World Energy Use - There's No Tomorrow - Let's Fix This!

[AndyH]

Solutions...

20% wind by 2030

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/41869.pdf
http://www.20percentwind.org/20p.aspx?page=Overview

To implement the 20% Wind Scenario, new wind power installations would increase to more than 16,000 MW per year by 2018, and continue at that rate through 2030, as shown in Figure A. Wind plant costs and performance are projected to improve modestly over the next two decades, but no technological breakthroughs are needed. In the 20% wind scenario, 46 states would experience significant wind power development.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-2 ... -says.html

Developers installed wind turbines with capacity of 6,810 megawatts in the U.S. last year [2011], 31 percent more than in 2010, as they rushed to qualify for a federal-tax grant that expired last month, according to an industry group.
Fourth-quarter installations reached 3,444 megawatts, topping the first three quarters combined, led by California, Illinois and Ohio, the fastest-growing state, the American Wind Energy Association said today in a report.

[AndyH]

Most estimates I have heard are around $5-10B for a standard sized nuke (about 1000-1100 MW).
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_Le ... 05122.html
Since we haven't actually built one in the US in a while, it's hard to say how accurate the estimates will be. The previous link describes cost increases and schedule slip, which is common. For a bad case ($2.3B default and no reactors), look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WPPSS.

Let's round it for easier comparison. About $5-10/W. Most nuke's are now baseload, with the US fleet running around 90% capacity factor.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP/Re ... 70208.html
http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/do ... tyfactors/
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/EE-Fu ... 04124.html
There are a number of reasons for this, which the industry likes to tout as operational/maintenance improvements. Some of it may actually be due to not really needing the power in the 1970-1980s (built nukes based on future need, takes 10 yrs to finish, since it's a step function, by definition you have 1100 MW excess power when turned on), and now we have reached the point of actually needing/using the power.

<snips>

Thanks Reddy!

We're still working through our 'nuclear fiasco' down here. The South Texas Project has two reactors in place that have been working very well. A few years back the San Antonio municipal power company bought into an NRG Energy/Toshiba plan to install two additional reactors. The project site was prepared for four reactors from the start, water rights already in place, the technology is already licensed/approved, experienced contractors would be brought in, etc. Early on it seemed like a no brainer. Then things started to unravel.

The $5 billion estimate turned into more than $18b, there appeared to be under the table negotiations and active efforts to hide true costs early on. The municipal power company has pulled out and the project will likely be tied to at least two court cases for some time. Tokyo Electric Power pulled their 10% stake after Fukushima.

NRG Project Briefing
http://www.absoluteefficiency.com/LEAF/ ... 012910.pdf <-- dead
https://www.dropbox.com/s/u191igiec1xrc ... 0.pdf?dl=0 <-- good
http://texasvox.org/2010/01/29/nuclear- ... -troubles/

These events give credence to the contention made over the past five years by opponents of nuclear power that it is a needlessly expensive and risky way to meet future energy needs.. In less than a year, the price of the STP nuclear expansion ballooned from around $5 billion to more than $18 billion. Given this case study of nuclear power’s failure, we must call into question the federal government’s decision to increase federal loan guarantees to support oversized, untenable projects that are already proving too risky for private investors.

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/nrg ... 17445.html

I certainly hope the Georgia project goes better than this...

edit...updated NRG link

[AndyH]

Solutions...

One Million Solar Roofs

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/34009.pdf
http://www.environmentcalifornia.org/pr ... olar-roofs

The latest HomePower magazine is out - and here are the 2011 solar installation numbers:

http://homepower.com/article/?file=HP14 ... romTheCrew

According to the latest U.S. Solar Market Insight report published by the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) and GTM Research: “The U.S. solar energy industry installed a record 1,855 megawatts (MW) of photovoltaic (PV) capacity in 2011, more than doubling the previous annual record of 887 MW set in 2010.” That’s enough to power more than 370,000 homes, signifying a 109% increase for 2011, and is the first time U.S. solar installations have exceeded 1 gigawatt in a single year.

