# EIA: Renewable generation beats nuclear for two consecutive month



## georgepds (Jul 10, 2017)

Renewable, especially wind, is becoming more important.. It's not there full time, but it is getting there


"In March, and again in April, U.S. monthly electricity generation from utility-scale renewable sources exceeded nuclear generation for the first time since July 1984. This outcome reflects both seasonal and trend growth in renewable generation, as well as maintenance and refueling schedules for nuclear plants, which tend to undergo maintenance during spring and fall months, when overall electricity demand is lower than in summer or winter.

"Record generation from both wind and solar as well as recent increases in hydroelectric power as a result of high precipitation across much of the West over the past winter contributed to the overall rise in renewable electricity generation this spring, while nuclear generation in April was at its lowest monthly level since April 2014. However, EIA’s latest _Short-Term Energy Outlook_ (STEO) projects that monthly nuclear electricity generation will surpass renewables again during the summer months of 2017 and that nuclear will generate more electricity than renewables for all of 2017.



https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=31932

http://www.utilitydive.com/news/eia...ts-nuclear-for-two-consecutive-months/446575/


----------



## vinny11950 (Aug 23, 2017)

This Bloomberg Energy report says nuclear plants are losing money now

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...a-s-nuclear-power-plants-seen-as-money-losers

"More than half of America’s nuclear reactors are bleeding cash, racking up losses totaling about $2.9 billion a year, based on a Bloomberg New Energy Finance analysis.

"Nuclear power plants are getting paid $20 to $30 a megawatt-hour for their electricity, Nicholas Steckler, an analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, said in a report Wednesday. Meanwhile, it costs them an average of $35 a megawatt-hour to run. That puts 34 of the nation’s 61 plants out of the money, with almost all of the merchant reactors owned by Exelon Corp., Entergy Corp. and FirstEnergy Corp. appearing to be below break-even, he said."

And new nuclear power plants are over budget and behind schedule, so some of those projects are now cancelled, and others will require more subsidies to go on.

https://thinkprogress.org/u-s-nuclear-plants-bleeding-cash-c794e4142597/

The negatives of having the industry wither away is carbon emissions will go up and the government still needs a nuclear industry for nuclear powered Navy ships.  This was the point made by Ernest Moniz, former energy secretary.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...woes-imperil-u-s-national-security-moniz-says

With the Trump administration proposing to cut the subsidy program for nuclear power, it seems they are up against it now.  But nuclear power has always been cyclical, experiencing highs and lows, and always struggling on.


----------



## georgepds (Aug 23, 2017)

Not clear to me it won't be surpassed by solar ( and wind) . The chief failure of solar is no sun at night. Now that utility scale batteries are being deployed that problem is mitigated


Nuclear, though clean from a co2 pov, is dirty from a radioactive waste pov.

Solar has no equivalent of radioactive waste,is much cheaper to build, and you never have to buy any fuel..


----------



## vinny11950 (Aug 23, 2017)

Yeah, the next 10 years will be very interesting for the energy sector.

I suspect the government will continue to subsidize the nuclear industry just to keep it afloat for defense/national security purposes, which makes sense.  Let's see if we can get some kind of consensus on how to deal with nuclear waste.


----------



## georgepds (Aug 24, 2017)

vinny11950 said:


> Yeah, the next 10 years will be very interesting for the energy sector.
> 
> I suspect the government will continue to subsidize the nuclear industry just to keep it afloat for defense/national security purposes, which makes sense.  Let's see if we can get some kind of consensus on how to deal with nuclear waste.




I agree that the gov will have to continue to subsidize, just to keep a cadre of engineers who know the nuclear discipline

The last director of th DOE (Monniz) , as you pointed out, said as much


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...woes-imperil-u-s-national-security-moniz-says



"The decline of the U.S. nuclear-power industry puts America’s security at risk, according to a report being released Tuesday by former Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz that calls for greater federal investment.

The report from the Energy Futures Initiative and obtained by Bloomberg News says a commercial atomic power sector is necessary to keep uranium-processing technology away from terrorists and other bad actors as well as support nuclear-powered Navy vessels.

The report by Moniz, a nuclear scientist who served as energy secretary under President Barack Obama, "


----------



## Easy Livin’ 3000 (Aug 24, 2017)

georgepds said:


> I agree that the gov will have to continue to subsidize, just to keep a cadre of engineers who know the nuclear discipline
> 
> The last director of th DOE (Monniz) , as you pointed out, said as much
> 
> ...


All I can see in my head when reading this post is Rick Perry prancing around on DWS, and forgetting that there was a Dept. of Energy during the republican debates last year. Yikes!


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Aug 24, 2017)

Most US nuclear plants are at least 20 yrs old and need more maintenance.  Aging assets.


----------



## vinny11950 (Aug 24, 2017)

sportbikerider78 said:


> Most US nuclear plants are at least 20 yrs old and need more maintenance.  Aging assets.



