Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

[billvon]

Yah, well that's basically world socialism. Good luck getting Americans to even consider it.

All depends how it's marketed. Americans love their socialism when it's packaged and marketed cleverly. "Support the troops!" "Fix the roads." "We all own our national parks." "Get your government hands off my medicare!"

No democracy is going to elect to give up their standard of living. So I have the feeling the way this all plays out is the rich will have to learn to mitigate the effects of climate change while the poor burn coal.

I think it will more be like "the rich still won't care and the poor will die" if we continue business as usual.

 

[furcifer]

[Exactly. We should be scrambling NOW.

We may have already rolled the dice on this. We should have been doing this in the 70's.

It's already been pretty much decided that the effects of climate change are preferable to the proliferation of nuclear power plants around the world. You can't say it was the wrong decision, ISIS, North Korea, Afghanistan are pretty good reasons to not want nuclear waste readily available.

Maybe they wouldn't be so angry if they were given cheap power and more responsibility for how they behaved in the world. Most of the problem countries in the middle east were on a different path in the 50's. Look at Iran before the nationalization of their fossil fuel reserves.

The world seems even less prepared today.

 

[billvon]

We may have already rolled the dice on this. We should have been doing this in the 70's.

Agreed there.

It's already been pretty much decided that the effects of climate change are preferable to the proliferation of nuclear power plants around the world. You can't say it was the wrong decision, ISIS, North Korea, Afghanistan are pretty good reasons to not want nuclear waste readily available.

?? You mean building a dirty bomb made with nuclear waste? We've heard about this for ~50 years now and it's never happened. Looking at history, airplanes and cars are far more deadly in the hands of terrorists than nuclear waste.

 

[furcifer]

Yah, well that's basically world socialism. Good luck getting Americans to even consider it.

All depends how it's marketed. Americans love their socialism when it's packaged correctly. "Support the troops!" "Fix the roads." "We all own our national parks." "Get your government hands off my medicare!"

No democracy is going to elect to give up their standard of living. So I have the feeling the way this all plays out is the rich will have to learn to mitigate the effects of climate change while the poor burn coal.

I think it will more be like "the rich still won't care and the poor will die" if we continue business as usual.

If you can make people feel good about themselves you can get them to do a "little bit". But look at the numbers. The energy is takes to move your car, keep your fridge cold, bring you that bottle of water, compared to the hundreds of millions burning cow dung to make dinner, the watts you use compared to them isn't a "little bit".

I haven't crunched the numbers but it's not percent, it's orders of magnitude. There are still 1001 million people in the world that don't have electricity! It's mind boggling how disproportionate our lifestyle is to the rest of the world when it comes to energy consumption.

It won't be long before those late night commercials will be "For only 1250 watts per day, you can sponsor a child, and bring light to their home so they can read, and learn, and run a water pump". That's the currency of the future.

 

[sendler2112]

An estimated 1.1 billion people – 14% of the global population – did not have access to electricity according to Energy Access Outlook 2017.
.
https://www.iea.org/energyaccess/database/
.
The same number have to poop outside in the yard.
.
3 billion rely on wood or dung to cook and heat over an open flame.

 

[furcifer]

?? You mean building a dirty bomb made with nuclear waste? We've heard about this for ~50 years now and it's never happened. Looking at history, airplanes and cars are far more deadly in the hands of terrorists than nuclear waste.

More like IED a shipment on the way to disposal.

The reason it hasn't happened is because the governments with the responsibility have been extremely well regulated and stable. And don't forget they're designed to prevent airplanes and cars in the hands of terrorists useless.

If there was nuclear in Afghanistan could it have been made safe over the last 30 years? Maybe.

 

[furcifer]

An estimated 1.1 billion people – 14% of the global population – did not have access to electricity according to Energy Access Outlook 2017.
.
https://www.iea.org/energyaccess/database/
.
The same number have to poop outside in the yard.
.
3 billion rely on wood or dung to cook and heat over an open flame.

Thanks, I fixed that. I had 1001 million. 1100 million. A lot.

