Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

[TheBeastie]

WE ARE SAVED !!!
..or so our PM says..
Australian Federal government has announced a big about face on energy ( Electricity generation) policy.
Basically , they will abandon the CET ( Clean Energy Target), stop all subsidies and tax concessions to RE generators,.AND insist that energy retailers must guarantee continuity of supply including base load.(.for night times and bad weather), called the NEG ( National Energy Guarantee)
All to be overseen by the ESB.. ( Energy Security Board ) ..Dont you love all these TLA s ! :lol:
This they claim will reduce the cost of electricity bills to the average consumer by up to Au$115 pa..by 2030 ! :lol:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-17/coalition-signs-off-on-new-energy-plan-to-replace-cet-proposal/9057026
Sounds good, but....of course this is only a Fed Gov bill that will need approval of all states to proceed...which will need some good fortune to happen !
Obviously this is no more than a political gesture to win a few minds and gain a breathing space , in response to the National outcry over the huge rise in Electricity prices.
If its blocked by interstate politics ( as is likely) our slimy PM will simply say he tried, but the opposition prevented him reducing prices.
But, at least it might just raise the reality of our energy issues to a national discussion level ! :wink:

Yeah its a good start, but as far as I know they are still keeping existing commitments like RET which dies out in 2020, but apparently its mostly done with the target of generation of 33,000 GWh in 2020, it was probably originally meant to then start a new generation goal but thats now off the table considering how the rest of the world's emission targets are completely failing.
Also, the subsidies for renewables continue into 2020 as well, as far as I understand it. It's complicated and not all officially signed in yet so we have to wait and see, I think the government is really just putting their toe in the water to see the public reaction of going more in line of what the rest of the world is doing, but its mostly up to the ABC to make up the minds of what most Australians will choose to think.

I like this line from that ABC article

South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill denounced the plan as a "complete victory for the coal industry".

What should be done is have South Australia severed from the interestate grid where it gets so much of its real electricty from Victorian coal, what a parasite mindset of a state government. I think if South Australia was cut off from Victorian coal they would change their mind.

I couldn't believe what numbskulls were saying on Facebook/Twitter about NEG. It was this constant line of "Oh so Australia is going to ditch its clean energy commitments while the rest of the world continues with their commitments? OMG, Australians are so backwards, blah blah.
And I could help but just wonder what cave do they live in? Well I assume its a cave secluded from the rest of the world but with airconditioning and a constant feed of baloney from ABC news, as ABC always pound Australians about its Paris accord commitments while quite literally the rest of the world ignores them as well reported in this respected Nature.com article.

Article Quote "Beyond US President Donald Trump's decision in June to withdraw the United States from the 2015 Paris climate agreement, a more profound challenge to the global climate pact is emerging. No major advanced industrialized country is on track to meet its pledges to control the greenhouse-gas emissions that cause climate change.
Wishful thinking and bravado are eclipsing reality. "
https://www.nature.com/news/prove-paris-was-more-than-paper-promises-1.22378

All major industrialized countries are failing to meet the pledges they made to cut greenhouse-gas emissions, but at least the USA has been upfront about it.
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2015/6/30/1435672227993/5affb3cc-50e4-48e2-8e50-6c93201ebf76-620x519.png?w=300&q=20&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&dpr=2&s=e71ea13b2a77dcf179854877cf1a0e63
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40669449
Australia is just as aligned to its o2 emission targets than any other major country except maybe countries like Denmark where its biggest export is windturbines etc.

This article out today from TheAustralian url below. So far its probably dug as deep as we can get on National Energy Guarantee (NEG), its a chunky article so I copy and pasted some of the more interesting bits.
Basically it points out the madness of covering up large amounts of land that can sustain forests with solar farms when it should really just be instead used for co2 sequestration and the NEG aims to help rectify this because so far most of the planned solar farms are being built on top of farms and where forests could exist due to the convenience of nearby transmission towers like the Gympie solar farm which could be perfect forest but instead is going to be covered in solar panels. This new solar farm is going to quite literally sit in between two state forests.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-19/mega-solar-farm-planned-for-gympie-qld/8451774
https://goo.gl/maps/mhaHUigfhNP2 https://goo.gl/maps/LfA8jW97LkC2 https://goo.gl/maps/aBbgdbJwgVx
It's continued proof that they don't give a stuff about the environment and just want to make money out of it.

