Nuclear Energy supplies 20% of the United States electricity and 60% of the clean emission free electricity produced by the United States. Why are people so afraid of it?See http://www.nirs.org/nukerelapse/background/toptenreasons.htm
It's the Energy of the Future. Electricity costs in Hawaii are ridiculous because they ship coal all the way to get a very expensive and high polution electricity. It is outrageous that there isn't a Nuclear Power Plant in Hawaii, and that there aren't 25 more plants on the East Coast.Ok, for that case see http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/07/07/what-about-nuclear-power-isnt-good/
It seems the forbes article argues that nuclear power is good, the controlglobal article is a guy explaining how prior nuclear events could of been prevented by automation device, however the 1st digital relay wasn't invented until 1982, after those events occured. Nowadays they put in RTACS (Real Time Automation Controllers) and other Protection and Automation Relays, which is part of the reason they are a lot safer now. The NERC Requirements are getting stricter and stricter, regardless of what the 1st article you linked says.Nuclear Energy supplies 20% of the United States electricity and 60% of the clean emission free electricity produced by the United States. Why are people so afraid of it?See http://www.nirs.org/nukerelapse/background/toptenreasons.htmQuoteIt's the Energy of the Future. Electricity costs in Hawaii are ridiculous because they ship coal all the way to get a very expensive and high polution electricity. It is outrageous that there isn't a Nuclear Power Plant in Hawaii, and that there aren't 25 more plants on the East Coast.Ok, for that case see http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/07/07/what-about-nuclear-power-isnt-good/
This one is a little more technical but discusses some current shortcomings with suggestions for improvments: http://www.controlglobal.com/articles/2012/liptak-nuclear-needs-process-automation/
Re: Hawaii - aren't there some really strict regulations about building nuclear power plants in areas with high seismic activity? As I recall, only Japan was willing to risk putting a nuclear power plant in a high risk earthquake zone because they felt they had little choice (the whole country is an earthquake zone). But after Fukushima, I think popular support for nuclear in Japan is very low. Someone please correct me if my memory of this is wrong. But I can't imagine that nuclear on Hawaii would pass the seismic risk test.Japan is planning on phasing out nuclear I think over the next 40 years. I'm not sure about seismic activity in Hawaii but you're probably correct
Re: Hawaii - aren't there some really strict regulations about building nuclear power plants in areas with high seismic activity? As I recall, only Japan was willing to risk putting a nuclear power plant in a high risk earthquake zone because they felt they had little choice (the whole country is an earthquake zone). But after Fukushima, I think popular support for nuclear in Japan is very low. Someone please correct me if my memory of this is wrong. But I can't imagine that nuclear on Hawaii would pass the seismic risk test.
Re: Hawaii - aren't there some really strict regulations about building nuclear power plants in areas with high seismic activity? As I recall, only Japan was willing to risk putting a nuclear power plant in a high risk earthquake zone because they felt they had little choice (the whole country is an earthquake zone). But after Fukushima, I think popular support for nuclear in Japan is very low. Someone please correct me if my memory of this is wrong. But I can't imagine that nuclear on Hawaii would pass the seismic risk test.Japan is planning on phasing out nuclear I think over the next 40 years. I'm not sure about seismic activity in Hawaii but you're probably correct
I think nuclear is OK. I prefer it to coal. But solar is really getting cheap. And so are batteries. Nuclear takes a really long time to build out and is hugely expensive to get going. By the time we finished up a bunch of new nuclear plants, solar would already be cheaper. And there are a lot of ways to store solar power during the day for use later. Intermittent charging of electric vehicles, intermittent pumping of water, batteries (this is what Tesla's PowerWall is going to be very useful for at utility scale), etc. And solar thermal power plants (the ones that use a circle of mirrors to heat up a tower in the middle) can actually generate power for 20 hours per day using thermal storage. And there's wind power too. Hydro is another method that can be used intermittently as well to mix with solar and wind.I think wind is a crappier solution than Nuclear
I think the future (20-30 years out) will look something like:
20% baseload nuclear (24/7)
20% baseload gas
10% peaking gas
30% solar/wind
20% hydro/geothermal
And then eventually the gas will be phased out for more solar/wind.
In Hawaii, it's already much cheaper to use solar power than coal. The utility has prevented people from putting more solar panels on their roofs. Something like 12.5% of houses have them now. Tesla's PowerWalls should be a big seller there. It would be cheaper to just go totally off grid. And to retain customers the utility will probably start to install a lot of those batteries to store up the excess power generated during the day. I think Hawaii will get to 50% or more solar in the next 20 years.