The numbers are crazy. I'm sure there are towns around the world that use as much energy in a year that a single Suburban uses in gasoline.
"I'm sorry sir, climate change, you get 1 cow patty and two sticks per day. You need to start doing your part and taking this seriously"
Meanwhile..."Is this the 795hp version? And there's only 5 drink holders?"

 

[billvon]

More like IED a shipment on the way to disposal.

US power plants generally don't ship anywhere. They store their waste on site. Newer designs (like the NuScale) are designed to never be fueled or refueled - they are delivered fully fueled by barge and are returned to the manufacturer, containment and all, when they need refueling.

The reason it hasn't happened is because the governments with the responsibility have been extremely well regulated and stable.

I wouldn't call North Korea and Iran all that stable.

 

[furcifer]

More like IED a shipment on the way to disposal.

US power plants generally don't ship anywhere. They store their waste on site. Newer designs (like the NuScale) are designed to never be fueled or refueled - they are delivered fully fueled by barge and are returned to the manufacturer, containment and all, when they need refueling.

The reason it hasn't happened is because the governments with the responsibility have been extremely well regulated and stable.

I wouldn't call North Korea and Iran all that stable.

Weaknesses depend on the facility. It didn't take much more than a bucket of water to take down Fukishima. It's a steep learning curve when it comes to nuclear.

North Korea doesn't have nuclear power, and the government is stable in the sense that it's been run by the same family for years. Mental stability of their leaders not withstanding.

I agree that for the most part the threat has been exaggerated. But I would also argue that's why it hasn't been an issue for 50 years. The radiation sensors went off in Ontario when Fukishima happened because the regulations are so tight. Everyone is watching each other and has a vested interest in preventing a meltdown. It's a pretty big step to say if there were more facilities around the world, especially in countries with violent unrest, a disaster couldn't have happened because of current track record.

Nuclear could have been made much safer had we thrown ourselves at it 50 years ago. I doubt it would still be an issue if the world had realized we can't keep pulling stuff out of the ground forever without consequences. The "Greatest Generation" might yet prove to be a little overstated.

 

[billvon]

Weaknesses depend on the facility. It didn't take much more than a bucket of water to take down Fukishima.

It took a LOT more than a bucket of water. To be specific, it took an earthquake to take the reactors off-line and damage their backup power connections, and then a 49 foot tidal wave to destroy the remaining backup generators and the roads leading to the reactor.

It's a steep learning curve when it comes to nuclear.

Definitely. The nice thing about a steep learning curve is that it flattens over time.

North Korea doesn't have nuclear power

They have a LWR at Yongbyon.

and the government is stable in the sense that it's been run by the same family for years. Mental stability of their leaders not withstanding.

Interesting definition of stable! By that definition they are far more stable than the US.

It's a pretty big step to say if there were more facilities around the world, especially in countries with violent unrest, a disaster couldn't have happened because of current track record.

A disaster can always happen. But even if we had a disaster a year in the US of the scale of our worst commercial nuclear disaster (three mile island) it would still be our cleanest and safest form of baseload power.

 

[furcifer]

It took a LOT more than a bucket of water. To be specific, it took an earthquake to take the reactors off-line and damage their backup power connections, and then a 49 foot tidal wave to destroy the remaining backup generators and the roads leading to the reactor.

No, that's what it took to expose the flaw. It literally took a drop of water to cause the short. They simply didn't realize how exposed their system was.

They have a LWR at Yongbyon.

I didn't realize they actually got that running.

If you think North Korea's interest in nuclear reactors is because they want to bring clean, carbon free energy to their people I have a bridge to sell you.

Interesting definition of stable! By that definition they are far more stable than the US.

Having a government in charge to enforce regulations and safety, even if it's only in the interesting of not nuking your own country, it a lot better than a government fighting itself and it's people for control. North Korea has an army that can protect sensitive sites if it's in their own interest. There are, and have been a few countries over the past years where no one is at the helm let alone a functioning nuclear regulating body.

Like I said, perhaps if they were bestowed the technology and the responsibility, and a more even playing field with West, things may have been different. Maybe not.


A

disaster can always happen. But even if we had a disaster a year in the US of the scale of our worst commercial nuclear disaster (three mile island) it would still be our cleanest and safest form of baseload power.

