The two recent posts focusing on Peter Lang’s wind study have generated considerable debate, and some very stimulating discussion, among BNC readers. This post is a follow-up, which this time highlights Lang’s analysis of solar power and related problems associated with energy storage.
This is about solar photovoltaics (PV), which generate electricity directly via the photoelectric effect. The other rising player in the solar field is concentrating thermal power from deserts, which use a steam turbine to generate electricity via a temperature differential, in the same fundamental manner as a coal-fired or nuclear power station. I asked Peter whether he was planning to do an analysis of CSP. He told me:
“I’ve had a bit of a look at doing a similar paper for CST, but I wasn’t able to obtain the detailed output and cost figures I need. It seems the researchers are holding the figures close to their chest.”
I’ve had similar advice on this matter from Ted Trainer. He has attempted an analysis of CSP, and I might post up a highlight of this shortly, and describe some of the gaps in knowledge that Ted and others are seeking. Lang says the following on this matter:
There are two technologies for generating electricity from solar energy: solar thermal and solar photovoltaic. This paper uses solar photo-voltaic as the example because energy output and cost data are more readily available than for solar thermal. It is not clear at this stage which is the lower cost option for large generation on the scale required (see here): so any cost difference is insignificant in the context of the simple analysis presented here.
Lang’s ‘Solar Realities’ paper (download the 17 page PDF here) is summarised as follows:
This paper provides a simple analysis of the capital cost of solar power and energy storage sufficient to meet the demand of Australia’s National Electricity Market. It also considers some of the environmental effects. It puts the figures in perspective. By looking at the limit position, the paper highlights the very high costs imposed by mandating and subsidising solar power. The minimum power output, not the peak or average, is the main factor governing solar power’s economic viability. The capital cost would be 25 times more than nuclear power. The least-cost solar option would require 400 times more land area and emit 20 times more CO2 than nuclear power.
Conclusions: solar power is uneconomic. Government mandates and subsidies hide the true cost of renewable energy but these additional costs must be carried by others.
The analysis, which focuses on the Australian national energy market (NEM) but is obviously relevant for other countries, considers electricity demand, the characteristics of solar PV and one possible means of storing its energy (pumped hydropower), capital costs of a system that could reliably meet demand for 1-day through to 90 days, and then an attempt to frame these numbers in perspective with an alternative low-carbon energy source — nuclear power.
The ‘Introduction’ of Lang’s paper sets the context quite clearly, with the following statement:
The paper takes the approach of looking at the limit position. That is, it looks at the cost of providing all the NEM’s electricity demand using only solar power for electricity generation. Looking at the limit position helps us to understand just how close to or far from being economic is solar power.
The key characteristics of solar power that are relevant to this discussion can be summarised as follows:
1. Power output is zero from sunset to sunrise.
2. Power output versus time is a curved distribution on a clear day: zero at sunrise and sunset, and maximum at midday.
3. Energy output varies from summer to winter (less in winter than summer).
4. Energy output varies from day to day depending on weather conditions.
5. Maximum daily energy output is on a clear sunny day in summer.
6. Minimum daily energy output is on a heavily overcast day in winter.
Backup for solar power is clearly required — to store energy when being generated at peak times and thus deliver energy during times when nothing is being generated (at night, during cloudy weather, and to ensure sufficient winter supply). For this PV backup, Lang focused on pumped hydro in preference to sodium-sulphur or vanadium-redox batteries, due to pumped hydro’s lower costs (the latter do have some other advantages). He also considered transmission requirements.
One key feature of the analysis was his consideration of the problem of just how much energy to store. To have enough backup to meet the total national energy market demand for a 24 hour period turns out to be a much more costly proposition than creating a larger, long-term storage option.
Seems counterintuitive, doesn’t it? Well, it all comes down to those nasty ‘extremes’ — those few days of the year when solar power will give you almost nothing (yes, even the deserts have cloudy winter days, although the problem would be much worse if we were reliant on a distributed system of rooftop PV which was largely sited in the major population centres along the southern and eastern coastlines).
If you’ve only got enough solar PV storage to maintain continuous power supply for 1 day, then you need to overbuild your installed capacity by a truly massive amount to cover yourself for those days when the 24-hour capacity factor of your national system is not 20%, but 5%, or 2%, or 0.75%. To borrow a suitable analogy, under a small energy storage system, you’ve got no money in the bank to tide you over until the next paycheck comes in.
Please do read Lang’s comprehensive analysis to get yourself clear on the full story involved in this matter. I cannot emphasise enough how critical this information is if you wish to understand the implications of a carbon-constrained world based on renewable energy without fossil-fuel backup.
Lang concludes his analysis with these strong words (summaries from the last three sections):
Solar power is totally uneconomic and is not as environmentally benign as another lower-cost, lower-emissions option – nuclear power. Advocates argue that solar is not the total solution, it will be part of a mix of technologies. But this is just hiding the facts. Even where solar is a small proportion of the total energy mix, its high costs are buried in the overall costs, and it adds to the total costs of the system…
The capital cost of solar power would be 25 times more than nuclear power to provide the NEM’s demand [$2.8 trillion for the least-cost solar solution with backup versus $120 billion for nuclear]. The minimum power output, not the peak or average, is the main factor governing solar power’s economic viability. The least cost solar option would emit 20 times more CO2 (over the full life cycle) and use at least 400 times more land area compared with nuclear (not including mining; the mining area and volumes would also be greater for the solar option than for the nuclear option)…
Government mandates and subsidies hide the true cost of renewable energy, but these additional costs must be carried by others.
As noted above, the solar story is not complete without also looking hard at the situation for solar thermal power. I will address this in due course.
Brave New Climate 
506 replies on “Solar power realities – supply-demand, storage and costs”
Peter Lang – “Solar power is totally uneconomic and is not as environmentally benign as another lower-cost, lower-emissions option – nuclear power.”
You missed the very important qualification:
SOLAR PV is totally uneconomic ……
An analysis of solar power that does not contain solar thermal with economic thermal storage is not an analysis at all. Therefore your conclusions are invalid. The excuse of “I’ve had a bit of a look at doing a similar paper for CST, but I wasn’t able to obtain the detailed output and cost figures I need. It seems the researchers are holding the figures close to their chest.” is right up there with the cat ate my homework. The ‘analysis’ should have waited until you had the figures.
And yes renewables will be part of a complimentary system which is not hiding costs it is simply the way things work.
http://www.esolar.com/
http://www.ausra.com/
http://www.stirlingenergy.com/
LikeLike
Except that Trainer has said exactly the same thing to me via email. Stephen, if you could get hold of reliable CST figures for Peter, I’m sure he’ll be most happy to undertake a similar analysis.
But anyway, as noted in my posting, I will describe in a future blog entry the issues Trainer has come up against in trying to track down solid figures for CST, and what figures he’s come up with despite the limitations on good data.
LikeLike
Barry Brook – “Except that Trainer has said exactly the same thing to me via email. Stephen, if you could get hold of reliable CST figures for Peter, I’m sure he’ll be most happy to undertake a similar analysis.”
But that is not the point. This is a article entitled “Solar power realities – supply-demand, storage and costs” that leaves out a whole section of solar power coincidentely the one that has large scale storage and is most likely to be the final nail in nuclear.
His first article response drew amazing conclusions from one month of 11 wind sites when he could have presented the entire year and all the wind sites with a little work. Now the hatchet is out on solar leaving out the rapidly rising solar thermal.
LikeLike
So why do you think the argument re: 24 hour vs long-term storage and overbuilding requirements due to extremely low capacity days (or strings of days) is any different for solar thermal? Indeed, given the need for the solar thermal facility to reach a certain temperature before it can generate electricity, it might well be worse.
And how on Earth is this likely to be the final nail in nuclear?
Do you believe that June 2009 was a grossly unrepresentative month for wind in southeastern Australia?
LikeLike
I’m so with you Stephen on this one! It’s like saying “Nuclear power is bad because we have to store the waste forever!” (Eeerrmmm, what about Gen4!?)
“Solar PV is too expensive because you have to store the electricity in big batteries!” (Eeerrmmm, what about CSP!?)
Please subscribe to the Beyond Zero Emissions podcast. You will hear the LATEST solar thermal strategies, with quite detailed technical discussions about the reasons the costs are coming down due to technology changes, and the immense potential savings as these technologies SCALE UP.
EG: As Ausra chairman David Mills says, “Build them small and they’re very expensive, build them large and they’re cheap”. They prototyped one important change, doing away with the expensive parabolic dish and instead just using curved steel. Same effect technically, but MUCH cheaper to produce in bulk.
Other Beyond Zero Emissions podcasts include new heat storage materials and techniques, interviews with inventors and proprietors, estimated costings, etc. Just refusing to talk about CSP is a bit embarrassing really.
Anyway, for the record, if Gen4 are as safe and good at burning up old waste, but are not as cheap as future generations of Solar thermal, I’d still support *some* Gen4 reactors being built just to burn up the old waste! That seems like a worthwhile exercise in expensive electricity.
but again, it all comes down to the cost. I for one am convinced a renewable grid is entirely possible with CETO wavepower, geothermal, solar thermal, and wind topping it up. (Let alone Biochar biomass and other biogasses. Interesting article on biochar today.. Flannery thinks it could be worth $2 billion to Australian farmers if we get some of the carbon credits from USA.
http://tinyurl.com/qw9hrk ).
LikeLike
The argument is not the storage itself is too expensive. It’s the overbuilding required to reliably charge the storage, IF (only if) CSP constitutes a relatively large fraction of the total energy supply. Anyway, as I said a couple of times in the above post, I will do another post on CSP shortly. I’m hardly refusing to talk about it.
If you want to see my ‘stoush’ with Matthew Wright from Beyond Zero Emissions, check out the comments on this thread:
It went on, and on, and on.
LikeLike
Dave – I already subscribe to the Beyond Zero podcast and listen to it on the train to work. It is very interesting. I hope the get David Mills one day for a chat.
LikeLike
Barry Brook – “If you want to see my ’stoush’ with Matthew Wright from Beyond Zero Emissions, check out the comments on this thread:
It went on, and on, and on.”
So you got a case of Matthew fatigue – makes me feel a little better.
LikeLike
Cool Stephen, but I was mainly notifying Barry that the CSP conversation has moved on from when he and Matthew Wright had their debate back in February.
Barry, all I’m saying is that Matthew seems to get a CSP expert on every month or so and that someone would need to investigate the new CSP technologies every month or so to truly take on solar CSP. From what I can glean of the interviews (not being technical myself) the technology for both collecting the sun’s heat, and storing that heat, are both changing and improving with all sorts of developments in ALL areas.
EG: Someone above critiqued the amount of steel required by CSP collectors, whether troughs or large reflecting mirrors (for power towers). One company is trying a hard sun-resistant plastic for a cheaper trough.
EG: new heat exchanger technologies or approaches.
EG: New storage methods, like the graphite blocks I’ve mentioned frequently. (Still waiting on King Island information with the wind-back up though, and agreed it’s not as efficient as for solar thermal).
So the first commercial release is Cloncurry next year. Just wondering how much people think this technology could come down in price as economies of scale move up? Instead of 10 megawatt plants think in the gigawatt range. How would it compare then?
“A solar thermal power station is to be built in Cloncurry, in north-west Queensland. The solar thermal power station will have a capacity of 10-megawatt and will deliver about 30 million kilowatt hours of electricity a year, enough to power the whole town.[1]
The total cost of the project is A$31 million including a A$7 million gift from the government.[2] The plant should be running by early 2010.[3]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloncurry_solar_power_station
LikeLike
I have done some very preliminary studies on CSP costs.
http://www.blogger.com/posts.g?blogID=7597656451205429515&searchType=ALL&txtKeywords=&label=CSP+costs
Some Quotes
“If Nevada Solar 1 were scaled up to produce the equivalent annual electrical production of a AP-1000 nuclear plant. Our solar power plant would occupy about 42 square miles of desert, and would cost $17 Billion. Overnight storage of heat, electrical transmission lines, and interest would carry additional costs. Our 1 GW solar facility would annually consume nearly 27000 acre feet of rare desert water.
In contrast, the two 1.7 GW Mitsubishi’s Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor (APWR) Luminant Energy is planing to build at Comanche Peak are currently estimated to cost $5-6 billion each. ”
“Ausra (line focus) claims $100/m2, BrightSource (power tower heliostats) $150/m2, Matrix Solar Dish (me) $100/m2.
Let’s do a little analysis. A square kilometer at $100 per square meter would cost $100X1000X1000 = 100,000,000 per square kilometer or $247,000,000 per square mile. This represents an improvement over the $260,000,000 for 400 acres figure we got for Nevada Solar 1, or the $1 billion fir 1900 acres figure we got for Solana, but again the word inflation did not appear in the discussion.
The 150/m2 estimate gives us $370500000 per square mile, still a little better than Nevada Solar 1 in price.
Ausra and PG%E have announced a 1 square mile line focus generating facility with a name plate power rating of 177 MWs. The facility is to be located at San Luis Obispo. No price tag has been placed on it yet, so it is impossible to tell if the $100/m2 figure will hold. . . . For the basically the same price as a 1 GW BrightSource generating facility PG&E could buy a 1 GW reactor that would generate power day and night, rain or shine with 3 times the daily electrical output of the BrightSource facility.”
“The Ivanpath solar facility will have a capacity factor of ,325. That means that for every 3 watts pf electricity a large reactor will produce, the Ivanpath CSP facility will produce a little better than 1. So how much would it cost to produce the same amount of electricity with CSP as would be produced by a typical reactor? The answer would run between $30 and $35 billion.”
“Given the no price drop assumption the cost of the 25% assumption would be around $13.5 trillion. If the average cost of the CSP generated power dropped by 1/3 as Greenpeace assumed, the total cost for the 25% CSP system could be as low as $9 trillion. Remember that $9 trillion is a low cost, based on the most unlikely of assumptions. There is by the way no assurance that the cost of CSP will not be higher than the Starwood 1 costs.
Now lets look at some nuclear costs. Indian LMFBRs are expected to cost $1200 per kW in serial production. 1500 worth of indian LMFBRs would run $1.8 trillion. Chinese LWRs have an estimated cost of $1750 per kW or $2.624 trillion for 1500 GWs. American factory built modular LFTRs could run as low as $1200 per kW or $1.8 trillion for 1500 GWs. The maximum estimated costs for Westinghouse AP-1000s in the United States is $7000 per kW or 10.5 trillion for 1500 GWs generating capacity which would be the lowest end of the CSP price range to 2050.
The conclusion is that AP-1000s may have a cost advantage over CSP facilities until 2050, and will remain at least cost competitive. Generation IV nuclear technology could cost as little as 20% of the cost of CSP facilities at least until 2050. Chinese reactors are likely to cost more than Indian or American Generation 4 reactors, but will still be inexpensive compared to European or American CSP.”
LikeLike
In Nevada solar would provide peak power in summer when there is peak demand. Demand is low at night so solar storage is not an issue.
Cost projections are meaningless until CSP is manufactured in quantity and some new nuclear plants are built in US for comparisons of real costs.
While we wait for these things to happen, we can continue building wind turbines and use NG back-up for peak demand.
LikeLike
Neil Howes, I am concerned about the cost of replacing fossel fuel as energy sourcces. Renewable advocates play the hide our head in the sand game every time the bad news about Renewable cost is exposed. The truth is that PV is only reliable in the southwest where there are a few clouds, and it is not very reliable as a peak electrical generation source for daytime peak power since it peak generation is accomplished at solar noon, while peak demand may continue into the evening on hot summer days.
LikeLike
Charles,
your statement;
“The truth is that PV is only reliable in the southwest where there are a few clouds”
Since there are about 500,000 sq km in the few clouds southwest, and 7GWh/day arriving on each sq km, harvesting just 14% of this would give 500,000GWh/day. Since the US uses about 12,000GWh/day that would be X40 more power than currently used.
“and it is not very reliable as a peak electrical generation source for daytime peak power since it peak generation is accomplished at solar noon, while peak demand may continue into the evening on hot summer days.”
PV solar is reliable, it just doesn’t exactly match to peak power demand in US during summer, but receives X2 more solar energy in summer than winter. Sounds like a good reason to have some nuclear, wind, hydro and CSP solar in the energy mix to allow power shifting for a few hours.
LikeLike
First, power power engineers prefer local to distant electrical sources. Secondly, the cost of a national transmissions system for moving electricity from the Southwest to the rest of the country would be huge. Neil again you propose schemes without counting the cost. Thirdly such a transmission scheme would be far more vulnerable to sabotage than any nuclear plant would be. Fourthly exen if such a system were built it would only supply substantial amounts of power for a few hours a day, thus contributing little to the solution of the national energy problem. In contrast the money spent on solar schemes could better be spent on conventional nuclear power plants that would produce electricity on a 24/7 basis at 92% of capacity. The reactors could be located close to the electricity consumers.
LikeLike
Charles Barton – ““If Nevada Solar 1 were scaled up to produce the equivalent annual electrical production of a AP-1000 nuclear plant. Our solar power plant would occupy about 42 square miles of desert, and would cost $17 Billion. Overnight storage of heat, electrical transmission lines, and interest would carry additional costs. Our 1 GW solar facility would annually consume nearly 27000 acre feet of rare desert water.”
Except of course the bigger plant would have economies of scale and be far cheaper as it uses common materials. Also most, if not all, solar thermal trough and power tower plants are using flat mirrors from modular reflectors further lowering costs. They are also using dry cooling to minimise water.
“In contrast, the two 1.7 GW Mitsubishi’s Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor (APWR) Luminant Energy is planing to build at Comanche Peak are currently estimated to cost $5-6 billion each. ””
Where is this estimate? The latest figures from the world nuclear association give this:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/default.aspx?id=410&terms=costs
“Mid 2008 vendor figures for overnight costs (excluding owner’s costs) have been quoted as:
GE-Hitachi ESBWR just under $3000/kW
GE-Hitachi ABWR just over $3000/kW
Westinghouse AP1000 about $3000/kW”
and
“On the assumption that overall costs to the utility are twice the overnight capital cost of the actual plants, then the figures quoted above give:”
Gives a price for a 1.7GW reactor at 10.2 billion – are you quoting overnight costs or the full real cost to the punter?
“Ausra and PG%E have announced a 1 square mile line focus generating facility with a name plate power rating of 177 MWs. The facility is to be located at San Luis Obispo. No price tag has been placed on it yet, so it is impossible to tell if the $100/m2 figure will hold. . . . For the basically the same price as a 1 GW BrightSource generating facility PG&E could buy a 1 GW reactor that would generate power day and night, rain or shine with 3 times the daily electrical output of the BrightSource facility.””
Here you switch from Ausra to BrightSource – why? The 1 GW Ausra plant – scaling up the $100/m^2
1 sq mile = $247 000 000 = 177 MW nameplate
247 000 000 X 5 X 2 = 2.4 billion which would be 2X the collector area to allow for storage. Double the collector area price for the balance of the plant including storage and you get 4.8 billion for a 1 GW nameplate AUSRA plant. This plant would not be generating power when you don’t need it – at night – however it could as all solar thermal plants can have gas boilers for 24X7 power. The gas use would be limited as it would have 12 hours of storage as this has found to be the optimum in research by David Mills.
This is still 1.2 billion cheaper that the real cost of an AP-1000 and also does not need to find 43 billion to make up for the Yucca Mountain shortfall.
“Now lets look at some nuclear costs. Indian LMFBRs are expected to cost $1200 per kW in serial production. 1500 worth of indian LMFBRs would run $1.8 trillion. Chinese LWRs have an estimated cost of $1750 per kW or $2.624 trillion for 1500 GWs. American factory built modular LFTRs could run as low as $1200 per kW or $1.8 trillion for 1500 GWs. The maximum estimated costs for Westinghouse AP-1000s in the United States is $7000 per kW or 10.5 trillion for 1500 GWs generating capacity which would be the lowest end of the CSP price range to 2050.”
Yes lets make some imaginary figures up and quote for unlicensed reactors that could not be built in the US or hopefully Australia. If Chinese reactors are so good why are they buying 100 AP-1000s?
American factory built LFTRs, no matter how good they might be, are vapourware and you cannot price them yet – so this is pure imagination and wishful thinking.
“Generation IV nuclear technology could cost as little as 20% of the cost of CSP facilities at least until 2050. Chinese reactors are likely to cost more than Indian or American Generation 4 reactors, but will still be inexpensive compared to European or American CSP.””
Generation IV reactors don’t exist either and until they do you cannot price them. They could cost as little as 20% however they also could cost 20% more by the time a production reactor is produced. If you want to make stuff up I can do it too.
In a few short years EEStor is going to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EEStor
“For a 52 kWh unit, an initial production price of $3,200, falling to $2,100 with mass production is projected.[6] This is half the price per stored watt-hour of lead-acid batteries, and potentially cheap enough to use to store grid power at off-peak times for on-peak use, and to buffer the output from intermittent power sources such as wind farms.”
So with these batteries we can, as the price will come down further to let say $1500 kWh, have all wind and solar plants can have virtually unlimited cheap storage and make it 24X7 Power.
So my imaginary technology can do it just as well as yours.
LikeLike
“So my imaginary technology can do it just as well as yours.”
Except that MSR prototypes have already been built and operated, whereas EEStor has yet to prove its viability, even in principle.
LikeLike
I also wonder where we are with the idea of solar updraft towers.
It seems to me that if we combined the idea of heliostats focusing insolation onto a surface capable of absorbing very substantial heat and placed a series of 1000-1500m updraft towers above it (perhaps blanketing the air mass with plexiglass to prevent warmed air escaping other than through the towers, then the combination of seriously warm air at the base and cool air at the top — the stack effect — could provide very substantial power to turbines.
This solution wouldn’t require water or very expensive materials and low value desert land could be used. It seems worth some examination. I understand some small scale experimental towers have been examined though not with heliotats.
LikeLike
I believe that before the costs for construction projects worldwide went through the roof a couple of years ago, solar updraft towers were being costed at around a billion dollars for a plant with an output varyin g from ~80MW to ~200MW. I’ll leave it to you to decide if that’s a good deal.
LikeLike
At that installed cost, it sounds too high by about a factor of 3 to 6 depending on output, but I wonder what this figure was based on. Plainly, site costs would be a key issue, cost of materials would be highly variable and construction costs would reflect the cost of local labour.
Moreover, given that backup storage might not be needed to the same extent as wind or other solar, perhaps the levelized cost might yet make it competitive.
LikeLike
“At that installed cost, it sounds too high by about a factor of 3 to 6 depending on output, but I wonder what this figure was based on.”
Well I’m not absolutely certain that the picture is that bad, I was just going from memory. The price may not be quite that high. These are very tall structures though, so some expense has to be anticipated.
LikeLike
My understanding of this technology is that it operates on small differences in the temperature between the earth-heated air underneath the green house and the air outside the greenhouse above the chimney, which then effectively creates “baseload wind”.
It’s like a hybrid between solar and wind power.
http://www.enviromission.com.au/EVM/content/home.html
Other benefits: it catches water, and the ground beneath the greenhouse could possibly be used to also grow biomass.
However, it takes an enormous amount of land because it really is operating on the small temperature difference over a vast area.
But I question Finrod’s power statements… these things are called the “hydro schemes of the desert” because they have some kick!
