|
Quantum Mechanic posted:I was comparing the capital cost of the plants per GW based on under construction plants - the AP1000s mentioned above. The 3-4c figure as far as I am concerned is not applicable to countries that, you know, pay their workers a fair living wage. I'm sure China could construct solar plants for billions less as well. The cost of nuclear has very little to do with pay and fair labor and everything to do with construction delays and uncertainties caused by regulations: http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html quote:From this analysis we can understand two more important reasons, besides skyrocketing labor prices, that explain why costs of nuclear plants completed during the 1980s were so high: their construction times were much longer than in earlier years, and they were being built during a period of high inflation. Emphasis from source. Inflation played a role in costs, but it was amplified by delays and sudden design changes decided on by the NRC. Don't get me wrong, regulations are one of the reasons for the unparallelled safety ratings you find when looking at nuclear industry workers and plants. Regulations are absolutely necessary here just like they are everywhere else. But there is such a thing as inefficient and sloppy regulations and this is basically what we find in nuclear regulatory agencies in most western countries. Also note that in western countries, regulatory commissions are heavily politicized. The cancellation of the Yucca Mountain project is a prime example of this. George W. Bush appointed this prick specifically to thwart and cancel the repository, which wasted billions (from both the private industry and the tax payers) and led to further fallout in the DOE and NRC: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/-RS_NRC_suspends_final_licensing_decisions_080812a.html There are ways to get around the brunt force of delays and sudden design changes, such as building standardized reactors (see France) or factory-line production of small modular systems. It's been made pretty clear that some countries don't want nuclear plants, or at least, don't want more of them no matter how potentially cheap and safe they get. In those cases, you'll be stuck with renewables and your main worry will forever be trying to reach grid parity with them. You'll get there eventually but probably not within the next 50 years.
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2012 16:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:36 |
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:I was comparing the capital cost of the plants per GW based on under construction plants - the AP1000s mentioned above. The 3-4c figure as far as I am concerned is not applicable to countries that, you know, pay their workers a fair living wage. I'm sure China could construct solar plants for billions less as well. no, 3-4c is for reactors built before chernobyl/TMI and all the madness that has gone with it. (TMI Still. 260m USD for 12MW, instead of 6b for 1000MW - this is the real world number, and you seem to agree. This means 22b instead of 6. That's not five times, but that's roughly four times. For wage costs: Office Thug explained it thoroughly. China can't build solar plants more cheaply, because it really can't import desert land into their confines.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 01:46
|
|
|
Aureon posted:China can't build solar plants more cheaply, because it really can't import desert land into their confines. I wasn't suggesting China should be building solar plants instead. I meant that the cost of China building a nuclear plant and Australia building a solar plant are not comparable beasts and Chinese nuclear costs are not equivalent to Australian ones. Also I don't know if you're doing this on purpose but the solar modelling is based on the under-construction Crescent Dunes plant at Tonopah and similar plants, not Gemasolar. The cost is not 260m for 12 MW. Office Thug your link was from 1990 and in the same page specified that total labour costs from 72-88 rose nearly five-fold. Regardless, Australia would have the same regulatory situation, and if you want to add "relaxing nuclear regulations" to the list of things that would need to happen before we went nuclear we'd be waiting until the Earth turned into Venus.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 10:56
|
|
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:I wasn't suggesting China should be building solar plants instead. I meant that the cost of China building a nuclear plant and Australia building a solar plant are not comparable beasts and Chinese nuclear costs are not equivalent to Australian ones. Ok. For yet another time. We'll now divide in three chunks: Projections Under construction Finished For nuclear, we have "projections" around 2-4b/1GW (china's claiming 1b), under construction around 4-6b/1GW, (china's claiming 2b) and finished around 6-8b. For solar, we have projections basically anywhere, under construction I'm guessing you're gonna tell me, and finished 22b/1GW. The argument for large-scale benefices has yet to be fleshed out, please do so if you want to use it. Oh, and please explain how "Relaxing nuclear regulations" is harder than "Convince the status quo to pay 3-5 times the going rate for electricity", as a political objective.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 17:11
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:You're also comparing a technology with a near sixty-year pedigree to one that's been operational for less than thirty, with a massive disparity in public research money and investment. You're acting like nuclear is unplumbed technology with massive efficiency advances just waiting to happen. Nuclear power does have the potential for research and new designs to create massive efficiency advances. For example: Light Water Reactors are terribly inefficient, only burning about 1% of their fuel. They require U235, an isotope as rare as platinum, which requires much more mining. Steam turbines have around a 33% conversion efficiency. Proposed Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors would burn pretty much all their fuel, require a thorium isotope as common as lead, meaning much less mining (given both the above, like, 200x less mining)--and that ignores the huge stockpile of thorium we already have to start with, and the fact that it's currently a waste product from mining already taking place. A proposed helium-gas turbine would have 50% conversion efficiency. I have no doubt that more research into nuclear power would increase the efficiency of nuclear plants even further. It's true for solar and wind, it's also true for nuclear.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 17:44