I remember reading how Indian Point in NY was beyond its original operating life and with upgrades was granted another operating permit but now pressure from community groups made the governor decide to close it in 2021.  I wonder how they will replace the 2000 megawatts it produces.

But even the new plants are mired in delays and cost overruns, and priced out of the market because their electricity is more expensive than the other options.  I could see a future for nuclear if the new plants were easier to build, safer and provided cheaper power.  But they are not cheaper and the market is moving away from them with renewables prices dropping.

Japan is going through this now after they shut down many of their nuclear plants after the Fukushima disaster which they are still trying to clean up (underwater ice wall is freaking awesome).  But now many of their reactors are reaching end of life and they are not sure what to do.

All it takes is one disaster to shake the entire industry and make people want to shut down the reactors.


----------



## begreen (Aug 24, 2017)

Don't let science and facts get in the way of decisions.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1B41NJ


----------



## vinny11950 (Aug 24, 2017)

begreen said:


> Don't let science and facts get in the way of decisions.
> http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1B41NJ



The article doesn't give numbers, but it sounds like they are ready to dump a bunch of money at coal and nuclear.  I can see deregulation working for coal, but not for nuclear (BOOM).  I can't see how, even with subsidies, nuclear power doesn't keep declining because of the burdens of nuclear waste disposal and lower price competition from other, cheap sources.  If you are an energy company that has to build a new power plant, do you want the headache of nuclear or gas fired?


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Aug 24, 2017)

begreen said:


> Don't let science and facts get in the way of decisions.
> http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1B41NJ



*The administration had not yet reviewed the early draft, which was written by department staff.*

Of course they hadn't reviewed it. Because they already knew what the conclusions were going to be when they commissioned the "study".

What a waste of tax dollars! Unless of course you're the owner/operator of a coal/nuclear facility.


----------



## georgepds (Aug 24, 2017)

begreen said:


> Don't let science and facts get in the way of decisions.
> http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1B41NJ




Sigh....

"The department recommended giving baseload plants pricing advantages for their power, as well as making it easier and cheaper to get permits to build more such projects.



...

_"The report differed from an earlier draft, which had said big increases in renewable power generation remained possible without undermining grid reliability, and which did not propose added support for baseload producers._


----------



## georgepds (Aug 24, 2017)

begreen said:


> Don't let science and facts get in the way of decisions.
> http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1B41NJ




From today's Washington post


"The officials said that the Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis, essentially the department’s in-house think tank, was essential to coordinating the report. But the Trump budget proposal for fiscal year 2018 would eliminate the office.


----------



## begreen (Aug 25, 2017)

Thoughts on thorium salt reactors? It looks like China is investing on this tech. The Dutch lab NRG has started testing.
http://www.thoriumenergyworld.com/news/finally-worlds-first-tmsr-experiment-in-over-40-years-started


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Aug 25, 2017)

begreen said:


> Thoughts on thorium salt reactors? It looks like China is investing on this tech. The Dutch lab NRG has started testing.
> http://www.thoriumenergyworld.com/news/finally-worlds-first-tmsr-experiment-in-over-40-years-started



While it good to see experiments with encouraging results being carried out, the technology is at least 10 (if not 20) years from any hope of commercialization. With the cost curve of solar and battery storage continuing to drop every year, it's difficult to imagine a scenario where TMSR's become commercially competitive. Same with traditional nuclear. If the sun ever dims or quits shining, earthlings have more fundamental problems than where they will get their next kW!


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 25, 2017)

begreen said:


> Thoughts on thorium salt reactors? It looks like China is investing on this tech. The Dutch lab NRG has started testing.
> http://www.thoriumenergyworld.com/news/finally-worlds-first-tmsr-experiment-in-over-40-years-started



Fun article.   But still clear that they are in early stages figuring out how to do the chemical separation of 'hot' isotopes.  And only after _that_ can we figure out what it might cost.  I'm a still gonna bet on PV getting dirt (or sand) cheap before that happens.


----------



## georgepds (Aug 25, 2017)

There's a good tv series from norway based on a thorium reactor an the political consequences

"Promising to unveil a revolutionary new form of nuclear energy powered by the chemical element thorium, Prime Minister Jesper Berg strikes a very Scandinavian pose by announcing that Norway will lead by example and immediately shut down its considerable gas and oil production."

"......
This upsets the European Union, of which Norway is not a member. In cahoots with Moscow, Brussels secretly threatens Berg with a full-scale Russian invasion unless he commits to maintaining Norway’s fossil fuel extraction under Moscow’s supervision. (The United States, having recently achieved energy independence, has withdrawn from NATO and sits disinterestedly aside.) "


http://www.politico.eu/article/occu...enraged-the-kremlin-norway-russia-occupation/


----------



## begreen (Aug 25, 2017)

Hmm, a thorium reactor is not new and a devastating hurricane in Norway?? The program is off to a rough start for me. The theme however sounds more familiar.
_Little by little, viewers come to see how a democratic society becomes morally corroded by the everyday compromises regular people are forced to make._


----------



## georgepds (Aug 28, 2017)

georgepds said:


> Sigh....
> 
> "The department recommended giving baseload plants pricing advantages for their power, as well as making it easier and cheaper to get permits to build more such projects.
> ..
> ...



