The Energy Generation Megathread: Heated Exchanges

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Energy Generation Megathread: Heated Exchanges

Pander: Oct 9, 2007; Fear is the glue that holds society together. It's what makes people suppress their worst impulses. Fear is power.

And at the end of fear, oblivion.

In 2011, the "average" nuclear power plant in the United States generated about 12.2 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh). There were 65 nuclear power plants with 104 operating nuclear reactors that generated a total of 790 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh), or slightly more than 19% of the nation's electricity.

Germany 2011 total solar output: ~19 billion kilowatt-hours. 2012 was about 28 billion.

So on one day, Germany's solar power could match the output of about 20 nuclear plants, yes. But nuclear runs at a high capacity factor, running almost all the time. Solar can't produce much on cloudy days, or at high latitudes in winter. So what it manages to do on a record day is fantastic, but for the year the entire solar capacity in 2011 could have been made up by 2 nuclear reactors. In 2012, it required 3.

# ? Dec 13, 2013 01:47

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 10, 2024 17:51

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Nevvy Z posted:

Don't they have to buy power from France most of the time?

Germany exports electricity and imports energy.

# ? Dec 13, 2013 01:48

Bucky Fullminster: Apr 13, 2007

Trabisnikof posted:

Its still incredibly silly to treat coal and gas as equivalent in any meaning way except they both emit carbon. Their production impacts are vastly different, their interface to the grid is different (including their emissions per kw/h), secondary markets effecting price are different, and most importantly their regional distribution is vastly different for the two fuels.

Maybe its only as bad as saying renewables/hydro, but its still not a helpful simplification. Especially when energy is so geographically dependent, the differences between coal and gas for specific counties can be a huge deal.

They're hydrocarbons. They both require the extraction and combustion of finite fossil fuels.

They're different, sure. As you say, the distribution, technology, emissions, impacts, price, all that. But they're not different in the same way that "Solar/Nuclear" are different.

CommieGIR posted:

Makes sense, but comparing it to a nuclear plant doesn't really make sense to me.

Sure it does. Why not? They produce THIS much power, which is the same as THIS many nuclear plants. I mean they could have said coal plants as well (which are also usually around ~ 1 GW), but what's the problem? Having a comparison like that helps, a lot of people would have no idea what 22 GW is.

# ? Dec 13, 2013 02:22

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

Trabisnikof posted:

Germany exports electricity and imports energy.

Yeah, Germany is the best example for why nameplate capacity for solar (or wind) is just a bullet point for a presentation. If it's sunny and windy simultaneously, Germany exports electricity because production > use (even including storage by water pumping etc) - except that happens like 0.5% of the time and we have to pay surrounding countries money to take in that electricity. Turns out that unpredictably getting a big rear end electricity surge that could (and sometimes does) mess with equipment isn't something other countries' energy grid operators want to deal with.

# ? Dec 13, 2013 02:23

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

blowfish posted:

Yeah, Germany is the best example for why nameplate capacity for solar (or wind) is just a bullet point for a presentation. If it's sunny and windy simultaneously, Germany exports electricity because production > use (even including storage by water pumping etc) - except that happens like 0.5% of the time and we have to pay surrounding countries money to take in that electricity. Turns out that unpredictably getting a big rear end electricity surge that could (and sometimes does) mess with equipment isn't something other countries' energy grid operators want to deal with.

Uh, no...Germany gets paid for the electricity it exports. It actually gets paid a lot because it exports during peak hours and imports during off-peak hours (exporting further west and importing from the east too further helps the cost). Germany exports more electricity than any other country in the world.

It's also a good example of how the grid is responding to these trends and towards making changes that will involve more flexible energy sources. You'd be surprised how happy grid operators are to have access to renewables, allowing them to meet their carbon goals. Especially solar, which can follow peak pretty closely if you do it correctly. Every peaker plant kept offline is a win for utilities and the environment.

# ? Dec 13, 2013 02:32

boberteatskitten: Jan 30, 2013; Do not put rocks in brain.

hobbesmaster posted:

Off the topic of nuclear and renewables, is there a more up to date history of the oil industry than "The Seven Sisters" or is that still required reading?

Dan Yergin's stuff (The Prize, which is the breakout one, and The Quest, which is a more recent history that addresses some of the environmental issues of our age (tm) a bit more) is great. There's a PBS? i think? miniseries of The Prize as well that is pretty epic.

# ? Dec 13, 2013 02:46

JollyPubJerk: Nov 10, 2009; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

The miniseries (which is on Youtube) doesn't do the book justice. It's a good narrative, read it.