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:Office Thug your link was from 1990 and in the same page specified that total labour costs from 72-88 rose nearly five-fold. Increase in labour costs is perfectly normal when it comes to the construction of any plant. It's all factored into the EEDB. What is not normal in nuclear's case is the increase in length of time required to complete the plant, from 7 years in 1972, to 12 or more in 88, which translates to a multiplacative increase in the total cost of the plant when you factor in EEDB with interest and inflation related costs. You can fix this without touching regulations by building reactors so small they can be assembled on factory lines and delivered in one piece to wherever they need to be installed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor. Factory assembly requires standardization, which means your reactors are all identical and easier to license and inspect as well. However, if regulations can't get their act together and figure out how to license something that isn't a pressurized light-water uranium-235 700 MWe+ nuclear reactor, then there's no real solution to the problem to begin with. Except what people are doing now, which is not building any more new nuclear plants. And this is a bad thing because: Quantum Mechanic posted:Regardless, Australia would have the same regulatory situation, and if you want to add "relaxing nuclear regulations" to the list of things that would need to happen before we went nuclear we'd be waiting until the Earth turned into Venus. Earth will turn into Venus at this rate regardless, since renewables are not cutting into the market fast or cost-effectively enough to usurp fossil fuels.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2012 22:10
|
|
|
Aureon posted:For nuclear, we have "projections" around 2-4b/1GW (china's claiming 1b), under construction around 4-6b/1GW, (china's claiming 2b) and finished around 6-8b. Aureon posted:The argument for large-scale benefices has yet to be fleshed out, please do so if you want to use it. Aureon posted:Oh, and please explain how "Relaxing nuclear regulations" is harder than "Convince the status quo to pay 3-5 times the going rate for electricity", as a political objective. I don't think you quite grasp the level of opposition that currently exists to nuclear construction in Australia. There is not a single major-to-semi-major party who support even the concept of relaxing nuclear regulation. Uranium Phoenix posted:stuff Don't get me wrong, I like the concept of thorium reactors and I certainly support research into them. The costs of operation aren't going to be anywhere near current uranium nuclear for quite a while. Office Thug, I understand that the labour costs are factored into the cost of the plant, but that was part of my argument for why China's nuclear costs are not comparable to the US or Australia. Also, the trouble with the modular reactors is they're quite a bit more expensive per megawatt than the large reactors, since you lose the efficiency of a large-scale reactor. I'd be interested in seeing a cost comparison, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 00:07
|
|
|
Additionally, the issue in Australia is not people's power bills going up. Renewable or nuclear, both will mean power bills going down. Renewable investment in the state of South Australia has dropped electricity bills state-wide. The issue, as it is presented to Australians, would be "your power bill is going down either way, just a lot less for renewables" and yes, in that case, I'm pretty confident Australia would go the way of avoiding nuclear plants. There is THAT much opposition to them here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 01:05
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:By the logic of saying "well thorium reactors could do X because it's been proposed in engineering sketches" I could claim that we're just around the corner from a high-performance solar reactor with 100% capacity factor .
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 05:27
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:the point is to show that, contrary to your claim, research in nuclear reactors can improve them a great deal in efficiency, cost, and safety. My claim concerned the currently active and licensed nuclear technology compared to the currently active solar technology and the relative short-term improvements available for both. Thorium reactors are in their relative infancy as a technology and to my knowledge the engineering involved in creating a cheap, large-scale thorium reactor is still in the theoretical stage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 05:38
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:My claim concerned the currently active and licensed nuclear technology compared to the currently active solar technology and the relative short-term improvements available for both. Thorium reactors are in their relative infancy as a technology and to my knowledge the engineering involved in creating a cheap, large-scale thorium reactor is still in the theoretical stage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 05:53
|
|
|
quote:The projections are laid out in the Sargent and Lundy's report. Your willingness to believe China's figures for their plants while seemingly treating the S&L report as incorrect or untrustworthy are astonishing. 2012 is now, and the price is not X. How can the projections be right? It doesn't really take a rocket scientist. And if putting a 'china is claiming' between parenthesis is 'willingness to believe figures'... quote:Even assuming the cost of solar remains at 2x the cost of nuclear (comparing the 900 mil cost of the 110 MW roughly 70% capacity factor Tonopah plant, which is not even the cheapest solar plant currently in construction) It's a "In construction estimate"? Compare it with "In construction estimates" of Nuclear, which run at 4-6b/GW. That means: 2-3 times, plus backup, plus grid. Also, handpicking the least expensive is data cherrypicking. If you do it for solar, do it for nuclear, too. And power bills will go down when the investments have been amortized, for both nuclear and solar, unless someone loving hurries up and uses all that sweet, sweet inflation-negative credit to build those plants, whatever type they are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 07:23
|
|
|
Aureon posted:The projections say that in year 2012 the price is X. Aureon posted:Sigh. And power bills are going down NOW in South Australia, compared to increasing in every other state which is not driving renewable investment. Telling people "relax nuclear regulations and in seven years you might start seeing a difference" compared to "look at this poo poo that's happening right now" is important in a national narrative, especially in a country as staunchly anti-nuclear as Australia.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 09:51
|
|
|
I really don't think Australia is as anti-nuclear as you think it is. Everyone I seem to talk to is either apathetic about the issue or supports nuclear power. Maybe I don't know enough rabid greenies. And no one is saying ignore renewables, just that a mixed solution is going to provide the most cost effective and reliable solution. Edit: This isn't an either / or position. This is a let's build everything possible that isn't fossil fuels as quickly as possible and we may, by the skin of our balls, avoid irreversible global catastrophe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 11:57