“EnviroMission Limited is developing Solar Tower renewable energy technology in Australia. EnviroMission, which owns the exclusive Australian license to Solar Tower technology, is moving to commercialize the first of five planned Solar Tower power stations in Australia. A single power station development will have the capacity to supply renewable energy to more than 200,000 households.”
http://www.enviromission.com.au/EVM/content/about_companyprofile.html
I personally think I’ve heard more convincing arguments for baseload solar thermal than this one. Just say a certain baseload solar plant did need, say, half a week of backup heat above and beyond the normal liquid salt backup. Could compressed bio-gas be stored in sufficient volumes for this purpose?
LikeLike
“But I question Finrod’s power statements… these things are called the “hydro schemes of the desert” because they have some kick!”
From the Company Profile page of EnviroMission:
http://www.enviromission.com.au/EVM/content/about_companyprofile.html
“In June 2009, EnviroMission filed two land applications in the US for two prospective Solar Tower power station developments. The sites, now formally earmarked in Arizona, each total 5,500 acres (2225.85 hectares) suitable in size for development of a 200MW Solar Tower power station respectively.”
LikeLike
OK, but where does it state the cost? The other interesting thing is that condensation drips. Deserts in Spain blossomed when their smaller test tower was put up in the 80’s.
Also, this sucker seems truly baseload.
“Can a Solar Tower operate on a cloudy day?
Solar Tower technology is designed to operate 365 days a year in all weather including cloudy or wet days – a Solar Tower does operate in diffused sunlight.
Radiant heat (not sunshine) from the sun is the critical energy source for Solar Tower technology, radiant heat will heat the air under a Solar Tower canopy in the same way the air inside a greenhouse or hothouse is always higher than the ambient external temperature due to the use of radiant heat.
Air under the Solar Tower canopy will always have a higher temperature than the ambient external temperature – even on cloudy days. The design of a Solar Tower’s canopy will direct air flow to the central highest point where the hot air will pass through electricity generating turbines as it is constantly drawn up the tall hollow tower into the external cooler ambient (chimney effect) air.
The design of the canopy – rising to a central high point just above the turbines – will result in a constant hot wind (hotter than the air outside the Solar Tower) to flow towards and through the turbines as the hot air is drawn up the tall hollow tower into the constantly cooler air at the tower’s opening (chimney effect) to cause the generation of electricity.”
However, the wiki suggests peer reviewed studies are still out on the final cost. (Sounds like nuclear costings as well hey, especially the non-existent Gen4 reactors that are going to be sooo much cheaper?)
Quote from the wiki, which is open source so I can copy the full quote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower#Financial_feasibility
“Financial comparisons between solar updraft towers and concentrating solar technologies contrast a larger, simpler structure against a smaller, more complex structure. The “better” of the two methods is the subject of much speculation and debate.
A Solar Tower is expected to have less of a requirement for standby capacity from traditional energy sources than wind power does. Various types of thermal storage mechanisms (such as a heat-absorbing surface material or salt water ponds) could be incorporated to smooth out power yields over the day/night cycle. Most renewable power systems (wind, solar-electrical) are variable, and a typical national electrical grid requires a combination of base, variable and on-demand power sources for stability. However, since distributed generation by intermittent power sources provides “smoothing” of the rate of change, this issue of variability can also be addressed by a large interconnected electrical super grid, incorporating wind farms, hydroelectric, and solar power stations.[38]
There is still a great amount of uncertainty and debate on what the cost of production for electricity would be for a solar updraft tower and whether a tower (large or small) can be made profitable. Schlaich et al.[1] estimate a cost of electricity between 7 (for a 200 MW plant) and 21 (for a 5 MW plant) euro cents per kWh, but other estimates indicate that the electricity cannot possibly be cheaper than 25-35 cents per kWh.[39] Compare this to LECs of approximately 5 US cents per KWh for a 100 MW plant, wind or natural gas.[40] No reliable electricity cost figures will exist until such time as actual data are available on a utility scale power plant, since cost predictions for a time scale of 25 years or more are unreliable.[41]”
LikeLike
Sorry, my formatting above broke… I meant the last 3 paragraphs to be “cited”. But on second thoughts, those italics are not that easy to read.
Barry, any desire to get a geeky friend to turn this into a forum? The main WordPress article could have a simple link at the base to the forum discussion of the article. Ever been to Online Opinion? Your webhost should have Fantastico, which allows an easy setup of either SMF or phpbb3 forums for enabling an easier debate…. graphics, better quoting, better formatting… anyway, your call.
LikeLike
It seems some clever way of upscaling ought to exist that would make CSP cheap. To make sunlight into a concentration of power, all you need is square kilometres of metal film! Shaped just so. If it’s a single multi-square-km dish, parts of it have to be hundreds of metres higher than other parts. If the sun is not at or near the zenith, one side must be many hundreds of metres higher than the other.
So there is an optimum dish size, and it’s rather annoyingly small; 10 m diameter, maybe. I believe these dishes have been popping up in Spain, driven by a massive feed-in tariff.
Such feed-in tariffs cannot scale up past the point where their cost to a government exceeds some critical fraction, maybe ten percent, of the fossil fuel tax revenue they protect. But the token-scale installations they call into being do show what the costs are.
(How fire can be domesticated)
LikeLike
“It seems some clever way of upscaling ought to exist that would make CSP cheap”
One way is multiple(ie mass produced) mirrors directed to solar towers. Costs of all manufacturer items decline 5-10% for each X10 scaling. We see this in wind turbines, cars, PC’s. Thermal efficiency rises with scale so you want large CSP arrays. When 1000MW arrays are installed and 10GW per year is manufactured will see some big cost reductions.
LikeLike
Some one needs to parse the current Spanish projects which are really the “latest, greatest” CSP projects. They contain hot salt storage, but not for 24 on demand power.
LikeLike
I agree with solar critics and I have 2kw of PV, perhaps unwisely here at latitude 43 degrees south. Both the incident angle and frequent cloud cover are unhelpful. Unlike many parts of Australia I get no feed-in tariff, just 16.5c/kwh export credit whereas each amortised kwh may cost me over 30c. Arguably you pay twice, the upfront capital cost followed by subsequent hair shirt energy use. That self discipline may be more important than the actual electrical output.
All is not lost to home PV however. If thin film truly gets down to $1 a watt it might be easy to install several kilowatts capacity on the average suburban roof. There is talk of 20 kwh long life sodium-sulphur batteries weighing a few kilos. They need to be kept hot at around 100C. Such innovations may completely change the economics of home PV so I wouldn’t write it off just yet.
LikeLike
Peter Lang’s article on solar power is a good study on “setting up straw men” and then showing how they cannot be built.
1)renewable energy advocates are not suggesting that all power would be generated by solar PV and would not expect all solar power to be generated at Queanbeyan. Winter solar incidence is much higher and more even summer/winter in inland latitudes closer to the equator, for example Alice Springs NT and Geraldon WA. See solar map from CSIRO.
2)Australia already has weeks of hydro storage on the basis of requiring 600GWh/day(25GWax24). My estimate is >12,000GWh storage is available at present.
3)If we were to use a hypothetical 50% solar and 50%wind energy mix when all NG is exhausted and all present coal and NG power plants have been retired(AD 2100) the storage demands for a national grid become dramatically lower than what Peter is suggesting.
4) Grid additions would be modest; a HVDC link Pt Augusta to Norseman(1500km),HVDC Pt August to Alice Springs, and increased HVDC Bass-Link capacity. Major grid to Snowy already handles >4GW.
With wind farms located in WA, SA, VIC , NSW and TAS would expect about a 2 fold variation because weather systems are smaller than the distance from Geraldon WA to Warwick QLD and TAS. This would be much less than the variation indicated by Peters presentation for June 2009. To be generous lets add two full days of wind power(750GWh).
With solar across the mid latitudes(Geralton-Alice Springs-Roma) will have even solar production year round with very little cloud cover in winter months so would only need 12 hours storage(360GWh) but let say one days( 750GWh) for a total of 1500GWh. This would not need to be produced in one day but over 2 days(1500GW/30GWh/h=50hours).
Presently hydro provides 8.5GW maximum out-put so would need an additional 25GW output. We have 80 years to build this so adding 300MW/year( ie about one turbine/year).
Peter used the example of Tumut3, present pumped storage of 9,145MWh. Adding an additional 3 turbines to the existing would increase pump back rates to 1.2GWh/h but not expand storage. Adding additional pumps at Talbingo Lake( the reservoir above Tumut3?) to pump back to Eucumbene would allow a much larger storage will little capital cost. Lake Eucumbene alone holds much more than enough water for 1500GWh storage. Similarly dams in Tasmania could be adapted for pumping and capacity expanded WITH NO MORE DAMS built.
These are minor capital costs over the next 80 years. In the meantime, while the very considerable solar and wind capacity is expanded to 100GW can use existing NG as coal is phased out.
My guess is the lowest cost option will be wind now, solar and nuclear in the future with NG replacing coal quickly and eventually solar and nuclear replacing NG. We will probably only need about 1 days storage hydro back-up if we have a national grid, so no new dams or purpose built pumped hydro dams just turbines would be required.
LikeLike
See solar map;
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/cgi_bin_scripts/solar-radiation.cgi
Alice Springs is about X3 higher in June than Queanbeyan. Variation in Alice Springs is 15MJ/m ( June) to 27MJ (Jan). Further north say Tennant Creek variation is even less(18MJ and 27MJ)
LikeLike
If the HVDC from Norseman to Pt Augusta used the rail corridor it would pass close to Olympic Dam. Further west a Gen III/desal could be sited somewhere like Ceduna on the coast. Local wind, solar, wave and geothermal inputs could all contribute. Any surplus over the 700 MW needed for OD could be put on the new national grid.
LikeLike
Neil Howes, you state:
“Australia already has weeks of hydro storage on the basis of requiring 600GWh/day(25GWax24). My estimate is >12,000GWh storage is available at present.” This would seem to suggest there is a large amount of untapped water in Australian Lakes waiting to be tapped.
I am presently in Knoxville,Tennessee, the home of the Tennessee Valley Authority, which operates a large system of dams. Although the Tennessee Valley receives far more rain on average than Australia does, I doubt very seriously that the TVA keeps the sort of water reserve that you suggest. All TVA lakes would be subject to strict water management, and the water in them would be 100% allocated, with 100% of the water allocated for hydro already used for electrical generation . So where would the untapped water in TVA lakes come from. I understand that the situation in Australia to be much worse, with acute water shortages caused by prolonged droughts.
LikeLike
Charles,
I am familiar with Knoxville and Oak Ridge,TN, having lived there 3 years.
Australia has two mountain catchment regions that have a lot of developed hydro, the Snowy Mountains(3.8GWcapacity) and Tasmania(2.2GW capacity) both connected to the NEMMCO grid.
Compared to the TVA capacity of 3,365MW plus the 1,532 MWh Raccoon MT Pumped storage the Snowy Scheme is similar in capacity but much less water is used because the height between reservoirs and turbines is usually much greater. The only pumped storage is integrated between two dams(the lower one 1,400,000ML) presently only 3 of the six 250MW turbines have additional pumps so that they can return water to a 920,000ML reservoir, but presently only 25,000ML can be pumped back storing 9,000MWh of energy(six times more storage than Raccoon Mt). The direction of river flows has been changed with a 4,800,000ML storage(Lake Eucumbene) at 1200 m in elevation that can be directed through two different river systems and tunnels to generate 3.8GW but using only 1,400ML/h in theory providing 120 days of continuous power storage, but in reality they do not operate continually so several years of water storage is available. The present pumped storage allows an additional 1.5GW of capacity to be used without any net water use. With the addition of booster pumps drawing water from a greater depth, and additional pumps on existing turbines a much larger portion of that 2,300,000 ML in the lower dams could be returned to Lake Eucumbene turning the whole whole system of dams into one giant pumped storage scheme without any additional water use. The Tasmania hydro has similar storage dams but lower storage volumes( 14,000GWh or about 18 months of normal use of 1.1GW average).
Considering that Australia’s population of 20 million is 1/15th the size of the US population this would be equivalent to about 25 TWA schemes in the US on a population basis.
LikeLike
Once again Neil Howes seeks to solve the problem of poor renewable reliability by multiplying renewable generation units, while denying that it is costly to do so. Howes believes that the entire amount of water impounded behind a dam is available for power generation purposes on demand, He totally ignoring recreation, conservation, navigation, irrigation and flood control purposes of dams.
LikeLike
Charles,
Once again you have distorted what I said.
I quote you“Howes believes that the entire amount of water impounded behind a dam is available for power generation purposes on demand, ”
What I said was that a “total of 1500GWh “could be provided as backup power(2days supply) out of an estimated 12,000GWh storage. That’s 15% not the “entire amount of water impounded”
LikeLike
A presentation on CSP which included some cost data was given by Keith Lovegrove from ANU at the Australian Academy of Science in April as part of their current Public Lecture Series on Renewable Energy.
Info here: http://www.science.org.au/events/publiclectures/re/lovegrove.htm
LikeLike
Richard,
Thank’s for the link, lots of information presented in this talk. Using CO2 feed-stock for chemical conversion would seem like a better path to follow if carbon capture even gets off the ground.
LikeLike
Actually, BNC readers, if you have the time over the next few weeks, I’d encourage you to look through all the talks — there is a lot of good, up-to-date information in the collection of lectures. Some of it is highly challengable, for sure (!), but it’s an excellent overview and a great way to update yourselves on the basics of the different types of renewable energy.
http://www.science.org.au/events/publiclectures/re/archive.htm
LikeLike
To anyone who claims that solar is capable of supplying anywhere near the amount of energy to power modern societies, I would refer you to Germany, where fully half of the solar power generating capacity on the planet produces a skimpy 0.5% of their needed electricity (not needed energy, just electricity) after over two decades of massive subsidies. Or to Scientific American’s special very pro-solar special issue on solar power, which touted a plan to provide 69% of America’s electrical needs by 2050 with a plan to cover 30,000 square miles with solar panels! Construction of such a system would require completely covering 2 square miles per day with solar panels and all their supporting infrastructure, every single day for over forty years. And we’d still be far short of our needs.
Ironically, utilizing plenty of nuclear power stations with desalination, hydrogen generation for electrolysis (potentially for ammonia-powered vehicles), and eventually boron oxide reduction would not only allow all the nuclear power stations to operate at maximum power 24/7, but would allow the most fickle sources of intermittent power, such as wind and solar, to seamlessly utilize every kWh they could without any concern for load balancing. The system could be set up so that these alternate uses for electricity would automatically absorb excess power and so those secondary power draws would automatically slack off as grid demand increases (this is especially easy with electrolysis). This is one of the things that so floors me about the vehement resistance to nuclear power by so many wind and solar advocates—the systems can work so well together and provide for all our energy needs while eliminating GHG emissions. Instead we get this dogged insistence from so many proponents that wind and sun are all we need, or that they’re all we need if we back them up with natural gas, which is (in case you haven’t noticed) 20X more potent as a greenhouse gas and which degrades into long-lasting CO2 in the atmosphere after its massive albeit shorter-lived effect as methane has done its dirty work. I will kick this dead horse yet again: NATURAL GAS IS A FOSSIL FUEL THAT CONTRIBUTES TO GLOBAL WARMING IN A BIG WAY. Leaks are a big part of any natural gas supply system, and burning it produces CO2. Just because it’s not as bad as coal in some ways doesn’t mean it’s benign. It is not!
Solar and wind are unfortunately very diffuse, and thus costly and logistically virtually impossible to harness in the quantities needed to power a modern society. Nuclear is not only incredibly concentrated in comparison to wind and sun, but also in comparison to any chemical reaction envisioned to produce power. Proliferation concerns needn’t be an issue up front since about 80% of greenhouse gases are produced by nuclear-capable countries. Safety with IFRs is essentially foolproof since shutdowns rely on the laws of physics in a passive system (and you can stick them 50 feet underground), fuel is essentially free, they emit no greenhouse gas emissions, allow us to clean up all the old spent fuel and eliminate uranium mining and enrichment, and can be built on an assembly line with excellent quality control and cost containment. What is it that proponents of wind and solar feel such an irresistible urge to demonize it? Could it be because it’s too good? Amory Lovins has implied as much on more than one occasion. To quote just one example: “If you ask me, it’d be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it.”
Does that make sense?
LikeLike
No …
LikeLike
Tom,
“Solar and wind are unfortunately very diffuse, and thus costly and logistically virtually impossible to harness in the quantities needed to power a modern society”
Solar average is 5kWh/sq meter/day, that more power on the roof of a house than is being used inside from the grid. Simple mirrors can concentrate solar by X100 fold, how concentrated do you want it? You will start melting steel if it was any more concentrated.
Wind energy is diffuse that’s why we concentrate it with 100m turbine blades to output at 1-3MW power, sometimes too much power even then.
High energy concentration is great of space travel but not necessary for most earth applications(except nuclear weapons).
LikeLike
“Solar average is 5kWh/sq meter/day, that more power on the roof of a house than is being used inside from the grid. Simple mirrors can concentrate solar by X100 fold, how concentrated do you want it? You will start melting steel if it was any more concentrated.”
Except of course that commercial PV cells can’t use more than 20% of that power, they’re too expensive for people without huge subsidies, they don’t produce power when it’s most needed, and the power cannot be economically stored in useful quantities. And it doesn’t matter how much you can concentrate sunlight with mirrors, the chief point is that the surface area you need for a given amount of power is fixed. And you need a clear sky for CSP to work.
LikeLike
yeah Neil, all good points. Those turbine blades could become really cheap too… carbonised chicken feathers and soy beans = wind turbine blade.
http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/200906261
LikeLike
We’ll just ignore that we’re no closer to solving the intermittancy problem than we were thirty years ago.
LikeLike
Oh yeah, who is your friend at UIsomething blogspot something who debunked the ‘Greenpeace’ study (which was actually a summary of other studies as well)? See, when I go to a blog that has a certain barrow to push and the author doesn’t have a big “About me” button I can click on, I get suspicious.
Better Place is on the way Finrod, and by the time wind management is a problem here in Australia there will be millions of batteries the grid can store electricity in… for free. Sure the grid will pay users for the electricity back again, but not for the battery. That will not even be the responsibility of the car owner! “Better Place” has to swap the batteries out and replace them as they age.
2012 they start rolling out in Canberra.
Macquarie bank saw the next big thing and has promised a billion dollars towards it. After Canberra, they roll out across Australia. And they are already talking about selling electricity back to the grid.
Oh, and if that doesn’t work for some reason you’ve just found on a mysterious blog somewhere, you’d better tell Professor Peter Newman quick smart because he’s been busy informing the Science Show that electric cars WILL be a big part of the intermittency solution.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2571785.htm
But hey, what would he know? He’s only been studying this stuff for 30 years and is on the board of Infrastructure Australia. Better go whisper in his ear that he’s barking…
Click to access IA_Council_Members_Short_Biographies.pdf
LikeLike
Oh yeah, who is your friend at UIsomething blogspot something who debunked the ‘Greenpeace’ study (which was actually a summary of other studies as well)? See, when I go to a blog that has a certain barrow to push and the author doesn’t have a big “About me” button I can click on, I get suspicious.
Say what?
Better Place is on the way Finrod, and by the time wind management is a problem here in Australia there will be millions of batteries the grid can store electricity in… for free. Sure the grid will pay users for the electricity back again, but not for the battery. That will not even be the responsibility of the car owner! “Better Place” has to swap the batteries out and replace them as they age.
Ah. Vehicle to grid. I have heard of this.
Mind you, I never quite got just why people who relied on a fully charged car to get around would be so sanguine about letting the utility drain it while it’s on standby.
I suspect that electric vehicles will be far more practical if we have a reliable source of electricity (rather than demanding they be part of the grid hemselves).
Your faith in authority is touching, but not useful.
LikeLike
Say what?
He got you confused with me. Still pretty strange, though.
LikeLike
Finrod, don’t get the car selling back thing hey?
1. Most cars sit most of the time… 22 or 23 hours a day.
2. Drive to work, plug in.
3. Car has a 160 km range.
4. At end of day, car is fully charged and drives home.
5. Plug car in when you get home after 40km. Still 120km to sell to the grid.
6. Sell during peak evening demand hours.
7. Sell, sell, sell, down to the minimum distance programmed by owner, which is usually the distance to the nearest Better Place battery swap. (Just in case of emergency).
8. Selling during peak demand attracts premium rates, helps the consumer with the cost of the car.
9. Then, as peak demand drops off around 9, 10, 12pm… some of that night wind that’s got NOTHING TO DO AND MISSES PEAK DEMAND HOURS (according to all the whining on this blog) charges the fleet of cars up again for the morning drive to work.
That’s the model. I’m surprised you hadn’t heard of it.
LikeLike
9. Then, as peak demand drops off around 9, 10, 12pm… some of that night wind that’s got NOTHING TO DO AND MISSES PEAK DEMAND HOURS (according to all the whining on this blog) charges the fleet of cars up again for the morning drive to work.
Of course, it’s always windy every night…
That’s the model. I’m surprised you hadn’t heard of it.
I’ve heard of it. I’m just a bit suprised anyone buys it. You do realise, of course, that sometimes several days can go by without any wind to speak of on a continental scale? and that sometimes these events will correspond with cold, overcast days which will cripple any CSP plants in the area?
Whining is something I expect to hear a lot more of once large numbers of suburban weekend ecowarriors realise that the comfortable scenarios they’ve been sold leave them stranded in the dark. Especially after all the food in their fridge has gone off.
LikeLike
Selling back to the grid is nonsense. Talk about marketing hype! WHO…really, would ‘sell back to grid’? WHO would risk running their car battery down to zero over night and not be able to get to work? With a car that gets 300 miles, *maybe*. It’s simply not worth the risk given the huge limitation on battery *life* and battery *charges* (both are a function of each other for the foreseeable future).
Plus…when you’d be ‘selling back’ power to the grid is when the prices are *cheapest*…. It’s all quite silly….not to mention totally and absolutely unnecessary.
The great thing about nighttime *charging* is that’s ideal for a nuclear grid where that peak power can be flattened by raising the baseload quantity higher during the evening…without a *single* additional power plant of any sort being built.
LikeLike
Feeling threatened are you David Walters?
1. Battery life is NOT an issue! Watch this TED talk by Shai Agassi, the “Steve Jobs” of electric cars. He is personally going to change the world. $2 billion have already been dedicated to his new business model which Deutsch bank calls a “game changer”.
Basically unless you watch this 20 minute presentation I don’t think you’ve got anything to say on this subject. I’ve already explained that battery life has NOTHING to do with us car drivers, as I’m getting a new battery every week and “old” batteries that aren’t functioning well are gradually siphoned out of the system at the garage battery swap.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/shai_agassi_on_electric_cars.html
2. The car doesn’t even get 300 miles, and doesn’t HAVE TO to have people selling back to the grid. As I said, people program in the minimal charge they’d let it get down to… but unless they had an emergency, the car would be fully charged by morning anyway.
3. When is the premium electricity rate? The car would be SELLING in the afternoon/evening peak demand, and CHARGING during “off-peak” overnight cheap rates, just as I have my hot water set up to save money. Go figure.
4. FINROD, doesn’t blow at night for how long exactly…. on WHAT prime wind farm site exactly… for what measurement period exactly… not offset by which OTHER wind farms 500 km up the coast exactly…
you’re both sounding like you’re clutching at straws now.