All the major science sites are all over this new study for reforestation as a major part of the co2 solution, and it makes perfect sense.
https://phys.org/news/2017-10-nature-vital-climate.html
Better stewardship of the land could have a bigger role in fighting climate change than previously thought, according to the most comprehensive assessment to date of how greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced and stored in forests, farmland, grasslands and wetlands using natural climate solutions.
https://www.nature.org/newsfeatures/pressreleases/new-study-finds-nature-is-vital-to-beating-climate-change.xml
Article Quote "Nature could cost-effectively deliver over a third of greenhouse gas emissions reductions required to prevent dangerous levels of global warming. This is equivalent to a complete stop to the burning of oil worldwide."

So many solar farms I see in Europe sit on the greenest lush grass I have ever seen, to me it's just silly. This means of course that its an area ideal for trees for proper co2 sequestration.

The latest CO2 mapping satellites from NASA like NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) are showing just how much co2 is being sequestered by photosynthesis during the northern hemisphere summers.
https://youtu.be/dm8AR_D3bNM
[youtube]dm8AR_D3bNM[/youtube]
https://phys.org/news/2017-10-spikes-carbon-emissions-nasa-satellite.html

TheAustralian on the National Energy Guarantee (NEG)
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/natural-methods-of-storing-carbon-gain-new-emphasis-under-energy-scheme/news-story/6b3251ca8f85f892fc3c6c9dad096a51
Natural methods of storing carbon gain new emphasis under energy scheme

..
Nonetheless, the National ­Energy Guarantee may be a good opportunity for the government to turn the focus more towards helping nature store carbon and away from building windmills to cut emissions. International research shows there are still enormous benefits to be won.

As environment minister, Turn­bull was one of the first global leaders to accept and highlight the carbon dioxide-saving benefits of forest preservation.

A major international study published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci­ences says better stewardship of the land can have a bigger role in fighting climate change than earlier thought. The results were from the most comprehensive assessment to date of how greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced and stored in forests, farmland, grasslands and wetlands using natural climate solutions.

..Without cost constraints, natural climate solutions could deliver emissions reductions of 23.8 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent a year, close to one-third more than previous estimates.

“If we are serious about climate change, then we are going to have to get serious about investing in nature, as well as in clean energy and clean transport,” Nature Conservancy chief Mark Tercek says.

Australia has vast scope to ­develop a carbon farming economy and it is a key issue being ­explored in the government’s coming review of how Australia will meet its Paris commit­ment.

How the federal govern­ment handles the review may prove crucial to the success or otherwise of its National Energy Guarantee. Under the government’s new plan, the Prime Minister says household electricity bills will fall by an average of $110 to $115 a year across the 2020 to 2030 period.

The guarantee scheme has two parts that on the surface are contradictory. One part will require energy retailers across the Nat­ional Electricity Market to deliver reliable and lower emissions generation each year. Energy market regulators will determine a level of immediately available electricity from coal, gas, hydro or storage for each state. The other part of the guarantee will be imposed by ­another regulator to guarantee carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation will fall to enable Australia to meet its Paris commitments to limit carbon ­dioxide emissions by 26 per cent to 28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030.

The renewable energy target will not be extended past 2020 but projects already in place will continue to receive renewable energy certificates until 2030. With the RET gone, the onus will be on wind, solar and other renewables to prove they can partner with firm supply or storage and compete with fossil fuels subsidy free.

The squeeze on emissions to meet the Paris targets still will give renewables an edge.

RepuTex analyst Hugh Grossman says the NEG, in effect, ­will establish a de facto price on greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector.
..
To date, the environmental lobby largely has failed to embrace the Emissions Reduction Fund scheme, preferring to concentrate on blocking fossil fuel development and lobbying in support of renewable energy.

The Wilderness Society, in particular, highlights the big contradiction in government buying carbon permits on one hand and allowing wide­scale land clearing in Queens­land on the other. The Wilderness Society estimates that more than one-third of the $1.4 billion worth of abatement purchased in auctions has been lost in Queensland land clearing alone.

“It is a waste of half a billion dollars of Australian taxpayers’ mon­ey to fund tree projects when we are not trying to stop deforestation that will create more carbon pollution than the tree projects will deliver,” says the society’s ­national director, Lyndon Schneiders.

Nonetheless, given the billions of dollars spent subsidising renewable energy, it is reasonable to ask whether money could have been better spent boosting the natural systems to lock away more carbon.