|
|
|
blacksun posted:I really don't think Australia is as anti-nuclear as you think it is. Everyone I seem to talk to is either apathetic about the issue or supports nuclear power. Maybe I don't know enough rabid greenies. People are only apathetic when they're not being built. The NIMBY bloc combined with the ATOMZ bloc are a powerful force. None of the major parties have nuclear options in their platforms, the only nod towards it being the Coalition allowing uranium mining as long as it's shipped off somewhere else, and that's meeting a ton of resistance from both sides as it is. Admittedly part of that might be just because Campbell Newman's a gigantic cockhole and everything he does is wrong by virtue of being something he did. The trouble is if you're talking about avoiding global catastrophe it kind of is an either/or question, in terms of getting enough plants built. 7 years until nuclear plants come online isn't really an option unless they're all being built at once, especially when you factor in convincing a bunch of ignorant antipodean hicks that it's a good idea first.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 12:12
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:Office Thug, I understand that the labour costs are factored into the cost of the plant, but that was part of my argument for why China's nuclear costs are not comparable to the US or Australia. There are some very comprehensive studies out there on the economic status of SMRs: http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2011/current-status-small-reactors.pdf It's true that the overnight cost of SMRs will be higher on a cost-per-capacity basis (p. 20). However, the cost-advantage of rapid deployment and licensing in over-regulated countries makes SMRs generally economical compared to building larger nuclear plants, except in pacific-asian countries where SMRs would only win out where large nuclear plants can't be installed (p. 22). Data for projected costs of other power plants was taken from http://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/ElecCost2010SUM.pdf. Note that the costs assume a carbon tax of 30 USD/ton CO2. Office Thug fucked around with this message at 15:42 on Nov 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 15:38
|
|
|
Office Thug posted:There are some very comprehensive studies out there on the economic status of SMRs: I've done a fair bit of work regarding SMRs. Summarizing things a bit too much: If they can get through licensing hurdles they'd be very desirable from a risk-reward standpoint. A loss in efficiency is more than made up for in the facts (1) We can actually cast the reactor pressure vessels in the US (we cannot currently cast full-sized pressure vessels any more, sold that stuff decades back). (2) Factory-construction reduces the single greatest cost-adder for plant construction: On site construction delays. (A fun example of this is near my hometown, where the Clinton Power Station began construction in 1977 and finished construction in 1987 thanks to dozens of delays and stop-works, almost all related to the construction crew being corrupt and inept.) (3) The capital required for these plants will be far more available than a large-scale (<$500M) (4) Lot fewer moving parts/materials than full-sized. SMRs are pretty neat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 21:56
|
|
|
A question I had is why is this thread so Australian-centric? For an "Energy Generation Megathread" there is way too much space being devoted to solar. I'm lukewarm about wind and even I would argue that it should be talked about more than solar. I get that it theoretically has a chance in Australia, but even that is a marginal sell that seems steeped in nuclear NIMBY more than engineering sense. Another question would concern how the terms "renewable" vs. "green" vs "CO-2 Neutral" vs. "zero GHG emissions" are utilized. I don't see why someone who claims to support 'green' causes or dislikes GHG emissions would promote any-generation bio-fuel, since it still requires the basic formula of FIRE + CARBON = CO2 Anyways. From an American perspective, solar and wind are nice theories, but they are basically not going to stand with the current baseloaders until a whole bunch of factors enter play. (1) Brand new HVDC wires leading to prime wind/solar spots. (2) Brand new grid monitoring and smart-loading that can efficiently utilize inconsistent sources. (3) Incredible new energy storage systems, which much be much cheaper, less toxic, and much higher-density than anything currently available. (4) Public Demand to justify (5) High subsidies I live in Illinois, about a stone's throw from three different large-scale LWRs. It's just a thing here. There are wind turbines located all over IL, partially for subsidies and partially for the quick access to major grid points (next to nuke plants). The wind in IL is pretty crappy though. Solar isn't an option. People tend not to care about the nuclear plants in a NIMBY sense beyond the occasional release of tritium (the doses found in the latest SCANDALOUS release was 1/20th the 'safe drinking water' level). I keep hoping that the coal plants in the area get replaced with more nuclear units, it's the most realistic and economical way to reduce GHG emissions from energy production. In terms of safety, I'm involved in the FLEX mitigation strategies for nuclear utilities (the industry response to Fukushima), and the level of safety we're planning for is almost comical. We're going beyond even the beyond-design-basis-emergency-event planning. It's at the "what if something worse than Fukushima happened here" stage, wherein we're projecting any number of crazy scenarios (e.g. Ice storm kills all off-site power, somehow chokes feedwater intake, while all diesel generators on site fail simultaneously, roads are blocked, and the plant needs to go from full-hot to full-safe-shutdown like it ain't no thing). Some plants can't do that yet, so hey still work to be done, but for our plants in central IL the hardest part of my job is trying to picture the emergency that would demand the level of planning I'm doing and not immediately come to the conclusion that our nuke plants would be a minor footnote compared to the rest of the damage that emergency would create. Like "meteor impact" or "New Madrid Fault Shits Itself and Splits the Country from Kansas to Ohio". Chernobyl isn't happening here, I hope nobody pushes that it might. I remember seeing it brought up a few times, and it made me kinda sad. Fukushima is itself a hard sell, considering there were dozens of points where even a single CORRECT human decision would have saved a large amount of the trouble. Since it was among the oldest plants, in one of the most dangerous regions in the world, ignoring good sense and safety recommendations (exposed diesel tanks, inadequate dike), I don't see this happening again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 22:31