LikeLike
Hi Neil,
why have our vehicles bogged down by all those heavy motors that are expensive and need to be serviced more frequently? Given the choice, I’d go for the car that is lighter, more energy efficient, doesn’t require ever declining liquid fuels, and can swap a battery MUCH faster than 5 to10 minutes.
Indeed, Shai Agassi is so confident that we’ll have charging points everywhere that he says he’ll PAY US if we have to Battery Swap more than 50 times a year!
I agree that the future will probably be an energy mix, and I’m not totally against nuclear, but I’m not yet convinced that it is the ONLY solution as these guys are presenting it.
As I keep saying, in the long run I think the ECONOMICS of a new generation of wind-materials (chicken feathers), solar thermal storage technologies, and new car schemes like Better Place will give nuclear a good run for its money. Only time will tell.
LikeLike
4. FINROD, doesn’t blow at night for how long exactly…. on WHAT prime wind farm site exactly… for what measurement period exactly… not offset by which OTHER wind farms 500 km up the coast exactly…
EN, you’re the one trying to sell us on this. It’s up to you to convince us that the wind power is going to be there when we need it. I’m advocating a technology not dependent on such fickle sources.
With all this corporate hero-worship and adulation of unproven technologies, you’re frankly beginning to sound like a crank.
LikeLike
Also, some of us work from home and only drive 15 minutes a day. I could sell electricity to the grid when it needed it most, and charge whenever it had the most to supply.
That’s why it’s a SMART internet connected car.
And the best bit? (I’ve already said it).
I don’t have to replace the battery from over use, as it gets swapped out maybe 20, 30, or 40 times a year… every time I pull into a Better Place garage.
Now my understanding is that they’re saying with HVDC lines (which are required to modernise the aging grid anyway), future “super-grids” will be more efficient and spread the load a lot more, so that even 40% wind is not that big a deal.
But worldwide there are 800 million vehicles, and the vehicle fleet changes over every 16 years or so. So by the time wind is 30% of the world grid decades down the track… I’m guessing big car companies will be the answer to “intermittency”… if some supercheap supercap hasn’t solved it economically by then already.
LikeLike
Ooops…
“I don’t have to replace the battery from over use, as it gets swapped out maybe 20, 30, or 40 times a year… every time I pull into a Better Place garage.”
I of course meant to say I’m not in charge of buying a new $3000 battery for my car after 2 years of over use, as the car company sells me the car, not the battery. They retain ownership. I hope that was clear.
LikeLike
Eclipse,
I am not sure about the Better Palace business plan, I think most drivers will go for PHEV’s and therefore have no need to ever swap out batteries. For EV’s faster charging and less expensive batteries are likely to make Better Place obsolete;why pay to swap when you can re-charge in 5-10 mins at any service station that has a high power capacity.
The V2G seems more promising especially with an aging population with more people retired and therefore not needing a fully charged car at 7am or 5pm.
Overnight charging will be most valuable for both nuclear and wind energy, but not for solar, but since solar will be used for the more valuable peak demand that’s not an issue. A 33% for each of nuclear, wind and solar with some V2G and hydro pumped storage could work very well in a low carbon world.
LikeLike
Eclipse,
The PHEV design has some major advantages over EV, it’s not a matter of having the weight of an engine replaced by batteries. Most trips are short( within city driving) but most people do a few long trips now and again. A 200km EV has more battery capacity than is needed for every day driving and not enough for a 500Km day trip, unless rapid charging is developed.Ten minutes would be plenty, I usually have a coffee or food when buying petrol so I don’t see this an issue if batteries can take the fast charge.
Having battery swap on major roads is great for those long trips( if enough swap sites are available) but is of little use for most daily use. I can see this working for car rentals but not for car ownership. I know what I will be buying in next few years, a PHEV not a EV but good luck to those who choose to buy an EV.
LikeLike
Eclipse, you don’t get it.
First, why would I ‘feel threatened’? ALL nuclear advocates are BIG time supporters of EVs of all types. Since it will be cheaper, unsubsidized power, everyone will want to use it, even for this Israeli batteryswap.
Secondly, that YOU don’t own the battery is totally irrelevant. *Someone* does, and these batteries will have limited runs. Hopefully the technology will be available to make them longer lasting and…longer lasting.
Thirdly, you are paying for the swap out for at least the a % of the cost for the battery purveyor’s cost, cost of manufacturing, etc and, the cost of power. You are assuming the power bought will be power *cheap*. Why do you do that Eclipse? You are also assuming you will be able to sell power back at a greater price than you buy it for. You are assuming there is no lost in going back and forth between stepdown AC/DC inverters and the the DC/AC inverter at your house. You are assuming a *perfect* relationship of forces of which there is no evidence for this.
If can do this, make a perfect storm for two way power, why not? I’m not against it, it’s just a silly idea. No one will ever want to juice down their storage on their car. I think it’s a fantasy. Love the Battery swap-out idea, however. It needs to fly on its own merit.
BTW…France is building charging (non-swap out) station…nuclear powered cars anyone?
David
LikeLike
Half a percent? Really?
Estimating 1 year-round-average GWe per million Germans, and 75 such millions, gives GWh per year 657000. I heard a few years back a solar electricity annual production of 332 GWh. What’s the most recent number?
(How fire can be domesticated)
LikeLike
Here are the IEA figures for electricity generated from solar power (2006):
Solar generation: 2,220 GWh
Total electrcity generation: 636,761 GHW
Solar contribution: 0.3%
Source: http://iea.org/Textbase/stats/electricitydata.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=DE&Submit=Submit
You can get authoritative figures for energy by country, region, technology, primary fuel, end use, generation, consumption etc, and presented in charts, tables and Excel exports.
LikeLike
Thanks for the links, Peter. I must sheepishly admit that my figures were wrong, at least as of the 2006 statistics. Germany actually produces considerably more than half of the world’s solar electricity (about 58%) and that provides considerably less than half of one percent of their electricity needs (about 0.36%, having removed their electricity exports from the stats to pad the solar numbers a bit in their favor). I stand corrected, having erred substantially in favor of the solar proponents.
The relevant links:
Germany: http://tinyurl.com/p9sqsf
The world: http://tinyurl.com/q3kew4
You’ll note that Germany has no solar thermal, but so much PV (some 80% of the world’s PV capacity) that they still dwarf the rest of the world in solar-generated electricity. Yet they don’t generate nearly enough to even think about storing it for off hours. Solar’s contribution is barely a blip on Germany’s electricity radar, a fact which I’m sure would be surprising to anyone who’s traveled there and seen the scads of solar panels in evidence.
I will now be roundly castigated for using 2006 statistics when surely the whole world situation has changed considerably since that distant era, in 3…2…1…
LikeLike
Heck, while we’re at it we might as well take a look at the other side of the Germany model that wind & solar advocates like to cite as what can be accomplished with government support. With over a third of the world’s nameplate wind turbine capacity (I’ve read 38% somewhere, but here’s the ballpark figure from the horse’s mouth), Germany manages to produce nearly a quarter of the world’s wind-generated electricity, which translates into about 5% of their domestic demand. Again, not much reason to spend money and brain cells figuring out how to store it. There just isn’t enough to make it worthwhile to even consider it.
By the way, Germany’s few nuclear power plants produce about 27% of their electricity, but they’re due to be shut down in the interests of political ideology, while the Germans proceed to construct a couple dozen coal-fired power plants to take up the slack.
Talk about inconvenient truth…
LikeLike
You guys have got your work cut out for you when articles like this are hitting political forums like Online Opinion.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9290
Nuclear instability
By Helen Caldicott
Posted Friday, 14 August 2009
Australia seems determined to lead the way to an unstable world which could result in two very different outcomes – global warming or nuclear winter. We burn and export coal in massive amounts producing more CO2 per capita than any other country and we are about to become one of the world’s major uranium exporters. Kevin Rudd remains wedded to the coal industry and the ALP now totally supports uranium mining.
Global warming is a condition that has recently brought great benefits to the nuclear industry.
[Snip: click on the link if you wish to read the rest of the article]
LikeLike
Eclipse, I snipped this not because I wish to censor anyone, but I don’t encourage the full reproduction of other web articles in the comments. A link and some selective quoting is the best bet.
Does anyone still take Helen Caldicott seriously?
LikeLike
Cheers mate, if that’s your policy stick with it as it is probably safer. I’m not saying I buy everything in her article, especially when she raves about storing waste for geological time frames. (What about Gen 4 Helen!?)
But this next paragraph will surely turn many voters off nuclear power forever, just for being remotely associated with the power industry:
“Recent studies predict that a nuclear war fought with US and Russian arsenals would induce catastrophic changes in the global climate. Smoke would block 70 per cent of sunlight in the Northern Hemisphere and 35 per cent in the Southern Hemisphere and the resulting nuclear darkness would induce a global ice age. Temperatures would be colder than 18,000 years ago at the height of the last ice age. Most humans and large animals would starve and freeze to death in the dark.”
LikeLike
RE: that quote, I’ve no doubt that nuclear war would have such catastrophic consequences. But what has that got to do with nuclear electricity? To paraphrase your words, it isn’t even remotely associated with the power industry.
LikeLike
This is one of many of Caldicott’s many slight-of-hands where she grays the difference between energy and weapons, as if we all lived in the 1950s and nothing has changed.
I highly recommend look up Luke’s essays on Caldicott’s non-scientific hysterics on energy at his Physical Insights blog.
The startling contradiction is that the only way to truly dismantle nuclear weapons is to down blend their WMD plutonium with U238 and burn it all up in nuclear reactors. The good doctor, of course, doesn’t want to go there. Better keep the weapons…
David
LikeLike
Another outrageous article by Caldicott. I thought it was so fitting that it was titled “Nuclear Instability” alongside her picture. Her response in one of the comments quoting the NRDC was a classic that has been quoted ad nauseum. The source of it is actually Hyman Rickover from 1956, warning about the costliness of fast reactors. I suspect there would be a lot of things Rickover might have thought undoable in 1956 that are commonplace today. Pretty desperate when you have to go back a tad more than half a century ago, though I suppose it will be very convincing to true believers.
LikeLike
I have in my possession a most interesting tome. No doubt many here have
heard of it. It’s titled “The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic change
and military conflict from 1500 to 2000”, written by Paul Kennedy a professor of
History at Yale University. There you will find an excellent description of the
ongoing pattern of Great Power conflicts over that period. It’s a very
impressive read. If you haven’t read it yet, I highly recommend that you obtain
a copy and do so. You will almost certainly complete it with much greater
knowledge and appreciation of the subject than you had when you
started.
The book is partly a forecast, as it was written in 1986.
Professor Kennedy’s insight into the situation at the time was uncanny. He
stated that the Soviet Union was in deep trouble a few years before its
collapse, and wrote of the rise of China well before that topic became a
mainstream day-to-day issue. Nothing in what he said about the remainder of the
twentieth century needs much revision now that it’s over, except perhaps that
some of the projections overestimated the time frame for major changes, but you
probably wouldn’t have found too many people in 1986 asserting that Soviet
communism was likely to collapse within five years. A ‘Great Power’ is
defined as a nation capable of presenting a credible challenge to any other
nation in the world. The nations in the first rank change over time, as various
contenders get pushed out of the leader pack, while demographic and economic
evolution thrusts others into it.
What really strikes me about the historical account is the dreary regularity with
which the Great Powers take up arms against each other. Throughout most of
modern European history, the Great Powers have engaged in ongoing struggles
for dominance, with intervals of peace merely serving as prep time for the next
bout. Every twenty years or so (or perhaps less, I haven’t worked out the average),
Europe would go through some huge convulsion to reach a new equilibrium in its
internal tribal tensions.
Since the Renaissance there have been two periods of relative
calm, during which direct Great Power wars have been rare or non-existent. The
first of these ran from 1815 to 1914, from the victory of Britain and its allies
over Napoleon’s empire to the outbreak of World War One. That extended period of
international peace appears chiefly to be the result of the dominance of one
Great Power above all others. Britain found itself in a uniquely advantageous
position after the Napoleonic Wars. In a bid to secure their thrones against any
future revolutions, the freshly restored monarchies of the Continent established
something called the Concert of Europe. Devised by the Austrian nobleman and
diplomat Metternich, the ‘Concert’ was basically an agreement among the European
absolutist monarchies to come to each other’s aid to put down any popular
revolution against any established regime which might threaten the status quo.
The reactionary nature of post-Napoleonic Continental governments slowed the introduction of industrial technology and modern representational management
and government, and entrenched Britain’s position as hegamon. This situation
lasted until the late nineteenth century when the spread of industrialisation
across Europe and the U.S. enabled Britain’s rivals to close the
gap. There were wars during this period, including a couple of direct
clashes between Great Powers, but not on the scale of the previous century. The
greatest military struggle by far in that historical period was the American
Civil War, an internal matter for the United States rather than a Great Power
conflict, and one which mirrored to some extent the tensions which also existed
in Europe at the time between the old agrarian economic system and the new
industrial system. The other notable struggles of this period occurred during
the latter part of it, and mainly concerned the altering balance of power in
Central Europe with the rise of Prussia/Germany. As time went by, Britain
slipped from overwhelming hegamon to first among equals in the Great Power game,
and finally to eclipse at the rise of Germany, the US, Russia and others.
Once it could no longer overawe its neighbours, Europe drifted into another Great
Power war, this time dragging the rest of the world in with it. In the
aftermath of the destruction wrought by WW1, many people from all levels of
society across Europe and the rest of the world sought political solutions to
the problem of war, such as the League of Nations, and invested great effort in
devising them. In spite of their earnest efforts to avoid another disaster, the
world was plunged into another, much worse, Great Power war two decades later.
In spite of the best efforts of the forces of reason, the basic historical
pattern had reasserted itself when the exceptional conditions which facilitated
the long peace of the 19th Century vanished. Restoration of the normal
distribution of power among the people of the globe meant restoration of
business as usual, no matter what the angels of our better nature thought of it.
Then something peculiar happened. For some reason, direct armed
clashes between the Great Powers have ceased. By now we should be up to about
World War Five, or be desperately arming ourselves in preparation for it. The
international situation at the end of World War Two certainly didn’t encourage
much optimism about the chances of avoiding future Great Power clashes, at least
not if you used past history as any guide. Something happened to derail business
as usual.
That something was, of course, nuclear weapons. The Balance of
Terror, Mutually Assured Destruction, was bagged out in its time, but in
retrospect, it seems to have served humanity rather well. Of course, it’s still
in effect. The fall of the USSR hasn’t really changed the fundamental strategic
situation that much. Russia could still destroy the US and China. The US could
still destroy Russia and China. China could cause enough damage to the US or
Russia to dissuade either of those Powers from attacking it. There are still
client states and proxy wars, but there are no true Great Power wars. Such a
conflict is still far too dangerous for any of the main players to countenance.
Since the thermonuclear bomb cannot be uninvented, I’m inclined to think
that it must be acknowledged as a permanent feature of human politics from
hereon in. Nukes or something even more powerful will be primary strategic
considerations in human affairs for the rest of history. Even if some kind of
defensive technology such as advanced ABM lasers, or interceptors, or something
becomes possible, no one could ever be sure that an advanced delivery system
couldn’t get past the defence. The risk would be just too high to ever assume
invulnerability to attack.
In short, the only way that nuclear aggression can ever possibly make sense
in terms of a Great Power war is if the aggressor has good reason to think that
its victim cannot retaliate. I don’t know what it would take to convince a would-be
nuclear conqueror that it was safe to launch a first strike, but it is certainly more
likely to happen if the intended victim publicly declares itself to be disarmed, than
if it has a habit of occasionally conducting an underground weapon test to prove
to everyone that its nuke capability is current and effective.
The Pax Britannia lasted 99 years. The Pax Atomica (I just know some linguist
is going to crucify me for that phrase, but you get what I mean) is now nearly 63
years old. I wonder if it will outlive its predecessor, and if it does, by how long.
LikeLike
Finrod,
I don’t think many are going to be convinced that having thousands of nuclear weapons in the hands of dozens of nations is a good thing for civilizations future.
Not much to do with nuclear power, except “accidents” do happen, we have survived a few nuclear power plant accidents, I doubt civilization will survive a small nuclear war “accident”.
LikeLike
“I don’t think many are going to be convinced that having thousands of nuclear weapons in the hands of dozens of nations is a good thing for civilizations future.”
Oh? Then what do you think broke the ancient pattern of a fresh civilisation-wide all-encompassing war every generation after WWII?
LikeLike
“I don’t think many are going to be convinced that having thousands of nuclear weapons in the hands of dozens of nations is a good thing for civilizations future.”
Of course, for the effect to work, it isn’t necessary to have “thousands of nuclear weapons in the hands of dozens of nations”. The two or three most powerful nations need a few hundred for the threat to be credible, and the smaller nations which feel excessively threatened by their neighbours need a couple of dozen as a deterrent to invasion.
LikeLike
I expect it is likely that smaller nations will turn to bargain – basement nuclear weapons to deter an Iraq style invasion by the Superpowers – as Iran is doing, or as a defense against similar acts by its neighbours, who may be in conflict over energy or other resources such minerals and water. Obvious and most likely method will be simple graphite pile Plutonium breeders – no Power Reactors required or useful for the undertaking.
Meanwhile the superpowers will be moving away from fission weapons, to pure fusion weapons, anti-matter fueled aircraft and weapons, robotic aircraft and beamed energy weapons from orbit. It is not hard to imagine small nuclear conflicts occuring between developing nations.
It is possible that First World Nations will reach a point whereby they will remotely toast any Nuclear Weapons facilities in developing nations, but likely that will take a small nuclear exchange to precipate that level of resolve.
LikeLike
And just why does she imagine that Russia and the USA(or anyone else)be crazy enough to have a nuclear war? Hasn’t she heard of MAD- mutually assured destruction- that turned out to be the best reason for having the “bomb”. It didn’t happen in the 60’s, during the Cuba crisis, when we were all expecting it and, as Caldicott is my generation, she should remember this period. Far more likely that we will have wars brought on by lack of land and resources due to climate change.
She is being disengenuous and mischievious. Get over yourself Helen!
LikeLike
Also, I can’t wait for the articles debunking Geodynamics geothermal energy and the 24 hour baseload power (and desal) we could get from CETO wavepower, and how these 2 baseload power sources couldn’t POSSIBLY also provide the same synergies with wind and solar that nuclear could have with wind and solar.
Consider how 60% of the earth’s population live within 40 miles of a coast line. CETO wavepower alone could provide most of the world’s energy needs!
Again: it all comes down to economics.
LikeLike
If there are reasons why they can’t possibly work, expect them to be critiqued. If there are reasons why they will work, expect them to be celebrated.
“Again: it all comes down to economics.”
And physics. And engineering. And politics. And sociology. Economics is probably the most malleable of these constraints.
LikeLike
I thought my post above had already explained that with CETO wavepower and geothermal BOTH being viable 24 hour baseload power sources that other more intermittent sources could top up, I thought I had made it clear that I at least believed the physics, and engineering, and ESPECIALLY the politics and sociology were already solved. With a majority of people living near the coasts, a CETO grid is possible. Is it economic? I don’t know.
Is it politically and socially viable? Tell me, if the CETO wave power is placed below the waves, doesn’t interfere with shipping, increases sea-life a bit like a reef, provides some desal at night during off-peak hours, and we can’t even SEE it, how much more politically and socially viable is it than WIND FARMS LET ALONE nuclear power?
“Hey little old lady and young mother with a nursing babe, do you want a nuclear power plant next door, or do you want them to build an invisible wave-machine that is good for the fishies?”
Go figure.
If both technologies are equally technically viable, won’t economics and politics be the deciding factor?
LikeLike
Sure, and as I remarked earlier it (CETO) looks pretty interesting. I don’t know enough about it to form an opinion on its viability, but the place it might occupy in a non carbon world should be evaluated on its merits, relative to the other options we might invest in.
Old ladies and nursing mothers might prefer to live next to a nuclear power plant than a coal plant, if they looked objectively at the risks.
LikeLike
“Also, I can’t wait for the articles debunking Geodynamics geothermal energy and the 24 hour baseload power (and desal) we could get from CETO wavepower, and how these 2 baseload power sources couldn’t POSSIBLY also provide the same synergies with wind and solar that nuclear could have with wind and solar.”
Lets find out if CETO works first, eh?
I confess I do like the idea of hot rock tech, but we have to recognise that it is a limited resource on a global scale, more so than hydro. While it may be good for us in Australia for a while, it is not a global solution.
LikeLike
I’m not to go to try to ‘debunk’ CETO until we see what it does. I’m not for advocating “Let’s switch to CETO and solve the worlds problems” either. That’s all marketing hype. Let’s wait and see and wish them luck.
David
LikeLike
Finrod, let’s find out if GEN4 works first OK? There are already demonstration CETO plants. Want to show me an economically demonstrated GEN4 plant?
LikeLike
Want to show me an economically demonstrated CETO plant?
LikeLike
I can’t think of any at the moment, although the Chinese have had a very successful pebble-bed test reactor going for a while now, the Russians are ramping up work on their bismuth-cooled fast breeder, and India is ready to go with their first commercial fast breeder next year:
http://business.rediff.com/report/2009/aug/17/india-first-fast-breeder-reactor.htm
At any rate, I envision that the first nuclear plants in Australia will be Gen III.
LikeLike
David Mackay thoroughly analyzed Wave Power for Britain, which has one of the best wave resources of any nation, in his paper Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air. His conclusion, by covering half of Britain’s coastline with really efficient Wave Generators, you might get maximum 4 kwh/day per person vs the 195 kwh/day that the average Britain uses or the 260 kwh/day the average American uses (total energy consumption per capita). He admits that is really optimistic. Using the real world Pelamis wave generator that’s reduced to 1.2 kwh/day per person. And uses 1000 kg steel per avg kw, vs offshore Wind of 510 kg steel per avg kw, and Old Nuclear uses 40 kg steel per avg kw.
As for Geothermal, you would think Hawaii would be the Geothermal Power capital of the USA. Instead it relies on Coal for 13%, and Oil for 68% of its electricity supply, with 1.8 % coming from Geothermal, 0.7% from Wind Energy and not surprisingly has the highest power rates in the USA of 21.3 cents per kwh. I would say if Geothermal was so economical they would have figured it out in Hawaii decades ago
LikeLike
“Using the real world Pelamis wave generator”
(sighs)
Do I have to point out that this is NOT a “real world Pelamis” generator but a real world CETO generator? (Honestly!) It’s a totally different concept. *Someone* hasn’t read about CETO…
Also, even CETO admit their wave power won’t totally supply all the UK’s energy needs…but state about 25%. The UK is as biased a sample group as you can get, almost as good as a few months study of just 11 wind farms to “debunk” wind. The UK is a tiny little island with a big population. If they want to import some energy from Europe, they are welcome. Hey, let them have some more nukes if necessary. But you’ve totally avoided the main point by clutching at straws… or is that clutching at a straw-man?
How much energy did the World Energy Council say was in wavepower?
“The World Energy Council has estimated that approximately 2 terawatts (2 million megawatts), about double current world electricity production, could be produced from the oceans via wave power.”
http://www.ceto.com.au/about/wave-energy-and-ceto.php
Sure the UK might prefer nukes to importing electricity from where the wave power really is, along the coastlines of major continents. But so much for “Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air” and it’s distortion of renewable realities by narrowing in on an inconvenient island nation to distrot the true global picture.