Limiting land clearing is low-hanging fruit in terms of generating carbon permits for a domestic market. The complications are political, particularly with the Liberal ­National Party in Queensland. But there are plenty of case studies that demonstrate the strong environmental and community co-benefits of investing in nature.

Indigenous ranger programs under way across northern Australia to manage savanna burning is a global example.

In its submission to the review, GreenCollar says it has extensive experience in how carbon farming schemes can achieve a triple bottom line of environmental, economic and social benefits. It works with more than 150 landholders across Australia with an emphasis on reducing emissions or sequestering carbon dioxide from the environment, while focusing on increasing productivity and preserving natural capital.

The company, which has been a major beneficiary of the reverse auction system, wants the government to continue funding two Emissions Reduc­tion Fund auc­tions a year up to the end of 2019 to build the market for when the private sector will be forced to join. “At the rate of two auctions per annum, this would equate to five more auctions to the end of 2019,” GreenCollar says in its submission. “With an average expenditure of $200 million per auction this would require $1bn to be available under the ERF.”

GreenCollar says there are many untapped sources of potential carbon abatement within the land sector; however, the price of carbon on offer at this time is not sufficient to engage landowners in carbon projects.

“Particularly concerning soil carbon abatement, the monetary incentive is not enough to warrant graziers’ involvement under the ERF due to the high cost of management and implementation versus return,” GreenCollar says.

“However, in these areas, there are non-carbon co-benefits that, if properly and efficiently valued, could be a catalyst for increased carbon abatement from the agricultural sector.”

If the ABC pounded Australians with modern science about how much they could help cut co2 emissions by carbon sequestration/forests instead of covering them with solar panels we might actually get somewhere.

Every time I see clueless Australians parrot rubbish information I continue to dream about the currently very remote idea that the TV spectrum free-to-air sits on gets amalgamated into the NBN or mobile carriers because I am so tired of seeing these ill-informed people. I really see it as freeing them from "The Matrix" instead of the evil grip of baloney information from mainstream-media.
This is the speed I get on Optus via LTE now from the old freed up TV spectrum they managed to buy due to the digital TV spectrum restack. 230mbits/sec and its just a fraction of whats available on the TV spectrum. I think its important for people to think about it now because once 5G hits Australian TV will be completely unprofitable like Channel Ten is now and they need to just get out of the way and stop holding back Australia with their baloney information.
http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/a/3259935402

 

[billvon]

Basically it points out the madness of covering up large amounts of land that can sustain forests with solar farms . . . .

Why not do both? Cover roads, buildings, parking lots, mine pits, deserts etc with solar, leave the open arable land for sequestration. Better yet - design solar farms that both allow plant growth and energy harvesting.

So many solar farms I see in Europe sit on the greenest lush grass I have ever seen, to me it's just silly.

To me it sounds like a win-win. If the lushest, greenest grass you have ever seen sits under solar farms, then we should keep those solar farms to keep that grass growing so well. (Note that in many places, more shade = more grass due to more water retained.)

The latest CO2 mapping satellites from NASA like NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) are showing just how much co2 is being sequestered by photosynthesis during the northern hemisphere summers.

Yep. Unfortunately it also shows that as temperatures increase, those same plants are going to be less effective due to:
1) Plant respiration. Plants use oxygen at night and convert it to CO2 - and with higher temperatures come higher conversion rates.
2) Decay. Higher temperatures lead to faster decay of vegetable matter, leading to higher releases of CO2.
3) Fire. As temperatures rise, fires become more common, and release large amounts of CO2. (And of course kills most of those plants.)
4) Drought. As temperatures rise, droughts increase, and plants absorb less CO2 as a result.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/12/16460014/nasa-oco-2-satellite-carbon-dioxide-earth-atmosphere-plants-ocean-climate-change

So while it's great to replant forests (and more importantly not cut them down to begin with) that in and of itself will be insufficient - because we are also making those forests less effective at absorbing CO2. A wise plan both protects forests and other biomes AND reduces the amount of CO2 we generate.

 

[Ohbse]

If the ABC pounded Australians with modern science about how much they could help cut co2 emissions by carbon sequestration/forests instead of covering them with solar panels we might actually get somewhere.