|
|
|
Pander posted:Another question would concern how the terms "renewable" vs. "green" vs "CO-2 Neutral" vs. "zero GHG emissions" are utilized. I don't see why someone who claims to support 'green' causes or dislikes GHG emissions would promote any-generation bio-fuel, since it still requires the basic formula of FIRE + CARBON = CO2 Because depending on the biofuel being used it might be useful or viable. EG those cars that run on used cooking oil, that cooking oil is being produced anyway and often can't be reused for another purpose as easily as being used for fuel. Also the energy output of specifically grown biofuel can vary a lot - corn is TERRIBLE but switchgrass and sugarcane can be a lot better, sometimes even carbon neutral for the full cycle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 23:16
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Because depending on the biofuel being used it might be useful or viable. EG those cars that run on used cooking oil, that cooking oil is being produced anyway and often can't be reused for another purpose as easily as being used for fuel. Also the energy output of specifically grown biofuel can vary a lot - corn is TERRIBLE but switchgrass and sugarcane can be a lot better, sometimes even carbon neutral for the full cycle. It still takes away arable land, and the carbon-neutral level is typically on the order of 100 years to reach. You're still generating CO2 in the here and now, which to me is more important than potentially sequestering carbon later on. The benefit of 'growing things' could be mixed with 'not burning them' to produce excess carbon. Eh. If getting endless amounts of oil is the goal I'd rather see algae fuel utilized over switchgrass or rapeseed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 23:22
|
|
|
Pander posted:A question I had is why is this thread so Australian-centric? For an "Energy Generation Megathread" there is way too much space being devoted to solar. I'm lukewarm about wind and even I would argue that it should be talked about more than solar. I get that it theoretically has a chance in Australia, but even that is a marginal sell that seems steeped in nuclear NIMBY more than engineering sense. quote:Another question would concern how the terms "renewable" vs. "green" vs "CO-2 Neutral" vs. "zero GHG emissions" are utilized. I don't see why someone who claims to support 'green' causes or dislikes GHG emissions would promote any-generation bio-fuel, since it still requires the basic formula of FIRE + CARBON = CO2 quote:In terms of safety, I'm involved in the FLEX mitigation strategies for nuclear utilities (the industry response to Fukushima), and the level of safety we're planning for is almost comical. We're going beyond even the beyond-design-basis-emergency-event planning. It's at the "what if something worse than Fukushima happened here" stage, wherein we're projecting any number of crazy scenarios (e.g. Ice storm kills all off-site power, somehow chokes feedwater intake, while all diesel generators on site fail simultaneously, roads are blocked, and the plant needs to go from full-hot to full-safe-shutdown like it ain't no thing). Some plants can't do that yet, so hey still work to be done, but for our plants in central IL the hardest part of my job is trying to picture the emergency that would demand the level of planning I'm doing and not immediately come to the conclusion that our nuke plants would be a minor footnote compared to the rest of the damage that emergency would create. Like "meteor impact" or "New Madrid Fault Shits Itself and Splits the Country from Kansas to Ohio". quote:Chernobyl isn't happening here, I hope nobody pushes that it might. I remember seeing it brought up a few times, and it made me kinda sad. Fukushima is itself a hard sell, considering there were dozens of points where even a single CORRECT human decision would have saved a large amount of the trouble. Since it was among the oldest plants, in one of the most dangerous regions in the world, ignoring good sense and safety recommendations (exposed diesel tanks, inadequate dike), I don't see this happening again. Quantum Mechanic posted:The discrepancy in the projections is due to the various components of the cost savings that have not been investigated or implemented. Economic projections aren't like SimCity tech where you get fusion power in 2050, they're based on a set of assumptions of economic input which didn't happen over the assumed timeline. Those costs are essentially waiting to happen. What is wrong with me saying that those projections were wrong and that you can't use the 2014 value if the 2012 is off by three digits%? The Tonopah plant does not factor in backup/grid, and overbuilding due to correlation in downtime. Also, please link us a reliable source on its costs, because i cannot seem to find any. "So close to completed" is still not valid, because it -just seems- that every power plant in history (ESPECIALLY solar) has a much higher uptime on paper than in reality. I apologize for my missed calculations on 5-times, it's just 2-3 times (depending on data used for nuclear, and standing on your cost statements for the Toopah) Also, nuclear has basically a "Stop being retarded to halve the cost" political button, that is not available to any other generation method. That's pretty much the point of why we're arguing for nuclear with such insistence. I'm still awaiting that link on why large-scale CSTs would be relevantly more efficient than 100MW plants, by the way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 23:53
|
|
|
The difficulty with regulation isn't related to the construction of the plant as much as it is the risk that the whole plan could be halted at any number of points by outside groups at a number of times during the planning and construction. Why pour millions, possibly even tens or hundreds, into a plant that could be vetoed at a nearby town hall roused by an anti-nuke group? The sheer risk that investment creates makes getting a decent loan together to construct a new nuke plant unfeasible for all but the biggest boys in the most pro-nuke states/areas. For example, a nuke company could investigate environmental impact, find no problems with the area. They could have this seconded by independent review board. They could start construction. And then an environmental group claims there's an endangered frog that may lay eggs in the area. Either goodbye plant or hello insane cost run-up, whether the claim is true or not. I really love the irony of the situation. Nuclear power is too risky in America for reasons entirely unrelated to their operation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 02:15
|
|
|