LikeLike
“….Also, even CETO admit their wave power won’t totally supply all the UK’s energy needs…but state about 25%…”
That would contradict what David Mackay has calculated based on pure physics. A maximum of 4 kwh/day/person or 2% of energ needs, with half Britains coastline covered. You really think you could cover the entire coastline? And a huge amount of material. Pure fantasy.
“…“The World Energy Council has estimated … about double current world electricity production…via wave power….”
I really hate those kinds of idiotic statements. Pure crapola.
Wild guess:
There’s enough hydrocarbons on Titan to supply our World’s Energy needs for millions of year.
There’s enough fresh water in Antarctica to supply all the world’s water needs for the next million year.
There’s enough gold dissolved in the ocean to produce 1000X our current output for the next thousand years.
There’s enough algae in the ocean to produce all of our food & fuel for the next million years.
Yeah, you just go and get it.
LikeLike
Hmm, nice reply, except I’m still wondering if you’ve even seen the CETO animation let alone read their briefs? The floatation device is NOT all steel like the Pelamis, there’s a steel pump for the water pressure but if push came to shove I’m sure the piping could be made from a variety of materials.
The point was about the *potential* energy out there, and I’m not saying it is going to happen overnight, or that CETO will be the only solution. But if you look at the solar pv and wind statistics for the last few decades you see an exponential doubling curve. Solar PV is doubling something like every 2 years? So all these pessimistic statements about renewable energy *only* occupies 0.5% of the market have to change, because they’re doubling up from a starting point (as EVERYTHING had to at one stage, even oil!) And doubles… and doubles again… and now suddenly the USA is the world’s largest wind nation and is on an exponential curve… and the USA’s wind penetration is now 1.5%! When just a few years ago it was impossible because it was only less than half a percent. What happened? Exponential growth.
And so CETO has gone from concept to commercial feasibility tests to development to its first commercial deal. Once it is commercially demonstrated, refinements can occur and new piping materials for the seawater, new pumps, new floatation devices etc can all be developed. CETO is there as a potential baseload supplier of renewable energy, and just because current market penetration is low doesn’t mean it won’t be a significant player in the future. As I said, even oil had a starting point.
But as I always say, I’m not for one single renewable. Experts like Herman Scheer are talking about a diverse range of energy sources complementing each other. Some places are better for higher wind penetration, some CETO, some solar & geothermal, some biomass energy such as the German Village of Jühnde which is now totally renewable.
http://tinyurl.com/n348ch
And no doubt some places will require nuclear, and if Gen4 truly burns up the waste and especially weapons grade material, then all the better. It all depends on the speed of deployment, and given equal technical capacity, the economics.
LikeLike
In regards to
“Conclusions: solar power is uneconomic. Government mandates and subsidies hide the true cost of renewable energy but these additional costs must be carried by others”.
I welcome ‘realities’ of all technologies so that sound policies can be developed and rational decisions made. Reality is however perceived differently by stakeholders at different times.
Today’s mandatory price on carbon emissions in Australia is zero. Perhaps next year it will increase to $10 per tonne for some yet with 95% free AEUs it will be 50 cents per tonne for others, and in a few more years it may increase to between $25 and $50 per tonne. This cost is a real challenge for industries that will struggle to reduce emissions or are unable to pass costs through to customers.
However, If I was living in the year 2109 and inherited a world of A1FI conditions that had resulted in warming of 4+ degrees of climate change and potential 90% collapse of the global economy plus significant political, security and sustainability problems, I would probably look back at today’s $70,000,000,000,000 global economy (US) and 8,000,000,000 tonnes of annual anthropogenic greenhouse emissions and assess the $63,000,000,000,000 loss at around $8000 per tonne (If I have got the ball park numbers wrong I am sorry, but I am just trying to illustrate a point about true costs and subsidies).
Perhaps this A1FI consequence is extreme, perhaps not, but when we start talking about subsidies for renewables we also need to talk about the greenhouse externality costs as a kind of subsidy. All subsidies should be applied to all technologies including coal, nuclear technologies and the impact on the cost of firming up different energy technologies including renewables for the comparisons to be made.
LikeLike
Dear Mrs. Brook, Howes, Lang, etc.
I hope all this back and forth actually produces an article that uses good data and addresses the various points, counter points and what’s uncertain about the viability of nuclear versus “renewables” in whatever mix of renewables plus maybe “conventionals” that people imagine will work. For a newbie like myself there is a lot of confusion generated by these posts. It seems to me that governments are themselves uncertain about which technologies would work best so they are spending billions trying different approaches. Maybe they’re being foolish or maybe they’re being wise. Could it be that all these technologies are running a close race or will be in a short enough period of time?
LikeLike
I was asked to post these short comments on this thread by Barry. It’s from an off list comment I made to him and so, here it is:
Hi Barry, obviously we are all following this Lang reports which are, of course, devastating toward renewables. The BIG debate is going to be around CSP/Solar Thermal. I say this because it has a ‘chance’ at least until we parse the numbers for 24/7 on demand power. If Peter does this, there are certain…issues that need to be brought to bear: namely a *more than 24 hour* cloudy day.
1. I raise this because in the winter, even deserts get cloudy. If there is even ONE day that a dessert *region* gets cloudy beyond the storage capacity of the CSP farm, then investments in GT technology is required for *equal* the nameplate capacity of the CSP facility.
2. The *true* costs of a vast HVDC network w/redundancy…the U.S. to just name my country, would never, ever allow a single set of HVDC lines power the entire country from one region. You’d need multiple lines for security.
3. Has anyone thought about this issue of ‘wheeling’ such bast amounts of power from one region to another? The reason both Brazil and Venezuela are considering nuclear is because all their vast, clean, wonderful hydro are way far away from where the load is (4,000 km for Brazil). Blackouts occur regularly when lines go down which they do over vast distances. A modern national grid (we have 3 in the US) are not designed to power one region’s load with another’s regions generation, even with HVDC. You find that load concentration is also where there are large generation concentrations. Such national grids are there to provide bulk, but incremental generation to keep the grid up, not to supply the entire area. California where I live is the best example, we produce at times 100% of our power, but mostly we rely for about 10 to 16% from the Pacific NW or coal/nuclear production from Nevada and Arizona. This is the way it should work, and is far more secure, where wheeling energy is used to *supplement* the generation already localized. For all these Greens that advocate distributive power, this is NOT what I have in mind which is a vast *centralization* of power.
Yours from sunny California,
David Walters
LikeLike
David,
The US already gets hydro power from Canada’s subarctic dams during summer months when flows are larger. The HVDC lines built in early 1990’s are about 1,000 Km in length. New longer lines to US are planned with new hydro developments. The HVDC technology has improved over last 20 years with solid state HV AC/DC conversion.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting one HVDC line from the US south-west. For starters lines would be going to CA, TX, and mid-west states connecting with wind turbine regions and then distributed to NE. Additional HVDC connections between the 3 power grids will enhance their reliability and allow peak power shifting over time zones.
LikeLike
The reason the HVAC (most of the lines) and HVDC lines are usable from Quebec and Ontario to the US is that they can transmit revenue generating power from Canada to New York and New England 24/7. And they are not used to provide all the power for this region. If you read my notes posted ab above, I’m very clear about this. The power is wheeled to provide *supplemental* energy to the locally generated grid in New York and New England. Double digits worth? Yes, absoluetly…but 100%? Nope. *The ISO(s) would never be that stupid*.
As an aside, New Brunswick may well be building two nukes there to take advantage of the US market as well.
This is because the power wheeled is always “on”, it’s not intermittent. Which is an other issue with HVDC, BTW, that you can’t just hot up the line, cool it down, etc..you need a steady minimal power flow which means *less* lines, not more. This to prevent the lines from ‘collapsing” and inducing some sort of VAR flow (which, to be honest, I don’t know how it effects DC vs that of AC). At any rate, when you add the costs of these lines up, the highest tech for SCADA and, eventually SG, you get into bucks that really cost a KWhr higher and higher.
In fact, almost all solar plans DO talk about wheeling power from the SW to the NE of the US, 4,000 or more kilometers. It’s absolutely screwy, expensive and unnecessary.
LikeLike
“Which is an other issue with HVDC, BTW, that you can’t just hot up the line, cool it down, etc..you need a steady minimal power flow ..”
OK, this is new information to me. If you are saying that an HVDC line effectively needs a stable baseload supply, that sounds like a big problem for the idea of using HVDC to average out fluctuating renewable contributions over very large areas to provide baseload power, especially if those fluctuations include total dropouts like Germany’s wind or extended cloudy days for solar. Is this interpretation correct?
LikeLike
Electrically it would make sense. A long HVDC line acts under load (current flow) as large inductor. Any load (current) changes introduces voltage spikes at the ends. Those can travel, depending on line length, back to the origin and can cause significant voltage oscillations over the entire line length. Not something you want to have when an eventual arc-over does not self-extinguish because the voltage does not go through zero, as in AC. Also not something you want to have when during an arcover the entire charged capacitance of the line discharges over that arc. On a long HVDC line there could be enough energy stored in the line itself (capacitance) to vaporize things badly.
Under steady-state conditions (constant load) however there’s no problem.
LikeLike
David,
The value of distant hydro is that it can provide additional power during “peak demand” or bulk 24/7 power to supplement other sources. In N America, sub-arctic and mountain regions with good hydro capacity also have good wind resources allowing long HVDC lines to operate efficiently carrying a mix of wind and hydro.
The SE of the US, has good solar resources with peak power production matching the time shifted peak demand on the US east coast, especially during the summer peak. You don’t need large storage beyond 1-2 hours, and the fact that less is produced in winter is not an issue because winter demand is less.
Solar providing 100% of US power from the SW would be an issue, but most people are not saying that is an option. Hydro, wind, nuclear and NG (and others) are all likely to contribute to the energy mix as well as solar in the next 40 years. Coal is the only source of energy that should be phased out ASAP, mothballing plants for use ONLY when unusual events such as reactor shutdowns, pipeline explosions, ice storms, low rainfall, cooling water issues occur.
If you want to argue that”nuclear can provide 100% of electricity and NO ONE renewable source can do that” you can have that argument, but that’s not what we are facing as energy choices in next 40 years.
Barry has said “techno-solar” cannot provide our energy future. I don’t accept that argument either, we have renewable hydro, as well as solar, wind and geothermal and we will be using NG peak for a long time whatever other energy sources are used.
LikeLike
“Barry has said “techno-solar” cannot provide our energy future. I don’t accept that argument either, we have renewable hydro, as well as solar, wind and geothermal and we will be using NG peak for a long time whatever other energy sources are used.”
Of course you don’t accept Barry’s argument. It’s obvious that you’re dead set opposed to nuclear power as an energy source, and your occasionally expressed lukewarm support is nothing but ‘damning with faint praise’. The degree to which you have to twist and turn to dodge criticism of your bogus ‘renewables’ schemes (all of which must be backed up by natgas, despite your stated desire to tap the last of our water tables for hydro) marks you as an apologist for the status quo.
LikeLike
Is solar thermal the only big debate? Here in Australia we have more than enough geothermal to run Australia for hundreds of years, and 60% of the global population live within 40 km of the coast which means…. CETO wave power is ALSO a MAJOR contender… especially as it is underwater and doesn’t interfere with coastal beauty or shipping lines. See the flash graphics here…
http://www.ceto.com.au/ceto-technology/what-is-ceto.php
Also, “The World Energy Council has estimated that approximately 2 terawatts (2 million megawatts), about double current world electricity production, could be produced from the oceans via wave power. It is estimated that 1 million gigawatt hours of wave energy hits Australian shores annually and that 25% of the UK’s current power usage could be supplied by harvesting its wave resource.”
http://www.ceto.com.au/about/wave-energy-and-ceto.php
As to cost and power:
“CETO Technology
Independent Expert’s Report
In December 2006, an independent report on the technical and commercial viability of the CETO wave energy technology was prepared by PB Power, part of Parsons Brinckerhoff, an independent consultancy firm specialising in the global power industry.
Key factors confirmed by the report are the estimated capital expenditure per MW, which positions CETO close to wind turbines, but with more than twice the operating load factor, and the estimated operating expenditure per kWh which enables CETO to be economically competitive with fossil fuel-based generation.”
http://www.ceto.com.au/ceto-technology/report.php
Newsflash:
“In May 2009, Carnegie Corporation (ASX: CNM) and Renewable Energy Holdings Plc (AIM: REH) announced by way of a binding Heads of Agreement, that Carnegie will purchase the CETO IP and Global Development Rights off REH in return for REH taking a 35% shareholding in Carnegie. This transaction is subject to Carnegie shareholder approval. Carnegie will now jointly develop CETO Wave Projects in the Northern Hemisphere with EDF EN. “
LikeLike
EN, why are you pushing this undemonstrated technology? We know nuclear power works, and in spite of your stated misgivings about genIV, the science and engineering of such machines is very well understood, and being actively pursued around the world. india has reached the point where they’re ready to go with it next year.
Now I hope the CETO concept works out. It’s always good to have an extra arrow in our quiver. But to push it as an alternative to proven technologies at this stage of its development is not going to fly.
Same with hot rock geothermal. Great idea if it works, but don’t bet the farm on it yet. wait to see what issues arise in the test phase. And even if it does work, this technology is unfortunately not exportable to many other places around the world.
LikeLike
If it is so easy & cheap to transmit power long distances, why don’t they build Coal Thermal Plants next to Coal Mines, instead of hauling Coal, with great difficulty, long distances on inefficient Rail Lines. There are thousands of remote minesites, communities and islands that rely entirely on very expensive Diesel Fuel generation, with diesel fuel trucked in, flown in, or shipped in, although they may be less than 100 miles from Grid Energy.
LikeLike
The coal fired plants were built in the east using high sulfur local coal, low sulfur coal was only sourced from Wyoming after EPA regulations changed. It’s moved in unit trains but still uses more energy than HVDC losses would be.
LikeLike
They do in Wyoming in some cases, it’s called “mine to plant”. However…you are fundamentally wrong, Waren.
It is not “cheap” nor “easy” to transmit power long distances. What makes you think it is? It’s extremely expensive. Also, please re-read my posting: it’s a big, big deal to “wheel” power all over the place. Transmission lines can cost up to 50% of a plant’s overall price to build. There is a very important place for HVDC and advanced HVAC lines but you miss my point: having generation located near load is simply *always* better: cheaper, more secure, less voltage fluctuation and vulnerabilities.
David
LikeLike
“…It is not “cheap” nor “easy” to transmit power long distances. What makes you think it is? It’s extremely expensive…”
That’s just what I implied by my comment, read it again. In the NWT they have hydro plants that are throwing away 90% of their energy down the spillway, while 100 km away there are communities on diesel generation, for which they charge 65 cents per kwh. Big Minesites which use 25 MW or more are on diesel, trucked in on ice roads in the winter, while Hydro Plants 300 km away are throwing away excess energy.
To install Transmission lines you will face lawsuits from farmers for Induced Ground Currents, opposition from landowners who despise the ugly Hydro Lines, groups that use open spaces for ultralight aircraft, parasails and hang gliders, environmental groups opposed to the destruction of forest – and release of carbon to the atmosphere, native land claim areas, national parks that do not allow transmission lines.
And with pumped hydro, wind plants or desert solar you have considerable higher costs since you are sizing the transmission lines, switchgear & substations for peak load, while only delivering average 20-30% of peak load.
The truth is that the super-grid / renewables energy fantasy is a case of extreme centralization of power production. The correct way to look at power distribution would be on a Map that is a transformation of a geographical map so that areas are proportional to power demand in all local regions. On that map Wind, Hydro, Pumped Hydro and Desert CSP will be lumped in remote isolated areas, far from the big Load Centres, mainly cities. Among the Renewables, only rooftop Solar PV can claim to be part of a distributed Energy System.
LikeLike
It seems there is a lot of debate about minutiae, while losing sight of the big picture.
For solar to be competitive with nuclear for meeting a major proportion of our electricity demand, the whole alternative system, comprising solar generator, energy storage and transmission must be able to provide the same quality of power and at similar cost. It should also be competitive in terms of total GHG emissions and other ‘footprint’ issues.
The simple analysis provided in the ‘Solar Power Realities’ paper indicates that the solar system is some twenty times more than nuclear.
Furthermore, the GHG emissions are greater, the mass of materials required is greater, and the land area required is greater.
Solar does not seem to compare favourably on any of the important cost or environmental criteria.
Surely, we should ask ourselves, what is behind such strong belief in renewable energy?
LikeLike
“Surely, we should ask ourselves, what is behind such strong belief in renewable energy?”
A strong incentive from the natural gas industry?
LikeLike
“Surely, we should ask ourselves, what is behind such strong belief in renewable energy?”
“…A strong incentive from the natural gas industry?…”
You said it. There wouldn’t be zip going into these nutty renewable energy hoaxes if it weren’t for the fossil fuel industries bait-and-switch scam. The bait is wonderful, natural, clean, bambi-in-the-enchanted-forest, Solar, Wind, Hydrogen, Clean Coal. The switch is instead you get the same old dirty Coal, NG & Oil. They aren’t stupid. They know very well that the only viable replacement for fossil fuels is nuclear and that ultimately to survive, our civilization must transition from one based on the stored energy of the sun to nuclear – likely first fission, followed by fusion.
They just want to ensure they get to sell as much of their fossil fuels at exorbitant prices and enormous profits as long as they possibly can.
This ain’t a conspiracy theory, it just the same old business-as-usual. Politicians, the Press, and Environmental Organizations catering to the people who put the butter on their bread. can’t say I’d be any different – I just don’t happen to be riding the gravy train.
LikeLike
Peter, Finrod,
“It seems there is a lot of debate about minutiae, while losing sight of the big picture.”
I see the big picture, the desperate need to replace coal fired power generation within the next 20 years and to start making immediate reductions in CO2 emissions before 2020.
In Australia about 10% of electrical power is from renewable energy and the government target is for about 20% to be generated from low CO2 emission sources by 2020. That seems an achievable target using solar, hydro and wind energy.
A small amount of geothermal energy is a possibility before 2020. I see no chance of any contribution from nuclear power by 2020, but a possibility if we start now to make a significant contribution perhaps 20% of our electricity from nuclear by 2030. At least until 2030 we will have an energy gap of 60% of an expected total 45GW average power. Renewable energy can fill part of that 60%gap (beyond 20%), the balance will have to come from NG or we continue burning coal(no CCS is expected before 2030).
Countries such as China are struggling with similar issues, but have much less NG available so choices are renewable, nuclear or coal. China has a nuclear building program in progress and their objectives are 5% nuclear by 2020, about 15% renewable, with nuclear perhaps 10-20% by 2030. You may think we could built up nuclear faster than China or that China is deluding itself that it can achieve 15% renewables by 2020. The 3 year built time for nuclear proposed by Charles Barton is a myth, China certainly is taking 7-9 years. Sometime in the future it may be possible to mass produce reactors and build at a faster rate but it’s not happening yet.
Beyond 2030 to 2100 we should be working towards no CO2 emissions, but if it is not possible to do this with ONLY one of;nuclear or solar or wind or hydro, this is not a reason to discount any of these for use in the next 20 years and not a reason to discount a mix of two or more( probably all) being used in the future.
Renewable energy is not a belief it’s a reality just as nuclear energy is a reality in many countries( but not in Australia or many small-medium sized economies). I can also do something personally about renewable energy but cannot make much of a contribution to nuclear.
LikeLike
Neil,
I have several problems with your approach:
1. You believe that wind and solar and energy storage can be built and provide our electrcity needs economically. They cannot. (Your comments about increased hydro pumped storage in Tumut 3 and Eucumbene are examples of a complete lack of understanding of the technologies).
2. You believe that the RE technologies will make significant cuts in GHG emissions. They will not. And they haven’t yet in other countries.
3. By diverting resources and focus away from the real solutions, you are helping to delay the public gaining an appreciation of what are the real solutions.
4. We have all our universities and research establishments tied up in RE research rather than in doing whatever we need to do to get nuclear implemented in Australia as quickly as possible. We had the same mis-direction of effort during the ESD (Ecologically Sustainable Development) in the early 1990’s and we are repeating the same mistake again now.
5. Mandating Renewable Energy targets is diverting resources to the wrong solution. We should have “Clean Energy Targets” instead.
LikeLike
This is a great discussion (if only because of all the interesting links).
First, I want to note that few here have argued against nuclear energy, most notably Neil who has stated he sees a mixture of non-carbon generation including nuclear. I take him at his word. I say this because most discussion on the Internet kind of degenerate into a “You really mean…” and this is not one of those discussion.
Secondly, Peter brings up a very good point. It’s as true in the US as it Downunder: resources are being diverted, and have been, for renewables for R&D way out of proportion, I believe, than the pay back. It is, of course, like all things USonian, totally political (and it would be for nuclear as well, IMHO).
But, nuclear is finally getting a revival of sorts in the nations engineering depts at various universities and classes are overbooked, always a good sign. Part of this, oddly, are the poll numbers, which, I were to plate ‘make-a-metaphor’ would say that the tide is as Neil would like to see it. Which is WAY better than it was 10 years ago!
david
LikeLike
Well at least Peter is being quite transparent about the straw man being set up in his paper.
Perhaps he should next write for us a paper on the feasibility and economics of supplying all the NEM’s electricity demand using only Open Cycle Gas Turbines (OCGTs), including a revelation of the hidden costs of the massive expansion of gas supply and transportation infrastructure that would be required to fuel these turbines, and the extreme challenges of providing ancillary services such as frequency control using plant that is not techincally suited for the task. As for the rate of gasfield depletion and emissions, including NOx and SOx in addition to CO2, …..
Clearly this would be a “limit” position, but following Peter’s established modus operandi, the results of this analysis (ie extremely expensive electricity) would demonstrate the highly uneconomic nature of OCGTs as a source of electricity.
The only thing left to wonder about then would be why on earth utilities and generating companies around the world continue to insist on installing the damn things as part of their supply mix!
LikeLike
Observer,
The comparison of nuclear and solar is of two technologies both of which claim to have low GHG emissions. Secondly, for both technologies the capital cost is the main component of the cost. However, OCGT has low capital cost and high fuel and O&M cost as well as high GHG emissions. So the technologies are not comparable.
However, if you did do the comparison you would find that, like nuclear, the cost of OCGT is around 1/20 the cost of the solar system.
As a first pass, limit analysis is useful. It shows which options are worth further consideration. Any option that is 50% more than another option would be discarded at the first pass.
So, I would argue, that the simple analysis is useful and certainly sufficient to demonstrate that solar power is totally uneconomic, and not as environmentally benign as nuclear.
Focusing our efforts on renewables is wasting our resources. We will delay and have less resources available to take the actions that can have a significant effect.
LikeLike
Peter
Obviously the real point of my comment was nothing to do with OCGTs but to show the absurdity of the proposition that we can draw useful general conclusions about the role and economics of a given generation technology in the supply mix from an unrealistic strawman scenario where that technology powers 100% of the grid.
If your sole aim was to convince a few diehard economically illiterate solar enthusiasts that a 100% solar grid is not a good idea then a) you probably won’t convince them whatever you say; b) you should explicitly state that that is the only aim of your paper; and c) you could have saved yourself a lot of wasted effort and proved that point much more quickly and simply.