# ? Dec 13, 2013 02:55

Fats: Oct 14, 2006; What I cannot create, I do not understand; Fun Shoe

Fray posted:

I would add that there's actually a lot of prior experience from Hanford and Savannah River in the US. We've had the technology for solidifying liquid waste and separating fission products from it on a mass scale at our plutonium plants for decades, and their waste was a lot worse than what's at Fukushima. And if the vitrification plant being built at Hanford works out, that'll be another big technology that could be applied to it.

I hope they're more successful than we've been at Hanford. It's depressing to read the most recent groundwater report, and then go back 20 years and realize that there's been little to no improvement.

# ? Dec 13, 2013 10:14

Phanatic: Mar 13, 2007; Please don't forget that I am an extremely racist idiot who also has terrible opinions about the Culture series.

Pander posted:

So on one day, Germany's solar power could match the output of about 20 nuclear plants, yes. But nuclear runs at a high capacity factor, running almost all the time. Solar can't produce much on cloudy days, or at high latitudes in winter. So what it manages to do on a record day is fantastic, but for the year the entire solar capacity in 2011 could have been made up by 2 nuclear reactors. In 2012, it required 3.

And the costs for them to be able to do that are extreme. Germany doesn't have much in the way of natural gas, so to do load-following as the solar output waxes and wanes they use coal. Lots of cruddy brown lignite. And wood. They're actually burning wood to generate electricity: 38% of their "renewable" energy comes from chopping down trees and burning them like it was the 1300s.The German love for solar is having awful environmental and economic consequences and is a really dumb and unsustainable idea, mostly because it's about the worst place you can imagine to install solar. What it has actually done is to replace a lot of nuclear power with coal power which is literally the worst thing possible.

This is a great, well-footnoted article on just how mind bogglingly bad Germany's solar scheme is:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/10/04/should-other-nations-follow-germanys-lead-on-promoting-solar-power/

Phanatic fucked around with this message at 14:25 on Dec 13, 2013

# ? Dec 13, 2013 11:03

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Phanatic posted:

And the costs for them to be able to do that are extreme. Germany doesn't have much in the way of natural gas, so to do load-following as the solar output waxes and wanes they use coal. Lots of cruddy brown lignite. And wood. They're actually burning wood to generate electricity: 38% of their "renewable" energy comes from chopping down trees and burning them like it was the 1300s.The German love for solar is having awful environmental and economic consequences and is a really dumb and unsustainable idea, mostly because it's about the worst place you can imagine to install solar. What it has actually done is to replace a lot of nuclear power with coal power which is literally the worst thing possible.

This is a great, well-footnoted article on just how mind bogglingly bad Germany's solar scheme is:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/10/04/should-other-nations-follow-germanys-lead-on-promoting-solar-power/

I like how that article is by a sub-sea hydrolics engineer who lives in Houston rather than someone with knowledge about the German energy economy.

The author's self-described expertise is: "I work in the oil industry as an engineer for deepwater well control equipment. My primary job scope is directing the installation and operation of seafloor equipment designed to make sure subsea oil wells can be safely drilled and completed". So I'm sure he's an expert on the nuances of energy economics in Europe.

Also German still exports more renewables than imports coal, so your peak-following argument is kinda moot.

Edit: Here's a more in-depth article about renewable policy in Germany: http://blog.ucsusa.org/on-the-road-to-clean-energy-in-germany-lessons-for-the-united-states-part-1

Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 11:42 on Dec 13, 2013

# ? Dec 13, 2013 11:37

America Inc.: Nov 22, 2013; I plan to live forever, of course, but barring that I'd settle for a couple thousand years. Even 500 would be pretty nice.

Trabisnikof posted:

I like how that article is by a sub-sea hydrolics engineer who lives in Houston rather than someone with knowledge about the German energy economy.

The author's self-described expertise is: "I work in the oil industry as an engineer for deepwater well control equipment. My primary job scope is directing the installation and operation of seafloor equipment designed to make sure subsea oil wells can be safely drilled and completed". So I'm sure he's an expert on the nuances of energy economics in Europe.

So you're just going to handwave away all his sources too? Spiegel doesn't know schei�e about German energy either? The article you cite can be handwaved away on your logic as biased (it's sponsored by Green affliates) and it also treats forests as a renewable energy source. Most importantly, it fails to address any of the points raised in the Forbes article.