Every time I see clueless Australians parrot rubbish information I continue to dream about the currently very remote idea that the TV spectrum free-to-air sits on gets amalgamated into the NBN or mobile carriers because I am so tired of seeing these ill-informed people. I really see it as freeing them from "The Matrix" instead of the evil grip of baloney information from mainstream-media.
This is the speed I get on Optus via LTE now from the old freed up TV spectrum they managed to buy due to the digital TV spectrum restack. 230mbits/sec and its just a fraction of whats available on the TV spectrum. I think its important for people to think about it now because once 5G hits Australian TV will be completely unprofitable like Channel Ten is now and they need to just get out of the way and stop holding back Australia with their baloney information.
http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/a/3259935402

I don't think any rational person would agree to cut down a forest in order to build a solar farm. If that situation actually arises then clearly the rules need to be adjusted. Reality though is Australia has vast amounts of land where forest of any substance isn't going to grow. Those same conditions are ideal for solar collection.

As for the tangent about spectrum and NBN, I absolutely agree. NZ shut down its last analogue transmission and freed up the spectrum a few years ago. Like in so many other areas Australia lags behind because of political inaction, not because of any reasons based in reality.

Here's my home connection 5 minutes ago:



Biggest thing Aussies should be pissed off about is how incredibly ineffective your government is.

 

[sendler2112]

And if it grows at the same rate that we are growing solar here, within 12 years it will be almost 50%.

According to EIA.gov in end of year 2016 USA solar electric was at .9% of 400,022,000 total MWh/y. And 2016 was a very high year for solar build out due to worries of the federal 30% rebate going away. 2017 will be barely more than half of 2016. Long way to go to make any sizable contribution. And it was still relatively expensive installed at $2,800/ kWh in 2015. And that is stated as installed capacity. I hate to think that figure should be 5 times higher to reflect actual average output.
.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/
.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=31912
.
.

.
.
.

 

[billvon]

According to EIA.gov in end of year 2016 USA solar electric was at .9% of 400,022,000 total MWh/y. And 2016 was a very high year for solar build out due to worries of the federal 30% rebate going away. 2017 will be barely more than half of 2016. Long way to go to make any sizable contribution.

Like I said, in ten years that will be a very different story if growth continues at the same rates that it has for the past 10 years.

Of course, we now have a government trying to stop solar buildout, so that may slow down growth.

 

[Jil]

So many solar farms I see in Europe sit on the greenest lush grass I have ever seen, to me it's just silly.

To me it sounds like a win-win. If the lushest, greenest grass you have ever seen sits under solar farms, then we should keep those solar farms to keep that grass growing so well. (Note that in many places, more shade = more grass due to more water retained.)

I confirm. I have worked on a ground solar project in France where the solar panels were exceptionnaly dense (80% coverage of the field), and the grass under the panels was even greener and denser than outside.

 

[Jil]

And if it grows at the same rate that we are growing solar here, within 12 years it will be almost 50%.

According to EIA.gov in end of year 2016 USA solar electric was at .9% of 400,022,000 total MWh/y. And 2016 was a very high year for solar build out due to worries of the federal 30% rebate going away. 2017 will be barely more than half of 2016. Long way to go to make any sizable contribution. And it was still relatively expensive installed at $2,800/ kWh in 2015. And that is stated as installed capacity. I hate to think that figure should be 5 times higher to reflect actual average output.
.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/
.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=31912
.
.

.
.
.

These numbers are outdated. And it is the cost per kW installed, not per kWh.
In France, the actual construction cost (and with no subvention or tax credit at all) of a groundsolar plant is currently around 0.60-0.70€/Wp, ie. 700-800 USD/kWp. And to compare same figures, if we talk of kW (or kVA, ie. the power of inverters/transformers), generally 20% less than the kWp (max theorical power of the solar panels), we go to 900-1000$/kW installed.
In USA the manpower is more expensive, but it won't raise the price more than 10 or 20%.

 

[sendler2112]

In France, the actual construction cost (and with no subvention or tax credit at all) of a groundsolar plant is currently around 0.60-0.70€/Wp, ie. 700-800 USD/kWp. And to compare same figures, if we talk of kW (or kVA, ie. the power of inverters/transformers), generally 20% less than the kWp (max theorical power of the solar panels), we go to 900-1000$/kW installed.
In USA the manpower is more expensive, but it won't raise the price more than 10 or 20%.

So almost 20% is lost to dc/ac conversion?
.
And wouldn't $1000/kW installed capacity pricing be stating the nameplate capacity minus the conversion losses of the panels? So if the AC nameplate of a solar farm is 40MW, It can peak 40MW once in a while, but it's average output for the year will be 10MW since average solar farms in the best location such as Topaz do 25% of name plate. The best farms in a desert such as SolarStar with crystaline panels on trackers with an automated wash system do 31%.
.
Making the real installed price in France right now based on average ac output for the year $4,000/kW.