The big problem with your approach – and what my tongue-in-cheek comment sought to highlight – is that you seem to want to draw much broader and more general conclusions about the economics of the various technologies based on an extreme and totally nonsensical hypothetical. That is simply not a valid or useful approach to deciding what role renewables can play, rather than what role they individually cannot.
LikeLike
“Looking at the limit position helps us to understand just how close to or far from being economic is solar power.”
In the real world we don’t plan on a limit position of 100% nuclear or 100% solar. What we want to know are the costs of adding an additional 5% or replacing an existing 5% of coal fired power and when this can be done, and then seeing where we could go for replacing the next 5% coal fired power etc. It’s fairly ambitious to be planning 10 years ahead for but the largest project(such as nuclear and hydro electric). Both solar and wind costs have been declining quickly as capacity has been increasing( 5-10% for each doubling), and nuclear may do the same when new building accelerates.
So the relevant questions for 2020 and 2030 are what can be built by then and what will it cost? We can’t really have firm numbers for going to 20% low carbon by 2020 for either wind, solar or nuclear. About the only thing we can say is that they are all going to cost more than coal-fired power without CCS but since that’s not an option(by 2020) the only question we can answer is “what can be built now ?” and “what will it cost?”. One option would be for a government to order 4 or 5 nuclear reactors for completion by 2020 to produce 5GW power(10%). Another option is to have private financing of wind power and public financing of some small CSP and geothermal and subsidies for solar PV, adding in total 0.5GWaverage/year. If the latter option, ordering one 1GW nuclear plant as well this would still be a less risky and cheaper option for the next 10 years. By 2020 we would have a better idea of where costs for nuclear solar, geothermal and wind were going and could then expand what ever was appropriate knowing that we had a base of expertise to add nuclear, solar or wind. A second reactor would be planned for the same site and ordered if contracts for the first come in on budget, or canceled if bids were much higher than expected.
This is exactly what China seems to be doing, not just with nuclear but all low carbon NON coal energy. So far renewables(5-15GW/year) are adding a lot more energy than nuclear(1GW/year) but this could change after 2015 when nuclear will be adding 8-10GW/year.
The storage costs for integrating wind energy up to 20% seem to be about $5/MWh. SA is going to be exceeding this value in the next year or two so we will have Australian figures. For integrating 20% solar should be considerably less than wind because of the closer matching to daily demand( unless it’s installed in a totally unsuitable sites with low winter values and a high number of cloudy days).
The costs of going from 0% to 100% power from solar or nuclear will never be relevant no one will plan for this.
LikeLike
This is what happens when you go for a few more percent renewables:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2PHwqAs7BS0
LikeLike
No, this is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%BChnde
http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2006_07_01_archive.html
“Upstairs over coffee Eckhard and his wife Sabine explain their investment. 140 local residents own the bio-gas plant, borrowing most of the money from banks. With the plant producing twice as much electricity as Juhnde requires, in 20 years time the banks will be paid off and the residents will be fully-paid-up energy barons.
SABINE FANGMEIR: I think it’s a good idea because it is very environment friendly. There is no danger. No danger for us, no danger for our children, and the children of our children. And it’s all our own. Not one owner, not an oil company. It’s ours. And we all together are responsible for this plant.
The bio-mass plant at Juhnde has only been running for around six months, but already some 30 neighbouring villages are so impressed they’re planning to invest in their own plants.”
LikeLike
“No, this is.”
So the article I linked to is mistaken is it? Kindly demonstrate this if you’re going to make those kinds of statements.
The wiki article you link to is a stub with a brief description of a village powered by biofuel, gas from decaying plant matter found near the village. Do you seriously think this is a viable solution for the industrial world? Have you any idea what area of forest would need to be denuded to provide current demand?
The text you quote from the second link cannot be found on the site you’ve linked to for it.
LikeLike
Re your article:
1. There are other policy models and energy pricing plans in other countries
2. Competitive baseload renewables seems to be on the way (CETO + cheaper thin-film solar PV for daytime “top up” of peak demand + others mentioned above)
3. I’m still not convinced NUCLEAR isn’t *externalising* too many costs in tricky ways
The text I quote is from an SBS special on Germany’s renewable energy, and it IS on Big Gav’s page, it’s where I copied it from. Search down… because there is more.
The village of Juhnde is just one example of a local village becoming economically prosperous by owning their energy. I was NOT mandating biofuels for the world! (Oh MAN I’m getting sick of the straw-man arguments on this thread!) Different horses for different courses. Basically I was just countering your blunt generalisation that people lose jobs from renewables when actually the right plan for the right place can generate income, stabilise international relations, and head towards “world peace”.
Think that’s stretching it? Ever look up how the European Union started? Yep, a steel and coal agreement.
Maybe the Desertec idea of importing African sunlight into Europe has more than energy security in mind. Maybe it’s an attempt to lift Africa out of poverty and DO something with just a tiny fraction of that desert.
This CNN piece just emphasises energy security and avoiding climate change, but I’m sure I’ve read some geopolitical ponderings as well.
CNN clip here
http://www.desertec.org/en/foundation/
This idea is spreading too. Check out the governments starting to adopt it…
http://www.desertec.org/en/news/
So if you’re convinced solar thermal really is “20 times more expensive” you’d better stop nagging us here and get out there to explain to the EU and AU why it can’t work. ;-)
I mean, surely these big companies have some energy “bean counters” that can actually study the matters you critics of renewables raise, and just come to different conclusions to you?
EG: Financial times
“Solar power plants planned for Sahara
“Around a dozen companies are set to launch a renewable energy initiative on Monday that its backers claim could within a decade provide Europeans with electricity generated from the Sahara – at a cost of €400bn ($557bn).
Munich Re, the German insurer, Deutsche Bank, utilities RWE and Eon and industrial conglomerate Siemens are among the bluechip names that will form a company to explore the technical and geopolitical challenges of peppering the deserts of North Africa and the Middle East with solar mirrors.”
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/759b35a6-6f00-11de-9109-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1
LikeLike
“1. There are other policy models and energy pricing plans in other countries”
Reality always bats last.
“2. Competitive baseload renewables seems to be on the way (CETO + cheaper thin-film solar PV for daytime “top up” of peak demand + others mentioned above)”
They’ve been ‘seeming to be on the way’ for at least three or four decades now. Somehow, they’re always ‘just a few years off’.
“The text I quote is from an SBS special on Germany’s renewable energy, and it IS on Big Gav’s page, it’s where I copied it from. Search down… because there is more.”
I’m not going to waste time going through vast swathes of drivel which has been thoroughly debunked many times before just because you’re fresh to the field and starry-eyed about all things renewable. If you have something you think is relevant, make it easy for people to find.
“The village of Juhnde is just one example of a local village becoming economically prosperous by owning their energy. I was NOT mandating biofuels for the world! (Oh MAN I’m getting sick of the straw-man arguments on this thread!) Different horses for different courses. Basically I was just countering your blunt generalisation that people lose jobs from renewables when actually the right plan for the right place can generate income, stabilise international relations, and head towards “world peace”.’
Sorry. I should have said ‘biowaste’. It doesn’t matter. It’s no more sustainable than ‘biofuel’ for a civilisation of our needs.
For an energy plan to work it has to be able to support itself. Back in the fifties, coal could support itself (and still can if we ignore the environmental impact… but an economic plan which impoverishes and isolates populations will lead to war with dead certainty. Once again, if you believe the Spanish study flawed, kindly show how.
“Maybe the Desertec idea of importing African sunlight into Europe has more than energy security in mind. Maybe it’s an attempt to lift Africa out of poverty and DO something with just a tiny fraction of that desert.’
They’ll want to be a damn sight more successful than any CSP scheme has managed so far, and as for energy security, a bunch of terrorists on camels wielding hand grenades could sabotage the link to Europe.
I’m sure all these power companies just love these renewables schemes. Think of the killing they’re set to make on natgas!
LikeLike
“3. I’m still not convinced NUCLEAR isn’t *externalising* too many costs in tricky ways”
The exemplar of such thinking is one Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen, co-autor of the infamous Stormsmith paper.
http://www.stormsmith.nl/
This ‘study’ has been thoroughly debunked by just about everyone.
LikeLike
“The costs of going from 0% to 100% power from solar or nuclear will never be relevant no one will plan for this.”
How about the cost of going from 0% to 80% like France did?
LikeLike
Finrod,
I noticed at the end of the Bloomberg article that you linked to:
“Microsoft and Google moved their servers up to the Canadian border because they benefited from cheaper energy there,” said the professor of applied environmental economics. ”
Do I need to remind you that Canada get 58% of its electricity from renewable energy and the US 10%. Looks like jobs moving to renewable energy regions.
And for the article about Spain:
The premiums paid for solar, biomass, wave and wind power – – which are charged to consumers in their bills — translated into a $774,000 cost for each Spanish “green job” created since 2000, said Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at the university and author of the report.
“The loss of jobs could be greater if you account for the amount of lost industry that moves out of the country due to higher energy prices,” he said in an interview.
The article didn’t demonstrate that there were any job losses, in fact they were giving costs for each green job CREATED since 2000 not LOST.
LikeLike
“Finrod,
I noticed at the end of the Bloomberg article that you linked to:
“Microsoft and Google moved their servers up to the Canadian border because they benefited from cheaper energy there,” said the professor of applied environmental economics. ”
Do I need to remind you that Canada get 58% of its electricity from renewable energy and the US 10%. Looks like jobs moving to renewable energy regions.”
So you continue with this mendacious tactic of lumping hydro in with technosolar. This is a strong indication of the paucity of your case.
“And for the article about Spain:
The premiums paid for solar, biomass, wave and wind power – – which are charged to consumers in their bills — translated into a $774,000 cost for each Spanish “green job” created since 2000, said Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at the university and author of the report.
“The loss of jobs could be greater if you account for the amount of lost industry that moves out of the country due to higher energy prices,” he said in an interview.
The article didn’t demonstrate that there were any job losses, in fact they were giving costs for each green job CREATED since 2000 not LOST.”
I believe that the figure is 2.2 other jobs lost for every one of these unsustainable ‘green’ jobs created. what a disaster.
LikeLike
Canada gets a lot of electricity from hydro.
Wind and solar and whatever are insignificant.
LikeLike
Interesting debate – I’d like to suggest that we expand the boundaries. It’s not only the cost of any particular technology that is at issue. It’s how they are all deployed to cut emissions. The McKinsey Greenhouse Gas cost curves are useful summaries. The global one is here>>>. Core point is that a lot of the reduction is cost neutral thanks to the profitable outcomes from efficiency. And the overall economic cost of deploying worldwide greenhouse gas measures is very achievable. For power generating sector the emissions abatement is based on costs less than or equal to 40 euro per ton by 2030 and a mix of technology.
I’d further suggest that, as Nick Stern points out, behaviour change does not occur based on financial costs alone. Energy efficiency and the lack of action on viable profitable change – over the last two decades plus – is a great example of this. Links and a short summarised article here.
Extend this a bit and it adds weight to what we anecdotally experience today. People make choices, paying for technology, in ways that are not necessarily (only) economically rational. Or more specifically we should consider if, armed with perfect knowledge on the relative costs of solar and nuclear – alongside near perfect predictions of future cost curves as technology scales and is implemented for both – people’s preferences mean that the more costly alternative is likely to be more capable of effective implementation.
LikeLike
This link may be of interest: Solar grand plan
http://energyeconomyonline.com/Interior_Dept_Solar_Plan.html
LikeLike
Interesting.
“100,000 MegaWatts (MW) capacity. By comparison, the extremely successful U.S. wind energy industry had total installed capacity by the end of 1st Qtr 2009 equaling 28,206 MW, and “new nuclear power” Generation III+ nuclear plants installed worldwide to date equals zero MW.”
No Generation 3 (or above) plants worldwide. How on earth do we know what they’ll cost? ;-) What working examples do we have? What costs were externalised? And here I was thinking that these guys at LEAST had a Gen3 to point to, let alone Gen4 with the wiki saying there’s nothing due till about 2030.
LikeLike
Interesting maybe, but it’s not true (unless you are talking about Gen III+ instead of Gen III — Gen III+ models include the EPR, AP-1000 [both currently under construction], A-CANDU, ESBWR, etc.). You might call Russia’s BN-800 a Gen IV. Then again, the article was written by Craig “Nuclear power will cost 32c/kWh” Severance.
Japan has built 2 x Gen III ABWR in the late 1990s for <$2,000 kW overnight costs. And to quote from Charles Barton’s latest post:
“… the Asian reactor construction experience suggests that reactor construction with reasonable cost is the rule rather than the exception. For example the cost of the South Korean Generation 3 APR-1400 currently runs $2330 per kW of capacity. Unlike the Finns, the South Koreans have built 12 reactors during the last twenty years, suggesting that the learning curve is alive and well in South Korea.“
LikeLike
What!? I was lied to by something on a blog!!!
OK, I’ll concede that one, just read through the ABWR wiki and Japan’s way ahead in this design. But these ABWR’s are still subject to the old “peak uranium” issue aren’t they? So what’s the inside gossip on Gen4’s?
Electrifying the means of building reactors
Also as a side issue again: sorry to sound all doomer on you (I’m NOT a doomer) but if we really are moving to an electric transport society (simply because the oil is running down and is shocking for the climate as well), how quickly can we electrify our society’s transport and ESPECIALLY the construction sectors?
I’d love to see a paper indicating costs of transport electrification AND costs of replacing our coal with Gen4 reactors to see what % of GDP this task worked out to be. The peak oil “Export Land Model” has cost me some sleep. 5% to 8% p.a. decline worldwide sounds manageable, a 50% reduction in oil-to-market in 10 years sounds pretty darn scary.
This is where the 10 year BZE zero carbon plan has its attractions… even if you’re convinced nuclear is the way to get our power, check out their 10 year transport plan.
http://www.beyondzeroemissions.org/zerocarbonplan
LikeLike
Hope this doesn’t mean that we have to build 12 reactors to get the price down to what the S Koreans are doing, and can learn a few good lessons from the Finns experience.
I knew I shouldn’t have clicked on to the Nuclear Green Web site, but couldn’t help myself.
“Between 2002 and 2007 the cost of wind generation facilities double.” I saw a completely different message in the same data!
LikeLike
No reason why ‘we’ (other countries starting to roll out Gen III+) can’t learn from the Korean and Chinese experience either.
LikeLike
“No reason why ‘we’ (other countries starting to roll out Gen III+) can’t learn from the Korean and Chinese experience either.”
It occurs to me that one of the earlier tasks the organised peo-nuclear movement in this country will need to undertake once we have some real power is to consider the regulatory environment we want to impliment. I’m sure there are lessons to be learned on that front as well as the engineering/technical front.
LikeLike
In fact, the two Japanese ABWRs were brought in under budget and ahead of schedule. We learn from that. There are ABWR apps. submitted to the US NRC. Think we can learn from their experience; with the same vendor; same design? I think so.
This why the hard core anti-nuclear activists are afraid of what is going on in China. The Chinese are actually expected to bring their AP1000s and their own version of the same reactor in *cheaper* than the Japanese did in the 1990s with their ABWRs. See where this is going?… exactly.
2013 will be when these new reactors start coming on line. It will be a red-letter year for nuclear.
David
LikeLike
Barry,
The issue with overnight costs is that nuclear takes another 4-10 years after construction starts before producing any power, so capital costs continue to rise.
Wind takes 3-12 months, so capital costs are very similar to overnight costs.
Both require years of operation to pay-off and are sensitive to interest rates. The low interest rate environment at present is a great boost to both nuclear and renewable energy costs if government guarantees are available.
LikeLike
Neil, This explains Overnight Capital Costs:
Click to access EPRI_report.pdf
LikeLike
Barry Brook – You posted this ““… the Asian reactor construction experience suggests that reactor construction with reasonable cost is the rule rather than the exception. For example the cost of the South Korean Generation 3 APR-1400 currently runs $2330 per kW of capacity. Unlike the Finns, the South Koreans have built 12 reactors during the last twenty years, suggesting that the learning curve is alive and well in South Korea.“”
Is this the overnight capital cost or the final cost of everything plus financing?
LikeLike
I would say it was capital (overnight) costs. The final cost of everything plus financing plus plant lifespan, fuel/O&M costs etc. results in a levelised cost estimate, for whatever technology you care to examine. Two quite different things.
LikeLike
Barry Brook – “I would say it was capital (overnight) costs. The final cost of everything plus financing plus plant lifespan, fuel/O&M costs etc. results in a levelised cost estimate, for whatever technology you care to examine. Two quite different things.”
As this is generally true:
“On the assumption that overall costs to the utility are twice the overnight capital cost of the actual plants, then the figures quoted above give:”
so the actual cost would be $4660/kw – why not just give the actual value. As Neil said renewable plants are so much quicker to build so the overnight cost is closer to the final.
LikeLike
Right Stephen. And on that very basis, when capacity factors are accounted for, and even when plant lifetime and backup costs are not taken into consideration (wind turbines last 20 years, nuclear power plants last 60), nuclear comes out as extremely cost competitive. It’s ground already well travelled on this blog. I wonder if you were reading that post?
LikeLike
Ouch… that’s a point even I can understand. Replacing the wind turbines 3 times as opposed to building the nuclear just once.
But don’t forget Barry, solar thermal plants don’t have to be replaced as frequently as wind turbines. This is the solar thread, after all.
So when are these Gen4 waste-burners coming out again? Then we might have a chance of really understanding these costs… otherwise peak uranium is going to be an issue with Gen3?
LikeLike
Solar thermal plants are in the 25 to 30 year time frame, so nukes still live twice as long.
Gen IV could be delivering significant electrons in 10 years (or less — some interesting plans are afoot that I can’t elaborate on at this stage) and will be the only type of nuclear plant being built within 30 years. In the meantime, there is more than sufficient uranium to be ramping up Gen IIIs at a frantic pace — with their spent fuel providing the start charges and ongoing fuel (along with depleted U and thorium) for the Gen IVs. Uranium supply is NOT a constraint to massive expansion of the nuclear industry over the next 10 or 50 years (with millions of years worth from Gen IV thereafter, if we bother to look that far ahead), provided there is a Gen III/Gen IV synergy with a % transition from one to the other taking dominant position.
Given that the EREOI for even Gen II/III with centrifuge enrichment is >50 (better for CANDUs), ‘peak uranium’ is an utter nonsense.
LikeLike
Eclipse,
You may be jumping the gun making claims for the effective life-time of either wind turbines or nuclear reactors. Certainly turbines built in the 1980’s were replaced in less than 20 years, but these were as different as graphite moderated reactors are to Gen II and Gen III reactors.
For turbines over 1.5MW it’s unlikely the towers will be replaced in 20-30 years, most concrete and steel structures last a lot longer than that, more like 60-80 years. Some of the newer turbines have no gearboxes or very much improved gearboxes that will last longer( the main repair costs). Turbine blades are likely to need replacing within 20 years and the technology is still advancing rapidly so may be replaced earlier. this is not so different to replacing boiler tubes or turbines in a nuclear or coal fired power plant, but keeping the reactor with some re-furbishing of the fuel rods etc on a more frequent basis.
Financing for wind power is often over a 15 year amortization period because of the uncertainty of life-time operation. This means that many wind farms will be very profitable if they operate beyond the 15 year financing times, just as nuclear power plants are now that are being re-licensed after >20years ( and sometimes 40 years?) operation.
LikeLike
This sounds like a bit of a generalisation.
The concrete base is no more likely to wear out in a wind farm that the concrete structures of a nuclear power plant. The transition lines are common to both. I am not sure that the towers life is finite to 20 years. The blades I would understand having a finite life. The turbine unit within the nacelle probably has a shorter life (being exposed to the elements and stresses), but I am not clear on whether the life of is only one third of the spinning generation components in a nuclear power station. I do acknowledge that sometimes wind turbines burn out (as in any facility) or get hit by lightening but this does not mean that the lifespan of a windfarm is three times shorter than turbines in a nuclear power plant.
In fact I would guess that because of the high safety standards in a nuclear power plant that there are many replaced and repaired components all the time, and it may be a question of how asset life is being defined rather than a true comparison of asset life.
So exactly what is it that would require a wind farm to be totally demolished to start again?
LikeLike
I meant to say ‘transmission’ lines, not transition.
LikeLike
Everything in the wind farm needs to be replaced because the wind turbine technology evolves, as others have pointed out is one of their ‘advantages’. As the turbines get bigger the footing must be made larger. The wind farms installed in Australia just a decade ago or already old technology that would not be replaced on the same footings. Not even the road and access erection sites would be the same. So more area will be torn up when the replacements are buil in 20 odd years time. The power lines will need to be built for higher capacity.
LikeLike
Barry Brook – “(wind turbines last 20 years, nuclear power plants last 60”
How do you know they last 20 years? Nuclear plants are lasting 60 years because of life extensions because it is uneconomical to build new ones. Do you not read any links I post? The fact that NP plants are being extended is a sad inditement of the true cost of nuclear power.
Wind turbines are replaced because the technology is changing so fast. As it plateaus like any technology does the large gearless wind turbines now being installed will still be turning in 40 years with normal maintenance.
The argument you are putting forth is not supported by any facts and actually supports the argument that nuclear is not economic.
http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2009/07/27/lower-demand-nuclear-renaissance-being-pushed-aside-in-favour-of-refurbs-uprating/#more-1747
“The common theme is simple: the economic downturn has reduced electricity demand and with it the need for new reactors. Utilities are also realizing that refurbishing/uprating units is cheaper than build anew. Exelon has said that uprating existing plants costs half as much as building new and carries far less risk. Investors, apparently, don’t like the risk involved with spending billions and billions of dollars on a 1o-year project when electricity demand is dropping, not climbing. As Murray Elston, a vice-president at Bruce Power told me, “We were not prepared for the decrease in electricity demand. I think it’s been a surprise to almost everyone.” And while you can argue that the downturn is a blip and that long term the power will be needed, it comes down to who’s paying the money. “We have to be prudent with our investors’ money and it makes us really refocus ourselves so we can be the best with the site we have.” Bruce Power has already been hit by the downturn because power coming from its existing fleet is often surplus and must be given away to balance the grid. This has affected the company’s cash flow and in some cases has forced it to temporarily shut down reactors to cope with the excess power supply.”
LikeLike
How do you know they last 20 years? Nuclear plants are lasting 60 years because of life extensions because it is uneconomical to build new ones. Do you not read any links I post? The fact that NP plants are being extended is a sad inditement of the true cost of nuclear power.
Do you ever get tired of blatent lying, Gloor?
LikeLike
!!!! DUDE !!!! Wow…I really have to say that only one thing comes to mind when I see this sort of thing: “desperation”. So “if they were economical”, you’d shut it down before it needed it’s first external paint job???? I hope you are NEVER in charge of anything to do with power production…even tread mills!!! OMG….
LikeLike
““On the assumption that overall costs to the utility are twice the overnight capital cost of the actual plants, then the figures quoted above give:”
so the actual cost would be $4660/kw – why not just give the actual value. As Neil said renewable plants are so much quicker to build so the overnight cost is closer to the final.”
I would think that with nuclear plants, the opposite would be true. Ongoing operating, maintenance and fuel costs, combined with high capacity factors and long lifetimes, should reduce the levelized cost, not increase it.
