Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

[Hillhater]

.....But what we should avoid are substitute energy sources that have consequences that undermine the society they are intended to support..

Agreed. Coal, for example, kills thousands of people a year and does untold millions in damage to roads, buildings and monuments.

Its called "compromise" bill,...
Just as the cold, heat, road accidents, malnutrition, etc etc .....all kill millions needlessly , but could be prevented by different human decisions.
...But , we choose not to take those actions, knowing that to do so would be impractical and economically unsustainable....just as with coal generation.
However , there are much worse potential consequences than a few thousand deaths and fimancial costs to infrastructure.....
What if every nation was Allowed to build and operate current gen Nuclear reactors/power generation , in preference to Fossil fuels, to prevent CO2 emmissions, ??
..How do you think that might pan out eventually ? ...So much more potential for nuke wepons development, and so many opportunities for hundreds of unstable regime's to reek mad revenge !..

 

[Punx0r]

Lifetime average capacity factor of nuclear is over 90% for 60 years.

I stand corrected. Global nuclear capacity factor is running at 81% for 2017.

OK. Fading back toward 70%.

Thanks for digging up this info, it's quite interesting. Bill raises a good point about exclusion of failed plants skewing the data somewhat. On the one had it seems perverse to include a plant that has been permanently shutdown until the end of it's planned design life, but I suppose the construction & decommissioning costs are the same as if it had operated for ~50 years - that money is sunk, so maybe it is fair.

If a wind turbine blows over in a storm and has to be replaced, should the original turbine be included at 0% capacity for the next ~20 years?

Well it could supply that 100MW in the dark ,...if it had enough storage included. :wink:
Actually, many thermal plants "nameplate" (registered) capacity is often less than their maximum output capacity.
As is the case with some solar plants also...as you pointed out with your motor rating analogy, the same applies to generation sets, and the "nameplate" is normally the continuous rating. ( unless you are a saleman or a politician !)
Its perfectly possible for a nuclear, gas or coal plant to output its nameplate (peak) capacity for hours, days, even weeks ...if required , and at the discretion of the operators.
As you are well aware, a solar or wind generator can only produce their nameplate (peak) capacity when the weather allows, and in the case of solar , only for a few hours at most , per day.
So a capacity factor is an average output, varyable depending on the timescale chosen...24hr , weekly, monthly, annual, full lifetime, etc

This is true and, as Bill pointed out above, RE and thermal plants cannot be considered as exactly the same. Each has its advantages and disadvantages and the crucial factor as to which a person advocates is probably determined by how important they believe the externalities are.

FWIW France, the poster-boy of low-carbon non-RE power apparently struggles to meet demand in the winter: https://energypost.eu/france-cant-meet-power-demand/

I'd heard anecdotally they encourage the running of private diesel generators during the winter to help the grid, hence the search. According to the above, they import power from Germany, but it's been mentioned many times in this thread that Germany's excessive RE in their energy mix means it will fail to meet its own demands during periods of high demand and suffer blackouts, let alone have any power to export in winter when solar "doesn't work"?

 

[Punx0r]

... You know that neither coal or nuclear plants provide 100% availability, right (check the reported numbers yourself)? They require shutting down for maintenance & repairs and they also break down unexpectedly. ...

...and i assume you know that the same will apply to wind and solar installations .?

Yep, they do. We had this debate about 10 or 20 pages back. I stand by my previous assertion that they also need maintenance and repairs but less so, due to their fundamental simplicity - less to go wrong.

 

[cricketo]

decommissioning costs are the same as if it had operated for ~50 years

Probably not. A lot more radioactive waste material would be produced during that time, making decom more costly.

 

[billvon]

Its called "compromise" bill,...

Xactly.

Just as the cold, heat, road accidents, malnutrition, etc etc .....all kill millions needlessly , but could be prevented by different human decisions.