True. And this is the problem, if it's not good enough for your backyard how is it ever going to fly in other countries? It's so messed up at this point. Even if the entire west coast of the US dries up and blows away in the wind due to climate change I don't think anyone is going to embrace nuclear to the extent it's required.

At least the talk about alternatives is dying down as more people come to understand the futility when compared to fossil fuels on the world scale. You can't have this standard of living, economy and social structure without embracing nuclear. We need the fossil fuel we have for essential applications as we transition to electricity. Countries like Canada and the US not investing now in an extensive network of high speed rail are screwed (assuming they have any desire to actually prevent climate change).

Crazy times! Our children will probably live to see the day when Airports are where people go to fly their drones and drag race their electric vehicles.

 

[billvon]

No, that's what it took to expose the flaw. It literally took a drop of water to cause the short. They simply didn't realize how exposed their system was.

Again, no. Electrical shorts were just one of the several problems Fukushima had, caused by both the earthquake (which exceeded the plant's design limits) and the tidal wave (also much higher than the design spec.)

If you think North Korea's interest in nuclear reactors is because they want to bring clean, carbon free energy to their people I have a bridge to sell you.

Nope, that's just a excuse; at best a nice side effect. They want it to make weapons, because they want to be able to project power and be "like a big country."

True. And this is the problem, if it's not good enough for your backyard how is it ever going to fly in other countries?

We regularly outsource all sorts of things we don't want in our backyard - mining, manufacturing, cheap recycling etc.

At least the talk about alternatives is dying down as more people come to understand the futility when compared to fossil fuels on the world scale.

From your perspective the talk may be dying down; fortunately in most places renewables are expanding dramatically. Just look at the size of Solar Power International every year.

Crazy times! Our children will probably live to see the day when Airports are where people go to fly their drones and drag race their electric vehicles.

Perhaps. And when they do fly, it may be from the local parking lot, called by their Uber app.

 

[furcifer]

Again, no. Electrical shorts were just one of the several problems Fukushima had, caused by both the earthquake (which exceeded the plant's design limits) and the tidal wave (also much higher than the design spec.)

Again yes. The back-ups were located below the identified potential water level and they got wet. It's really as simple as that.

It's not directly responsible and of course you couldn't create a meltdown by pouring a bucket of water on them, but it's a pretty good example of how human error in an of itself can be a problem. Assuming someone couldn't deliberately expose simple vulnerabilities, if properly motivated, does seem a bit foolish all things considered.

From your perspective the talk may be dying down; fortunately in most places renewables are expanding dramatically. Just look at the size of Solar Power International every year.

I think in the past people were mislead about what renewables could actually do. By all means they need to expand and there's no reason to stop as far as I am aware. But yah, I think more people are coming to realize they are a very small part of the solution. So small they aren't even really talked about seriously when people talk about climate change and CO2.

 

[billvon]

Again yes. The back-ups were located below the identified potential water level and they got wet. It's really as simple as that.

No, it's really not.

The tsunami disabled the off-site grid power connection, 5 of the 6 emergency diesel generators, the switchgear below the reactors and the RHR (residual heat removal) loops; they were seawater cooled. Batteries kept the reactor emergency pumps running for a day. Once that power ran out, reactors 1-3 overheated.

The one remaining diesel generator was sufficient to power the residual heat removal loop pumps for reactors 5 and 6 (specifically their spent cooling pools.) Thus they were not damaged.

Even if the switchgear was 100% intact, the lack of energy would have meant that reactors 1, 2 and 3 would not have had power. The same thing would have happened even if the switchgear was 100% intact. There was no way for the one remaining generator to power all 6 pumps, nor did the switchgear allow that.

Nor was the switchgear disabled by "a drop of water" - hundreds of thousands of gallons flooded the basements of both the turbine building and the common spent fuel pool building where the switchgear was located. It is also notable that much of the switchgear continued to work even after being flooded; the batteries, for example, were in the basement and were routed through the switchgear. But hundreds of thousands of gallons of seawater meant that (for example) no one was going to go down there to try to hotwire the one remaining generator to run the other RHR pumps.