I think nuclear is OK. I prefer it to coal. But solar is really getting cheap. And so are batteries. Nuclear takes a really long time to build out and is hugely expensive to get going. By the time we finished up a bunch of new nuclear plants, solar would already be cheaper. And there are a lot of ways to store solar power during the day for use later. Intermittent charging of electric vehicles, intermittent pumping of water, batteries (this is what Tesla's PowerWall is going to be very useful for at utility scale), etc. And solar thermal power plants (the ones that use a circle of mirrors to heat up a tower in the middle) can actually generate power for 20 hours per day using thermal storage. And there's wind power too. Hydro is another method that can be used intermittently as well to mix with solar and wind.I think wind is a crappier solution than Nuclear
I think the future (20-30 years out) will look something like:
20% baseload nuclear (24/7)
20% baseload gas
10% peaking gas
30% solar/wind
20% hydro/geothermal
And then eventually the gas will be phased out for more solar/wind.
In Hawaii, it's already much cheaper to use solar power than coal. The utility has prevented people from putting more solar panels on their roofs. Something like 12.5% of houses have them now. Tesla's PowerWalls should be a big seller there. It would be cheaper to just go totally off grid. And to retain customers the utility will probably start to install a lot of those batteries to store up the excess power generated during the day. I think Hawaii will get to 50% or more solar in the next 20 years.
It seems the forbes article argues that nuclear power is good, the controlglobal article is a guy explaining how prior nuclear events could of been prevented by automation device, however the 1st digital relay wasn't invented until 1982, after those events occured. Nowadays they put in RTACS (Real Time Automation Controllers) and other Protection and Automation controllers, which is part of the reason they are a lot safer now. The NERC Requirements are getting stricter and stricter, regardless of what the 1st article you linked says.Exactly.
http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear-energy-vs-wind-and-solar/I think nuclear is OK. I prefer it to coal. But solar is really getting cheap. And so are batteries. Nuclear takes a really long time to build out and is hugely expensive to get going. By the time we finished up a bunch of new nuclear plants, solar would already be cheaper. And there are a lot of ways to store solar power during the day for use later. Intermittent charging of electric vehicles, intermittent pumping of water, batteries (this is what Tesla's PowerWall is going to be very useful for at utility scale), etc. And solar thermal power plants (the ones that use a circle of mirrors to heat up a tower in the middle) can actually generate power for 20 hours per day using thermal storage. And there's wind power too. Hydro is another method that can be used intermittently as well to mix with solar and wind.I think wind is a crappier solution than Nuclear
I think the future (20-30 years out) will look something like:
20% baseload nuclear (24/7)
20% baseload gas
10% peaking gas
30% solar/wind
20% hydro/geothermal
And then eventually the gas will be phased out for more solar/wind.
In Hawaii, it's already much cheaper to use solar power than coal. The utility has prevented people from putting more solar panels on their roofs. Something like 12.5% of houses have them now. Tesla's PowerWalls should be a big seller there. It would be cheaper to just go totally off grid. And to retain customers the utility will probably start to install a lot of those batteries to store up the excess power generated during the day. I think Hawaii will get to 50% or more solar in the next 20 years.
Because...?
http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear-energy-vs-wind-and-solar/
So your saying solar power has gotten a lot cheaper, but you don't think nuclear power has gotten HUGELY more efficient and cheaper?http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear-energy-vs-wind-and-solar/
I haven't read the very long page. But the topline numbers are either wrong or something weird is going on. Wind and solar are already very close to the cost of legacy technologies--not 29 times more expensive. That number is just not credible. Solar is getting so cheap that the solar industry is saying they won't even need the tax credit to be extended at the end of next year--it's already cost competitive. And no one is saying we should go 100% solar and wind. Have a nuclear baseload (like we do now) and layer renewables, including the existing hydro and geothermal, on top of that.
And the total amount of land you would need for solar panels to generate enough kWh to meet the entire US demand is 100 square miles. And you'd probably put most of it on roofs and parking lots. Much smaller than Indiana. And using space already occupied. So that number is wrong or misleading. Maybe they are talking about wind turbines scattered over a large area. But you can still have buildings or crops or whatever in the huge open spaces between them.
We have two very different claims: to generate America’s baseload electric power ... with Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) ... would [require] ... parcels of land totaling
1) the area of West Virginia [=24,230 mi²], or
2) 100 square miles.
Anyone care to provide supporting evidence for either claim or show why the other is unreasonable?