Aureon posted:I'm still awaiting that link on why large-scale CSTs would be relevantly more efficient than 100MW plants, by the way. This reminds me of a past class of mine. The professor (nuclear engineering prof) puts the presentations online. Knock yourselves out. https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mragheb/www/NPRE%20498ES%20Energy%20Storage%20Systems/index.htm I think his analysis is almost universally too sunny, and it doesn't get into money enough, but it's informative.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 02:39
|
|
|
Aureon posted:The Tonopah plant does not factor in backup/grid, and overbuilding due to correlation in downtime. Also, please link us a reliable source on its costs, because i cannot seem to find any. Also the cost of the plant doesn't need to include backup, since the BZE plan includes backup as a separate cost to the installation of the plants. Aureon posted:"So close to completed" is still not valid, because it -just seems- that every power plant in history (ESPECIALLY solar) has a much higher uptime on paper than in reality. Aureon posted:Also, nuclear has basically a "Stop being retarded to halve the cost" political button, that is not available to any other generation method. That's pretty much the point of why we're arguing for nuclear with such insistence. Aureon posted:I'm still awaiting that link on why large-scale CSTs would be relevantly more efficient than 100MW plants, by the way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 03:37
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:Most of the links I can find are for its loan guarantee, and the costs I see are "around a billion." I think the best number given was ~900 million, but I used a billion to be safe. quote:It's literally already producing electricity. It's just not open for commercial use until early next year. quote:The point I've been making is that "stop being retarded to halve the cost" button isn't feasible in Australia. In terms of lobbying, public awareness campaigns and any efforts to slowly move public perception you're probably literally talking billions of dollars and over a decade, during which we'll still be shovelling coal into power stations. Thing is, it needs to be a worldwide movement to cut down emissions. Just Australia going that way won't be nearly enough. Worldwide, nuclear is the only available solution. Since we can do that worldwide, why not Australia too? This, of course, going with a thinking path that excludes the cases in which we actually fail to avoid overproducing CO2, and everyone dies. quote:The S&L report contains information about the economies of scale, roughly 30-35%. Also, the reason why the S&L report is still relevant is because the BZE plan assumes an accelerated timeline of solar investment. The S&L report assumed a particular rate of investment and development, BZE assumes a higher one because the plan is predicated on the WHOLE plan being adopted. As it is we're seeing some popular support (Port Augusta in South Australia are investigating CST as a replacement for its coal fired plants that are being decommissioned instead of gas plants.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 03:59
|
|
|
Pander posted:It still takes away arable land, and the carbon-neutral level is typically on the order of 100 years to reach. You're still generating CO2 in the here and now, which to me is more important than potentially sequestering carbon later on. The benefit of 'growing things' could be mixed with 'not burning them' to produce excess carbon. Switchgrass doesn't really take away much arable land, and it's certainly a much better energy ROI (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=grass-makes-better-ethanol-than-corn) The crazy thing about ethanol is that nearly any waste product with sugar can be fermented into fuel-grade ethanol. Check out work by David Blume. Given how much waste exists in American manufacturing and home life, there's a huge potential.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 04:01
|
|
|
Flaky posted:http://www.themonthly.com.au/clean-energy-future-gilding-parkinson-sandiford-6907 I'm just going to go back and quote this again, because it makes some interesting claims. Things like the price of solar PV has decreased 75% in 2010-11 and will drop a further 30% in 2011-2012. Things like renewables generated 26% percent of power in Germany in the first 9 months of 2012, and cut a huge hole out of the profits of the traditional energy generation sectors. Stuff like the QLD state owned generator in Australia closed half of it's capacity this year because it simply wasn't needed, indeed the excess power in the grid meant it could have been removed altogether. Things like new solar PV under development at Melbourne Uni could provide 25GWH capacity in 10 years for only $25 million (that's the entire current demand of Australia). Australia has the lowest wholesale electricity price it has ever had, but the retail price is the highest ever. A sizeable chunk of this has been possible due to efficiencies implemented to reduce demand. Essentially most of the current historically high costs in power is due to new investment in unnecessary infrastructure replacement, poor regulatory practices by government and corporate greed. Until someone addresses these issues in some detail I see no reason to dismiss these claims out of hand and therefore for continued debate about nuclear generation in this thread. Flaky fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Nov 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 04:15
|
|
|
ThePeteEffect posted:Switchgrass doesn't really take away much arable land, and it's certainly a much better energy ROI (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=grass-makes-better-ethanol-than-corn) I think everyone's allowed a bit of an unrealistic dream on certain issues, and mine is hydrogen fuel cell cars everywhere. I don't want to see renewable ethanol, I want to see an end to CO2 emissions across all major energy production mediums. Is it even cost-effective at this juncture? Or does it also require massive subsidies? I've just hated the loving massive subsidies thrown at that heavy-polluting poo poo. My loving university included loving biofuels as part of its "climate action plan" ("20 by 20" and "25 by 25"). The switchgrass/biofuel part was expected to reach carbon neutrality after something hilarious like 100 years of growing trees to offset all the burning. I don't want to see "carbon neutrality", I consider that to be disingenuous environmentalism. I want zero loving emissions, nothing going into the air at all because nothing is being burned. No "clean coal", no "well it's not QUITE so bad" natural gas. I guess I'm special like that 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 04:20
|
|
|
http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/10/24/nuclear-power-costs-are-going-up-and-up-minister-not-down/
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 04:21
|
|
|