There is a more nuanced look at this report at Utility Dive

http://www.utilitydive.com/news/what-to-watch-in-the-wake-of-the-doe-grid-study/503522/


"The study "gives mild support to baseload resources," said Peskoe. "It says baseload resources can add value, but they aren't the only mechanism. ...I don't read the report saying baseload resources are necessary."


quote from Fisher DOE ( I think, could be clearer in the UD report)


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Aug 28, 2017)

begreen said:


> Don't let science and facts get in the way of decisions.
> http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1B41NJ


What is the alternate plan for keeping the lights on in America for the baseload need for industry and homes?

We get about 20% of our power from nuclear, 30% coal, and 33% natural gas.  The next runner up is hydro at 6.5%


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Aug 28, 2017)

sportbikerider78 said:


> What is the alternate plan for keeping the lights on in America for the baseload need for industry and homes?



It's certainly not the idiotic idea to subsidize coal and nuclear.

How these people can claim to not be in the back pockets of special interests is beyond me. I guess voters are just so stupid this is what passes for good planning.


----------



## georgepds (Aug 28, 2017)

sportbikerider78 said:


> What is the alternate plan for keeping the lights on in America for the baseload need for industry and homes?
> 
> We get about 20% of our power from nuclear, 30% coal, and 33% natural gas.  The next runner up is hydro at 6.5%



The potential is there for sun to meet a good part of the need the need (39%)

https://www.nrel.gov/news/press/2016/24662.html

" <NREL> update its estimate of total U.S. technical potential for rooftop photovoltaic (PV) systems. The analysis reveals a technical potential of 1,118 gigawatts (GW) of capacity and 1,432 terawatt-hours (TWh) of annual energy generation, equivalent to 39 percent of the nation's electricity sales."

and that's just on roofs.. no commercial sun or wind included.

How much can be handled by the grid this way is another matter (~30% today with "small" changes)

https://www.nrel.gov/grid/ergis.html

"NREL shows the power grid of the Eastern United States—one of the largest power systems in the world—can accommodate upwards of 30% wind and solar/photovoltaic (PV) power."

This second study  includes new transmission lines between ISOs, but no utility scale battery storage. There is a graph at this site that shows how power flows during the day  between ISOs ( that's really cool)

So the short answer to your question is gas sun and wind, with sun and wind taking over later as we ramp up transmission lines and utility battery storage


----------



## begreen (Aug 28, 2017)

A bit of a stretch, but if possible it could provide a heckuva baseload supply of power.
http://www.engineering.com/Electron...ve-the-World-with-Geothermal-Electricity.aspx


----------



## georgepds (Aug 29, 2017)

US produces ,roughly 3,000 TWh or 3*10^12 kWh

These wells could produce a billion kWh, or 1*10^9 kWh

So the geothermal potential is1/3*10^ -3 of US production , or 0.03% of us production

My money is on the sun, unless I misplaced a decimal


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Aug 29, 2017)

georgepds said:


> The potential is there for sun to meet a good part of the need the need (39%)
> 
> https://www.nrel.gov/news/press/2016/24662.html
> 
> ...



A study that says you can get the US to 39% electricity based on solar if you install on EVERY suitable household roof is of what value?  The economics of that are staggering. 
This is not even the start of a plan, this is a study.


----------



## georgepds (Aug 29, 2017)

sportbikerider78 said:


> A study that says you can get the US to 39% electricity based on solar if you install on EVERY suitable household roof is of what value?  The economics of that are staggering.
> This is not even the start of a plan, this is a study.



It is a measure of potential..


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Aug 29, 2017)

WoodyIsGoody said:


> It's certainly not the idiotic idea to subsidize coal and nuclear.
> 
> How these people can claim to not be in the back pockets of special interests is beyond me. I guess voters are just so stupid this is what passes for good planning.



100% in agreement.  Pull all subsidy on everything. It eliminates corruption and no one gets paid off. 

Both sides have a TON of mud on their face.  The companies play both sides for special favors.  Make them wear jerseys!




https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=E01&cycle=2016&recipdetail=P&mem=N&sortorder=U


2016 numbers
Presidential campaign contributors from oil and gas companies.  
1 Trump, Donald (R) $910,823
2 Clinton, Hillary (D) $868,340


----------



## Marshy (Aug 29, 2017)

sportbikerider78 said:


> A study that says you can get the US to 39% electricity based on solar if you install on EVERY suitable household roof is of what value?  The economics of that are staggering.
> This is not even the start of a plan, this is a study.


I believe the Germans are currently implementing that exact strategy. Guess who is paying for it also? There's a lot to be learned by Europe in turning off large portions of base load generation. Market instability and grid reliability really get challenged.