Correct. And we make "different human decisions" all the time to prevent those things. Public assistance for power bills and food. Laws against drunk driving. Laws requiring airbags, seatbelts, horns, brakes and brake lights. All of them cost money - but we make those decisions to save lives, even with the additional monetary expense, because we place a high value on human life.

...But , we choose not to take those actions, knowing that to do so would be impractical and economically unsustainable....

We DO take those actions. And as a result, cars are safer than ever. Fewer people starve than ever before.

However , there are much worse potential consequences than a few thousand deaths and fimancial costs to infrastructure..... What if every nation was Allowed to build and operate current gen Nuclear reactors/power generation , in preference to Fossil fuels, to prevent CO2 emmissions, ??

Almost every nation is allowed to build and operate current gen nuclear reactors. The ones that aren't allowed are (a) the ones trying to develop bombs and (b) are doing it anyway.

And although almost every nation is allowed to do so, most do not because of cost.

 

[Punx0r]

decommissioning costs are the same as if it had operated for ~50 years

Probably not. A lot more radioactive waste material would be produced during that time, making decom more costly.

Are we talking contaminanted plant or spent fuel waste? I concede the former would be true if more years of use = more replacement parts exposed to radiation. But if spent fuel, I would be reluctant to count that as it should be disposed of as it's generated. Stockpiling it on site to leave for when the plant is decomissioned is one of nuclear's blatant and inexcusable shortcomings!

 

[cricketo]

Are we talking contaminanted plant or spent fuel waste? I concede the former would be true if more years of use = more replacement parts exposed to radiation. But if spent fuel, I would be reluctant to count that as it should be disposed of as it's generated. Stockpiling it on site to leave for when the plant is decomissioned is one of nuclear's blatant and inexcusable shortcomings!

My understanding is besides the reactor core, various supporting systems and materials can be exposed to radiation over time. For example, coolant, pumps and other components of the the primary loop.

 

[Punx0r]

That is my understanding, too. So you are correct: if a plant is shut down early in its expected life, the decommissioning will be somewhat less as there will be less contaminated equipment to dispose of.

 

[TheBeastie]

Just to be clear, before I read a post I check to see if there are any URLs...
I kind of rarely read or depending on the poster have a basic glance at the posts here who don't provide URLs for their comments/posts because they tend to be just manipulated garbage, if your not willing to provide a link to your claims then what your saying is your post isn't really worthy of any respect because you haven't put any effort what so ever in it to be validated in anyway. For me this tends to mostly be from Bilvon and Punxor, to me these posters seem to be here more for politics or anything other than whats worth reading than anything else.
Discussions are only worthwhile if they are based on truth, and this needs to be verified.

But instead, they nitpick on the most pointless parts of any topic even as low as attacking grammar.

I guess I am kind of pointing this out because since there has been a software forum upgrade on ES and the ability to just turn these posters off so their posts are invisible appears to have gone which I kind of miss but not really a big deal.

For example Billvons post on the AP1000 Vogtle plant being abandoned after being half constructed..

The Vogtle plant in the US was going to use AP1000's, but the company had to abandon construction of the plants after the bankruptcy. (There is one currently running in China.)

It takes 2 seconds to google it and see on just about any URL that comes up that it is in fact still being built, sure it may have had some hiccups, but the fact is its still being built. Its just constantly like this, so to me these guys post are just simply not worth reading.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant#Reactor_data
You can even just click on the Wikipedia supplied coordinates URL to super-conveniently bring up the googlemaps URL sat-view and see all the clearly active construction work on the new reactor units.
https://goo.gl/maps/zKCTTDcPEBm

If there someone here who has consistently proven themselves to have a PhD in nuclear-molten salt reactors (MSRs) / equivalent knowledge, then sure I am most likely going to read their post if it has no URLs, so far this has not really been an issue to look out for on this thread.

*EDIT*
Aha I have figured it out, all I do is add their profile to "Foe".
Done.