Inputs | |||
U.S. Energy production | 4,092,935 | million KW-hr/yr | http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec7_5.pdf |
Photovoltaic power | 20 | W/m^2 | http://www.theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/257481/why-power-density-matters |
Conversions | |||
8760 | hr/yr | ||
2590000 | m^2/mi^2 | ||
1.00E+09 | W/(million KW) | ||
Calculation | |||
Area required | 9020 | mi^2 |
We have two very different claims: to generate America’s baseload electric power ... with Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) ... would [require] ... parcels of land totaling
1) the area of West Virginia [=24,230 mi²], or
2) 100 square miles.
Anyone care to provide supporting evidence for either claim or show why the other is unreasonable?
Inputs U.S. Energy production 4,092,935 million KW-hr/yr http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec7_5.pdf Photovoltaic power 20 W/m^2 http://www.theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/257481/why-power-density-matters Conversions 8760 hr/yr 2590000 m^2/mi^2 1.00E+09 W/(million KW) Calculation Area required 9020 mi^2
If the above is correct - and assuming there needs to be some space around the cells to allow for maintenance, distribution, etc. - gotta go with the "West Virginia" estimate between those two.
9020 mi^2 looks a lot like 10,000 mi^2 which I could very easily imagine being described "a 100 mile square" in some report or newspaper article and easily be misunderstood by someone as 100 square miles who would then incorporate it into further articles and reports so that we'd have two numbers floating around that were off by a factor of 100.Very plausible - thanks.
Also, this is a great graphic to look at when thinking about solar power strategies: http://www.htxt.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/AreaRequired1000.jpgThat graphic ("20% operating efficiency...[times]...1000 W/m^2 striking the surface" = 200 W/m^2) has a factor of 10 (not 100, but still...) difference in the power generation from the 20 W/m^2 given in http://www.theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/257481/why-power-density-matters.
That graphic ("20% operating efficiency...[times]...1000 W/m^2 striking the surface" = 200 W/m^2) has a factor of 10 (not 100, but still...) difference in the power generation from the 20 W/m^2 given in http://www.theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/257481/why-power-density-matters.
No idea which is correct. Maybe there's a photovoltaic engineer in the audience...?
The graphic here also makes a good point: the sun doesn't illuminate the ground 8760 hr/yr, so the area required has to account for that also....
*Facepalm*
Chernoby, Fukushima...
So you guys finally figured out a way to safely store all the waste for the next 50,000 years?
Wind energy is already cheaper than nuclear, that's why many European nations are already producing large parts of their consumption with renewables and phasing out nuclear.
> (10,908 Kilowatt hours/year)
That's roughly three times what other industrialized countries use.
If you USians would reduce your electricity consumption to more sensible (not even mustachian) levels you could easily do without nuclear, too.
Because...NIMBY (not in my backyard).
People tend to latch onto the horror stories such as Chernobyl or Japan.
I stumbled onto this post a while back and it gives a pretty convincing argument in favor of nuclear.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-policies-that-would-improve-millions-of-lives-but-people-still-oppose
So nuclear is great, but NIMBY man!
So your saying solar power has gotten a lot cheaper, but you don't think nuclear power has gotten HUGELY more efficient and cheaper?http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear-energy-vs-wind-and-solar/
I haven't read the very long page. But the topline numbers are either wrong or something weird is going on. Wind and solar are already very close to the cost of legacy technologies--not 29 times more expensive. That number is just not credible. Solar is getting so cheap that the solar industry is saying they won't even need the tax credit to be extended at the end of next year--it's already cost competitive. And no one is saying we should go 100% solar and wind. Have a nuclear baseload (like we do now) and layer renewables, including the existing hydro and geothermal, on top of that.
And the total amount of land you would need for solar panels to generate enough kWh to meet the entire US demand is 100 square miles. And you'd probably put most of it on roofs and parking lots. Much smaller than Indiana. And using space already occupied. So that number is wrong or misleading. Maybe they are talking about wind turbines scattered over a large area. But you can still have buildings or crops or whatever in the huge open spaces between them.
9We have two very different claims: to generate America’s baseload electric power ... with Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) ... would [require] ... parcels of land totaling
1) the area of West Virginia [=24,230 mi²], or
2) 100 square miles.
Anyone care to provide supporting evidence for either claim or show why the other is unreasonable?