America Inc. fucked around with this message at 12:59 on Dec 13, 2013

# ? Dec 13, 2013 12:55

Niedar: Apr 21, 2010

Pander posted:

In 2011, the "average" nuclear power plant in the United States generated about 12.2 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh). There were 65 nuclear power plants with 104 operating nuclear reactors that generated a total of 790 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh), or slightly more than 19% of the nation's electricity.

Germany 2011 total solar output: ~19 billion kilowatt-hours. 2012 was about 28 billion.

So on one day, Germany's solar power could match the output of about 20 nuclear plants, yes. But nuclear runs at a high capacity factor, running almost all the time. Solar can't produce much on cloudy days, or at high latitudes in winter. So what it manages to do on a record day is fantastic, but for the year the entire solar capacity in 2011 could have been made up by 2 nuclear reactors. In 2012, it required 3.

I don't even think its accurate to say on one day it matched the output of 20 nukes because it was probably only at max power for a short amount of time, maybe a couple hours and certainly was not producing anything at night while those nuclear plants are producing max power for 24 hours.

# ? Dec 13, 2013 14:00

GulMadred: Oct 20, 2005; I don't understand how you can be so mistaken.

Trabisnikof posted:

Also German still exports more renewables than imports coal

I don't think that the distinction between coal imports and domestic production is especially important; Germany's domestic production of lignite is substantial and it satisfies over 80% of the tonnage needed by its coal-fired plants.

The imported coal is of a higher grade (and thus higher energy content) than the locally-mined stuff (which is almost entirely lignite). If you look at actual electricity output (PDF, page 8), imported coal produced about (106 TWh * 62.6% = 66.36 TWh) compared to 143 TWh for domestic coal (because lignite isn't a great fuel).

_{Note: I'm using 2011 IEA numbers to determine the domestic/import mix for German coal, and splicing that value into the 2012 energy mix statistics. Lignite mining in Germany has increased since 2011, but imports have increased also (sources disagree on the magnitude, due to different reporting rules for intra-EU trade versus global trade). In any case, the 2011-2012 change is not large enough to seriously alter the conclusion.}

Net German electricity exports in 2012 were 22.5 TWh. If we use the gross export number from the CIA world factbook (66.81 TWh), we need to assume that Germany's exports are more than 99.3% renewable in order to satisfy your claim. The actual data (as examined by Deutsche Umwelthilfe) shows that periods of export (i.e. mid-day peak) coincide with substantial coal-burning. To summarize the report: Germany's electricity export is made possible by the fact that it burns more coal than it actually needs to. The report also shows that output of renewable power has declined from 2012 to 2013, while output of coal-fired power has increased in the same period. And, simultaneous with those changes, electricty exports have grown. If German electricity exports truly represented a renewable surplus being shared with the region, then we should expect them to decline as renewable production declines.

tl;dr Your assertion is valid only under an implausibly charitable interpretation of the available data. You should probably double-check your source.

# ? Dec 13, 2013 14:23

Phanatic: Mar 13, 2007; Please don't forget that I am an extremely racist idiot who also has terrible opinions about the Culture series.

Trabisnikof posted:

I like how that article is by a sub-sea hydrolics engineer who lives in Houston rather than someone with knowledge about the German energy economy.

I like how you engage in poisoning the well to dismiss out of hand all 29 sources he cites to support his claim, including Spiegel and Reuters.

Trabisnikof posted:

Uh, no...Germany gets paid for the electricity it exports. It actually gets paid a lot because it exports during peak hours and imports during off-peak hours (exporting further west and importing from the east too further helps the cost). Germany exports more electricity than any other country in the world.

I like how you say that as if it's inherently a good thing. It's not. Germany "gets paid" for exporting electricity, but it doesn't *profit* from it, because what it gets paid for exporting it is less than the cost of generation. They're effectively paying other countries to use excess solar power they generate, which is wasteful and inefficient and discourages those other countries from building their own cleaner power sources:

quote:

On sunny summer afternoons, Germany actually exports power at a loss compared to generation costs: EUR 0.056/kWh average electricity export sale price in 2012, [18] vs EUR 0.165/kWh average lifetime cost for all German solar installed from 2000 to 2011. [14] (This is optimistically assuming a 40 year system life and 10% capacity factor � reality is probably over EUR 0.20/kWh.) German utilities often have to pay heavy industry and neighboring countries to burn unnecessary power. On sunny summer days, businesses are firing up empty kilns and furnaces, and are getting paid to throw energy away.