Flaky posted:I'm just going to go back and quote this again, because it makes some interesting claims. Things like the price of solar PV has decreased 75% in 2010-11 and will drop a further 30% in 2011-2012. Things like renewables generated 26% percent of power in Germany in the first 9 months of 2012, and cut a huge hole out of the profits of the traditional energy generation sectors. Stuff like the QLD state owned generator in Australia closed half of it's capacity this year because it simply wasn't needed, indeed the excess power in the grid meant it could have been removed altogether. Things like new solar PV under development at Melbourne Uni could provide 25GWH capacity in 10 years for only $25 million (that's the entire current demand of Australia). A sizeable chunk of this has been possible due to efficiencies implemented to reduce demand. Essentially most of the current historically high costs in power is due to new investment in unnecessary infrastructure replacement, poor regulatory practices by government and corporate greed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 04:23
|
|
|
Pander posted:What does that last sentence mean? It means I haven't seen anything like these claims from the nuclear proponents, so maybe they should take some time to investigate the claims of their competitors.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 04:26
|
|
|
Frogmanv2 posted:http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/10/24/nuclear-power-costs-are-going-up-and-up-minister-not-down/ Don't just driveby links. Give a description or something. I couldn't watch that video you linked to Flaky, I just don't have the patience/time for it, nor can I really understand the accents too well. Were those things you said the major points? It stands to reason that Germany traditional power utilities will get less money. Multiple nuke plants have been forcibly shut down, and the fact renewables will always get the right-of-way would have a double effect of reducing typical baseload and increasing the amount of peak-time electricity required during periods of low renewable energy production. Should they be making MORE money since Germany enacted such policy changes? It'd be equivalent to cutting all tax credits and subsidies to wind power in the US and being surprised that nobody builds new ones. Which happened. Also I'm not arguing that nuke plants should be built in Australia, so I don't get the insane focus on that one locale.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 04:31
|
|
|
Pander posted:Also I'm not arguing that nuke plants should be built in Australia, so I don't get the insane focus on that one locale. It's not insane to use Australia as an example more so than it is to use Germany. The impression I get is that generalisations about the weather in one part of the world versus the other are essentially meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 04:37
|
|
|
I still don't get your point Flaky. Could you make it in a bullet-point format and describe the points as pro or anti something or other? Seriously.Flaky posted:Things like new solar PV under development at Melbourne Uni could provide 25GWH capacity in 10 years for only $25 million (that's the entire current demand of Australia). Australia has the lowest wholesale electricity price it has ever had, but the retail price is the highest ever. A sizeable chunk of this has been possible due to efficiencies implemented to reduce demand Where does 25GWH over 10 years factor in? That's like peanuts, nowhere near the full demand. If it's 25GWe I'd need a forklift to pick my jaw up off the floor. I just think your post is a mishmash of factoids that don't really describe anything in clear terms or sound realistic if they do mean what I think they're trying to mean.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 04:39
|
|
|
Pander posted:I still don't get your point Flaky. Could you make it in a bullet-point format and describe the points as pro or anti something or other? Seriously. I'll quote directly from the video. 20.00 - 20:35 "The Melbourne University group making this stuff [holding up product] wants to be able to invest in a $25 million printing plant. With that, their ambition is to print 25GW of capacity over 10 years. 25GW is the demand in Australia. For $25 million." This is the guy: http://www.findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/display/person16035 I can't really pretend to know how to articulate the claims made in the video other than to encourage you to watch it, because they are very broad as befits the interview format in which they are presented. Flaky fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Nov 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 04:51
|
|
|
25 gigawatt is the demand in Australia for what? When? Please clarify.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 04:55
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:25 gigawatt is the demand in Australia for what? When? Please clarify. The professor doesn't specify. It looks like he was referring to Australia's solar power target by 2020.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 05:07
|
|
|
blacksun posted:Projected cost of solar thermal plants vs real world figures, such as those for the plant in Spain (which were marginally higher per GW than those in the BZE plan). I'll quote from the plan: (page 61 of the report, page 83 of the PDF) "The total capital cost for the CST system is $AU174 billion for on-grid CST (42,460 MW net) plus $AU15.1Bn for 4,475 MW of off-grid CST(see appendices 2 and 3 for calculations). This is divided into two phases. The first 8,700 MW to be built will be more expensive than end-of-cost-curve solar 220 MW plants. • The first 1,000 MW is priced at similar price to Solar Reserve’s existing Crescent dunes Tonopah project — $AU10.5 million per MW. • The next 1,600 MW is priced slightly cheaper at $AU9.0 million per MW. • The next 2,400 MW is priced at Sargent & Lundy’s conservative mid-term estimate for the solar 100 module which is $aU6.5 million per MW. • The next 3,700 MW is priced at Sargent & Lundy solar 200 module price of $AU5.3 million per MW The total cost for the first 8,700 MW of CsT with storage at 72% capacity factor is $Au60 billion. Aircooling adjustment gives this a final net output of 8,587 MW. If installed across the 12 sites, this would be 725 MW (715 MW net aircooled) once 725 MW is installed at each site, the remaining capacity will be built as 220 (217 MW) modules — 13 modules per site. This will result in 3,585 MW of CST capacity per site, that is, 3,537 MW minus aircooling. Across all twelve sites, there will be a total of 43,020 MW CST, 42,460 MW with aircooling. The capital cost data for the solar 220 plant(US$499.9Million) from the Sargent and Lundy report was used as the basis for costing the proposal. This figure was adjusted for inflation and converted to australian dollars with an assumed foreign exchange rate of $aU1 = $Us0.85. The extra capital cost of dry air-cooling has been calculated from data published by NREL separately. dry air-cooling does cost slightly more in capital expenditure, and lowers the efficiency of the steam cycle, but delivers the benefit of requiring only 10-12% of the water of a conventionally wet-cooled plant. The larger the air-cooling capacity, the better the efficiency of the steam cycle. Thus, there is a cost trade-off between the extra capital cost versus the returns made from higher efficiency. Kelly 200677 determined the optimum air-cooling size based on this trade-off, delivering the lowest Levelised Electricity Cost (LEC). The sizing of the air cooling was based on Kelly’s model. Based on these adjustments, the cost for one solar 220 CST plant, (217 MW aircooled), is $AU739 Million. 