LikeLike
Sorry. my last post should read:
“I would think that with nuclear plants, the opposite would be true. Ongoing low operating, maintenance and fuel costs, combined with high capacity factors and long lifetimes, should reduce the levelized cost, not increase it.”
LikeLike
They can find the money for Gen III if they really want to. For starters half the fibre optic rollout budget of $43bn could be saved. Wireless or satellite broadband (which I have) could be cheaper in rural areas. I’m not sure who the bad guys are but maybe $6bn for the next lot of whizzbang jet fighters may not deter them. Later dozens will be bought. Thirdly there are big savings from co-locating desalination with Gen IIIs as opposed to standalone reverse osmosis plants powered by the coal dominated grid. The powers-that-be just have to adjust their thinking.
LikeLike
Dr Mark Drummond did a Phd in how Australia could save $50 billion a year by abolishing State governments and writes:
“My 2007 PhD thesis dealt extensively with government structure reform options, with an emphasis on the financial costs or benefits of reform options such as New States, Unification – or the abolition of the States, regional governments, and functional transfers to achieve national systems of health, education, public order and safety, and so on. I am confident that my thesis demonstrates that intelligent government structure reform can achieve financial and economic benefits for Australia amounting to about $50 billion (based on June 2002 dollar values), or about five per cent of gross domestic product (GDP). Chapter 5 of my thesis observes that there’s a good deal of consensus that gains in this order are indeed possible through well designed government system reforms.”
http://members.webone.com.au/%7Emarkld/PubPol/GSR/gsr.html
Only by creating a truly National and Local government scheme can we act fast enough to the challenges ahead. Power creep is already happening from the States to the Federal government as more and more taxes are Federal and the States beg for money back. So it’s time to discuss other checks and balances in a more streamlined National Local model rather than just let the States gradually be taken over by default. Without a proper public debate and referendum over exactly HOW to guarantee checks and balances, we could end up with a truly frightening all powerful Federal government as the process continues by default.
COAG has failed to deliver on climate or the Murray Darling. Everyone blames everyone else for health, and not having a National education and police policy for a nation of only 21 million is a joke. And the local governments are not even described in the Constitution, and are the kicking boys of both the State and Federal governments. Local government and local school boards making local decisions about who to hire, and how to plan schools etc, are going to be more important to community identity in the years go come.
It’s time Australia had the public debate about how to guarantee local government powers, what they are, how they can provide the health and education services that a National government could implement.
http://www.beyondfederation.org.au/
Dr Drummond’s Australia United plan details how rolling State governments into a more streamlined National legislative model with local government service provision could be “all carrot and no stick” to State government employees. After 5 or so years we could finally have a democracy where the responsibilities of 2 tiers of government were obvious, there was no more buck-passing, and more money for local governments than they ever dreamed of.
Click to access AusUplan250609.pdf
LikeLike
Finrod upthread:
I was using the $1600 per installed Kw of wind.
AIUI, these updraft towers were mere prototypes. I was proposing heliostats — which would make them more expensive but perhaps these would pay for themselves over time by lifting the output dramatically.
LikeLike
Just outy of interest, how would you apply heliostats to this design?
LikeLike
On this one, I’m with you Finrod… the idea with updraft towers is not concentrated heat in a small area, but heat differentials over a very large area to create the updraft. On a solar insolation / meter basis it is very inefficient by nature, but depends on new construction materials to decrease cost*… and maybe flooding underneath with salty water to retain more heat.
Bottom line: it works at night and even on overcast days.
(* New materials: Glasshouse built by some new super-strong plastic from bug-poo? Who knows what future green chemistry will provide… in a world where carbonised chicken feathers are seen as a potential storage method for hydrogen gas or ultra-cheap replacement for carbon nanotubes in making wind turbine blades, anything seems possible).
LikeLike
In almost the same way they apply to CSPs, with the aim being to concentrate the insolation at the area underneath the towers.
LikeLike
While Big Gav is rabidly anti nuke he sees clear problems with the gas rush that’s now unfolding
http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2009/08/gorgon-awakening-at-last.html
LikeLike
Aren’t many of the RE advocates missing the big picture? In summary, to meet a the demand:
1. solar capital cost is some 20 times that for nuclear;
2. Solar GHG emissions (LCA) are some 20 times those of nuclear;
3. Solar, with least cost energy storage, requires some 20 times the land area of nuclear; and
4. Solar requires more mining, processing, fabrication, transport and construction than nuclear.
Although the paper referred to here uses PV as the example, the reference provided in the paper suggests these figures would not be significantly differenct for CST. Certainly not sufficiently different to make solar better than nuclear in any of these key cost and environmental criteria.
LikeLike
Peter Lang – “Aren’t many of the RE advocates missing the big picture? In summary, to meet a the demand:”
After not researching properly these are pretty big claims. I cannot believe that you could think that solar PV has equivalant costs to CSP when you have not even bothered to get costings for CSP.
All this paper does is cherry-pick one technology and then apply this incorrectly to a completely different technology without any justification.
Solar PV in its place is outstanding technology. Solar panels are maintenance free and will give electricity for as long as they are placed in the sun. We do not even really know their lifetime as they have not been around long enough to find out. No other power plant can be carried to a remote village via horseback and be set up with semi-skilled labor and give the gift of light at night to people that otherwise would not have it. School children can study after dark and schools can be lit by the amazing efforts of largely volunteers that make solar panels, batteries and LED lights available to people that do not have the advantages we have. Some of them are right beside the grandiose plans of the World Bank with its billion dollar loans that bankrupt the country while the major schemes that are supposed to change the lives of the people descend into decay as the money is siphoned off by corruption. Micro credit and solar power is doing more with less than any thing that nuclear could do.
So lets have horses for courses. Solar PV at the moment is wonderful for remote power and places, like my roof, where silence and longevity is the most important thing.
The thing that you have ignored is solar thermal which is totally different to solar PV which I am sure you know. It includes economical storage of thermal energy. One of the promising ones is Solar Reserve http://www.solar-reserve.com/. This technology uses molten salts as the working fluid AND the storage so storage is integral to the plant and not an add-on. The heat can be kept for up to two weeks and the plant can supply power on demand day and night.
You have proved nothing in your paper other than you cannot see anything other than nuclear and you will not see anything that disagrees with this view. I suggest that you do a lot more research.
LikeLike
The thing that you have ignored is solar thermal which is totally different to solar PV which I am sure you know. It includes economical storage of thermal energy. One of the promising ones is Solar Reserve http://www.solar-reserve.com/. This technology uses molten salts as the working fluid AND the storage so storage is integral to the plant and not an add-on. The heat can be kept for up to two weeks and the plant can supply power on demand day and night.
Fascinating. How many GWhe of power were delivered worldwide by that system last year?
LikeLike
Near home is a
Lake Echo hydro station of 32 MW and plans for
Lake Echo wind farm of 225 MW.
Surely the two could complement each other using pumped storage.
LikeLike
How does a 32 MW hydro station cover a 225MW shortfall?
LikeLike
Announcement
I’ve decided to kill comment nesting. It was causing more problems than it was worth. It had the advantages of being easily able to ‘reply’ to another comment, but I’ve decided this is offset by 3 big disadvantages:
1. It’s tough keeping track of what is new and what is old, when the comments aren’t in simple chronological sequence.
2. There is a bug in WordPress that, under certain circumstances, can cause the comments to start appearing in random order — this is extremely difficult to fix without editing headers etc.
3. Depending on your screen size (laptops are a problem), the nested comments can get very compressed in width.
I liked the advantages of nested comments, but as with most things in life, it’s a trade-off, and I’ve now decided that the old, simpler system, wins.
This may cause a few issues with old threads where people replied to another comment without indicating its comment # (i.e. they didn’t say “Finrod #159: response”) or quoting the relevant text. Henceforth, you’ll have to do that when you intend to reply to someone.
Barry Brook
LikeLike
“2. There is a bug in WordPress that, under certain circumstances, can cause the comments to start appearing in random order — this is extremely difficult to fix without editing headers etc.”
I’m looking at switching something I run to BBpress. It isn’t a blog, but a forum. The advantage is that ALL the new articles I allow certain people in my forum to post can come up in the top of the page and act as “blog articles” but then you’re straight into the power of a forum for commenting.
See how this page says “Latest Discussions”?
http://bbpress.org/forums/
That’s just the active threads in the different forums below “Latest Discussions”. Another advantage is that the email takes you straight to the comment, you can read the rest of the comments since then on the browser, and then reply in order with quote functions and nice formatting.
LikeLike
For now, that makes REALLY good sense Barry. It would be great if you and Eclipse could work something out. I was actually *composing* a letter to you to see if you can get a ‘new’ stamp for new comments…it was becoming insane in this discussion. Many forms of blogs carry such ‘new’ stamp for the reader so they know what they’ve read. theoildrum.com and dailykos.com both have this. At any rate, it’s good you turned off nesting.
Thanks,
David
LikeLike
I’m not a hacker, but a hacker-want-to-be. This stuff is like pulling teeth… I can see where I want to get to, but it REALLY hurts to get there…
LikeLike
David Walters – “!!!! DUDE !!!! Wow…I really have to say that only one thing comes to mind when I see this sort of thing: “desperation”. So “if they were economical”, you’d shut it down before it needed it’s first external paint job???? I hope you are NEVER in charge of anything to do with power production…even tread mills!!! OMG….”
No please do not put words in my mouth. What I am saying is that some of the older plants would have been replaced at their design lifetime rather than extended the way they are now. Extending is cheaper and easier than building new ones as there is less risk for investors.
LikeLike
Finrod – “Fascinating. How many GWhe of power were delivered worldwide by that system last year?”
Almost as much as generated by GEN IV nuclear.
LikeLike
David Walters – “Selling back to the grid is nonsense. Talk about marketing hype! WHO…really, would ’sell back to grid’? WHO would risk running their car battery down to zero over night and not be able to get to work? With a car that gets 300 miles, *maybe*. It’s simply not worth the risk given the huge limitation on battery *life* and battery *charges* (both are a function of each other for the foreseeable future).”
Are you serious? Have you heard of this new thing called the Internet and mobile phones?
V2G will work using modern communications. You will be able to from work open your car’s web page and set the limits of charging and discharging. You will also be able to set it to charge because you have a long trip or discharge a bit more because you are not using it. The utility only needs 10% or 20% which will not affect the life of the battery at all. Just about all batteries now have cycle lives of thousands of cycles at this depth of discharge.
Also when wind is plentiful all the cars can be commanded to fully charge or when wind is not plentiful set to only charge to the minimum necessary that you can set from your Web browser.
Be very careful at what you call nonsense.
LikeLike
@ Finrod #154
Raise the height of the dam and if possible build something like depicted in the article above. If that’s not feasible use a separate but cheap DC system for the pumps and install another one way water turbine in the dam. If the wind system is producing near max and drops to near zero it should be able to possible to ramp the combined output down more slowly (days not hours) using the extra water. This will depend on the cross section and contour profile of the valley. I have no idea of the costs but the 20% RET should provide incentives.
LikeLike
John#153, Finrod#154;
There are a few places in the world where handling variation in wind power is almost zero cost. Tasmania has 2,200MW hydro capacity, producing an average of 1,100MW power. Adding 225 MW of wind capacity together with the 140 MW from Roaring Forties is going to mean 365MW at maximum but usually 50-200MW. If wind power goes up to 365MW Tas Hydro can cut back 15% of its generating capacity(in about 1min). If wind dropped to 50MW they could ramp up an additional 365 MW. There lowest TAS consumption is about 700MW off peak, so while less than about 1400MW, of wind power they can shut off all hydro ( maintaining spinning reserve) and export 600MW by Bass-Link, saving water for use another day.
Any more than 1400MW wind capacity may need some pumped storage to be added, not a big cost as many dams are suitable for this. In reality probably 3,000MW wind capacity could be absorbed with little cost provided an export market was available or local industry expanded.
LikeLike
Barry @ 161
I,for one, am really glad you have returned to the old format. I found it difficult to keep up with replies, especially if I had been off-line for a couple of days, and am sure I missed comments I would have liked to read and answer. It is so easy just to check the posts from the last date I looked at them and catch up that way. The “nesting” had some good points but the drawbacks showing up, which you pointed out, outweighed the good. Thankyou.
LikeLike
Yay for killing nested comments.
Barry, if Peter’s analyses are right it knocks a big hole in your sketch plan timeline. Thats a real shame – I’d been relying on renewable deployment to get us moving towards significant carbon emission reduction until nuclear power achieves significant penetration.
I think all the contributions to this blog in the time since you wrote that have added a lot to our understanding of both the renewable and nuclear components of that plan, and an update would be good. Its been a good reference scenario, and rolling in Peter’s work, the Gen III vs Gen IV staging, implications of cost and timings of China’s nuclear rollout, implications of HVDC ability to handle intermittent generation (if in fact that is an issue), any further advance on the IFR front, etc. would be a worthwhile exercise.
LikeLike
How many nukes to replace Australias coal?
Now the hard one: How many nukes to replace Australia’s OIL?
(And what assumptions are you using to do that? What about agricultural harvesters, mining, trucking, etc. 90% — or more — of our freight is by truck.)
What cost?
How soon?
How will we mine down 1km to the ore… with these?
(You’ve just GOT to see this image of a full-sized mining truck on a trolley-bus line!)
http://tinyurl.com/ko2l2e
From this great article. Did you know trolley bus lines are 5 times cheaper to install than trams!? Hmmm, even I can do the math on that one… 5km tram line or 25 km trolley bus line when the oil crisis hits. AND trolley buses can go “off the lines” if they’re hybrids… dodge accidents or problems on the line ahead if they need to.
http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2009/07/trolleytrucks-trolleybuses-cargotrams.html
LikeLike
How many nukes to replace Australias coal?
From memory, I think Australia is currently at about 28GWe production capacity. Assuming as a rule of thumb 1GW/nuclear plant, we may be able to do it with 30-35 (demand will expand during the construction process). This should certainly enable us to replace coal, and just about everything else as well.
Now the hard one: How many nukes to replace Australia’s OIL?
(And what assumptions are you using to do that? What about agricultural harvesters, mining, trucking, etc. 90% — or more — of our freight is by truck.)
Not exactly sure. Possibly as many nuclear plants again as for the electricity sector. I’m currently enthusiastic about nuclear-derived Dimethyl Ether, which can be both burned in natgas plants (useful for electricity peaking) and in deisel engines. But I’d want to check the figures on that.
LikeLike
@173/Finrod….28 GWe if that is the case…then it would take about 20 plants given the average is closer to 1400/1500 MWs if you combine the various models out there. I think we all get fixated on the AP1000 which is 1150 but most other models are larger.
@167/Stephen….I don’t see the utilities really gaining anything from this process. I wish it luck, but it seems unnecessary. A grid has to rely on demand power not put into the system willy-nilly. Most charging as EVs come on line with be done more or less at night. You are assuming this Israeli system “is the future”. You are projecting. I may well be but I have a sense the future is going to be a lot more complex than that, especially with regards to EV. Furthermore, why are you so fixated on “wind”? You assume, again, it’s all wind and solar when there is not a country in the world that has that as a plan.
@165/Stephen….you view on why nukes get run a long time…is not based on any reality I know of. At no point was the “life” of a nuke set at 40 years. Where do you get this stuff from? When you state: “What I am saying is that some of the older plants would have been replaced at their design lifetime rather than extended the way they are now. Extending is cheaper and easier than building new ones as there is less risk for investors.”…. you are showing a rather stark ignorance. The ‘designed lifetime’ was totally unknown…you are confusing *licensing* with *design*. The licensing was simply based on the only other long term power projects they had back in the 1960s and that was hydro. So they simply transferred the 40 year regime of the hyrdo licensing to nuclear. At the time they thought the plants maybe able to run up to 60 years and beyond. And yes, it’s *always* cheaper to maintain good technology that throwing it away for something new…it’s called sustainability. Now, all new nukes are designed for a 50 to 80 year life span. That’s a GOOD THING, not a bad thing, Stephen.
David
LikeLike
@David Walters on electric cars:
“Most charging as EVs come on line with be done more or less at night. You are assuming this Israeli system “is the future”. You are projecting.”
“Projecting” with good reason, as it is NOT just an Israeli system but a Hawaii system, a Japanese system, a Denmark system, and it looks like a Californian system (soon). Oh, and they open in Canberra in 2012. Hows that for “projecting”?
http://www.betterplace.com/global-progress/
LikeLike
One day, 800 million cars globally *might* be able to provide some charge back to the grid with even better batteries of the future. Just think about that before being too dismissive of wind and solar.
There are economic reasons to do so now, and there could be important cultural reasons as well. EG: Instead of just “be water smart for the environment” or “change the light globe for the environment” it could be “plug in and sell after work for the environment, you’ll be fully charged by the morning anyway. You can always battery swap in an emergency”.
(The whole basis of selling back to the grid is that the car will be ‘smart’ and will NOT sell below the charge required to get to the nearest battery swap).
LikeLike
One day, 800 million cars globally *might* be able to provide some charge back to the grid with even better batteries of the future. Just think about that before being too dismissive of wind and solar.
Let me clue you in, EN. We have thought about it.
By your own admission in your comment above, this is nothing but a Rube Goldberg scheme to try to find some way… any way… to make it appear that renewables might somehow work.
LikeLike
Wow, I’m so blown away by the peer reviewed academic reports you quoted in that highly informative and objective contribution! I’ll get right onto Shai Agassi now and let him know you’ve disproved the whole scheme.
LikeLike
I couldn’t be bothered trawling through the literature at the moment. Once again, you are trying to sell us on this idea. It’s up to you to answer the objections.
LikeLike
When you do more than just sneer I might be bothered googling something… *might* be bothered.
But really, it’s not up to me to prove anything… this is just possible. They’re currently out there mapping the best potential charge points for Canberra and discussing selling power back to the grid on the airwaves. The idea is being popularised, seems technically feasible, and even if a percentage of people won’t take up the sell-back deal out of sheer paranoia many will to offset some of their car costs.
http://podcast.beyondzeroemissions.org/index.php?id=112
So the arguments against this so far on this site at least are mainly cultural. “People won’t do it!” I say rubbish, the economics of it will have people doing it if it is technically feasible. But imagine the cultural “greenie points” they’ll earn in the eyes of their neighbour or their own “greenie conscience”. This will be much more important than changing a few light globes as it will contribute to the feasibility of a renewable grid.
I can see the adds now.
“I plug and sell, do you? It’s simple, just click “YES” on the “SELL BACK” button on your SatNav, and your car will help wind and solar become the energy source for this country. You don’t have to do anything else, it will discount your overnight charge cost, and you’ll have a full charge in the morning. Plug and sell, it’s easy!”
Talk about sissy little lifestyle changes in the name of “feeling green”, this one’s just a no-brainer!
LikeLike
Reply to Eclipsenow’s questions (#172), and further to Finrod’s reply to those questions (#173):
“How many nukes to replace Australia’s coal?”
Two multi-unit nuclear power stations in each of NSW, Victoria and Queensland, and one in each of South Australia and Western Australia could provide most of our electricity needs to 2050 and beyond. Eight NPPs each with eight units of 1GW each would have an installed capacity of 64 GW and capacity factor of around 90%. That about double our current peak demand and about three times the installed capacity of coal fired generation.
Of course, we could use larger units if we wanted to or smaller units, and we could distribute them more widely if we want to.
What Cost?
Roughly $100 to $120 B capital cost to provide all Australia’s current demand
How soon?
They could all be commissioned over two decades between 2020 and 2040. In fact, they would probably come on line at an increasing rate and replace cola fired power stations as they reach the end of their economic lives. France commissioned its NPP fleet in about 2 decades.
How will we mine down?
Same way as we mine down for the materials required for renewable energy. However, the quantities to be mined for nuclear are less for nuclear than for renewables. So the mining problem is much greater fro renewables than for nuclear. We have hardly scratched the surface exploring for uranium so far. The status of our knowledge of Uranium ore bodies in Australia is equivalent to where iron ore was in the 1950’s before the embargo on exporting iron was lifted. At that stage we thought Australia had some 80,000 million tons of iron ore (I think that was the number from memory). By the way, uranium is about the same concentration in the Earth’s crust as tin. There is plenty near the Earth’s surface. This concern about nuclear energy is a red herring. As others have pointed out, the current reactor designs use only about 10% of the available energy in the fuel. Improving reactor designs mean there is sufficient uranium on land to power world electricity demand for centuries. Add uranium from sea water, and thorium and nuclear fuel is effectively infinite.
Now the hard one: How many nukes to replace Australia’s OIL?
Not sure, but I am sure nuclear will be cheaper, and less environmentally damaging than solar, wind wave, tidal power. It will depend what the solution turns out to be – electrified land transport, hydrogen, other synfuels, ‘nuclear batteries’. What ever the solution, it appears nuclear power is most likely to provide most of the energy to drive the processes to produce the fuels, whatever they are.
I agree, charge back could become economic in the future and could make some intermittent renewables economic to provide, I would guess, up to perhaps 20% of the electircity supply.
LikeLike
David Walters@174 – “@167/Stephen….I don’t see the utilities really gaining anything from this process. I wish it luck, but it seems unnecessary. A grid has to rely on demand power not put into the system willy-nilly.”
What would be will-nilly about it? Studies done in LA showed that even a peak times up to 80% of the cars were parked. Any utility would be able to count on and quickly determine the amount of energy available by the second if necessary.
Also car AC controllers are fully programmable. They can synthesise any output waveform in three phases, fully controllable in phase, voltage and frequency and all available in millisecond timeframes. As ancillary services V2G cars would be unmatched their grid balancing ability. Utilities get from V2G cars storage that they do not have to pay for, only rent now and then when they need it and fast reacting controllable power generators.
“@165/Stephen….you view on why nukes get run a long time…is not based on any reality I know of. At no point was the “life” of a nuke set at 40 years.”
I am sure it wasn’t however neither is the life of a wind turbine set at 20 years which was the original statement of Barry. The life of a nuclear plant is set by the amount of radioactivity of the core as far as I am aware. At a certain point it becomes harder and harder to maintain safer operation.
Also nuclear people are always gushing on about how safe the new GEN III and GEN III+ plants are. Isn’t it better to replace the older plants with newer safer plants that are apparently cheaper, have less parts and have vastly better passive safety features?
Surely it is not good for the nuclear industry to keep older less safe plants creaking along – sooner or later there will be an accident in the less safe plants.
LikeLike
Peter Lang – “Roughly $100 to $120 B capital cost to provide all Australia’s current demand”
64GW at $6000/kw = $384 billion – you are out by at least a factor of 2. Final cost is at least twice the overnight capital cost. AP-1000 overnight costs come in at $3000/kw at the moment.
This is of course before you spend 2 to 4 billion on an enrichment plant and 20 billion on a waste disposal facility.
Why not put the real costs down?
LikeLike
There are a number of problems with the vehicle-to-grid or V2G idea:
1) Daily peak demand occurs in the late afternoon, when most vehicles are being used, this is during peak commute times. There may be some that can be plugged in at work, but that is asking the consumer to plug in when and where it is inconvenient – with little incentive to do so.