You can argue that this excess summer solar generation is free, but it�s not � not only is this peak summer output included in the lifetime cost math, but excess solar power actually forces conventional power plants to shut down, thereby lowering the capacity factor of coal and gas plants. Yes, this means large-scale solar adoption makes non-solar power more expensive per kWh, too! On net, excess solar generation is a significant drag on electricity economics. You�re paying for the same power generation equipment twice � once in peak conventional capacity for cloudy days, and again in peak solar capacity for sunny days � and then exporting the overage for a pittance.

[...]

The severe output swings have even reached the point where Germany�s grid physically cannot operate without relying on neighboring countries to soak up the variability. The ramp-down of solar output in the evening happens faster than the rest of Germany�s generation capacity can ramp-up. (Massive power plants can�t change output very quickly.) Which either means blackouts as people get home from work, or using non-solar-powered neighbors as buffers.

If Germany�s neighbors also had as many solar panels, they would all be trying to export and import at the same time, and the system would fall apart. The maximum capacity of the entire EU grid to utilize solar power is therefore much lower than the level reached by individual countries like Germany and Spain.

GulMadred posted:

_{Lignite mining in Germany has increased since 2011, but imports have increased also (sources disagree on the magnitude, due to different reporting rules for intra-EU trade versus global trade).}

One of the sources going into the awful, unsubstantiated, clearly written by an incompetent Forbes article cites the German Association of Energy and Water Industries:

quote:

Germany still uses large amounts of the dirtiest coal, lignite, and its use is rising. Both hard coal and lignite are being burned in larger amounts in Germany, despite its climate emissions targets. In 2011 lignite accounted for 24.6 of German electricity, and this rose to 25.6 in 2012. Hard coal rose from 18.5% to 19.1%. Thus coal accounted for a higher proportion of generation, and CO2 emissions likely have risen as a result.

Phanatic fucked around with this message at 14:41 on Dec 13, 2013

# ? Dec 13, 2013 14:34

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

You guys realize that's a Quora forum post not an actual Forbes article right?

Germany doesn't pay other countries to use its electricity. Instead France et al are very happy to pay for renewables during peak, which helps them meet their EU quotas. 95% of the electricity exported by Germany is renewables, which makes sense because of when peak renewable generation occurs. Most power trading in Europe is price based rather than supply based, so it makes sense for Germany to export during peak. http://energytransition.de/2013/02/german-energy-transition-and-its-neighbors-part-1/

What Germany does do is subsidize renewables, but that's comparing lifetime costs to electricity prices, which are very different numbers. However, if we want to talk about total costs per kwh...

Your source's total costs for German subsidized solar: EUR .165-.20/kWh

The Nuclear Energy Institute claims Nuclear fuel costs + O&M alone: EUR .17kWh.

# ? Dec 13, 2013 18:46

GulMadred: Oct 20, 2005; I don't understand how you can be so mistaken.

Trabisnikof posted:

The Nuclear Energy Institute claims Nuclear fuel costs + O&M alone: EUR .17kWh.

You may be misreading your source. Here are some numbers that I found in a NEI whitepaper:

"PDF posted:

Fuel cost: $7.5/MWh
O&M cost: $9.5/MWh
Combined cost: $17/MWh = $0.017/kWh = �0.0124/kWh

It seems unlikely that they'd revise their estimate upwards by a factor of 10, making nuclear power looks worse than renewables or fossil fuels, especially since they're a pro-nuclear group.

# ? Dec 13, 2013 19:08

Pander: Oct 9, 2007; Fear is the glue that holds society together. It's what makes people suppress their worst impulses. Fear is power.

And at the end of fear, oblivion.

Trabisnikof posted:

You guys realize that's a Quora forum post not an actual Forbes article right?

Germany doesn't pay other countries to use its electricity. Instead France et al are very happy to pay for renewables during peak, which helps them meet their EU quotas. 95% of the electricity exported by Germany is renewables, which makes sense because of when peak renewable generation occurs. Most power trading in Europe is price based rather than supply based, so it makes sense for Germany to export during peak. http://energytransition.de/2013/02/german-energy-transition-and-its-neighbors-part-1/

What Germany does do is subsidize renewables, but that's comparing lifetime costs to electricity prices, which are very different numbers. However, if we want to talk about total costs per kwh...

Your source's total costs for German subsidized solar: EUR .165-.20/kWh

The Nuclear Energy Institute claims Nuclear fuel costs + O&M alone: EUR .17kWh.

You're really going to argue that solar and nuclear have roughly similar cost per kwh?