Inputs U.S. Energy production 4,092,935 million KW-hr/yr http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec7_5.pdf Photovoltaic power 20 W/m^2 http://www.theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/257481/why-power-density-matters Conversions 8760 hr/yr 2590000 m^2/mi^2 1.00E+09 W/(million KW) Calculation Area required 9020 mi^2
If the above is correct - and assuming there needs to be some space around the cells to allow for maintenance, distribution, etc. - gotta go with the "West Virginia" estimate between those two.
9020 mi^2 looks a lot like 10,000 mi^2 which I could very easily imagine being described "a 100 mile square" in some report or newspaper article and easily be misunderstood by someone as 100 square miles who would then incorporate it into further articles and reports so that we'd have two numbers floating around that were off by a factor of 100.
Also, this is a great graphic to look at when thinking about solar power strategies: http://www.htxt.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/AreaRequired1000.jpg
So your saying solar power has gotten a lot cheaper, but you don't think nuclear power has gotten HUGELY more efficient and cheaper?http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear-energy-vs-wind-and-solar/
I haven't read the very long page. But the topline numbers are either wrong or something weird is going on. Wind and solar are already very close to the cost of legacy technologies--not 29 times more expensive. That number is just not credible. Solar is getting so cheap that the solar industry is saying they won't even need the tax credit to be extended at the end of next year--it's already cost competitive. And no one is saying we should go 100% solar and wind. Have a nuclear baseload (like we do now) and layer renewables, including the existing hydro and geothermal, on top of that.
And the total amount of land you would need for solar panels to generate enough kWh to meet the entire US demand is 100 square miles. And you'd probably put most of it on roofs and parking lots. Much smaller than Indiana. And using space already occupied. So that number is wrong or misleading. Maybe they are talking about wind turbines scattered over a large area. But you can still have buildings or crops or whatever in the huge open spaces between them.
Yes. Nuclear's still about 4.5-5 nominal (underestimates the real delivered cost) cents/kWh to be generated. But then it also needs to be transmitted--a very long distance (while solar is easy to generate locally). People are putting up lots of new solar and wind installations, which is driving the cost down as it scales. But very little nuclear has been even proposed. There are new nuclear designs that people are floating around, but no one is building any of them. Here are some real numbers from the only nuclear plant under construction that I'm aware of. The Vogtle facility in GA has been adding 2 new reactors. They started the approval process for the project in 2006, construction began some years ago, and still have at least several more years before the facility is operational. The 2 new reactors are costing to date an estimated $14 billion (although I have heard that overruns to the tune of $1.5 billion have occurred already--not sure if that's included in the $14 billion number). The 2 reactors should be able to generate about 18,000 GWh annually when completed. And have ongoing fuel and operational expenses, generally about 2.5 cents per kWh. And safety externalities (both from risk of reactor failure and from the waste generated) that are not priced into those numbers. So for a 40 year operation, we're talking about $14+ billion upfront, $18 million/year in fuel and operations, for about 720 billion kWh over the lifespan. Or about 4.5 cents/kWh and unpriced externalities on top of that. This is about what an inflation adjusted nuke plant cost 30 years ago. And the cost per kWh is ignoring the time value of money and inflation. You have to put out a lot of that $14+ billion years before you generate a single kWh, and decades before you generate most of the kWh. I'm too lazy to do that calculation, but the 4.5 cents/kWh is a significant underestimate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant
http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/Costs-Fuel,-Operation,-Waste-Disposal-Life-Cycle
That electricity, once transmitted and delivered and taxed, would cost the consumer about 8-10 cents/kWh usually. But you can put solar panels on your roof right now and it would cost less than that in sunnier regions, and without any of those unpriced externalities.
For solar, the price installed has dropped from around $6.5/W just a few years ago, to under $2/W today (for larger installs), and is heading to below $1/W quickly.
I was looking at spending about $10k (without subsidies) including installation for a 5kW system on my own roof that would generate about 6500 kWh/year after inversion losses here (according to NREL's PVWatts). Assuming a 40 year operational period at full capacity (the panels degrade about 1% per year but should work for 50 years), that's about 4 cents/kWh delivered to my outlets. I'm also too lazy to include the time value of money here, but since we're looking at nuclear without that same adjustment, it's pretty close to apples-to-apples.
http://www.gogreensolar.com/collections/solar-panel-kits
Nuclear is better in the sense that it provides consistent power 24/7. Solar is better in the sense that it provides power during the daytime when demand is the highest. Wind also provides power night and day, but tends to be stronger when the sun isn't shining as much/at all, so it's a nice complement to solar. A blend of all three, along with gas, and existing hydro/geothermal, is the likely next phase as I mentioned above.