 

[Jil]

In France, the actual construction cost (and with no subvention or tax credit at all) of a groundsolar plant is currently around 0.60-0.70€/Wp, ie. 700-800 USD/kWp. And to compare same figures, if we talk of kW (or kVA, ie. the power of inverters/transformers), generally 20% less than the kWp (max theorical power of the solar panels), we go to 900-1000$/kW installed.
In USA the manpower is more expensive, but it won't raise the price more than 10 or 20%.

So almost 20% is lost to dc/ac conversion?
.
And wouldn't $1000/kW installed capacity pricing be stating the nameplate capacity minus the conversion losses of the panels? So if the AC nameplate of a solar farm is 40MW, It can peak 40MW once in a while, but it's average output for the year will be 10MW since average solar farms in the best location such as Topaz do 25% of name plate. The best farms in a desert such as SolarStar with crystaline panels on trackers with an automated wash system do 31%.
.
Making the real installed price in France right now based on average ac output for the year $4,000/kW.

There is not 20% conversion loss from DC to AC. It's more around 2%.
But generally there is a ratio of 1.2W DC/1W AC, because the solar panels produce rarely at their nominal power.

At the end of the day, the judge is the price per kWh. Because solar has almost no maintenance, its production price is low, and goes lower every year. Currently around 60 €/MWh in France, and up to 20-30€/MWh in Middle East. You can compare to electricity market prices, it's pretty close... or even lower. And much, much lower than the production price of new nuclear reactors.

 

[sendler2112]

At the end of the day, the judge is the price per kWh. Because solar has almost no maintenance, its production price is low, and goes lower every year. Currently around 60 €/MWh in France, and up to 20-30€/MWh in Middle East. You can compare to electricity market prices, it's pretty close... or even lower. And much, much lower than the production price of new nuclear reactors.

So the 20% reduction in output you mentioned is an adjustment for the real world PEAK insolation never quite achieving the commonly used experimental standard of 1000W/m^2. I have seen this documented elswhere and agree that 800W/m^2 is commonly used when specifying the PV area that is required for a given nameplate capacity of a new project.
.
But this still stating a NAMEPLATE value for the farm. And a NAMEPLATE price of $1000/ kW installed capacity in France. The real world output of the farm will average 25% of nameplate at best.
.
Which leaves us at $4000/kW installed in France right now. This seems to be always mis-stated by a factor of 4-5 in the media depending on the final location of the farm. NY USA will produce 1/8 of the nameplate with many days of 0.
.
$4000 will buy a 4kW nameplate farm. $4000/1kW actual on average in an ideal desert site. $4000/8766kWh/y annual production. 20 years of production would repay the investment at 2.3c/kWh not including taxes and operating expenses.
.
Which even in NY at 4.6c is still very cheap though. I pay 3.9c/kWh right now but it has been closer to 5c a few years ago.

 

[sendler2112]

It was a nice day for a motorcycle ride so I went out to research some new solar farms in my area at two local colleges. I wasn't able to get the answers for two simple questions in the college libraries but got a name of a purchasing director so maybe he can tell me: How much did the installation really cost. I mean really cost at the bottom of the bill to the dollar. And how much energy did it make through a meter over a one year period.
.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

 

[wineboyrider]

billvon wrote:
Why not do both? Cover roads, buildings, parking lots, mine pits, deserts etc with solar, leave the open arable land for sequestration. Better yet - design solar farms that both allow plant growth and energy harvesting.

Ever heard of Sundrop farms?

 

[billvon]

Ever heard of Sundrop farms?

Yeah and that's a great approach. But I was thinking of something even simpler - PV arrays made with bifacial (i.e. semitransparent) panels to allow light to reach the ground below; then just normal ground cover (grass, shrubs.) Crops would be great in installations that could support that.