If by any chance there was a possibility I could learn something they say that was truly useful, I might undo it, but I really believe its a waste of my time to read/reply to their posts, most of you would notice I rarely respond to their garbage but they always seem to be reading my posts...
The REAL test will be if they do the right thing and add ME to their "Foe" list, I really hope they do.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now that's said, I have really been looking at the details of 4th gen nuclear lately and there is a lot on youtube. Really seems MSR is the future, how much you like MSR technology is really dependent on how much about it you are willing to absorb.
I found this ladies speech on molten salt characteristics for nuclear reactors interesting to watch..
Its from this channel by a guy called Gordon Mcdowell https://www.youtube.com/user/gordonmcdowell
Almost everything in this channel is just gold to watch on MSR and 4th gen nuclear.

Check this one, goes over the details of MSR salt and also as it visually shows the different behaviours of different salt mixtures under heat. You can almost be fooled into thinking its just water moving above and below freezing points but it visually is the same with salts.
https://youtu.be/jzHdqr-9EFM?t=1085

 

[Punx0r]

Just to be clear, before I read a post I check to see if there are any URLs...
I kind of rarely read or depending on the poster have a basic glance at the posts here who don't provide URLs for their comments/posts because they tend to be just manipulated garbage

Funny enough, I usually (at most) skim your posts because it's just a bunch of whackjob Youtube links and meme images from disreputable right-wing news outlets.

Frankly, I don't think it requires a 60 minute video to point out the basic logical, or even arithmetic, flaws in someone's argument.


OK, let's play your game on one of the points you're failing to address:

yet its a misleading standard numbering system for renewables that continues to be used, on top of it not being dispatchable power.

You are aware that coal and nuclear are both examples of generation that is NOT DISPATCHABLE, right?

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

Now will you care to answer the question?

 

[billvon]

Just to be clear, before I read a post I check to see if there are any URLs
Aha I have figured it out, all I do is add their profile to "Foe".

Probably a good move on your part. Some people can't stand being exposed to any facts that contradict their own preconceptions.

 

[Hillhater]

yet its a misleading standard numbering system for renewables that continues to be used, on top of it not being dispatchable power.

You are aware that coal and nuclear are both examples of generation that is NOT DISPATCHABLE, right?

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

Now will you care to answer the question?

A classic example of arguing the trivial details, !
But....
From that very Wiki page...

....... Dispatchable generators can be turned on or off, or can adjust their power output according to an order.[1] This is in contrast with non-dispatchable renewable energy sources such as wind power and solar PV power which cannot be controlled by operators......

Which completely reconfirms Beasties statement. :wink:

 

[sendler2112]

FWIW France, the poster-boy of low-carbon non-RE power apparently struggles to meet demand in the winter: https://energypost.eu/france-cant-meet-power-demand/

I'd heard anecdotally they encourage the running of private diesel generators during the winter to help the grid, hence the search. According to the above, they import power from Germany, but it's been mentioned many times in this thread that Germany's excessive RE in their energy mix means it will fail to meet its own demands during periods of high demand and suffer blackouts, let alone have any power to export in winter when solar "doesn't work"?

Germany is importing slightly from several countries tonight. Including France. They were using 40% Brown coal to cover today's peak.
.
https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=country&solar=false&remote=true&wind=false&countryCode=DE
.

 

[billvon]

Germany is importing slightly from several countries tonight. Including France.

So France exports at night when demand is low (and renewables are not generating much) and Germany exports during the day (when demand is high and renewables are producing.) That sounds like an example of a working system.

 

[sendler2112]

Germany did not export at all. In fact their DISPATCHABLE COAL was increased to cover the daytime peak.

 

[sendler2112]

Germany's Nuclear is cruising along at 98% capacity. Their Solar PEAKED at 35% for a couple hours only.
.
https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=country&solar=false&remote=true&wind=false&countryCode=DE
.