[Herm]

Thats almost the output of two AP1000 reactors!.. but obviously they run 24 hours a day

[AndyH]

Thats almost the output of two AP1000 reactors!.. but obviously they run 24 hours a day

Yes it is, Herm - with the uranium mines, radioactive tailings, water damage, or constant (though low) probability of killing the folks that maintain the system.

How many people around the world are exposed to anything remotely harmful if every solar panel in the US (should be more than the output of two AP1000 reactors, right?) was destroyed at the same time?



Put another way, Herm, How many people around the world died researching PV cells or production methods?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mi ... _accidents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ci ... _accidents

March 6, 2006 — INES Level 2[46] - Erwin, Tennessee, United States - Nuclear material leak
Thirty-five litres of a highly enriched uranium solution leaked during transfer into a lab at Nuclear Fuel Services Erwin Plant. The incident caused a seven-month shutdown. A required public hearing on the licensing of the plant was not held due to the absence of public notification.[47][48][49][50]

And how many solar generation plants had to be permanently closed after a technician's mistake?

February 22, 1977 – INES Level 4 - Jaslovské Bohunice, Slovakia (then Czechoslovakia) - Fuel damaged
Operators neglected to remove moisture-absorbing materials from a fuel rod assembly before loading it into the KS 150 reactor at power plant A-1. The accident resulted in damaged fuel integrity, extensive corrosion damage of fuel cladding and release of radioactivity into the plant area. The affected reactor was decommissioned following this accident.[23]

Nuke folks - this is a problem/solution thread. If you think that nuclear technology is a useful solution, then feel free to share it - but it's got to be a real solution, not simply a duplication of past mistakes.

[AndyH]

Solutions...

Earthships




8-Part Webinar from 20 Mar '10
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL76083004E3C62045
Part 1:

[AndyH]

Solutions...

The Next (Current!) Farming Revoluion

[Herm]

Nuke folks - this is a problem/solution thread. If you think that nuclear technology is a useful solution, then feel free to share it - but it's got to be a real solution, not simply a duplication of past mistakes.

Andy, no one is building soviet era Chernobil reactors anymore, the new stuff is far far safer... and less than 40 people died at Chernobil, 4000 more may get cancer from all the radiation.. (those numbers are off the top of my head so dont hold me to them) and that was a horrible accident with a naked core actually burning in air.

I have no idea how many people died building all those solar panels but I bet a lot since most of the power in China used to build them comes from coal. I'm not saying that solar panel factories should only be powered by solar but dont assume their innocence. The expense of solar panels also means that people starve and die of disease due to lack of funds.. how much money did the Germans divert from famine relief in Africa to build their infrastructure?

We need nukes, solar and wind when we stop using fossil fuels to generate electricity .. I dont think fusion will ever amount to much. Wind is useless without backup, storage or continental wide grids.

[klapauzius]

Andy, no one is building soviet era Chernobil reactors anymore, the new stuff is far far safer... and less than 40 people died at Chernobil, 4000 more may get cancer from all the radiation.. (those numbers are off the top of my head so dont hold me to them) and that was a horrible accident with a naked core actually burning in air.

I have no idea how many people died building all those solar panels but I bet a lot since most of the power in China used to build them comes from coal. I'm not saying that solar panel factories should only be powered by solar but dont assume their innocence. The expense of solar panels also means that people starve and die of disease due to lack of funds.. how much money did the Germans divert from famine relief in Africa to build their infrastructure?

We need nukes, solar and wind when we stop using fossil fuels to generate electricity .. I dont think fusion will ever amount to much. Wind is useless without backup, storage or continental wide grids.

I think Herm has a point here, although I think fusion will eventually become important...The principles are know, it is "only" engineering problems that need to be solved at this time, and the potentials of fusion power are limitless...

[smkettner]

.... although I think fusion will eventually become important...The principles are know, it is "only" engineering problems that need to be solved at this time, and the potentials of fusion power are limitless...

Fission was initially billed as power so cheap there would be no need for electric meters