 

[Hillhater]

At the end of the day, the judge is the price per kWh. Because solar has almost no maintenance, its production price is low, and goes lower every year. Currently around 60 €/MWh in France, and up to 20-30€/MWh in Middle East. You can compare to electricity market prices, it's pretty close... or even lower. And much, much lower than the production price of new nuclear reactors.

guys, Until there are solid references to to qualified, unbiased , sources, i am sticking with the official US EIA costings for LCOE ....which basicly shows that there is little to chose between pv solar and Nuclear.
BUT....( and no apologies for repeating this..)...
1)... That assumes a common 30 year working life....way too long for unproven PV systems, and way too short for established Nuclear technology !
2). .. Solar PV costs make no concession to the fact that it is INTERMITENT and UNPREDICTABLE.
........in order to be comparable it should include costs for sufficient storage to ensure continuity of supply,..
...........or back up generation.!

 

[Hillhater]

$4000 will buy a 4kW nameplate farm. $4000/1kW actual on average in an ideal desert site. $4000/8766kWh/y annual production. 20 years of production would repay the investment at 2.3c/kWh not including taxes and operating expenses.
.

That would be only the simple cost of capital...with no real cost of finance allowed for.
This is one reason why the eia figures are much higher..
$4000 invested in a very basic fund would tripple in value in 20yrs, and no sane investor would consider such a poor return over such a long period.

 

[sendler2112]

$4000 invested

I am still doubtfull of the $1/W for installed nameplate capacity also. I received an actual quote for a 9kW grid tie on my daughter's rooftop at $3.20/W installed. Another friend outside of Boston is paying $4.30/w for 10kW on his roof with no storage.
.
Hopefully I can get hard numbers on paper for the solar farm at TC3 that I visited yesterday.
.
And of course there will be ongoing taxes and maintenance on comercial solar farms as there are on any electrical plant.

 

[Hillhater]

That 42GW/8GWh (70TWh pa ) of solar represents approx 1.1% of China's consumption last year....

Yep. And if it grows at the same rate that we are growing solar here, within 12 years it will be almost 50%.

China generated ~ 6000TWh in 2016,.... and at current rates of growth , in 12 yrs that will be 10,000+ TWh .
...for them to have 50% of that from solar , that would be 5000+ TWh = 570 GW continuous, or approx 2900 GW of "nameplate" solar.....(even allowing a CF of 20%.)
.......... Or on average , 250 GW of new solar capacity every year from now until 2029 !

 

[billvon]

1)... That assumes a common 30 year working life....way too long for unproven PV systems

I've got panels that have been in the sun for 30 years, and no problems yet. About a 5% reduction in output.

, and way too short for established Nuclear technology !

We've got a reactor on the beach out here that started leaking and was shut down. Two reactors lasted 25 years; the first one lasted 24.

While there are some plants in the US that have been running for 40 years, the _average_ lifetime for a nuclear power plant here is about 30. It is certainly true that you can just keep replacing parts and keep them running for a long time. But that's even more true of PV plants - and PV plants are cheaper, and need a lot less replacement/maintenance.

 

[sendler2112]

Nuclear power in the United States is provided by 99 commercial reactors with a net summer capacity of 100,350 megawatts (MW), 65 pressurized water reactors and 34 boiling water reactors. In 2016 they produced a total of 805.3 terawatt-hours of electricity, which accounted for 19.7% of the nation's total electric energy generation. In 2016, nuclear energy comprised nearly 60 percent of U.S. emission-free generation.[1]
As of September 2017, there are two new reactors under construction with a gross electrical capacity of 2,500 MW, while 34 reactors have been permanently shut down.[2][3] The United States is the world's largest producer of commercial nuclear power, and in 2013 generated 33% of the world's nuclear electricity.[4]
As of October 2014, the NRC has granted license renewals providing a 20-year extension to a total of 74 reactors. In early 2014, the NRC prepared to receive the first applications of license renewal beyond 60 years of reactor life, as early as 2017
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States
.

 

[Hillhater]

1)... That assumes a common 30 year working life....way too long for unproven PV systems

I've got panels that have been in the sun for 30 years, and no problems yet. About a 5% reduction in output.

, and way too short for established Nuclear technology !

We've got a reactor on the beach out here that started leaking and was shut down. Two reactors lasted 25 years; the first one lasted 24.

While there are some plants in the US that have been running for 40 years, the _average_ lifetime for a nuclear power plant here is about 30. It is certainly true that you can just keep replacing parts and keep them running for a long time. But that's even more true of PV plants - and PV plants are cheaper, and need a lot less replacement/maintenance.