I mean, just take a step back and use engineering judgment rather than hunting through sources.

# ? Dec 13, 2013 19:13

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

GulMadred posted:

You may be misreading your source. Here are some numbers that I found in a NEI whitepaper:
It seems unlikely that they'd revise their estimate upwards by a factor of 10, making nuclear power looks worse than renewables or fossil fuels, especially since they're a pro-nuclear group.

Sorry NEI was using decimal cents per kwh instead of dollars per kwh.

Pander posted:

You're really going to argue that solar and nuclear have roughly similar cost per kwh?

I mean, just take a step back and use engineering judgment rather than hunting through sources.

The levelized costs aren't too different:

$83.4 per MWh for Advanced nuclear
$130.4 per MWh for PV solar.

So more expensive sure, but not a factor of 10.

# ? Dec 13, 2013 19:17

Pander: Oct 9, 2007; Fear is the glue that holds society together. It's what makes people suppress their worst impulses. Fear is power.

And at the end of fear, oblivion.

Trabisnikof posted:

Sorry NEI was using decimal cents per kwh instead of dollars per kwh.

The levelized costs aren't too different:

$83.4 per MWh for Advanced nuclear
$130.4 per MWh for PV solar.

So more expensive sure, but not a factor of 10.

A factor of 1.6 is still something, it's on the low end. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source shows cost factors between 2 and 6.

Capacity factor, intermittent generation, and availability of suitable land are incredibly challenging drawbacks for solar to overcome to be viable as a primary energy source. Australia? Sure, go for solar. Anywhere else? It doesn't make sense.

# ? Dec 13, 2013 19:28

NihilismNow: Aug 31, 2003

Trabisnikof posted:

Instead France et al are very happy to pay for renewables during peak, which helps them meet their EU quotas. 95% of the electricity exported by Germany is renewables, which makes sense because of when peak renewable generation occurs.

What EU quota is this? I am not aware of any EU quota mandating a minimum ammount of green/renewable power. Even if there is such a quota there are easy ways around it. Hydro power doesn't count as green in Norway, buy some cheap Norse Hydro certificates and you can burn all the coal you want, price of the certificates is barely a factor in the price of electricity.

As your link explains in case of the Netherlands they are happy to take cheap (or free) solar energy because 60%+ of energy generation there are gas turbines that can be spun down quickly. So yes we will gladly take the excess energy subsidised by the German taxpayer so we can preserve more of our precious gas. Countries with energy generation methods that can be spun up/down less quickly (Sweden/Czech republic) are less thrilled about this situation.

NihilismNow fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Dec 13, 2013

# ? Dec 13, 2013 19:50

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

NihilismNow posted:

What EU quota is this? I am not aware of any EU quota mandating a minimum ammount of green/renewable power. Even if there is such a quota there are easy ways around it. Hydro power doesn't count as green in Norway, buy some cheap Norse Hydro certificates and you can burn all the coal you want, price of the certificates is barely a factor in the price of electricity.

As your link explains in case of the Netherlands they are happy to take cheap (or free) solar energy because 60%+ of energy generation there are gas turbines that can be spun down quickly. So yes we will gladly take the excess energy subsidised by the German taxpayer so we can preserve more of our precious gas. Countries with energy generation methods that can be spun up/down less quickly (Sweden/Czech republic) are less thrilled about this situation.

Its the 2009 Directive on Renewable Energy.

So you agree the exports are offsetting carbon-intensive power generation. How is that a bad thing? Basically you are describing a larger more flexible grid that is able to use more fuel-less electricity. Sure, Germany is subsidizing the whole system, but in exchange they get to install all the pretty renewables while other countries deal with the legacy power generation. Sounds like a fair deal to me.

# ? Dec 13, 2013 20:02

Office Thug: Jan 17, 2008; Luke Cage just shut you down!

Trabisnikof posted:

Sorry NEI was using decimal cents per kwh instead of dollars per kwh.

The levelized costs aren't too different:

$83.4 per MWh for Advanced nuclear
$130.4 per MWh for PV solar.

So more expensive sure, but not a factor of 10.

Except we're dealing with two energy sources that, historically and practically, are known to vary greatly in cost. Nuclear in particular gains dramatic reductions in cost with standardization and with any subsequent plants built after the initial plant bears the brunt of the licensing/design costs. Solar increases drastically in cost with subsequent installed capacity due to its variable output which requires a series of increasingly expensive measures to stabilize as the installed capacity increases.

