Nuclear VS. Renewables, EVs, and Jobs - Truth in the House!

[DaveEV]

"Some of the world's top climate scientists say wind and solar energy won't be enough to head off extreme global warming, and they're asking environmentalists to support the development of safer nuclear power as one way to cut fossil fuel pollution."

33% of the California grid is currently being powered right now by renewables, mostly wind and solar. Renewable power is 7.4 GW, demand is 22.4 GW.

http://www.caiso.com/Pages/TodaysOutlook.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Add in big hydro and nuclear and it's a bit over 40%. That's quite a bit of carbon free electricity! (OK - it is sunny right now and the wind is blowing pretty good, too).

And there are quite a few large solar/wind plants currently under construction. Last year total renewables were 20% of total electricity generation, will be up to 33% by the end of the decade.

SolarCity/Tesla will soon be selling a 10 kWh home battery storage unit. This type of storage unit will go a long ways towards reducing the early evening peak in grid demand when everyone fires up their tvs and laptops. Maybe someone will take all the 4-bar loser battery packs and use them for grid storage - should be able to get 10 kWh out of them for a long, long time.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

My Dad worked in the Nuclear Power Industry (for the Army) and he did not not think its a good idea either for anything other than extreme cases. simply too dangerous and takes up a lot of fresh water resources.

Before it was a question of locating a Nuke near a body of water or a River. With dramatic changes in climate, water demand, etc. even those sources may not be reliable especially long term.

 

[DanCar]

Check out palo verde nuclear plant. One of the largest nuclear plants. It is not located near any large body of water. It uses sewage water from Phoenix.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generating_Station" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[TomT]

Yep, the technology has changed dramatically from 30, 20 or even 10 years ago. Plants designed today are very different, much safer, and have greatly reduced support footprints.

Check out palo verde nuclear plant. One of the largest nuclear plants. It is not located near any large body of water. It uses sewage water from Phoenix.

 

[LeftieBiker]

What about the waste, Tom? Maybe if it's the only question in a post you'll answer it...?

 

[WetEV]

One can find the ~89% nuclear capacity factor number often quoted, but is it real? According to docs like this:
http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/61776/2010-016.pdf?sequence=1 it may not be.

According to your source

capacity factors in the US have climbed markedly, so that the average is now slightly above 90%.

While the numbers we have are based on yesterday, today's climate on Eaarth might stress these numbers more - like the plants shut down in earlier flooding, or the Mass plant shut down by blizzard 'Nemo':
http://www.wunderground.com/news/mass-nuclear-nemo-20130209

I don't know - do any of you?

Or better designed nuclear plants might have even better capacity factors.

Got a question for you Andy.

Nuclear is losing economically to cheap fossil fuels, mostly natural gas, not to renewables. So what is the worst case fossil fuel "accident"?

Really. Suppose we really do burn all the fossil fuels. Or maybe just much of the fossil fuels. What bad thing might happen?

Do tell.

 

[Pipcecil]

Every electrical generation has some negative environmental impact, period. Its hard to compare the ecological impacts of changing the flow of a river by daming, wind turbulance & sonic impacts fromm turbines, air pollution from natural gas, and nuclear waste from a nuclear plant. How do you compare different waste and impacts? Its not an easy question.

For me, I am for nuclear. Its another piece of the pie to meat growing electrical needs. Its high production yield for small(er) amount of waste (despite it being really bad waste). I do think there is a severe phobia when it comes to nuclear reactors and those NOT built correctly (fukushima, chernobyll, three-mile island) cause bad publicity. After three mile island the US went into nuclear adversion and haven't built a reactor since (ok, I might be wrong - I can't remember if the efforts to build one in the past few years have succeeded, but it would only be recently). In addition, the rash of nuclear shutdowns of reactors due to fukushima despite those reactors NOT containing the inhert design problem of fukushima is, again, panic and fear.

As long as nuclear reactors and built correctly and we keep advancing the technology to more efficient and cleaner and safer reactors (like thorium), then I am all for it!

 

[TomT]

Actually, the waste from current state of the arts plant designs is significantly less and of a lower radioactive content than that from plants like the one in Japan and most elsewhere... Most plants still in operation are quite old and utilize technology that is many generations behind. But yes, it is still something of a consideration and concern. However, I have confidence that an acceptable solution will ultimately be found and I remain bullish on nuclear. YMMV, of course.

What about the waste, Tom? Maybe if it's the only question in a post you'll answer it...?

 

[RegGuheert]

It's not about pro/anti nuke - it's that this program was pushed through by pro-industry groups and was adjusted by the nuke lobby to put the taxpayer on the hook first in the event a project went south.

That sounds exactly like hydrogen.

I'm not in favor of the governments putting the taxpayer on the hook for either nuclear OR hydrogen. If these are such great solutions, then let them survive on their own merits (along with every other energy technology).

 

[Smidge204]

I'm not in favor of the governments putting the taxpayer on the hook for either nuclear OR hydrogen. If these are such great solutions, then let them survive on their own merits (along with every other energy technology).

It's economically viable it just dump industrial waste into the nearest river. Does that make it the best solution?

No, of course not... because there's a difference between what's good for the industry (no regulations whatsoever) and what's good for the people (strict regulations on waste disposal) just as there's a difference between burning dirty, cheap fuel with large profit margins and using cleaner but more expensive energy sources that require subsidies.