156 solar 220 (217 MW) modules, will cost $Au115 billion. 4,475 MW of CsT for off-grid installations have been costed at the same price as end-of-cost-curve solar 220, $aU3.41 Million/MW — $Au15.2billion. Therefore the total cost to supply 60% of Australia’s projected 2020 demand under the ZCA2020 plan would be $Au190 billion. That doesn't sound too off the mark for me. It took me a few goes to understand it, but the way they do it is by building small and expensive plants at each site to get the site activated and up and running, and then start building the cheaper 220 MW plants. However, these things are obviously hard to predict, and who knows what could happen when trying to roll out a project of this scale. It could be less, or it could be more. They have deliberately over estimated in their projections - just look at the exchange rate, $AU1 = $US0.85, when now it's at $AU1 = $US1.04 If it does cost twice as much, I personally would still vote for it. 3% of GDP vs 6% of GDP is not a deal breaker for me. I don't expect everyone to feel the same of course, and it does change the discussion somewhat, but it doesn't make it out of reach. It is still very achievable. If we look at what we are able to accomplish in war time, we can definitely do this. It depends on how seriously we want to take it. quote:Estimates of availability of wind power generating capacity. Specifically how BZE have used our current generation capacity per turbine and multiplied it to get their figures needed to meet their 40% generation goal. This completely ignores the fact that these turbines already occupy the best positions and further wind turbines will be less economically viable as each will produce less and potentially cost more (depending on location). QM covered this well - Australia has no where near enoug installed capacity to have covered 'all the best spots'. quote:This interrelates to the problems other posters have mentioned above, like how BZE and proponents of 100% renewables in this thread have used very generous and optimistic assumptions relating to a downward pressure on costs due to mass production for renewables, but refuse to do the same for nuclear power. Well they are quite different beasts. I'll admit that if we order 20 nuclear plants the price will be different to if we order one, but probably not to the same extent that it is with CST. Much of the cost of nuclear is to do with safety regulation, and that doens't get cheaper the more you do. You could argue it's over regulated and we can ease some of the restrictions and make them cheaper, of course, and there may be a case for that. Construction wise though, I think the projected downward pressure from mass production for renewables is about right. But sure, I don't know much about the downward pressure for nuclear, so maybe it would be the comparable. If so, that's good news. quote:The applicability of similar plans to any other nation on the planet considering that the plan has modeled for Australia, which outside of the Sahara, is the best location in the world for solar thermal. Not really a valid criticism since all it ever claimed to talk about was Australia. If we are the best location in the world for CST though then we should be building the poo poo out of it. Having said that, part of the point of the plan is to inspire other countries to do similar things. Not the exact same of course, but if we have a plan that other countries can point to and say 'hey we should do one of those for our country', that's a good thing. quote:The different standards regarding how long different power sources have to be modeled for. Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't BZE only done two years modelling for their plan? Shouldn't a plan for the future energy infrastructure be modeled for a significantly longer time? For instance, if we see a rise in global temperature leading to higher precipitation levels and more cloud cover, lower energy intakes from solar thermal will be a significant problem. Even aside from global warming, significant random occurrences of cloud cover combine with low wind could be disasterous. Two years is completely insufficient. Nah, again, QM covered this quite well, but they have taken extensive meteorological data. Let's talk costs. There's been a few prices floating around for cost per GW for a nuclear plant. Traditionally they've been around $6-8 billion per GW, that could come down to $4-6 billion. China's claiming $2 billion. Let's allow for economies of scale and call it $4 billion per GW. For CST, we've got them available for $729 million for 220 MW. Not even allowing for economies of scale, that's roughly $3.3 billion per GW. So by those numbers, CST is actually cheaper, but we can call them comparable. Even if CST turned out to be twice as expensive as the estimate, at $6.6 billion per GW, that's still only slightly more expensive than the most optimistic nuclear projections, and cheaper than more reasonable estimates. At the end of the day, none of this has been done before and so forecasting it all is problematic. I think we're mostly in agreement, that we need to be investigating and building anything that is Not Coal (Or Gas) as quickly as possible, and we're bickering over numbers. It's good to thrash out the different quotes gathered from all over the shop of course, but lets' try and remember we're all on basically the same side. Ultimately, we need to think about the type of future we WANT to create. If we want to dig up uranium and burn it, then we can certainly accomplish that. And we can do it safely and cheaply. That's fine. But if we want to get energy from the sky, without needing to continually dig up fuel, we can do that too. And we can do it safely and cheaply. And we can do it today. If everyone sits on their hands and says 'oh, renewables aren't reliable, it's not been done', then it'll stay that way. But JFK didn't stand up and say 'well folks, no one's been to the moon before, so probably best not to try'. He said 'we're just going to loving do it.' And it worked. We can loving do it. We've got smart people around the globe working on this. The BZE report is one of the first of its kind, and if you looked at some of the first aeroplane designs, you'd never expect aviation to be the industry it is now. I posted it here to get a thorough critique, and I'm happy with how it's gone so far. It's not meant to be a final version to be rolled out now, it needs people like us to go over it and pore through the details and identify weak points so that we can improve it. Pander posted:A question I had is why is this thread