2) You could use vehicle batteries that are plugged in to absorb peak late evening or nighttime wind energy, with a smart grid type nation wide charging system, but it is much better to supply those peaks close to the Wind Turbines, to reduce the power fluctuations at the source. In other words it is preferable to have battery storage close to the fluctuating source for Wind, and for daily load swings you want them close to the load – typically the consumer. Companies like Altairnano are already selling battery banks for Wind Energy surges at source, so why spend money on V2G batteries, for that purpose. You are just prematurely aging the vehicle batteries. With Li-ion maybe good for 1000 cycles, you are reducing the vehicle battery life from maybe 8 yrs to 3 yrs. With a $5,000 to $18,000 replacement cost.
3) A problem people sometimes have with electric vehicles is called range anxiety. It doesn’t help when the grid may have used most of their batteries energy just when they happen to need the vehicle.
4) Vehicle batteries are very expensive and specialized in their specifications. They must be compact, lightweight and have a high Power to Energy ratio – typically a C-factor of 5 to 10 times is desirable. These high output batteries typically cost at least double that of an ordinary storage battery. For grid energy peak shaving application you do not need expensive high output batteries. Typically you would use say 20 kwh of storage energy over the 6 hrs afternoon peak, and supply a load of around 2 to 5 kw. That is a C factor of only 0.1 to 0.25, much lower than the C-factor of 5 to 10 times for a vehicle battery.
The conclusion is that a much better way to absorb Wind Energy peaks, would be to have utility battery banks located close to the Wind Turbines. Instead of going Wind Turbine DC output to Synchronizing Inverter to AC output to Utility Grid. Go Wind Turbine DC output to Battery Charger to Synchronizing Inverter to AC output to Utility Grid. These could be specialized utility battery banks like the Vanadium Redox Flow batteries.
For supplying the afternoon peak load demand, a much better idea is the home battery bank. For this application about 10 kwh of storage batteries would suffice. These could be expired vehicle battery banks, which may be unable to supply the vehicle’s surge power or just have a lower capacity than is economical, that is a lot of extra dead weight. Utilities have already been negotiating with GM on the purchase of expired Volt battery packs. However storage batteries do not require high surge capability and extra dead weight is a minor issue. This would not only supply grid energy peak daily demand but would give the homeowner an excellent emergency power supply. It would also make an excellent standard interface between a homeowners or building power system and the utility grid, so if a building or home has its own emergency or CHP power generation, it can use it most efficiently by charging a battery at full generator output, and shutting the generator off when the battery is fully charged. No need for an expensive automatic transfer switch to change household power from Grid to Generator. The battery would then link to the grid through a synchronizing inverter. If a building operator or homeowner wants to add Solar Panels it is much easier to utilize them and install them if you already have a battery bank. And also is a way of supplying a quick charge to an electric vehicle without requiring an extreme high power battery charger.
No matter how you supply Peak Grid Energy you are looking at around $2000 per kw for 6 hrs storage, whether it be Pumped Hydro, Batteries or NG Turbine (with O&M costs converted to capital cost). With Wind Energy you would want around 30-60% of peak output in storage. So for a purchase cost of $2000 per pk kw for the Wind Turbines, you would be adding another ~$800 per pk kw, which equals $2800 per pk kw. At a US avg. 25% load factor that’s $11,200 per avg delivered kw. Add installation cost & power transmission additions and you are over $12,500 per kw. With factory produced nuclear coming in at under $2000 per kw – THAT’S LESS THAN THE COST OF YOUR LOWSY 6 HRS OF BATTERY STORAGE!! And Wind Energy has lulls of several days and even several weeks or a month or more, quite commonly in the heat of the summer and in northern areas, in the bitter cold of winter, when energy demand is highest.
The Hyperion Nuclear reactors are selling for $1,400 per kwe and $500 per kwth. Westinghouse sold four 1.2 GW nuclear power plants to China for $5.5 billion. This is the actual cost of the power plants – take away your NRC (Nuclear Refusal Commission) roadblocks put there by the Fossil Fuel lobbies. USA new nukes are coming in at around $5,000 per kw, with zero supply chain established yet. Pre-NRC nukes came in at about $1000 per kwe in 2007 dollars, and typically 2-3 yr construction times, with Quad Cities (1800 MWe) built for $680 per kwe 2007 dollars. The Coal to Nuclear Pebble Beds will cost $1000 per kwe to replace the Coal Burner with a Pebble Bed reactor. Even the First-of-a-kind Darlington ACANDU’s with initial cost including the development cost, is C$26 billion for 2400 kwe = C$10,800 per kwe.
LikeLike
Stephen #183:
Cost of 2 x Chinese CPR-1000 nuclear reactors cited as US$3.8 billion – that’s $1,760/kW if they come in on budget: http://tr.im/uPNR
Remind me why you would want to spend $20B on a waste disposal facility. What waste are you referring to? Also, why would Australia want to build an enrichment plant?
LikeLike
Stephen Gloor, (#183)
The $120 billion figure (quoted the paper and in post# 181) is a rough calculation to provide the current NEM demand. The 64 GW figure was to provide all our power to 2050. (Of course you can add more if you want to). The $120 billion was calculated as follows:
Average demand in 2007 = 25 GW
Capital Cost @ $4,000/GW (settled down cost based on escalated figures from EPRI) = $100 billion
(http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/66043/200703010000/www.pmc.gov.au/umpner/docs/nuclear_report.pdf)
Click to access EPRI_report.pdf
Allowance for energy storage to provide peak power (10 GW) – $20 billion
(about twice the rate quoted here: http://www.electricitystorage.org/site/technologies/technology_comparisons/)
As noted previously, there is no point estimating the cost of one option (nuclear) accurately, when the alternative (solar) is some 20 times more costly.
Before chasing the detailed costing of nuclear further, perhaps it would be more valuable to check the costing of the solar option to provide the same demand.
LikeLike
Peter#186,
Lots of different figures are out there for nuclear and wind power in China. We will only know the costs in Australia after tenders are called for building one or two nuclear plants to start production by 2020. We probably don’t have a good idea about either solar PV or solar CSP for completion 2010, except prices should be less than present. Wind power we have very good data on costs of wind farms in Australia, at present, as some have changed ownership in last few years. Prices seem to be about $AUD2,000/kW capacity of wind farms which is $6,000 per kW production.
If our commitment is to generating 6GW out of 30GW average in 2020 with low carbon energy( either renewable now, but that could be changed to renewable and nuclear). At best we may bet 2 reactors up and running by 2020, but it would be sensible to plan for one(1GW)by 2020 with additional ones every 2 years to 2040. Of the other 5GW we have about 2.5Gw hydro and 0.5Gw(av) wind so would need 2GW additional power. IF that comes from wind would need to install 600GW/year( about what we are doing now). Any solar would be a bonus.
If our aim is to retiring all coal fired power by 2040 or retro-fitting with CCS, we will need another 34 GW of nuclear plus renewable(or CCS coal) with the rest NG peak(20Gw average). That would be a 80% reduction in CO2 from energy use assuming 60GW total energy. One third from nuclear(1GW/ 2years) would seem possible. That would leave 24GW from other sources. I can’t see much coming from CCS before 2035, say 4GW by 2040. The other 20GW could come from wind and solar ( would need 1GWav/year or about X5 today’s rate of build.
Completing both one new nuclear plant/2 years and 1GW av wind/solar per year would be a big challenge but possible. If you think we can build up our nuclear capacity faster than 1.1GW reactor/2 years when we have no military nuclear program perhaps Canada is the best example in terms of economic power( 80% larger than Australia.)Canada has built 16GW( not all operating)over 40 years and has half a dozen research reactors. Alternatively S Korea with 17GW reactors, over 40 years with considerable heavy industry infrastructure support. They installed about 8GW after the first reactor was commissioned in 1978 in the following 20 years. A target for 10GW nuclear from 2020 to 2040 for Australia is ambitious but possible, but not enough to displace coal.
Coal CCS, solar and nuclear are going to need large direct government support, wind will need increased REC targets for continued private investment. NG expansion will only need a carbon tax for private investment to replace coal.
LikeLike
Neil (#187),
I’ll exaggerat here to make the point simple. I’d argue we should not waste our resources on wind and solar power. Don’t waste our money and our human resource effort (eg all our research establishments’ effort). These technologoes avoid little GHG emissions at high avoidance cost (when all the emissions and costs from back up are properly attributed). These technologies produce low value electricity.
Once we have economic energy storage sited at the wind farm and solar farm, such that solar and wind can genuinely compete with nuclear to provide high value power, then they should be built. They should compete in the market without subsidy or being mandated.
As I’ve said in a previous post, if we want the developing countries to implement low-emissions electricity generation, we must develop least cost technologies as quickly as possible. There is no sign that that is achievable with wind and solar in the foreseable future.
Regarding your comment “Lots of different figures are out there for nuclear …”. True, but the differences are of the order of 25% when compared on a proper basis. This is completely insignificant compared with a factor of 20 higher cost for soalr. You need to focus on how to get the costs of solar down to 5% of what they are now. That is where your focus should be. Not on nit picking about the accuracy of the estimates of the costs of nuclear.
LikeLike
“Once we have economic energy storage sited at the wind farm and solar farm, such that solar and wind can genuinely compete with nuclear to provide high value power, then they should be built. They should compete in the market without subsidy or being mandated.”
Hello, I think you missed the memo. Better Place is coming, remember that? The wind utility doesn’t have to store anything… we will. In our cars. And don’t forget the MAGICAL properties of EEstor should it come to market as promised.
And solar thermal with a little storage probably already IS competitive with nuclear considering when one scales the Ausra styled plant up large enough it is competitive with coal+ccs.
LikeLike
Hello, I think you missed the memo. Better Place is coming, remember that? The wind utility doesn’t have to store anything… we will. In our cars. And don’t forget the MAGICAL properties of EEstor should it come to market as promised.
EN how is it that you have been so totally taken in by a flashy website? This scheme isn’t even due to be rolled out until 2012. If something goes wrong with the financing, it may never be rolled out (as I suspect will indeed be the case). Trumpet your brilliant foresight and your victory when it is won. The race hasn’t even begun yet.
LikeLike
Barry Brook – “Cost of 2 x Chinese CPR-1000 nuclear reactors cited as US$3.8 billion – that’s $1,760/kW if they come in on budget: ”
If they come in under budget and how will you know if they do – can you look at the figures in an independent audit? Does the expenditure need legal disclosure? What part of the plant is the 3.8 billion for – the total plant cost?
“Remind me why you would want to spend $20B on a waste disposal facility. What waste are you referring to? Also, why would Australia want to build an enrichment plant?”
To dispose of the nuclear waste from the reactors safely – if GEN IV nuclear is a bust then there will be 30 tons per year per reactor of high level waste to store.
So instead of depending on imported oil you would substitute a total dependance on imported nuclear fuel?
LikeLike
EXACTLY!
This is EXACTLY what I’m trying to say. Drop your crystal ball Finrod, it’s broken, OK? You don’t know the future, neither do I. You have to allow for my slightly dramatic writing style. I tend to indulge it due to my allergies with strawmen. When I say “Better Place is coming” I mean a whole range of Plug-in EV’s are coming… whether Better Place or EEstor or others. They have to, because nothing else can scale up!
Sadly, hydrogen seems too problematic and expensive to create. Split water (costs energy) and either freeze or compress the hydrogen gas (costs energy) and then fill the car, only to run it through the fuel cell to get… electricity again? Expensive madness that loses far too much of the original electricity in the process. What kind of charge efficiencies are batteries at? In a world constrained by the need for energy efficiency, Hydrogen seems like MANDATING THROWING OUT 80% OF YOUR ENERGY
You guys are all acting like your Gen4 reactors are fool-proof, materials shock-proof, economy proof deals already signed in at a certain guaranteed price, factored into the policies of the land, and… um… built.
I can’t see any? Heeeelloooo Gen4’s… aaaareee you theeeerrreeeee…. nope. So just as Lagrange Space Stations were a “guaranteed economical proposition” by 2001 (according to certain 1960’s and 70’s papers) we can be SURE that Gen4’s will come in on time and on budget. ;-)z
NOT! We don’t know the future. But I can see a Better Place battery swap station operating before my own eyes, I can read about the plans for Better Place in Canberra, I have met people who have met Shai Agassi, I have watched his talk, seen our ministers sitting at the same table with him, seen the standing ovations he gets around the globe….
Where’s your Gen4 TED talk with a standing ovation? Where’s your contracts, your Deutsch Bank raves, your ministers patting your Gen4 representative on the back?
At least Ausra, CETO, Geodynamics and many other renewables have precommercialisation test plants!
And we’ll know within a year or 2 how Queensland’s Cloncurry solar thermal graphite storage goes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloncurry_solar_power_station
We’ll know how California’s massive roll out of Ausra’s solar thermal plants are going, and have accurate, DEMONSTRATED costings in.
Pfffffft… as for Peter Lang’s strawman of all solar costing 20x more… repeating that after being so thoroughly spanked by Stephen Gloor is just internet trolling. Peter, PROVE it applies to CSP! If you just repeat a statistic like that from a completely farcical bit of BLOGGING you call “evidence” then you’ll lose all respect on this blog. Even I can see through this one!
LikeLike
Peter Lang – “As noted previously, there is no point estimating the cost of one option (nuclear) accurately, when the alternative (solar) is some 20 times more costly.
Before chasing the detailed costing of nuclear further, perhaps it would be more valuable to check the costing of the solar option to provide the same demand.”
As noted previously the only place solar is 20 times more expensive that nuclear is in your flawed and incomplete analysis. The world nuclear association that I link to has current prices. The links you posted do not work and seem to be archives that may be out of date.
I am trying to get basic costing for Solar Reserve – when I do I will post them.
LikeLike
Stephen #191: If Gen IV is ‘a bust’ then we have much bigger things to worry about than not spending $20B for a deep geological repository. Yes, I would be happy to import fuel rods from China for our fleet of Gen III reactors, whilst we wait for our Gen IVs to take over the role. We are talking about a TRIFLING amount of fuel compared to our current oil exports.
EN #192: “I can’t see any? Heeeelloooo Gen4’s… aaaareee you theeeerrreeeee…. nope. So just as Lagrange Space Stations were a “guaranteed economical proposition” by 2001 (according to certain 1960’s and 70’s papers) we can be SURE that Gen4’s will come in on time and on budget. ;-)z”
You are starting to sound a bit crazy, mate. And you really don’t understand what Gen IV is, do you?
“after being so thoroughly spanked by Stephen Gloor”
Sorry, run that by me again. How exactly did that happen and slip under my (our) radar? Peter Lang explained, as I described in my post above (you did read it I presume), that:
So please, for stupid people like me, tell me why CSP will be any different to PV in this regard?
LikeLike
Peter, Gloor is correct. The links you put up don’t lead to anything. Do you have another link which will reach them?
EN, I don’t see what you’re getting at. There is more than enough experience with prototype breeders worldwide to regard their potential with high confidence. As for you only using Better Place as an example to represent a general class of EV schemes, I frankly don’t believe you… but if it is true, you should have stated it outright.
LikeLike
You are starting to sound a bit crazy, mate.
I get the impression that EN is quite young.
Not that that’s a crime or anything, it’s just the impression I get.
LikeLike
I don’t know about young, but credulous, certainly.
LikeLike
Obviously Peter could not have done the research properly as I just found this.
Click to access 34440.pdf
which contains the following:
“Solar Two demonstrated molten salt as a viable, large-scale thermal energy storage medium. Energy storage efficiencies of 99% were achieved. The storage design point efficiency is projected to be 99.9% for all cases. The efficiency of Solar Two was demonstrated to be 99.9%, and since there is no significant technology changes, it can be expected to remain constant. The design, construction, and performance of large, fielderected, externally insulated tanks for storing molten salt were demonstrated during Solar Two.”
It is a 344 page report on all aspects of solar thermal technology from the NREL.
The upshot is that Solar Reserve type plants with storage will start at about $3500/kW and have capacity factors of 60% or more. I think they did a bit better job than you. Solar thermal is still cheaper than the real cost of nuclear. Perhaps you should have another go at the paper.
Here is the executive summary for a quick read.
Click to access 35060.pdf
LikeLike
Barry Brook – “So please, for stupid people like me, tell me why CSP will be any different to PV in this regard?”
I know you are not stupid so it is a mystery to me why you accept a paper that is about solar power however does not include a major branch. Any reference to this is just brushed away with the comment “well they should be about the same”.
Read the report I posted and then see if Peter’s ‘paper’ still makes sense.
LikeLike
Ok. I’ve just had a look at EN’s blog. Given what he says about his background, he cannot be as young as I’d imagined.
LikeLike
So Barry, do the overbuilds for solar thermal really add up to 20 times as expensive for that one day? Really? Where’s the paper that proves this?
My understanding was that future grids were to be a mix of diverse options. So first of all, we would not need to backup the whole power supply, solar thermal might only be a third, quarter, or fifth of the grid, depending on what energy mix is built.
So sure there might be the odd day or 2 when solar thermal finally “goes down”, but it’s not like a massive weather system like that goes unnoticed! There would be warning and plans enacted.
Overcast days are often *windy*. There are still *waves* when it is overcast. There are still *hot-rocks* down in the earth’s crust. And solar chimney’s operate oblivious to the overcast. With a mix of options I’m sure the overbuild won’t be as large as you’re making out. If coal plants can have a week off for servicing and not cost 20 times as much, then why are you insisting the same will occur for solar thermal?
LikeLike
Dang, I knew I’d regret writing too much in the “About me” pages.
I’m not that young, I just sound a bit “left of field” when a little miffed. I don’t like it when people more technically qualified than I am start deliberately avoiding whole segments of the renewable power industry to ram home some agenda they have.
Cranking out some (exaggerated) claims about Solar PV as universal truths to all solar just seems slippery. That’s no way to win people over to your cause.
LikeLike
“There is more than enough experience with prototype breeders worldwide to regard their potential with high confidence.”
Finrod, I take it you mean technical potential… but my understanding from major USA nuclear reports was that breeders had all so far proven far more expensive than all previous models. (Keely? Can’t remember… memory lapse, and I deleted reference to it on my blog in honour of the fact that you guys have made me *undecided* about nuclear for now.)
LikeLike
Stephen #198/199: You seem to be totally missing the point. It doesn’t matter if the thermal conversion efficiency is 99.99999% efficient. It’s about extreme capacity factors, and their frequency/return times distributed along a probability density function. Its importance ramps up in proportion to the amount of high-variability renewables you have on the grid. If Peter Lang’s point on this matter holds for PV, it axiomatically holds for wind and CSP also. I’m not sure how else I can explain it to you.
Perhaps it’s a science/non-science thing. Do other readers get this point? If so, can you try to explain it better to Stephen? EN, you seem to understand the problem, but believe that a renewable mix can solve it. This would only be true if you had sufficient installed capacity of each of the other renewables that the cumulative multi-renewable capacity factor never dropped below demand or storage recharge. How much overbuild of each of these diverse wind, wave, CSP, PV etc. does this take — how much is economically acceptable? And what do you do with the extra power when they are ALL producing to their nameplate capacity?
LikeLike
Peter#188,
I think we are talking about two different time frames. I am interested in the next 30-40 years when we need to have all coal fired electricity replaced. We are very unlikely to have more solar energy than a small part of peak daytime demand and still have a lot of NG peak. I can’t see how we can replace all energy by renewable or nuclear but we could replace 10GW by nuclear, 20 GW by wind,solar and hydro and the balance by NG(with a little CCS).
Sometime in the future we could use nuclear with expanded hydro storage for all power but I cannot see how that could be done by 2040. The US may be able to do that but it would be a big risk to put all eggs in the nuclear basket.
Developing countries may need a different energy mix, but I can’t see China expanding nuclear much faster than planned up to 2020. They seem to be putting a lot of resources into more hydro, wind and solar WHY if nuclear is so cheap and so quick to build, an why has only one reactor been completed since Oct 2004 when the latest nuclear acceleration was announced and the building process started for reactors to be completed from 2010 to 2014?
What I am saying is Australia has no nuclear program except one research reactor.We don’t have nuclear reactors in submarines, or a weapons program. We cannot go out and buy 30-50GW of reactors as A350 or B777 aircraft are ordered and even aircraft have delays or years. If we could do this do you not think China would have ordered 200 reactors for delivery 2005- 2010? Can we expand nuclear faster than Canada or S Korea did over last 40 yearse?
Solar is only 20 times more expensive than nuclear when you use a poor location and assume 100% energy is coming from solar( and rather expensive storage options). So little solar is going to be built in the next 20 years it’s funding is to develop the capacity to produce it here in Australia. We should have also funded one or two reactors 10 years ago for the same reason, but we have not that’s the reality. Furthermore the only low carbon energy we can build in significant quantities in the next 10 years is wind energy(because we have been building and operating it for 10 years). In the following 10 years(2020-30) it’s wind and nuclear(with a small amount of solar). From 2030-40 more nuclear( but not enough) more wind and perhaps considerably more solar. All of this time we will have to use NG for the balance OR coal as it is being phased out.
Thanks for your article on wind power reliability. I have looked over “low wind events” using data for each wind farm, as the low wind system moves across the wind farm locations. It seems wind systems last about 24 hours at one location and more at about 100km/h from Eyre Peninsula, through VIC and TAS and to southern NSW(1250km E_W and 750 km NE-SW).This suggests it would be optimal to have wind farms spread over >2500kms. This is a considerably smaller region than the NEMMCO grid and much less geographic separation from Geraldton, Esperance, Ceduna, Portland, southern TAS, and up to Cooktown QLD the regions where good wind resources are available(>6,000km coastline). All but 1250km is connected to one of two grids( Norseman to Esperance and West of Ceduna being the gap) with excellent wind resources along the Great Bight grid gap.
LikeLike
Finrod, #195, I am not sure what links wont open. If you mean the one in my post #186m they all open for me. Here is the parent link http://pandora.nla.gov.au/tep/66043. The links I gave were the second and second last.
This is the Electrcity Storage Association web site I referred to: http://www.electricitystorage.org/site/technologies/technology_comparisons/
Hope this helps
LikeLike
Gloor@#198:
This report is from 2003. It cites the need for advances in materials technology to make the scheme a practical reality. Increases in construction costs since then are not factored in. Ausra has been singularly unwilling to share its results lately, a rather suspicious development. These schemes have never lived up to their promises in the past. The Power Tower technology has been tried in Spain and is coming in as a costly failure. There is no good reason to suppose that CSP will be any better at solving our power problems than PV has been.
LikeLike
Hot salt anyone? One of the positive things about CSP is the huge, multi-hundred-million dollar experiment in hot-salt storage as an R&D project. I like it. What you find with many pro-renewable folks is their naive belief that such technology is ‘theirs’, a kind of ‘ownership’ perspective that is natural since, well, they talk about it so much, because, well, without it, their world energy view will be so much white-elephants. This is as true for hot salt as it is for SG and UHVDC and UHVAC and pump storage and EVs, etc etc. I like it. I’m repeating myself. This happens when I’m happy.
The reason for this is that everyone of the above mentioned technologies works *better* with nuclear, most notably Gen IV fission technology, specifically the LFTR but I suspect the IFR as well. As well it should. HSS (hot salt storage) is a great way to store any Gen IV reactor that has high temperature process heat out put. Pump storage will work much better with nuclear (any) since it’s a great way to store non-peak/non-intermediate and any extra energy. SG/HVDC/HVDC/and especially the new triple capacity UHVAC lines are ideal for distribution of nuclear energy, especially in the smaller *distributive* forms that can be represented by IFR and LFTR. And EVs? The Mr. Atomic Automobile Mark I is just waiting for new nukes to come on line.