 

[sendler2112]

Scale. Growth.
.
Between 1997 and 2017, global electricity output climbed an average 571 terawatt-hours per year. Merely keeping pace with growth in electric demand would require installing 14 times as much photovoltaic capacity as Germany’s entire installed base, and it would have to do so every year.
.
or wind.
.
Thus, just to keep pace with growth in electrical demand, the world would have to install twice as much wind-energy capacity as now exists in all of China, and it would have to do so annually.
.
And that is just growth of electricity consumption. Not to mention replacing all electricity. And then replacing all the remainder of primary energy consumption which is another 4 times electricity.
.
the world’s demand for oil will hit a record 100 million barrels per day. That would be an increase of about 1.8 million barrels per day over 2017 numbers.
.
global solar production totaled the equivalent of about 2 million barrels of oil. Just enough to match the growth in oil consumption if we weren't already comparing solar to the growth in electrical consumption. And oil is only 40% of primary energy.
.
https://nypost.com/2018/11/16/the-numbers-show-we-just-cant-get-to-100-renewable-energy-any-decade-soon/
.

 

[Punx0r]

A classic example of arguing the trivial details, !
But....
From that very Wiki page...

....... Dispatchable generators can be turned on or off, or can adjust their power output according to an order.[1] This is in contrast with non-dispatchable renewable energy sources such as wind power and solar PV power which cannot be controlled by operators......

Which completely reconfirms Beasties statement. :wink:

Not a trivial detail if someone is claiming RE is no good compared to coal and nuclear because it isn't dispatchable, when in fact none of them are truly dispatchable.

His statement is not confirmed at all. Here's the rest of the quote that was truncated in your post:

This is in contrast with non-dispatchable renewable energy sources such as wind power and solar PV power which cannot be controlled by operators.[2] The only types of renewable energy that are dispatchable without separate energy storage are biomass, geothermal and ocean thermal energy conversion.[3]

So, some forms of RE are dispatchable, some are not.

Further:

During 2017, solar thermal storage power has become cheaper and a bulk dispatchable source.[6][7][8][9] Earlier, affordable large-scale storage technologies other than hydro were not available.

So, even the forms of RE considered non-dispatchable above can be with practical/economical storage.

Lastly:

Although theoretically dispatchable, certain thermal plants such as nuclear or coal are designed to run as base load power plants and may take hours or sometimes days to cycle off and then back on again.

So, the claim that coal and nuclear are dispatchable and "RE" is not is false.

 

[Hillhater]

As i said......Trivial discussion point. !
Whoever first used the tern " dispatchable" to describe power generation, had a weak grasp of descriptive language.
Controlable, available, on-demand, , etc etc would all have been a better choice of description.
But...Coal, gas, Nuclear, are all " dispatchable" in the sense that they are controlable, available, on demand.
Of course you can/will debate the rate they can change output,...minutes or hours ...but the fact is they can and are controlled to suit demand
I do not see how thermal solar can be considered in the same manner, as it is still totally subject to weather canditions for any output at all. Further , the "storage" component is a separate function with associated costs that render it far from economical or practical...based on current examples. ( limited storage, and technical failures! )

 

[Punx0r]

As I said...not trivial discussion point!

Sure, if you define dispatchable in a way that best reflects the characteristics of a coal plant then, yes, it does make *some* forms of RE look undispatchable. RE technologies like hydro and geothermal blow it into the weeds.

Your inability to grasp that solar still works on a cloudy day is extra-ordinary. You've been corrected on this multiple times already in this thread. Solar is not "totally subject to weather conditions for any output at all". Bizarre...

Furthermore, I provided a quote stating that solar thermal storage was both practical and economical, it came with a citation for you to check. Simply stating that it is not economical or practical is not a rebuttal. In fact it raises doubts that even you read, or understood, the quote!