If you USians would reduce your electricity consumption to more sensible (not even mustachian) levels you could easily do without nuclear, too.
I think nuclear is OK. I prefer it to coal. But solar is really getting cheap. And so are batteries.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323716304578482663491426312
I'm not saying solar is bad, I just think Nuclear is a lot better currently and we should start replacing coal oil and gas with nuclear. I think a bunch of damns should be upgraded with better turbines to more efficiently produce hydroelectric as well. I'm not a fan of wind energy and think what we have should be maintained as much as it makes sense, but no more should be built.
Solar is now available at 4 cents per kwh. Prices have changed in a hurry which fundamentally changes the balance on these cost arguments.
There is no point in saying we "should" replace coal, oil, and natural gas with nuclear because it will not happen without significantly higher power prices. The Vogtle and Summer units will be the only nuclear plants built until the power market changes signficantly. Rapid efficiency gains, low natural gas prices, and cheap solar/wind is pushing hard against any increase in power prices in the near future.
Wind and solar are no longer the expensive, hippy power option. They are now the lowest cost generation that can be built. In a few years they will be the lowest cost generation even without subsidies. The electric power industry is changing in a fundamental way.
Solar is now available at 4 cents per kwh. Prices have changed in a hurry which fundamentally changes the balance on these cost arguments.
There is no point in saying we "should" replace coal, oil, and natural gas with nuclear because it will not happen without significantly higher power prices. The Vogtle and Summer units will be the only nuclear plants built until the power market changes signficantly. Rapid efficiency gains, low natural gas prices, and cheap solar/wind is pushing hard against any increase in power prices in the near future.
Wind and solar are no longer the expensive, hippy power option. They are now the lowest cost generation that can be built. In a few years they will be the lowest cost generation even without subsidies. The electric power industry is changing in a fundamental way.
I've been paying for the Vogtle power plant construction ever since I moved to GA 6 years ago. It's a line item on my power bill each month--10% of my base bill rate! It'll be years before I get any kWh from it. I may even leave the state before it's done.
SolarCity alone has had single days where their generation exceeded 5GWh, and nearly all that capacity was installed in the last couple years. The growth is enormous.
http://cleantechnica.com/2015/04/02/solarcity-reaches-5-gwh-in-one-day-two-weeks-after-smashing-past-4-gwh/
It could be worse. You could live in Mississippi where one of the worlds most expensive power plants is being built on the backs of the people of Mississippi.
The plant is a 582 MW Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle plant that essentially turns coal into synthetic natural gas for use in a conventional natural gas plant. The cost is now at $6.229 billion or over $10,000/kW of capacity. A natural gas plant with the same output would cost about 10 times less or right around $700 million!
The rates for the good people of Mississippi will go up somewhere between 20 and 40% due to one misguided project!
http://blog.gulflive.com/mississippi-press-business/2014/10/kemper_county_power_plant_pric.html
http://www.wlox.com/story/29079791/some-customers-think-any-power-rate-increase-is-unacceptable
I think the biggest hurdle is how to make that many solar panels. This is a huge issue folks.
<snip>
Renewable energy cannot be constructed fast enough to meet existing demand. While it is ramping up, the old supply is wearing out, and we ought to look at meeting the existing and expected demand as efficiently as possible.
Why not nuclear? Because Democrats don't like it. The US has some of the best imaginable places to build plants and store their waste, but it's political now so it will never happen.
Eventually power will be almost completely locally generated, via solar. Eventually. When that doesn't cost $20k, and isn't exclusive to the upper middle class. In the meantime, climate change will be heavily exasserbated by a certain political party's affinity for coal votes, and another's allergy to the word "nuke".
Powering the U.S. with 1,000 CSP farms, producing 500 MWavg apiece.
•Steel ………………. 787 Million t (1.6 times annual U.S. production)
•Concrete …………. 2.52 Billion t (5.14 times annual U.S. production)
•CO2 ………………… 3.02 Billion t (all U.S. passenger cars for 2.3 years)
•Land ……………….. 63,000 km2 (251 km / side)
24,234 sq. miles (105.8 mi / side)
(the size of West Virginia)
•60-year cost ……. $18.45 Trillion
That’s to 18 times the 2014 federal budget.
Powering the U.S. with 500 AP-1000 reactors.
Rated at 1,117 MWp, and with a reactor’s typical uptime of 90%, an AP-1000 will deliver 1,005 MWav. Five hundred APs will produce 502.5 GWav, replacing all existing U.S. electrical power plants, including our aging fleet of reactors.