so Australian-centric? For an "Energy Generation Megathread" there is way too much space being devoted to solar. I'm lukewarm about wind and even I would argue that it should be talked about more than solar. I get that it theoretically has a chance in Australia, but even that is a marginal sell that seems steeped in nuclear NIMBY more than engineering sense. This is a good point. As someone said, I'm Australian, and posted the BZE plan 'to start things off'. You're absolutely right though, and I deliberately called it the Energy Generation Thread to discuss all forms of it, and I'd really like to see more than back and forthing between solar and nuclear. That's why I posted the cast of charecters in the OP, kind of hoping that collectively we'd be able to fill in the gaps and get a decent spread sheet going with all the data for different technologies. It would also make for a better thread. I want to hear about how wind has gone in Texas, I want to hear about facebook using solar powered servers, I want to hear about transparent solar PV, and algae based oils (I checked out an algae-producing unit the other day, it's an astonishly versatile resource). I want to hear about how rolling out renewable has made electricity prices more or les expensive, in the short or long term. quote:Another question would concern how the terms "renewable" vs. "green" vs "CO-2 Neutral" vs. "zero GHG emissions" are utilized. I don't see why someone who claims to support 'green' causes or dislikes GHG emissions would promote any-generation bio-fuel, since it still requires the basic formula of FIRE + CARBON = CO2 Bio fuels are considered carbon neutral because their emissions are on a time scale short enough to be included in the natural carbon cycle. i.e: Plant decomposes in 10 years, releases its carbon =(is basically the same as)= Plant burns in 10 minutes, releases its carbon. Which is not the case for fossil fuels. I think anyway, that's my understanding of it. I only ever talk about bio fuels in terms of using waste products, and would never advocate growing crops specifically for fuel, for all the reasons already mentioned. Specifically competing with food crops, and the resources needed to grow them. flaky posted:I'm just going to go back and quote this again, because it makes some interesting claims. Things like the price of solar PV has decreased 75% in 2010-11 and will drop a further 30% in 2011-2012. Things like renewables generated 26% percent of power in Germany in the first 9 months of 2012, and cut a huge hole out of the profits of the traditional energy generation sectors. Stuff like the QLD state owned generator in Australia closed half of it's capacity this year because it simply wasn't needed, indeed the excess power in the grid meant it could have been removed altogether. Things like new solar PV under development at Melbourne Uni could provide 25GWH capacity in 10 years for only $25 million (that's the entire current demand of Australia). Australia has the lowest wholesale electricity price it has ever had, but the retail price is the highest ever. A sizeable chunk of this has been possible due to efficiencies implemented to reduce demand. Essentially most of the current historically high costs in power is due to new investment in unnecessary infrastructure replacement, poor regulatory practices by government and corporate greed. Thanks for reposting that video, I'm making my way through it now, and if work stays this way I should be able to finish it this afternoon. Aureon posted:Because the OP is australian and really sold on that BZE plan. It's right now the only large-scale plan of solar, so it's not a bad discussion, and its proponents have already admitted that it would be completely unfeasible anywhere outside Australia or Sahara. It's completely unfeasible inasmuch as it's drawn on a map of Australia, so no, the plan as it is wouldn't work in another country. That is not to say that other countries do not have the potential to be able to be able to greatly increase their renewable output, and if Australia starts developing some of the ideas in the plan then it will be even easier for everyone else. The point is more to start the conversation and stimulate interest, not to say 'every country should switch to a 60% solar thermal / 40% wind power mix.' Aaaaaand that's enough for now, sorry for the mega post.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 05:26
|
|
|
Australia's energy consumption in 2009 was 250 In other words, I'm not going to put much credence into that guy's interview. If he's presenting realistic, factual numbers then there's definitely already a paper out there showing the actual numbers, and I'd rather see that. e: ^^^ For us Americans, there was a long set of articles in Scientific American some years back describing how the US could convert to 90% solar power by 2050. It was an expensive-as-gently caress plan and would also require the government to subsidize an overhaul of the US electrical grid (which we should do anyway), but it was completely feasible. That said, it didn't sound like a plan that anyone was seriously going to put into place, and I think that Germany and Australia are the only two big countries that have serious plans for national solar power. e2: Whoops, it was 250 TWh, not 250 GWh. 25 GW of peak power wouldn't come anywhere close to meeting 250 TWh of electricity production. QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Nov 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 07:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:36 |
|
|
After reviewing the thread (ok, browsing the first 10 pages and the initial post) a few insights regarding energy generation that perhaps are not being abstracted into the debate on net $/MMBTU gross capital NPV or sustainability scenario studies. 1. Your solar costs are a bit out of wack. To properly get to a correct cost of capital for Solar vs. other alternative sources you will need to add back in the tax incentives given to upstream solar companies. With the current 35% grandfathering for First Solar and the ilk, you are getting very out of line numbers on a on-grid basis. 2. In addition when factoring in the gross capital outlay for projects, often the numbers being thrown around for thermal and alternative energy plants are missing the oft-overlooked CEE, cleanup and restoration cost associated with decommissioning. To properly calculate your investment and sustainability ratios, you will need to adjust for this. 3. While the discussion has far moved beyond oil sands, and bitumen/Kerogen II deposits it would be worth noting the difference in mine and SAGD/in-situ recovery methods. 4. While the post speaks of shale gas, a distinction should be made between shale gas, tight gas (gas trapped in a overpressured sandstone) and coal seam gas. 2 of those do not require fracture stimulation. 4a. A serious discussion of economic petrochemical substitutes should address Carbonates and Sub-salt oil exploration. Carry on. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 09:03
|
|