----------



## vinny11950 (Aug 29, 2017)

Subsidies are not all bad.  Most help get us get to a desired goal that has a common good.  However much we argue about our energy needs and subsidies and policies, let's not lose sight of the fact that we have copious amounts of energy on demand, while a lot people in other parts of the world maybe get a couple of light bulbs working for a couple of hours a day.  Our system has worked to get us this luxury of abundant power.

What we are discussing now is how we make it better by making it more reliable, cheaper and cleaner.  I say the government should continue to invest in better and smarter grids, RE projects, nuclear projects (security reasons) and whatever else gets us to cheaper, cleaner and more secure energy.


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 29, 2017)

sportbikerider78 said:


> A study that says you can get the US to 39% electricity based on solar if you install on EVERY suitable household roof is of what value?  The economics of that are staggering.
> This is not even the start of a plan, this is a study.



More to the point, there is enough free land available to meet US primary energy needs with solar many times over.  It already appears unlikely that rooftops will be the lowest cost way to do that.  Utility solar is already cheap, at or below parity in many states.  We're just waiting for cheap grid storage, whose price, like PV is also falling exponentially.  Current projections (paid for by EV development budgets) suggest that grid storage will also be cheap before solar gets to 10-20% energy on a national basis, i.e. when it will be needed.


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 29, 2017)

Marshy said:


> I believe the Germans are currently implementing that exact strategy. Guess who is paying for it also? There's a lot to be learned by Europe in turning off large portions of base load generation. Market instability and grid reliability really get challenged.



I think we are equally critical of the German model.  Very rich subsidies are a great way to rapidly grow from squat, but hit a wall when the budget runs out.  The US model of (comparatively very stingy) incentives has lead to a later start and slower PV growth (despite a much better solar resource) but is budget sustainable (and being phased out).  The poorer incentive however, means that we can grow to greater penetration, and ultimately have a bigger impact.  HI and CA already have higher PV energy penetration than Germany....and are still growing, while Germany has flatlined.


----------



## georgepds (Aug 29, 2017)

Marshy said:


> I believe the Germans are currently implementing that exact strategy. Guess who is paying for it also? There's a lot to be learned by Europe in turning off large portions of base load generation. Market instability and grid reliability really get challenged.



 There is always Paris... France has ~77% nuclear grid power, and wheels some to Germany every night


----------



## begreen (Aug 29, 2017)

georgepds said:


> There is always Paris... France has ~77% nuclear grid power, and wheels some to Germany every night


France's (and every other country's) dirty not-so-secret problem is nuclear waste storage. It's a 100,000yr issue using 40yr solutions right now. The UK has an even larger stockpile of nuclear waste in seriously aging infrastructure.
http://www.politico.eu/article/euro...ispose-nuclear-waste-french-nuclear-facility/
http://www.wired.co.uk/article/inside-sellafield-nuclear-waste-decommissioning


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Aug 29, 2017)

vinny11950 said:


> Subsidies are not all bad.  Most help get us get to a desired goal that has a common good.



I agree. Subsidies are a tool to encourage desirable technologies and jump-start new industries.

The program that provided low interest loans to Solyndra was (and is) a huge success story. Solyndra was one prospect that didn't work out (out of many that did). It was demonized only because the program accelerates cleaner technologies and threatens petroleum interests. Being critical of the entire low interest loan program would be like identifying one home mortgage loan that lost money and using that as an example of why banks should not engage in mortgage loans!

It makes no sense as the program overall was (and is) a raging success with tremendous benefits to the Federal Budget. That is a fact the oil/gas interests never mention when they demonize one notable loser. 

These kinds of programs are one thing that separate developed nations from undeveloped, third-world nations.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Aug 29, 2017)

woodgeek said:


> HI and CA already have higher PV energy penetration than Germany....and are still growing, while Germany has flatlined.



Germany gets 85% of it's electricity from renewables, HI and CA are not even close. Germany doesn't have as favorable location for photovoltaics as either HI or CA so they have focused their renewables on other forms. Makes complete sense. The explanation that German photovoltaic was "over-subsidized" doesn't have any merit.


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 29, 2017)

WoodyIsGoody said:


> Germany gets 85% of it's electricity from renewables, HI and CA are not even close. Germany doesn't have as favorable location for photovoltaics as either HI or CA so they have focused their renewables on other forms. Makes complete sense. The explanation that German photovoltaic was "over-subsidized" doesn't have any merit.



Um, no.

Only 30% of German electricity comes from renewables (including 6% solar energy), 70% from fossils or nukes. About 40% in 2016 came from hard and soft (lignite) coal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany#/media/File:Power-generation-germany_2016.png

Their carbon intensity for electricity was about 560 g CO2/ kWh, in 2016, not too bad.

Many US states, like California and NY, have greener electricity:

https://www.quora.com/How-much-CO2-is-produced-per-KWH-of-electricity

CA is at 300 g CO2/kWh
NY is at 410 g CO2/kWh
TX is at 540 g CO2/kWh (as green as Germany)

CA source breakdown is here: http://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/total_system_power.html

CA in 2016 is at 40% renewable (with hydro), with solar at 10% annual energy production (not capacity fraction) and growing fast.