So…all this makes me very pleased.
David
LikeLike
@Peter#206:
Yeah. They won’t open, at least not for me.
LikeLike
Finrod (209), I don’t understand why they don’t open for you.
Does this work: http://nla.gov.au/nla.arc-66043
If not, I cannot explain. I’ve opened the documents again this morning from this site.
LikeLike
It opened for me.
LikeLike
Barry Brook – “It’s about extreme capacity factors, and their frequency/return tiems distributed along a probability density function. Its importance ramps up in proportion to the amount of high-variability renewables you have on the grid. If Peter Lang’s point on this matter holds for PV, it axiomatically holds for wind and CSP also. I’m not sure how else I can explain it to you.”
Then it also axiomatically holds for any system that has a capacity factor less than 100% which is every power system on earth. Thermal storage CSP removes the variability of solar so the capacity factor of the plant can be set to whatever you like. Given geographically spaced wind/solar plants the variability is reduced even further.
As far as I can see in the paper Peter did not do any probability analysis of solar resources available. It is totally based on one PV Plant in Queanbeyan which is hardly the solar capital of Australia. So if anyone can explain it to me, in baby talk, how one station in Canberra can be applied to the whole of Australia and show me the probability distribution of solar resources and an analysis of the risk of a zero solar event in either a peer reviewed journal or technical paper I will be all ears.
Better yet combine it with http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/renewable/publications/pubs/windstudy.pdf and then analyse the probability of a zero wind/solar event.
Analysis that have been done, such as this for the US:
Click to access ausra_usgridsupply.pdf
“This paper suggests not only that STE is a energy option of great significance, but that with only 16 hours of storage it has sufficient diurnal and seasonal natural correlation with electricity load to supply the great majority of the US national grid (and by logical extension, those of China and India) over the year, with the hourly solar radiation data including typical cloudy weather patterns.”
There is actually no need to explain it to me, simply if Peter can explain the difference in his conclusions and/or where Dr David Mills is wrong. I think David actually did modelling to come to his conclusions something that is lacking in Peter’s paper.
LikeLike
Finrod – “This report is from 2003. It cites the need for advances in materials technology to make the scheme a practical reality. Increases in construction costs since then are not factored in. Ausra has been singularly unwilling to share its results lately, a rather suspicious development. These schemes have never lived up to their promises in the past. The Power Tower technology has been tried in Spain and is coming in as a costly failure. There is no good reason to suppose that CSP will be any better at solving our power problems than PV has been.”
Did you happen to notice the consortium members of Solar Reserve? One is RocketDyne – the makers of the space shuttle, Delta IV rocket motors. They are applying their extensive knowledge of heat transfer materials science to the collector. BTW Solar Two operated for 4 years entirely successfully demonstrating and proving all aspects of Solar thermal with storage. The first commercial plant is being built now in Spain.
Please provide a reference to the failed solar power plant is Spain if you can.
LikeLike
Then it also axiomatically holds for any system that has a capacity factor less than 100% which is every power system on earth. Thermal storage CSP removes the variability of solar so the capacity factor of the plant can be set to whatever you like. Given geographically spaced wind/solar plants the variability is reduced even further.
No, it doesn’t hold for any power system, at least when working with real world probabilities. Again, this says to me that you don’t understand probability and stochasticity.
Let’s say we had a country with 10 x 1 GW nuclear power stations, each with a capacity factor of 90%. They generate an average power output of 9000 GWe. Let’s also say that their downtime was always unscheduled (it’s not), so that they could drop out at any time. Let’s also say that the capacity factor in this case approximately represented the number of units online.
The probability of all of them simultaneously going down and requiring 100% storage/backup is 0.1^10 = 0.00000001%.
What about 30% storage/backup? 0.1^2 = 0.1% of the time.
Now look at the June wind graph presented in the Peter Lang responds post. How many times during that month did the entire geographically dispersed wind grid deliver virtually nothing (<5% output)? About 5 days. How many days during that month required >80% backup? About 19 days.
For solar, we also have many issues to consider; for instance, the inevitable ~16 hour nighttime storage (implying 3x collecting area for power delivered vs nameplate), the requirement to build sufficient output to cover the winter lows (about half that, or worse, than summer output), the need to cover a run of a few cloudy days in a row (when the CSP generates nothing), and the need to have sufficient redundant generating capacity to recharge storage when output is not zero, but still far below nameplate (Lang’s point).
There is absolutely nothing comparable between coal/gas/nuclear and (to quote what I said above)”high-variability renewables”.
LikeLike
Stephen Gloor (212) – “It is totally based on one PV Plant in Queanbeyan which is hardly the solar capital of Australia. So if anyone can explain it to me, in baby talk, …”
The sun goes down at night, everywhere. Overcast conditions occur from time to time, everywhere. Neither PV nor CST produce as much power when the sun is not shining. They need energy storage or back-up generation to provide the power when the sun doesn’t shine (to replace coal fired generation). Low capacity factors from time to time (such as measured at Queanbeyan) are typical.
Here is another example: look at Table 1 and the minimum for June in http://www.ceem.unsw.edu.au/content/userDocs/WattMorganPasseySolar06_000.pdf
LikeLike
Some rules of thumb for PV I’ve inferred at Lat 43S. For every nominal 1kw expect 4-6 kwh in clear days mid summer, 2-3 kwh mid winter. Day long high white clouds (cotton balls) may cut this 20% but day long cloud cover which will set off the automatic flash using a camera may cut 80-90%. If the denominator is 24 hours X 1 kw then we have average summer and winter c.f.’s of 17% and 9% with a winter low of ~2%.
I like the idea of thin film solar (not polycrystalline) on every house roof but not sodium-sulphur batteries near kids. If storage was held at electricity substations for safety then every house should get a real time reading on their daily input and usage. The cost would have to come way way down which may never happen.
LikeLike
John,
Your calculation of the CFs is close to the actual measured CFs, although the actual measured minimum was 0.75%.
If the energy storage is at the substations, we need to include the cost of transmission from the solar panel to the substation. The transmission capacity must be sized to carry the peak power, not just the average power, of the solar panels.
The current cost of solar panels for residential installations is ablout 2-3 times the costs used in the “Solar Power Realities” paper. So instead of $2.8 trillion, I’d expect the capital cost would be $5 to $8 trillion. That’s for a system with a life expectancy of about 20 years.
LikeLike
Hi Bryen,
“When the wind IS blowing it is still highly variable and unpredictable. ”
It amazes me how many times I have to repeat the following 2 points.
1. Battery swap stations and cars parked 22 to 23 hours a day won’t miss the wind electricity. They’ll CREATE a market for that wind energy, *whenever* it is blowing.
2. The Peterson paper analyses the economics for car owners based on ownership of the battery, which does *not* apply to the Better Place model. You buy the Renault-Nissan EV, not the battery.
I repeat for the 20th time, *they* retain ownership of the battery, which facilitates the battery swap program and the range extension on trips. (The difference between the price of oil ot the consumer and the cost of electricity allows a margin for Better Place to budget for removing old batteries out of the system).
It’s all in this talk. 20 minutes, so grab a coffee and enjoy. Notice the standing ovation at the end, and then google them in Australia and check out the press interviews. This is simply the most desirable business model for selling EV’s, period. I can’t imagine the old “user-owns battery” model surviving long in a Better Place world. Other car companies will soon be in a frantic dash to either copy the system or join it. It just makes sense.
LikeLike
If the average suburban roof is 140 square metres (in the US) then cheap enough thin film could generate 50kw in summer, say 10 kw average in winter. At peak some roof sections might have to be switched off if not running the AC or charging a plug-in car. It would still cost $50k at $1 a watt, far too expensive. However in winter with gas cooking and heating (I use free firewood) a house could get by with 10 kwh average (no AC, no EV) if it was buffered by large stationary batteries in the neighbourhood. Perhaps 10 kwh per day could be the basic adult allowance reflected in pricing penalties, akin to household water allowances or download limits.
In reality of course we’ll just burn more coal, emission cuts be damned.
LikeLike
Hi John, what we need to remember is that residential is a minor component of total demand. We need to power industry, hospitals, infrastructure, etc., 24/h per day.
What do you calculate would be the cost to provide 20GW baseload, 25GW average power and 33GW peak power?
LikeLike
@ PL
I’m not saying this is a total solution just a ‘helper’. Neither thin film PV nor small scale sodium-sulphur have the bugs worked out yet so cost estimates are premature.
Asking a single technology to do everything ignores the possibility of a least cost combination. In the classic diet problem we want to keep people alive on the cheapest feasible combination of say sausage, bread and cabbage. If we omit one food type some essential nutrient will be omitted. Constraints in the energy mix include build time, capital rationing, carbon intensity, nimbyism, input competition, self replacement and risk spreading. Therefore the optimum energy mix is likely to have sizeable shares allocated to several forms of generation.
LikeLike
“….Asking a single technology to do everything ….optimum energy mix is likely to have sizeable shares allocated to several forms of generation….”
That’s right. Replace the current energy mix, almost entirely stored solar energy, with stored energy from Supernovae, and the Big Bang, namely Nuclear.
Optimal Energy Mix: Hydro (still worth keeping), and some optimum combination of the following, yet to be determined: LWR, LIFTR, IFR, PBMR, GCHTR, Nuscale, Hyperion, Toshiba 4S, Bussard IEC fusion, Focus Fusion, Tri-Alpha Energy’s Aneutronic fusion, General Fusion’s Magnetized Target Fusion, Blacklight Power (if for real), Jovion Zero-point energy, Cold Fusion may still have promise. Why piss pot around with MICKEY-MOUSE RENEWABLES with energy densities that are pathetic to the point of embarrassment? Makes the Human Species look like a degenerating organism, which is too stupid, puny and weak to handle the energies that power the universe.
LikeLike
I forgot to add CERN’s accelerator driven, subcritical thorium fission reactor, which preliminary analysis shows excellent promise.
All the above technologies could be developed to the point of either: determined to be infeasible, or determined to be uneconomical, or economical & viable for commercial development, to genuine Black Swan – a total game changer that blows away all other energy options. Cost? Less than the money that we are currently throwing down the sewer on impractical renewables and so-called “Clean Coal”.
LikeLike
Barry Brook – “Again, this says to me that you don’t understand probability and stochasticity.”
Obviously I do not as I am struggling with your calculation. Why is the probability of the wind part 0.1^2?
“Now look at the June wind graph presented in the Peter Lang responds post. How many times during that month did the entire geographically dispersed wind grid deliver virtually nothing (80% backup? About 19 days.”
Yes we should have another look at it as it compares completely different size wind farms and leaves out others that could have been included. When there is 5% available it is because only the small wind farms are delivering power. A large wind farm in the same place would have completely changed the graph. The idea is to disperse 100MW to 200MW wind farms into the best wind spots.
“For solar, we also have many issues to consider; for instance, the inevitable ~16 hour nighttime storage (implying 3x collecting area for power delivered vs nameplate), the requirement to build sufficient output to cover the winter lows (about half that, or worse, than summer output), the need to cover a run of a few cloudy days in a row (when the CSP generates nothing), and the need to have sufficient redundant generating capacity to recharge storage when output is not zero, but still far below nameplate (Lang’s point).”
So David Mill’s analysis is wrong? I am sure we have been here before so lets leave this one. Again I fail to see the objection to 3X collector area. In the scheme of things the collectors are modular units that with mass production will decline in price. The power tower can use any heliostats and when these are available off the shelf then price will drop dramatically. Making a 3X collector area is no more difficult or expensive than providing a fuel reprocessing plant for every IFR. The eSolar heliostats do not even require precise positioning as the use GPS and advance algorithms to maintain pointing accuracy.
http://www.esolar.com/our_solution/
We also have to get rid of one concept and that is off-peak power. Because a renewable solution will consist of devices that can and/or are off at night off-peak power is dead. It is only an artifact of the present thermal power stations that are more economical to keep running therefore power is sold cheaply to try and keep them running as much as possible.
I believe it will be replaced in the smart grid with opportunity off peak tariffs. Devices with smart controllers can be told that there is surplus of wind at a particular time and now would be a good time to switch on and charge up or whatever as electricity is cheap.
Once dumb timed off peak is gone then the overnight demand should drop as some of this load is off-peak load that is there only because power is cheap. This is also a good incentive for big loads to install smart controllers to take advantage of the new low tariff times.
Also the thing that you have to get is the TIMING of low solar and wind events. This is what David Mill emphasises and you seemed to have missed. Yes a nuclear plant has a 90% capacity factor however for at least 50% of that time nobody really wants the power and it has to be sold sometimes below cost to keep the nuke running.
A solar plant without storage may have only a 20% capacity factor however at least 80% or 90% of that time is when people want power. So 30% or 40% of the solar plants will not need storage of only 2 hours as they can sell power into the morning and afternoon peaks as they do now.
The remaining 60% or so 40% of them can have 16 hour storage and the rest be derated and have 4-5 days storage available and a 90% capacity factor even before you need to start burning gas. In concert with wind/tidal/wave this will provide the same reliability as your 90% CP nuke or coal plants.
Also something you have not considered and I have not seen this in the literature however I am sure it will be possible, the storage fluid can be heated. They do have electric heaters to ensure that the salts do not freeze in extended downtimes (2 weeks or more). My idea is to simply have a pipe and pump from the cold tank to the hot tank that includes a highly efficient induction heater and heat exchanger. Cold salt from the cold tank can be heated with surplus electricity from elsewhere and pumped into the hot tank, even if the particular solar plant in in cloud cover enabling it to continue to deliver power. In this way any solar thermal plants with storage can be a repository for the inevitable times when there is too much renewable energy for demand. This would ease the pressure on pumped hydro and allow places with very little hydro to still have storage.
It also negates the problem of 3X overbuild of the collector. Instead of a 3X overbuild just build it 2X over and then get the other 1X when you need it from other power stations that have the capacity.
LikeLike
Peter Lang – “The sun goes down at night, everywhere. Overcast conditions occur from time to time, everywhere. Neither PV nor CST produce as much power when the sun is not shining. They need energy storage or back-up generation to provide the power when the sun doesn’t shine (to replace coal fired generation).
Yes it does however during the day the insolation and amount of cloud per year varies widely. Up north of me here there is a pocket of land that gets an AVERAGE of 10.5 sun hours per day all year round. I have lived in Canberra and I know what the conditions are like there in winter. Are you trying to say that Narrabri has the same sun conditions as Canberra?
CST based on molten salts produces as much power at night as you need. As the solar reserve CSP plants have storage as an integral part of the system the only consideration is how much do you need. This where your analysis is so flawed.
“Low capacity factors from time to time (such as measured at Queanbeyan) are typical.””
For a person that has worked in the power industry for so long you are very loose with your terminology. Low output is observed however this will contribute to the CP which might be low. Tell me Peter does the power station in Queanbeyan track the sun or are the PV panels fixed in place? This is really important so I would really like a reply.
LikeLike
Stephen Gloor (#225),
The Queanbeyan site is fixed array.
But you are missing the point. Yes, capacity factors vary from site to site and by technology. So do capital costs, operating costs, reliability, life expectancy, transmission and storage costs. BUT nowhere near sufficient to make a factor of 20 difference to the capital cost. And solar PV currently seems to be about the most economicaL solar option – as demonstrated by investment.
Can I suggest, instead of picking at minutiae, do your own calculation of the cost of a solar system to provide 20GW baseload, 25 GW average power, and 33GW peak (at 6:30 pm). We are trying to replace coal and fossil fuel use, so do the calculations of the cost of a system that can do that. Just the dollars, no more “could do this and could do that”.
LikeLike
Stephen, in your post #225 you said “Up north of me here there is a pocket of land that gets an AVERAGE of 10.5 sun hours per day all year round”
As Barry, I and others have pointed out repeatedly on this thread, the annual average is not relevant. It is the minimum output over the period defined by the amount of energy storage available, that is the key determinant of the cost of the system. The “Solar Power Realities” paper explains this. Some of your comments make me wonder if you have understood this key point.
LikeLike
Stephen Gloor deserves a standing ovation!
We also have to get rid of one concept and that is off-peak power. Because a renewable solution will consist of devices that can and/or are off at night off-peak power is dead. It is only an artifact of the present thermal power stations that are more economical to keep running therefore power is sold cheaply to try and keep them running as much as possible.
I believe it will be replaced in the smart grid with opportunity off peak tariffs. Devices with smart controllers can be told that there is surplus of wind at a particular time and now would be a good time to switch on and charge up or whatever as electricity is cheap.
So true, and basically what I’ve been trying to say is the consensus out there amongst the smart grid authors, many of whom I read at Worldchanging.com.
Once dumb timed off peak is gone then the overnight demand should drop as some of this load is off-peak load that is there only because power is cheap. This is also a good incentive for big loads to install smart controllers to take advantage of the new low tariff times.
Another good point.
Also the thing that you have to get is the TIMING of low solar and wind events. This is what David Mill emphasises and you seemed to have missed. Yes a nuclear plant has a 90% capacity factor however for at least 50% of that time nobody really wants the power and it has to be sold sometimes below cost to keep the nuke running.
A solar plant without storage may have only a 20% capacity factor however at least 80% or 90% of that time is when people want power. So 30% or 40% of the solar plants will not need storage of only 2 hours as they can sell power into the morning and afternoon peaks as they do now.
In my layman’s terms, solar thermal gives us maximum kick when we need it, and wind can top up various charging demands when it kicks in, and the smart grid will tell our devices when to charge at maximum speed and (maybe even) when our cars should sell back to the grid at maximum profit.
…and lets not forget CETO and Geodynamics which have passed the precommercial testing points and are about to be deployed.
IF Gen4 nukes can work as safely, cleanly, and cheaply as advertised (with not as many hidden “externalities” as today), then by all means we can move on those when they actually exist somewhere other than our imaginations. But for now let’s roll out what we already have as off-the-shelf technology.
LikeLike
Stephen #224: “Obviously I do not as I am struggling with your calculation. Why is the probability of the wind part 0.1^2?”
That is not referring to wind, that is for the nuclear stations. I had said 30% backup in the line preceeding that calculation, so had obviously meant to write 0.1^3, not 0.1^2. But no matter, the question being answered (simply) was, if each nuclear power station had a 10% uncorrelated probability of an unscheduled downtime during a given time interval, what is the probability of x going down simultaneously? If x = 2, then it was 1%, if x = 3 it was 0.1% and so on.
“So David Mill’s analysis is wrong?”
What analysis? Mills calculations are for a single solar thermal plant that can be backed up for 16 hours on the majority of days. How is that relevant to a grid-wide systems analysis in which renewables are the major contributor? Apples and oranges.
In concert with wind/tidal/wave this will provide the same reliability as your 90% CP nuke or coal plants.
Where has this ever been demonstrated? I’d be interested in reading this analysis. And not an ‘analysis’ that says this is the case, an analysis that shows, quantitatively using modelling and real-world data, that this is the case. Everything I’ve seen has said essentially the very opposite.
LikeLike
EN #228: IF Gen4 nukes can work as safely, cleanly, and cheaply as advertised (with not as many hidden “externalities” as today), then by all means we can move on those when they actually exist somewhere other than our imaginations.
Could you clarify what you mean here by Gen IV? And Gen II/III already does all of the above, so I assume you are also supporting that? What hidden externalities are you referring to?
LikeLike
Hi Barry,
Could you clarify what you mean here by Gen IV? And Gen II/III already does all of the above, so I assume you are also supporting that? What hidden externalities are you referring to?
1. My definition of Gen4? Nuclear waste-eating and bomb-devouring breeder reactors that come off the line in modular form in such vast quantities that they cease to be some of the most expensive electricity ever invented.
2. Gen2/3? No, because the “externalities” of burying and protecting the waste for the next 100,000 years doesn’t seem “cost effective” to me, and ANY means of running a renewable energy grid has got to be cheaper, in the long run, than that. I’m all for Gen4 **IF** it can be “walk away safe” and truly economically competitive. But refusing to count the waste disposal for 100,000 years is like not counting the true cost of coal. Different problem, but same basic vibe of an energy company trying to dump its real expenses on the government purse.
LikeLike
Barry Brook – “That is not referring to wind, that is for the nuclear stations.”
OK I see that now
“Now look at the June wind graph presented in the Peter Lang responds post. How many times during that month did the entire geographically dispersed wind grid deliver virtually nothing (80% backup? About 19 days.”
What about if the system consisted of equally sized wind farms? In some of the cases as I have said over and over is that only a small wind farm was operating some of the 5% days.
In the literature (Robert Davy et al 2003) that is available this is the result:
“It is evident from this figure that when the wind power output across all states is combined, the likelihood of extreme events (at the level of aggregate power production) is lowered substantially.”
In the graph the all states probability of output < 5% is less than 1%.
Also in Brian Martin etal 1984 http://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/84pswc.pdf there is this
"To maintain grid reliability (LOLP), additional thermal peak load plant, equivalent in rating to about half the average wind power has to be installed. But since this peak plant is rarely used, and has low capital cost, it plays the role of reliability insurance with low premium."
I think that this work and Mark's previous papers is the basis of the Base Load Fallacy. Peter Lang's paper is at odds with peer reviewed literature and is therefore very suspect. Basing his conclusions on 11 stations of varying capacity for one month is wrong. Even the Coppin study was based only on where automatic weather stations were situated not the best wind sites so it is far lower that if 9 really first class wind sites were chosen. Even then the chance of output less than 5% is less than 1% completely at odds with Peter's cherry picked data.
As it is completely at odds with what peer reviewed literature exists I am surprised that you give it any credence at all especially considering the treatment climate change skeptics get presenting their non peer reviewed single papers as evidence that AGW is incorrect.
"What analysis? Mills calculations are for a single solar thermal plant that can be backed up for 16 hours on the majority of days."
I don't think you read the paper. It is an analysis of replacing the entire USA demand with solar power.
"Where has this ever been demonstrated? I’d be interested in reading this analysis. And not an ‘analysis’ that says this is the case, an analysis that shows, quantitatively using modelling and real-world data, that this is the case. Everything I’ve seen has said essentially the very opposite."
Here I admit there is not much data as no-one has done the figures yet. Any graduate students out there looking for at thesis? Perhaps you can post links to what you have seen that show the opposite.
LikeLike
1. My definition of Gen4? Nuclear waste-eating and bomb-devouring breeder reactors that come off the line in modular form in such vast quantities that they cease to be some of the most expensive electricity ever invented.
2. Gen2/3? No, because the “externalities” of burying and protecting the waste for the next 100,000 years doesn’t seem “cost effective” to me, and ANY means of running a renewable energy grid has got to be cheaper, in the long run, than that. I’m all for Gen4 **IF** it can be “walk away safe” and truly economically competitive. But refusing to count the waste disposal for 100,000 years is like not counting the true cost of coal. Different problem, but same basic vibe of an energy company trying to dump its real expenses on the government purse.
GenII/II reactors would already fulfill most of your requirements with the addition of fuel reprocessing. Once the useable fuel is processed and burned, the final end-product needs to be sequestered from the environment for less than 1000 years… an easy task. Modularity of construction would be an improvement, but your contention that electricity from gen II/III nulear power stations is “some of the most expensive electricity ever produced” is nonsemse. Once these plants are amortized (something that takes only a fraction of their service life) they are ALREADY the cheapest source of electricity, with the possible exception of hydro.
LikeLike