We could all identify individual examples to highlight any point...but that is not verification of facts
PV generation plants are NOT cheaper on a MWh pa capacity basis. They are within 5% of parity, depending on location etc.
They appear cheaper because the projects are always smaller and costs quoted on a "Nameplate " rating.
Again refer to the eia .gov costings
Personally, i am expecting solar tech will advance sufficiently such that all current hardware will be completely superceeded and redundant within 20 yrs even if it physically does survive. Such that it makes more financial sence to replace it completely with new technology, than to update or renew existing hardware.
I am not as confident about wind farms, i do not see a long service life or a dramatic technology improvement for them.
Nor am i advocating current Nuclear technology for the ultimate long term solution. again expecting a better, safer, cheaper, cleaner, development will be introduced in the coming years, .
However in the meantime......

....-- the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) expects the first application for an 80-year license could come within five years or less -- .....
.......DOE collaborates in this research with France's MAI and the U.S.-based Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), a nonprofit funded by many nuclear utilities. U.S. leadership in the field is natural, given the sheer age of America's reactors, many of which are already coming close to exceeding their intended operating lives.
The oldest commercial plants in the United States reached their 40th anniversary this year, and the average plant has operated for 30 years. Already, more than half of the nation's more than 100 reactors have seen their initial licenses extended for an additional two decades. Nearly all the country's plants are expected to eventually win such extensions.
.....

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-plant-aging-reactor-replacement-/

 

[sendler2112]

So the preliminary report from a TC3 superintendant on their solar farm states
"The 2,000 kW solar farm is constructed on about 10 acres of land. From what I was able to obtain from the owner the construction cost was a bit over $5,000,000. It produces about 2,750,000 kWh per year. It is remotely metered by the owner, NextEra energy but it is not a public site."
.
So roughly $2.50/W installed capacity running at 15.7%
.
$0.165/kWh over 30 years.
.

 

[billvon]

PV generation plants are NOT cheaper on a MWh pa capacity basis.

They are now. Quoted prices for solar - on bids that have been accepted - are lower than prices for nuclear power.

Again refer to the eia .gov costings

From eia.gov:

Estimated LCOE (weighted average of regional values based on projected capacity
additions) for new generation resources, plants entering service in 2022 (i.e. started today)

Total system cost LCOE before tax credits ($/MWh)
Advanced nuclear 96.2
Solar PV 73.7

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

Personally, i am expecting solar tech will advance sufficiently such that all current hardware will be completely superceeded and redundant within 20 yrs even if it physically does survive.

Possible for inverters, not as likely for PV - since once installed, energy cost is $0 for a 15% efficient panel vs a 20% efficient panel.

To put it another way, it costs money to tear down old PV. You'd be better off leaving the old PV up and just putting up new PV alongside it.

The oldest commercial plants in the United States reached their 40th anniversary this year, and the average plant has operated for 30 years. Already, more than half of the nation's more than 100 reactors have seen their initial licenses extended for an additional two decades. Nearly all the country's plants are expected to eventually win such extensions.

Agreed - but longer license time does not equate to being able to operate safely for that long. In many cases (as in San Onofre) there will eventually be a failure that's just too expensive/dangerous to fix.

 

[sendler2112]

Most of our nuclear generators are being recertified to 60 years. And they were designed by guys with slide rules and pencils in the 60's. The new GenIII+ designs will be 60 and recert to 100 years. modular GenIV designs will be much better and cheaper if we were smart enough to choose to develop them. Solar farms have no storage and cannot be compared to nuclear directly. The world grid does not run on intermittent power.

 

[billvon]

Modular GenIV designs will be much better and cheaper if we were smart enough to choose to develop them.

Sure; they are the "energy source of the future." I'm all for research and development. For now we go what's clean, cheap and working.

Solar farms have no storage and cannot be compared to nuclear directly. The world grid does not run on intermittent power.

And yet the world draws power intermittently. In fact, it often draws the most power right when solar is generating the most power. Very convenient.

 

[sendler2112]

Very convenient.

To a point. Maybe solar can even go as high as 40% of current electricity in sunny areas of the world with smart grid control of thermostats, ect. Not in the NE USA though. Maybe near shore wind can takes it's place in such areas.
.
Plus most of the additional from EV adoption with massive daytime charging infrastructure upgrades. This is a huge build out. This is nowhere near as slam dunk as the solar industry publications keep overconfidently proclaiming. And that still leaves a big shortcoming in the grid. We need something non-intermittent to go with it. Despite terrible side effects we will still be addicted to burning carbon until we make the wise decision to adopt a steady base load zero carbon provider for the other 60%.