Note that the combined size of the CA and NY economies is about the same as Germany.  And they got there with a lot of help with cheap natural gas (that Germany does not have access to) and better renewable resources and a lot LESS expensive incentives.

Lastly, Solar WAS a large part of the German energy revolution plan, simply b/c there is not enough room for enough wind to get to 100% renewable electricity (let alone 100% renewable primary energy), which was the stated goal.  They were well aware that b/c of the poor solar resource, they would need to install and pay 2-3X as much for a kWh than folks in the US or Spain.  They proceeded anyway, with production credits that were $0.50-0.75 per kWh, well above retail rates (and 20X the wind production credit in the US).  Waves of PV were installed 2010-2013, when PV was far more expensive than today.

But the rich production credit broke the budget, the incentives were scaled back (sometimes breaking contracts with folks that had installed PV earlier), and the rate of new installations has fallen to a low level, despite PV hardware prices collapsing.

A nice graph can be found at:

https://www.energy-charts.de/power_inst.htm?year=all&period=annual&type=inc_dec


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Aug 30, 2017)

woodgeek said:


> Um, no.
> 
> Only 30% of German electricity comes from renewables (including 6% solar energy), 70% from fossils or nukes. About 40% in 2016 came from hard and soft (lignite) coal.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany#/media/File:Power-generation-germany_2016.png



You know what they say about statistics. And it's never wise to cite an actively disputed Wiki article to try to prove your point.

Your claim was that German solar subsidies were based on a flawed model (overly generous) and that the solar subsidies in the US were somehow better because they were smaller and therefore more sustainable. The evidence cited to make this point was that Germany was rapidly reducing future subsidies. But the fact is that German solar production has reached it's practical limit (without adding massive battery storage). The reduction in subsidies is due to the overwhelming success of the program, not a flaw.

A study by SEIA sums up this point nicely:

_Finally, the reform efforts of the solar PV and renewable support programs in Germany should not be interpreted as an acknowledgment of a broad failure of the Germany system of FITs (feed-in tariffs). Rather, while the reforms are indeed an effort to improve the design of the FIT system, for example by introducing more rapid adjustments of FITs to observed deviations of actual from desired installation levels, they are also a sign of the solar PV sector maturing. Germany is unique among OECD countries in having managed to significantly increase the share of renewables in its electricity mix – by now a power generation share of some 25% has been reached. There is broad political support for a continued aggressive move towards an essentially carbon-free sector by 2050 with a renewables share above 50% by 2030. Therefore, after the market introduction phase, Germany is entering the market penetration phase of its renewables deployment, shifting from a primary goal of supporting the early technological development with an emphasis on affecting cost reductions through scaling and learning to a phase of developing complementary technologies and market mechanisms that make a future electricity system powered essentially by renewable technologies alone feasible.
_
The entire goal of the subsidy program was to encourage faster adoption of solar. It was a raging success. Using sunny Texas and Hawaii to say it was a comparative failure is disingenuous. Despite the less than ideal solar potential of Germany (due to climate), they have managed to transform their national energy grid at a rate that puts the US (with it's much higher solar potential) to shame. And with the urgency of tackling the biggest threat facing humanity today being highlighted by current droughts and floods, which will only become more common and more damaging, Germany should be applauded for their rapid adoption of solar and other renewables. This benefits us all, not only through reduced emissions but also due to the fact that the demand for photovoltaics in Germany is a primary driver of the rapidly dropping price per installed kW we have witnessed over the last decade.

But, yes, big oil interests will try to make this sound like a failure to dissuade other countries from achieving similar or greater success. Because solar is a very real threat to their profits.


----------



## Marshy (Aug 30, 2017)

I am less familiar with how France and Germany are dealing with used nuclear fuel than the US. If it's similar/same to the US then it's actually a robust storage system and I have very little long term concerns with. 
The truth is the government has failed to come through on providing a centralized storage facility. In return, utilities have developed their own storage on site. They design is certainly designed as a long term permanent solution. 

Regarding current subsidies for nuclear, certain states recognize the important role nuclear has on carbon free generation and meeting future goals. Without them the current growth and offset carbon by solar and wind would be completely off set. Depending the state and amount of nuclear generation the offset could take the better part of 3 decades to match the current carbon free generation. NY is smart enough to recognize this and has created the ZEC program. Part of the financial challenge nuclear faces is the market and poor infrastructure. Not all plants in NY earn full potential due to grid congestion.

If our goal is to reduce our carbon generation then nuclear deserves a place in that picture. If our goal is to move renewable dominate generation then you can argue maybe nuclear doesn't belong but I still believe it palys a key roll in getting to either end goal.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Aug 30, 2017)

Marshy said:


> If it's similar/same to the US then it's actually a robust storage system and I have very little long term concerns with.



I suppose that depends upon your definition of "long-term".