In reality, you compare the most expensive nuclear plant in the world to the most subsidized solar project in the world and the cost is closer to 4 times higher for solar. Compared to standardized Chinese nuclear plants, it's closer to 12 times higher for solar.

http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/voices/michael-shellenberger-and-ted-nordhaus/no-solar-way-around-it/

# ? Dec 13, 2013 20:08

ANYTHING YOU SOW: Nov 7, 2009

Trabisnikof posted:

Its the 2009 Directive on Renewable Energy.

So you agree the exports are offsetting carbon-intensive power generation. How is that a bad thing? Basically you are describing a larger more flexible grid that is able to use more fuel-less electricity. Sure, Germany is subsidizing the whole system, but in exchange they get to install all the pretty renewables while other countries deal with the legacy power generation. Sounds like a fair deal to me.

One point to remember is its it's not the German government, its German consumers who are paying for the subsidies (Industrial users get exemptions). This makes the current system very regressive .

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/high-costs-and-errors-of-german-transition-to-renewable-energy-a-920288.html

# ? Dec 13, 2013 20:16

NihilismNow: Aug 31, 2003

Trabisnikof posted:

Its the 2009 Directive on Renewable Energy.

So you agree the exports are offsetting carbon-intensive power generation. How is that a bad thing? Basically you are describing a larger more flexible grid that is able to use more fuel-less electricity. Sure, Germany is subsidizing the whole system, but in exchange they get to install all the pretty renewables while other countries deal with the legacy power generation. Sounds like a fair deal to me.

I was referring to the practice of how a lot of power is already greenwashed and sold as green energy even though no electricity was actually imported. What power companies do here is buy Norse hydro certificates that don't count as renewable in Norway so they are cheap then with these certificates they are allowed to brand their coal power as green even though there is no incentive to produce more green power.
I am not familiar with the EU directive so i don't know if they will allow this kind of certificate of origin trading so i don't know if this concern applies here.

I do not really have a problem with Germany subsidizing the whole thing and as it is now it seems to work out well enough for most parties involved but it is not sustainable. If France also had a energiewende the surrounding countries would not be able to deal with the swings in output. So it is not fair to paint Germany as some sort of example to the rest of europe or the world, they are able to do what they do by externalising some of the problems with their solution.

# ? Dec 13, 2013 20:16

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Office Thug posted:

Except we're dealing with two energy sources that, historically and practically, are known to vary greatly in cost. Nuclear in particular gains dramatic reductions in cost with standardization and with any subsequent plants built after the initial plant bears the brunt of the licensing/design costs. Solar increases drastically in cost with subsequent installed capacity due to its variable output which requires a series of increasingly expensive measures to stabilize as the installed capacity increases.

In reality, you compare the most expensive nuclear plant in the world to the most subsidized solar project in the world and the cost is closer to 4 times higher for solar. Compared to standardized Chinese nuclear plants, it's closer to 12 times higher for solar.

http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/voices/michael-shellenberger-and-ted-nordhaus/no-solar-way-around-it/

I'd be really interested to see the numbers on examples of "cheap" nuclear reactors that have actually been built in the West.

I'm actually using the EIA levelized cost here for new-build versus new-build, using advanced nuclear, which assumes a lot of things that are good for nuclear (e.g. the EIA numbers assume no delays): http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm

# ? Dec 13, 2013 20:19

Lurking Haro: Oct 27, 2009

Most PV panels used in Germany are Chinese, bought at a price that underbids any local manufacturer so much that a few companies already went bankrupt.
Of course those Chinese panels don't really stand up to the 20 year lifetime that is given most of the time.
So the cost per MWh is probably even higher when calculating in the increased decay in productivity over time.

We also have to pay �0.053/kWh to cover for regenerable power sources, pushing the price to about ~~�0.25/kWh~~ �0.28/kWh.

-e-
The average was a bit higher in 2013. Don't worry, the subsidy for regenerables will rise to �0.062 next year.

Lurking Haro fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Dec 13, 2013

# ? Dec 13, 2013 21:40

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Lurking Haro posted:

Most PV panels used in Germany are Chinese, bought at a price that underbids any local manufacturer so much that a few companies already went bankrupt.
Of course those Chinese panels don't really stand up to the 20 year lifetime that is given most of the time.
So the cost per MWh is probably even higher when calculating in the increased decay in productivity over time.

Do you actually have a source for this or is this just stereotyping?

# ? Dec 13, 2013 21:51

Lurking Haro: Oct 27, 2009

Trabisnikof posted:

Do you actually have a source for this or is this just stereotyping?