It's not directly responsible and of course you couldn't create a meltdown by pouring a bucket of water on them, but it's a pretty good example of how human error in an of itself can be a problem. Assuming someone couldn't deliberately expose simple vulnerabilities, if properly motivated, does seem a bit foolish all things considered.

The big mistake - the "human error" if you will - was not designing for a ~15 meter tsunami.

 

[furcifer]

Again yes. The back-ups were located below the identified potential water level and they got wet. It's really as simple as that.

No, it's really not.

The tsunami disabled the off-site grid power connection, 5 of the 6 emergency diesel generators, the switchgear below the reactors and the RHR (residual heat removal) loops; they were seawater cooled. Batteries kept the reactor emergency pumps running for a day. Once that power ran out, reactors 1-3 overheated.

The one remaining diesel generator was sufficient to power the residual heat removal loop pumps for reactors 5 and 6 (specifically their spent cooling pools.) Thus they were not damaged.

Even if the switchgear was 100% intact, the lack of energy would have meant that reactors 1, 2 and 3 would not have had power. The same thing would have happened even if the switchgear was 100% intact. There was no way for the one remaining generator to power all 6 pumps, nor did the switchgear allow that.

Nor was the switchgear disabled by "a drop of water" - hundreds of thousands of gallons flooded the basements of both the turbine building and the common spent fuel pool building where the switchgear was located. It is also notable that much of the switchgear continued to work even after being flooded; the batteries, for example, were in the basement and were routed through the switchgear. But hundreds of thousands of gallons of seawater meant that (for example) no one was going to go down there to try to hotwire the one remaining generator to run the other RHR pumps.

It's not directly responsible and of course you couldn't create a meltdown by pouring a bucket of water on them, but it's a pretty good example of how human error in an of itself can be a problem. Assuming someone couldn't deliberately expose simple vulnerabilities, if properly motivated, does seem a bit foolish all things considered.

The big mistake - the "human error" if you will - was not designing for a ~15 meter tsunami.

Um no. The possible water levels in the event of a tsunami were updated in the 90's (I believe it was estimated at upwards of 27 meters) and the company did not take measures to change the design to accommodate. It was built on an estimate in the 60's, the estimate changed in the 90's and THEY DID NOTHING. Well they did I guess, because the new back-ups were placed above flood level. But they did nothing with the old ones, the ones that failed.

Fukishima II followed proper guidelines and didn't meltdown.

I'm not sure how you could begin to think this was anything but human error.

And there's no allowable water level in your switch gear. Yes, that means a drop. Fukishima II was waterproofed as well from what I recall and again, no issues.

 

[Punx0r]

One drop of water in high voltage/high current switchgear is instantly vapourised without anyone ever realising anything ever happened. I don't understand how any of this is supposed to prove low-carbon energy won't work 'cos terrorists armed with buckets of water will cause nuclear meltdowns everywhere.

It's sad this thread attracts so many AGW deniers. We're now on the "OK, so CO2 does cause climate change but we can'r/shouldn't try to do anything about it" phase. Always question your motives if your chosen beliefs conveniently abdicate yourself of any responsibility for a huge problem.

 

[Punx0r]

Meanwhile, the UK's Committee on Climate Change has advised the government to replace the current (legally binding) target of an 80% reduction in CO2 by 2050 with net-zero by the same date due to the falling costs of wind farms, batteries and other technology mean the new goal could be achieved at the same cost: 1-2% of GDP. This would be a true net-zero by including aviation and shipping emissions.

The change required to achieve this is described as dizzying and across every area of society but "crucially, this is technically possible with known technologies and without major changes to consumer behaviours".

https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/net-zero-the-uks-contribution-to-stopping-global-warming/

The future of modern economies is carbon-free. China has not positioned itself as the World's largest producer of solar panels and electric cars for no reason.

 

[Hillhater]

...... We're now on the "OK, so CO2 does cause climate change but we can'r/shouldn't try to do anything about it" phase. ......

No... “We” are not all on that phase.!
There is still no science that proves the link between CO2 and changes in the climate.

Meanwhile, the UK's Committee on Climate Change has advised the government to replace the current (legally binding) target of an 80% reduction in CO2 by 2050 with net-zero by the same date due to the falling costs of wind farms, batteries and other technology mean the new goal could be achieved at the same cost: 1-2% of GDP. This would be a true net-zero by including aviation and shipping emissions.