Please keep in mind that "free market solutions" usually find a way to screw over everyone not already on top and has a terrible track record for consideration of long-term consequences.
=Smidge=

 

[RegGuheert]

It's economically viable it just dump industrial waste into the nearest river. Does that make it the best solution?

I am not opposed to pollution regulations being imposed on industry. That is quite different from directly subsidizing solutions.

 

[Smidge204]

You managed to perfectly skip over my point, as if you read just that first line you quoted and then immediately stopped to reply without continuing to read. :|
=Smidge=

 

[RegGuheert]

You managed to perfectly skip over my point, as if you read just that first line you quoted and then immediately stopped to reply without continuing to read. :|
=Smidge=

And you misquoted me. I never said or even implied there should be no government regulations against misdealings of corporations. In fact, IMO corporations are some of the worst-behaving citizens we have.

 

[WetEV]

It's economically viable it just dump industrial waste into the nearest river. Does that make it the best solution?

I am not opposed to pollution regulations being imposed on industry. That is quite different from directly subsidizing solutions.

Yes, in several different ways.

A subsidy allows an alternative technology to get past the start up issues, and get some economy of scale. Then the pollution regulations can be phased in with minimal economic shock.

Also a tax on the pollution can be a better solution in some cases.

Or permits to pollute. Sell/give every current polluter the right to pollute as much as they are today. Make these rights decline with time. Let the polluters either buy more rights to keep on polluting for a bit longer, or go clean and clean up selling rights.

Market based solutions such as permits, taxes and subsidies can be far better solutions than flat prohibitions, especially as there is a real economic impact to change.

 

[Smidge204]

I think you're still missing my point.

You imply that if nuclear/hydrogen were all they are cracked up to be, then they would not need government subsidies to be successful. I'm basing this off of the part where you said "If these are such great solutions, then let them survive on their own merits"

My point is that what determines if something is successful or not has nothing to do with the actual merits of a technology, but rather the profit potential for the established industries. As such, technologies which are actually good for our society are often eschewed because they aren't good for the quarterly shareholder reports. In these cases, government investment is, IMHO, warranted.

See also: Electric vs Gasoline cars.

So I made an analogy to illustrate how the "best" solution is different for private markets vs. government intervention for the benefit of society. What you are implying, whether you're aware of it or not, is to let the free market decide what is the best for society, and in my analogy that means the most profitable solution: dumping the waste into the river.

Or, to un-analogize it, the free market says the best solution is to burn MORE fossil fuels, not less.

And as the joke goes; I'll believe corporations are citizens when Texas sentences one to execution.
=Smidge=

 

[WetEV]

Oh, and then there is this:

https://plus.google.com/104173268819779064135/posts/Vs6Csiv1xYr" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[AndyH]

Oh, and then there is this:

https://plus.google.com/104173268819779064135/posts/Vs6Csiv1xYr" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Two points, Wet. These esteem folk are not advocating for TODAY'S nuclear power - they're promoting FUTURE TECH. Additionally, their position that we cannot transform our energy supply without using nuclear power in ANY flavor has been shown to be incorrect in dozens of studies and models, and in the real-world lab environment called "Germany".

Maybe future-gen nuclear generation can be a useful part of some future processes, but starting from here and now as we must, it's not likely that we can get enough nukes into service before 2050 to make a difference - even if we rush research and risk making mistakes with the tech. That's not a good recipe for ending up in a comfortable place on the risk/reward scale...

 

[RegGuheert]

You imply that if nuclear/hydrogen were all they are cracked up to be, then they would not need government subsidies to be successful. I'm basing this off of the part where you said "If these are such great solutions, then let them survive on their own merits"

Nuclear has been around longer than I have. If it cannot stand on their own by now, then it needs to go away. Hydrogen is a different beast. While it may need help getting going, I have to question the justification when the theoretical numbers cannot reach what BEVs achieve today. Fast refueling is not enough to overcome all of its weaknesses.

Just listen to the rhetoric of its supporters claiming that the fuel will be almost free by using the excess energy from renewables. That sounds a lot like the idea of "too cheap to meter" that came from nuclear industry years ago.

Same story, different type of energy.

Or, to un-analogize it, the free market says the best solution is to burn MORE fossil fuels, not less.

I don't believe that. Fossil fuels are no longer the cheapest solution, even just at the consumer level. That doesn't mean that consumers are aware of that or prepared to make the transition.

And as the joke goes; I'll believe corporations are citizens when Texas sentences one to execution.

While I agree with you, unfortunately our government considers corporations to be persons:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pin8fbdGV9Y&list=PLFA50FBC214A6CE87[/youtube]
Perhaps the judge in "Bicentennial Man" was correct when he said that we as a society are not prepared to accept persons who live forever.

 

[Smidge204]

Fossil fuels are no longer the cheapest solution, even just at the consumer level.

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

=Smidge=

 

[LeftieBiker]

Tom T.:

Actually, the waste from current state of the arts plant designs is significantly less and of a lower radioactive content than that from plants like the one in Japan and most elsewhere... Most plants still in operation are quite old and utilize technology that is many generations behind. But yes, it is still something of a consideration and concern. However, I have confidence that an acceptable solution will ultimately be found and I remain bullish on nuclear. YMMV, of course.

Until a solution is found for nuclear waste - primarily "spent" fuel - that is safe and feasible on the scale needed, it's irresponsible to just shrug at the issue and hope it will be resolved *after* the technology is put into place. That's what gave us that decrepit, badly damaged "spent" fuel pool, sitting 100' in the air at Fukushima.