I have trouble finding studies comparing Chinese panels to others, but there are some articles about early failing panels.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/business/energy-environment/solar-powers-dark-side.html?_r=0
http://www.iowaenergycenter.org/2013/05/concerns-rise-over-solar-panel-quality/

Results of the T�V Rheinland:
http://www.tuv.com/media/germany/10_industrialservices/pv_test/PVplus_Test_Ergebnistabelle_2013-06.pdf
JS Solar and Jetion are Chinese, Perfect Solar is a Taiwanese OEM.
The site that contracted the T�V to do the tests:
http://www.pv-magazine.com/pv-test/
http://www.pv-magazine.de/nichtcachen/modultest/ (German, but includes the total score)
21 panels were tested, 9 declined having their names listed.

# ? Dec 13, 2013 23:02

silence_kit: Jul 14, 2011; by the sex ghost

Pander posted:

I mean, just take a step back and use engineering judgment rather than hunting through sources.

What does this phrase even mean? Repeat conventional wisdom regarding energy generation technologies? Keep in mind that the cost of solar energy over the past couple of years has actually dropped even faster than Department of Energy predictions. I'm not going to make any claims on how economically relevant solar energy eventually will be, but it may be a good idea to keep in mind that it's not as mature an energy generation technology as nuclear power and has some room to improve in cost.

# ? Dec 14, 2013 01:05

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

Trabisnikof posted:

Uh, no...Germany gets paid for the electricity it exports. It actually gets paid a lot because it exports during peak hours and imports during off-peak hours (exporting further west and importing from the east too further helps the cost). Germany exports more electricity than any other country in the world.

It's also a good example of how the grid is responding to these trends and towards making changes that will involve more flexible energy sources. You'd be surprised how happy grid operators are to have access to renewables, allowing them to meet their carbon goals. Especially solar, which can follow peak pretty closely if you do it correctly. Every peaker plant kept offline is a win for utilities and the environment.

We actually do pay to dump electricity during particularly strong spikes.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/high-costs-and-errors-of-german-transition-to-renewable-energy-a-920288.html
http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/germany--power-exporter-even-with-fewer-nuclear-plants_100010756/

That problem will not get better if we throw money at enough solar panels to supply most of Germany's energy (more so if many surrounding countries do the same).

suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 11:03 on Dec 14, 2013

# ? Dec 14, 2013 11:00

NihilismNow: Aug 31, 2003

Lurking Haro posted:

We also have to pay �0.053/kWh to cover for regenerable power sources, pushing the price to about ~~�0.25/kWh~~ �0.28/kWh.

-e-
The average was a bit higher in 2013. Don't worry, the subsidy for regenerables will rise to �0.062 next year.

This is also regressive taxation because homeowners can install PV capacity under €0.28 per kWh and exploit the subsidies while renters and appartment dwellers are stuck paying a ridiculous €0.28 per kWh (~50% higher than in surrounding countries).

NihilismNow fucked around with this message at 12:22 on Dec 14, 2013

# ? Dec 14, 2013 12:16

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

NihilismNow posted:

This is also regressive taxation because homeowners can install PV capacity under €0.28 per kWh and exploit the subsidies while renters and appartment dwellers are stuck paying a ridiculous €0.28 per kWh (~50% higher than in surrounding countries).

It's not a bug, it's a feature :v:

# ? Dec 14, 2013 16:42

America Inc.: Nov 22, 2013; I plan to live forever, of course, but barring that I'd settle for a couple thousand years. Even 500 would be pretty nice.

A much more cost-effective means of producing algal biofuels:
http://www.pnnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=1029

quote:

While algae has long been considered a potential source of biofuel, and several companies have produced algae-based fuels on a research scale, the fuel is projected to be expensive. The PNNL technology harnesses algae's energy potential efficiently and incorporates a number of methods to reduce the cost of producing algae fuel.

"Cost is the big roadblock for algae-based fuel," said Douglas Elliott, the laboratory fellow who led the PNNL team's research. "We believe that the process we've created will help make algae biofuels much more economical."

PNNL scientists and engineers simplified the production of crude oil from algae by combining several chemical steps into one continuous process. The most important cost-saving step is that the process works with wet algae. Most current processes require the algae to be dried � a process that takes a lot of energy and is expensive. The new process works with an algae slurry that contains as much as 80 to 90 percent water.

"Not having to dry the algae is a big win in this process; that cuts the cost a great deal," said Elliott. "Then there are bonuses, like being able to extract usable gas from the water and then recycle the remaining water and nutrients to help grow more algae, which further reduces costs."

