficit.
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

Thu May 09, 2019 12:27 pm

As of late 2018 early 2019 the US is a net oil exporter.
We don't need their oil. Yeah the US imported some outside oil, but that's kind of how the supply chain has worked for about the last 50 years. When the middle east oil supply stops coming here we build a few pipe lines, gas prices go up a little and life goes on.

All thanks to the nearly decades long fear of a ban that drove the fracking boom during the Obama years.
Turns out Obama helped make America great again purely by accident.
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

Thu May 09, 2019 9:30 pm

Oilpan4 wrote:As of late 2018 early 2019 the US is a net oil exporter.
We don't need their oil.

Wrong. You do not understand why the US remains an importer of some 4 million bpd of Saudi Oil. It is not a "supply chain" issue (whatever that means.)
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

Return to “Environmental Issues”