 

[Hillhater]

Sure, Hydro and GeoThermal are near ideal power sources.....its just a pity they are so limited in availability, and restricted to local natural resources. !
Solar thermal does not work under poor solar conditions.
Their output is restricted by how much solar energy is available on any particular day.
Infact some of those plants are shut down during the "winter" periods due to inability to generate sufficient power to maintain their own operation. Indeed they may even have to draw external power to keep their heat systems servicable.
https://principia-scientific.org/the-failure-of-solar-tower-thermal-energy-storage/
Solar thermal is the most expensive commercial source of RE power (ref Lazard) at 3-5 times the cost of wind.
..I fail to think why anyone would choose Solar Thermal over other solar systems with storage.

 

[Punx0r]

Alongside the U.S. midterm Congressional elections last week, there were some interesting other issues voted on by the public:

* Washington state rejected a proposed carbon tax of $15 per tonne. This would have been the first of its kind in the U.S. and would add approx. $5/MWh to the cost of electricity from a coal plant (~$3 for natural gas), further decreasing its commercial competitiveness.

* Arizona and Nevada both voted on a proposal for force electricity firms to source 50% of their power from renewable sources. Arizona rejected it while Nevada passed it by a wide margin. Lord knows how they're going to implement it, as it's been repeatedly claimed in this thread that such a high percentage of RE in an energy mix is impossible.

* Colorado rejected a proposal to ban fracking within 2500 feet of occupied buildings or protected lands.

* Florida passed a ban on offshore drilling

The Democrat victory now means they will head the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. The outgoing chair, Republican Lamar Smith is known for his scepticism of climate change and general hostility to scientists. His replacement, Democrat, Eddie Bernice Johnson has said she will pursue and agenda to "address the challenge of climate change, starting with acknowledging it is real, seeking to understand what climate science is telling us, and working to understand the ways we can mitigate it".


Feel the tide finally starting to change? Even where climate-policies were voted down, the fact they actually made it to a vote represents progress. There will be more and eventually a greater and greater proportion will be passed. Vive La Revolution.

 

[cricketo]

Sure, Hydro and GeoThermal are near ideal power sources.....its just a pity they are so limited in availability, and restricted to local natural resources. !
Solar thermal does not work under poor solar conditions.
Their output is restricted by how much solar energy is available on any particular day.
Infact some of those plants are shut down during the "winter" periods due to inability to generate sufficient power to maintain their own operation. Indeed they may even have to draw external power to keep their heat systems servicable.
https://principia-scientific.org/the-failure-of-solar-tower-thermal-energy-storage/
Solar thermal is the most expensive commercial source of RE power (ref Lazard) at 3-5 times the cost of wind.
..I fail to think why anyone would choose Solar Thermal over other solar systems with storage.

So... You're in Australia... got solar ?

 

[sendler2112]

Here is the Tecno-salvation plan from Shell for guiding business as usual toward a better outcome.
.
https://www.shell.com/promos/meeting-the-goals-of-the-paris-agreement/_jcr_content.stream/1530643931055/d5af41aef92d05d86a5cd77b3f3f5911f75c3a51c1961fe1c981daebda29b726/shell-scenario-sky.pdf
.
Terrible double wide pdf format though.

 

[Punx0r]

Carbon pricing around the world: https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-pricing-popular

The High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices (2017) estimates that achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement requires a carbon price of $40-$80/tCO2 by 2020, rising to $50-$100/tCO2 by 2030 (when combined appropriately with other policies).11increase click area Currently, less than 20% of current global greenhouse gas emissions are covered by a carbon price and most prices are below the $40-80/tCO2 range.

Sweden has the highest carbon tax in the world at $139 US per tonne. And it works, the economy functions.


The real challenge will be heating in Northern climes, where demand for heat in winter can be several times the demand for electricity. The way forward is likely replacing gas heating (gas use must go by around 2030 if the Paris targets are to be achieved (global carbon neutrality by 2050)) with heat pumps powered by clean electricity (even coal-powered electricity would present an increase in efficiency/decrease in CO2 emissions), along with district heating in urban areas dense enough to make it viable. And, of course, improved insulation for buildings.

It's all technically possible, the challenge is making it acceptable to a public that largely refuses to bear any increase in utility costs.