> The truth is the government has failed to come through on providing a centralized storage facility. In return, utilities have developed their own storage on site. They design is certainly designed as a long term permanent solution.



Well, which is it? Long-term or "permanent"?

Because the consequences are too great to use fuzzy thinking here.


----------



## begreen (Aug 30, 2017)

Marshy said:


> If it's similar/same to the US then it's actually a robust storage system and I have very little long term concerns with.


Not always so. Look at the mess at Hanford in WA state. Leaks and explosions have plagued many storage facilities around the globe.


----------



## Marshy (Aug 30, 2017)

WoodyIsGoody said:


> I suppose that depends upon your definition of "long-term".
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You bring up a good point. Let me put it this way, it won't need anything other than security surveillance for multiple generations. Yeah, not exactly a clarification is it. If you are looking for an exact number for design life, I cannot provide that. I can assure you that there will be far greater environmental impacts due to leaking fly ash ponds and contamination from PV panels, and more deaths from fossil fuel pollution, than spent fuel in the US.


----------



## vinny11950 (Aug 30, 2017)

Heard some one say nuclear storage is a 40 year solution to a 500 year problem.


----------



## Marshy (Aug 30, 2017)

begreen said:


> Not always so. Look at the mess at Hanford in WA state. Leaks and explosions have plagued many storage facilities around the globe.


Hanford was a weapons facility. Not commercial power generation. There is a distinct difference. Might not be apparent to the average person but they play by a different set of rules. 


vinny11950 said:


> Heard some one say nuclear storage is a 40 year solution to a 500 year problem.


IAE has a document about long term storage. The licence for storage is generally 40-50 years but can be extended later granted all regulations are met. Don't mistake the license to mean that is the designed life of the storage container. It's far greater than that.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Aug 30, 2017)

Marshy said:


> I can assure you that there will be far greater environmental impacts due to leaking fly ash ponds and contamination from PV panels, and more deaths from fossil fuel pollution, than spent fuel in the US.



Contamination from PV panels? 

I can assure you that normal household waste is more toxic than PV panels. But, when PV panels useful life comes to an  end, after 30-60 years of valuable service, they will be too valuable to put in a landfill. Instead, they will be mined for their semiconductor content and recycled for their glass content.

How come nobody thought the toxicity of TV's were an impediment to their widespread adoption? Of course TV's didn't threaten the profits of big oil interests.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Aug 30, 2017)

Marshy said:


> IAE has a document about long term storage. The licence for storage is generally 40-50 years but can be extended later granted all regulations are met. Don't mistake the license to mean that is the designed life of the storage container. It's far greater than that.



Is 40-50 years supposed to represent a long time? 

To my way of thinking, that is just a flash of a moment. Radioactive waste would agree.


----------



## Marshy (Aug 30, 2017)

WoodyIsGoody said:


> Contamination from PV panels?
> 
> I can assure you that normal household waste is more toxic than PV panels. But, when PV panels useful life comes to an  end, after 30-60 years of valuable service, they will be too valuable to put in a landfill. Instead, they will be mined for their semiconductor content and recycled for their glass content.
> 
> How come nobody thought the toxicity of TV's were an impediment to their widespread adoption? Of course TV's didn't threaten the profits of big oil interests.


I can assure you that the largest contamination of heavy metals in landfills today are from E waste (electronics). When your panels burn out where do you think they will go? The same spot all the rest of semiconductors are headed. 

Initially I was talking mining contamination but some of the same argument can be made about the mining of uranium however, there is a significant difference in the two. PV panels use large quantities of toxic chemicals and have a carbon footprint to manufacture.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Aug 30, 2017)

Marshy said:


> I can assure you that the largest contamination of heavy metals in landfills today are from E waste (electronics). When your panels burn out where do you think they will go? The same spot all the rest of semiconductors are headed.



They will be recycled at a profit. 



> Initially I was talking mining contamination but some of the same argument can be made about the mining of uranium however, there is a significant difference in the two. PV panels use large quantities of toxic chemicals and have a carbon footprint to manufacture.



Well the manufacture of televisions uses large quantities of toxic chemicals and has a carbon footprint too. But a TV just keeps drawing electricity over it's useful life while a solar panel PRODUCES electricity, far more than is necessary to offset it's carbon footprint.

I'm sorry but your arguments are not convincing.


----------



## georgepds (Aug 30, 2017)

Contamination from pv panels..???

How can you compare this to radioactive waste which takes a 100,000 years to degrade, and is toxic in microscopic amounts?

Something biblical comes to mind, involving beams in your own eye

Talk about invented problem s


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 30, 2017)

WoodyIsGoody said:


> You know what they say about statistics. And it's never wise to cite an actively disputed Wiki article to try to prove your point.
> 
> Your claim was that German solar subsidies were based on a flawed model (overly generous) and that the solar subsidies in the US were somehow better because they were smaller and therefore more sustainable. The evidence cited to make this point was that Germany was rapidly reducing future subsidies. But the fact is that German solar production has reached it's practical limit (without adding massive battery storage). The reduction in subsidies is due to the overwhelming success of the program, not a flaw.
> 
> ...