While a few other groups have tested similar processes to create biofuel from wet algae, most of that work is done one batch at a time. The PNNL system runs continuously, processing about 1.5 liters of algae slurry in the research reactor per hour. While that doesn't seem like much, it's much closer to the type of continuous system required for large-scale commercial production.

The PNNL system also eliminates another step required in today's most common algae-processing method: the need for complex processing with solvents like hexane to extract the energy-rich oils from the rest of the algae. Instead, the PNNL team works with the whole algae, subjecting it to very hot water under high pressure to tear apart the substance, converting most of the biomass into liquid and gas fuels.

The system runs at around 350 degrees Celsius (662 degrees Fahrenheit) at a pressure of around 3,000 PSI, combining processes known as hydrothermal liquefaction and catalytic hydrothermal gasification. Elliott says such a high-pressure system is not easy or cheap to build, which is one drawback to the technology, though the cost savings on the back end more than makes up for the investment.

America Inc. fucked around with this message at 12:15 on Dec 19, 2013

# ? Dec 19, 2013 12:11

redreader: Nov 2, 2009; I am the coolest person ever with my pirate chalice. Seriously.; Dinosaur Gum

Is there a better thread for posting this poo poo? The same people I know on facebook are now posting http://www.naturalnews.com/043380_Fukushima_radiation_ocean_life.html even though I posted the whole debunking link and they said 'oh! good to know, thank you!'. Maybe I should just give up now.

edit: the first comment in the article is pretty good. Maybe I should leave it alone and hope they read that.

redreader fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Jan 5, 2014

# ? Jan 5, 2014 23:08

Pander: Oct 9, 2007; Fear is the glue that holds society together. It's what makes people suppress their worst impulses. Fear is power.

And at the end of fear, oblivion.

Just let them know Natural News is to "nature-based news" as Fox News is to politics news.

They're terrible human beings and if the planet earth had legal recourse it'd sue them for libel constantly.

# ? Jan 6, 2014 01:32

Lurking Haro: Oct 27, 2009

quote:

"Forget looking at global warming as the culprit," writes National Geographic commenter "Grammy," pointing out the lunacy of Arnold's implication that the now-debunked global warming myth was the sudden cause of a 9,700 percent increase in dead sea life.

This one sentence alone is hilarious.
Random commenters are now trusted sources and global warming has been debunked! How else could the two ships in Antarctica be caught in ice during antarctic summer!!

# ? Jan 6, 2014 02:12

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

Pander posted:

Just let them know Natural News is to "nature-based news" as Fox News is to politics news.

They're terrible human beings and if the planet earth had legal recourse it'd sue them for libel constantly.

As long as "environmentalist" and "retard" continue to be roughly synonymous, people that actually care about the environment and have realistic ideas about, for example, nuclear power generation have a really tough road ahead of them.

# ? Jan 6, 2014 02:44

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

PT6A posted:

As long as "environmentalist" and "retard" continue to be roughly synonymous, people that actually care about the environment and have realistic ideas about, for example, nuclear power generation have a really tough road ahead of them.

As long as crazy luddite hippies are considered 'environmentalist' that synonyms going to be hard to break.

If California is literally dying from Fukushima radiation than why haven't we heard any bad news out of Hawaii?

# ? Jan 6, 2014 04:29

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

Or Japan for that matter...

# ? Jan 6, 2014 04:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 10, 2024 17:51

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

Nevvy Z posted:

As long as crazy luddite hippies are considered 'environmentalist' that synonyms going to be hard to break.

Yeah, that's what I meant. It's really a problem of self-identification, sort of like the problems various religions have with nuts claiming to represent the religion. Yet, at the same time, there are some fairly prominent "environmentalists" who are crazy. The Green Party of Canada used to support homeopathic medicine, wants to have the health dangers of wind turbines (such as headaches and depression) investigated, and the party leader retweeted someone who asked for an investigation of Chemtrails. I think the rate of self-identified environmentalists being quacks is too high to simply be coincidental, and it's a problem that scientists, conservationists, and others concerned about the environment need to address head-on.

I grew up in a small town in the BC interior, and a lot of the most prominent "environmentalists" were hippie burnouts who didn't know the first loving thing about anything, and thought that Wi-Fi would give them cancer. How are you going to convince normal, sane people to be environmentalists when that's the current public face of the movement?

# ? Jan 6, 2014 05:25

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Energy Generation Megathread: Heated Exchanges

«‹›348 »