...Whilst completely ignoring the huge “carbon loading” initially needed to establish that infrastructure.?
Dont you just love “Committee’s” who have no responsibility to shoulder beyond collecting a fat pay check for producing reports.
PS.. who is going to tell them they dont have a clue what they are talking about ?

 

[billvon]

...Whilst completely ignoring the huge “carbon loading” initially needed to establish that infrastructure.?

That's the key - establishing the infrastructure.

Building a coal fired power plant requires tons and tons of concrete and steel - and even more exotic metals like Inconel. And that plant then emits tons and tons of CO2 for the remainder of its life.

Building a wind (or solar, or geothermal) plant requires tons and tons of concrete and steel - and even more exotic metals like neodynium. And that plant then emits zero CO2 for the remainder of its life.

Which means we should be building those wind/solar/geothermal plants NOW while we have the energy to spare.

 

[billvon]

I'm not sure how you could begin to think this was anything but human error.

Because human error means something pretty specific.

If a pilot noses his airplane into the ground and kills everyone on board because he gets disoriented, then that's human error.

If the computer flies the plane into the ground and kills everyone on board because of a design flaw, then that is very definitely a design error - not human error. You can say that "well, the designer was a human so it's all human error" but that's a stretch, and is not how the word is used.

And there's no allowable water level in your switch gear.

Of course there is. I used to design power systems for remote cell sites. They often leaked - and we'd design tray slopes and drip loops and specify contacts, breakers, relays and sensors so they worked even when they got wet. Any good design plans for real world conditions.

 

[Hillhater]

Which means we should be building those wind/solar/geothermal plants NOW while we have the energy to spare.

If you believe the IPCC CO2 story/lie , then rapidly reducing CO2 emissions in the next 10 years are THE critical molecules.
So preloading the next 10-20 years worth of carbon NOW , ....is not the smartest of ideas ?
Oh , and there is still that little issue of “backup power” when the wind isnt blowing in the evenings. ?

 

[furcifer]

Of course there is. I used to design power systems for remote cell sites. They often leaked - and we'd design tray slopes and drip loops and specify contacts, breakers, relays and sensors so they worked even when they got wet. Any good design plans for real world conditions.

No there isn't, not in a power plant. Especially a nuclear power plant. Like I said, Fukishima II was built to specifications, properly waterproofed, and only suffered from a brief failure which they quickly recovered from.

Designs aren't static. When you design something, and then someone says "These designs suck, you need to improve them to account for new data", and the people in charge don't act on this new information it's called "human error". Technically it's called "negligence", which the government and power plant owners (Tepco) were found liable of. Not the designers.

A design flaw can be negligent, but it's usually an unforeseen oversight. That's not what happened at Fukishima.

 

[jonescg]

If you believe the IPCC CO2 story/lie , then rapidly reducing CO2 emissions in the next 10 years are THE critical molecules.
So preloading the next 10-20 years worth of carbon NOW , ....is not the smartest of ideas ?
Oh , and there is still that little issue of “backup power” when the wind isnt blowing in the evenings. ?

So what you're saying is that because we dithered earlier in the century, we should continue to dither?

No need to answer - I know you don't give a shit either way. But we have deliberately avoided tough decisions and its going to cost us dearly. Either we ramp up the transition now or we let it all burn.

 

[Hillhater]

So what you're saying is that because we dithered earlier in the century, we should continue to dither?

No need to answer - I know you don't give a shit either way. But we have deliberately avoided tough decisions and its going to cost us dearly. Either we ramp up the transition now or we let it all burn.

No, what i am saying is , your “tough decisions” , are like the Emporer deciding which of his “new clothes” he should wear today. !
IE: its a self imagined problem you have...all based on a BELIEF that CO2 is the root of all evil.
Listen to yourself, . You sound like a 19th century Profit, proclaiming “the end is nigh “ but less convincing !
If you can make the mental leap, (with the help of scientific facts) , that CO2 is not the issue, then you can stop the panic.

 

[jonescg]

LOL denial of a demonstrable reality is not a solution, however good it makes you feel.