Thanks for pointing out my inadvertent shilling for Big Oil.  

You asserted that German electricity was 85% renewable, and waaaay more renewable than HI or CA, without any citations or sources.

I pointed out that Germany electricity was 30% renewable, a lower renewable fraction than CA (40%), and provided a source (wikipedia).

I'm so confused....which is it?  30% (me) or 85% (you)?

Here is another couple links, if you don't like wikipedia...

Fraunhofer: https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm?year=2016
33% renewable electrical energy in 2016 (and 41% coal).

Cleantechnica: https://cleantechnica.com/2017/07/04/germany-generated-35-electricity-renewables-first-half-2017/
35% renewable electrical energy in 2017H1.

I have now provided three sources that agree, do you have any sources for your 85% figure?

And again, several large US states (comparable in GDP and population to Germany) have managed to reach higher renewable fraction and or cleaner electricity without German style subsidies, and CA is growing their renewable share rapidly.


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 30, 2017)

WoodyIsGoody said:


> Your claim was that German solar subsidies were based on a flawed model (overly generous) and that the solar subsidies in the US were somehow better because they were smaller and therefore more sustainable. The evidence cited to make this point was that Germany was rapidly reducing future subsidies. But the fact is that German solar production has reached it's practical limit (without adding massive battery storage). The reduction in subsidies is due to the overwhelming success of the program, not a flaw.



I don't think I ever said the US model was _better, _I certainly said is was slower.  Just pointing out that the US is making great progress in renewable energy despite not having German-style subsidies, and that we might (ironically?) also be passing them (Germany/EU/etc) on the way to greener and more renewable electricity.

I asserted that this largely was due to a combination of higher natural gas fraction (damned frackers), better renewable resources (damned climate), and lower cost of solar at this time.

And provided data/sources.

What about the above do you disagree with?  Why?

I guess I find it tiresome when someone says the US just has to do its policy the way some other country does it.  Maybe.  Maybe not.  That is not the way we do any other policy decisions...each country is a different context.  We do plenty of things stupidly and plenty of things well.  On the particular point of reducing gCO2/kWh of the grid the US is not doing as poorly as one might think.

Was it free?  Nope.  About $100B in fracker junk bonds went belly up last year, and that was deducted from the accounts of actual investors.  Their $100B investment has given TX and NY and CA greener grids than Germany.  Did Germany spend $100B on solar and wind to achieve the same goal, or less?  I don't know...but its different.


----------



## georgepds (Aug 30, 2017)

FWIIW,  an article in Nature energy   discusses "The underestimated potential of solar energy to mitigate climate change"..  

There is also a more readable summary in Vox that notes " In it, they review the reasons why models have traditionally underestimated PV and then try running a popular model updated with better information. The results are instructive, to say the least — if they are right, PV could potentially provide fully half of global electricity by 2050."(There is a no pay link to the nature article on the vox summary)

"The researchers hone in on three phenomena that most models fail to properly account for:


*Policy support:* For the most part, models can’t or don’t take into account the kinds of tech-specific, country- or state-level policies that have been crucial to PV’s growth .....
*Rapid learning:* The costs for solar PV modules “have decreased by 22.5% with each doubling of installed capacity,” which is a considerably more rapid learning rate than your average tech.....
*Cost increases of competing clean energy sources:* Models tend to be wildly optimistic on nuclear power and carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), despite the fact that, unlike PV, those technologies fall _short_ of model projections again and again. ....."

We are at 100 GW PV worldwide and counting...








https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/en...16224582/wind-solar-exceed-expectations-again


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Aug 30, 2017)

georgepds said:


> FWIIW,  an article in Nature energy   discusses "The underestimated potential of solar energy to mitigate climate change"..



The situation is too dire to delay.

I like the map Elon Musk used to show how much land area is needed to supply the entire U.S. electrical demand. The battery park needed to support all that demand occupies a single pixel inside the square:


----------



## Marshy (Aug 31, 2017)

WoodyIsGoody said:


> The situation is too dire to delay.
> 
> I like the map Elon Musk used to show how much land area is needed to supply the entire U.S. electrical demand. The battery park needed to support all that demand occupies a single pixel inside the square:
> 
> View attachment 199651


Distribution is the larger challenge.


----------



## begreen (Aug 31, 2017)

Marshy said:


> Distribution is the larger challenge.


True, but also solvable.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Aug 31, 2017)

Marshy said:


> Distribution is the larger challenge.



That challenge has a solution. The bigger challenge is people who deny AGW. I'm afraid there is no solution to that problem. But it gives me hope that the demographic that denies AGW is becoming older and less relevant each passing year.


----------



## Marshy (Aug 31, 2017)

You know what else is solvable? Storage of used nuclear fuel. Through reprocessing it becomes a substantial fuel source that will last hundreds of decades and the subsequent radioactivity is reduced drastically.


----------



## begreen (Aug 31, 2017)

Marshy said:


> You know what else is solvable? Storage of used nuclear fuel. Through reprocessing it becomes a substantial fuel source that will last hundreds of decades and the subsequent radioactivity is reduced drastically.


In a molten salt reactor like the thorium reactor?


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 1, 2017)

Here's the link to the Vox article @georgepds mentions above: 

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/8/30/16224582/wind-solar-exceed-expectations-again

Its by the inimical David Roberts.  In it he also discusses a recent paper on *wind power costs* that suggests that they could be cut in *half* by applying current ideas about best practice.

This amounts to better site surveying, improved turbine design and _taller/larger turbines._

This latter point was discussed at length last year by Ramez Naam....  

http://rameznaam.com/2015/08/30/how-steady-can-the-wind-blow/

The old conventional wisdom was that wind turbines could only be sited on a rather small fraction of land that had very good wind resources, some US regions (like the southeast) didn't have any of those, and capacity factors might be 0.30 at best, so intermittency is a problem.

An NREL study of larger/taller turbines points out that taller turbines reach higher capacity factor...up to 0.60 for good sites AND makes wind a commercially feasible technology at many sites that were not previously available, increasing its geographic/regional availability massively.

How big a turbine?  Turns out the, um, Germans are leaders in this tech.  As big as their biggest current machines. 

The only technical issue with the larger machines is moving the hardware along the US roadway/railroad system, where the current machines are at the size limit.  If that transport issue can be resolved, wind power can also be a super large, super cheap renewable contender.  

To get to the high renewable electricity and primary energy penetration that @WoodyIsGoody seems to want, and to avoid the challenge of seasonal RE storage, some regions (like New England) will need either a LOT of such wind power or some very long HVDC wires to some PV not under clouds in December-February.


----------



## georgepds (Sep 10, 2017)

Marshy said:


> You know what else is solvable? Storage of used nuclear fuel. Through reprocessing it becomes a substantial fuel source that will last hundreds of decades and the subsequent radioactivity is reduced drastically.



So france, which is 75% nuclear, has reprocessing, and still has a waste problem. Their underground facility for storage is still not used pending fire concerns

Where does this solution that you refer to actually work?  My guess is it's in the same category as too cheap to meter

Re france reprocessing

"A 2001 report by the French Commission on Sustainable Development -- a former advisory committee to the prime minister -- found that spent MOX fuel would have to cool for 150 years, compared to 50 years for other spent fuel, saying such a long surface storage period was "not an equitable one for future generations."


I.e. Reprocessing makes the problem worse..you have to wait 5 generations before you can even think about burying it. Hello great great great grandchildren.. guess what poppy left you

The place they're thinking about  storing what's leftover , Bure, is called by some the underground Chernobyl.. and the locals are fighting it


----------



## georgepds (Sep 10, 2017)

Fwiiw. An old article describing the reprocessing in France


http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/0...-nuclear-waste-prob-12208.html?pagewanted=all


"Areva officials admit that their solution is not perfect. It includes trucking plutonium and waste 700 miles between the reprocessing and recycling facilities. Plutonium is one of the explosive metals used for nuclear weapons and must be carefully guarded en route. If terrorists were somehow able to acquire and handle the highly radioactive wastes, they could be made into a so-called "dirty bomb" using conventional explosives."

Opps...


""When France built the La Hague facility in 1966, the United States had a fledgling reprocessing program under way, but President Ford froze the program in 1976, concluding that the proliferation risks from reprocessing were too great. The next year, President Carter announced that the United States would "defer indefinitely" the commercialization of reprocessing and recycling. President Reagan lifted the ban in 1981, but no company chose to pursue reprocessing on a completely private basis."


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Sep 10, 2017)

georgepds said:


> Where does this solution that you refer to actually work?  My guess is it's in the same category as too cheap to meter



The solution is to simply believe the seductive story told by the nuclear lobby industry. You know, the guys that don't tell it like it is because it's more profitable to tell you what you want to hear.

And, yes, I remember the "too cheap to meter" promise. Look where that got us.


----------



## georgepds (Sep 11, 2017)

woodgeek said:


> .....and to avoid the challenge of seasonal RE storage, some regions (like New England) will need either a LOT of such wind power or some very long HVDC wires to some PV not under clouds in December-February.



I agree on the need for HVDC lines, several are planned into Massachusetts. The source is not PV, but Quebec Hydro . Not PV but still renewable

There is also a RFP for lots of windpower offshore ( 1.6 GW) by 2027


http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2017/07/massachusetts_utilities_releas.html


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Sep 13, 2017)

All of it a good argument for small decentralized energy production ,free from worries of terrorism ,hazardous waste, pollution. The vast majority of small energy production is clean. Either sun or wind with a small amount of some clean burning biomass. So utilities should be  "encouraged" to work with homeowners and small business to make it cost effective for both.


----------



## Marshy (Sep 19, 2017)

I wish I had more time to entertain this discussion but I'm very busy. Maybe this winter I will have the time. Until then, cheers.


----------