The AP-1000 uses 5,800 tonnes of steel, 90,000 tonnes of concrete, with a combined carbon karma of 115,000 t of CO2 that can be paid down in less than 5 days. The entire plant requires 0.04km2, a patch of land just 200 meters on a side, next to an ample body of water for cooling. (Remember, it’s a Gen-3+ reactor. Most Gen-4 reactors won’t need external cooling.) Here’s the digits:
•Steel ………. 2.9 Million t (0.5% of W & CSP / 0.36% of CSP)
•Concrete … 46.5 Million t (3.3% of W & CSP / 1.8% of CSP)
•CO2 ……….. 59.8 Million tonnes (2% of W & CSP / 1.5% of CSP)
•Land ………. 20.8 km2 (4.56 km / side) (0.028% W & CSP / 0.07% of CSP)
1.95 sq. miles (1.39 miles / side)
(1.5 times the size of Central Park)
•60-year cost ……… $2.94 Trillion
That’s 2.9 times the 2014 federal budget.
http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear-energy-vs-wind-and-solar/
From this Article,QuotePowering the U.S. with 1,000 CSP farms, producing 500 MWavg apiece.
•Steel ………………. 787 Million t (1.6 times annual U.S. production)
•Concrete …………. 2.52 Billion t (5.14 times annual U.S. production)
•CO2 ………………… 3.02 Billion t (all U.S. passenger cars for 2.3 years)
•Land ……………….. 63,000 km2 (251 km / side)
24,234 sq. miles (105.8 mi / side)
(the size of West Virginia)
•60-year cost ……. $18.45 Trillion
That’s to 18 times the 2014 federal budget.
Powering the U.S. with 500 AP-1000 reactors.
Rated at 1,117 MWp, and with a reactor’s typical uptime of 90%, an AP-1000 will deliver 1,005 MWav. Five hundred APs will produce 502.5 GWav, replacing all existing U.S. electrical power plants, including our aging fleet of reactors.
The AP-1000 uses 5,800 tonnes of steel, 90,000 tonnes of concrete, with a combined carbon karma of 115,000 t of CO2 that can be paid down in less than 5 days. The entire plant requires 0.04km2, a patch of land just 200 meters on a side, next to an ample body of water for cooling. (Remember, it’s a Gen-3+ reactor. Most Gen-4 reactors won’t need external cooling.) Here’s the digits:
•Steel ………. 2.9 Million t (0.5% of W & CSP / 0.36% of CSP)
•Concrete … 46.5 Million t (3.3% of W & CSP / 1.8% of CSP)
•CO2 ……….. 59.8 Million tonnes (2% of W & CSP / 1.5% of CSP)
•Land ………. 20.8 km2 (4.56 km / side) (0.028% W & CSP / 0.07% of CSP)
1.95 sq. miles (1.39 miles / side)
(1.5 times the size of Central Park)
•60-year cost ……… $2.94 Trillion
That’s 2.9 times the 2014 federal budget.
Both Nuclear and Solar energy are improving technologies and becoming safer and more efficient. I think Solar is a great option and I hope we can improve it enough to be a great contributor, but I don't think wind is worth a damn, and we won't be able to sustain ourselves on 100% Solar anytime soon
That article assumes 4 billion per AP-1000 Reactor, Vogtle will have 2 reactors at a cost that is believed will be $14 Billion, which would assume 7 billion each, However, China is building some as well and spending significantly less (an estimated 3.2 billion each). China is also planning on using CAP1400s which are more efficient, and potentially even a 1,700 MW Design that will be even more efficient. China wants to have 100 units under construction and operating by 2020.http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear-energy-vs-wind-and-solar/
From this Article,QuotePowering the U.S. with 1,000 CSP farms, producing 500 MWavg apiece.
•Steel ………………. 787 Million t (1.6 times annual U.S. production)
•Concrete …………. 2.52 Billion t (5.14 times annual U.S. production)
•CO2 ………………… 3.02 Billion t (all U.S. passenger cars for 2.3 years)
•Land ……………….. 63,000 km2 (251 km / side)
24,234 sq. miles (105.8 mi / side)
(the size of West Virginia)
•60-year cost ……. $18.45 Trillion
That’s to 18 times the 2014 federal budget.
Powering the U.S. with 500 AP-1000 reactors.
Rated at 1,117 MWp, and with a reactor’s typical uptime of 90%, an AP-1000 will deliver 1,005 MWav. Five hundred APs will produce 502.5 GWav, replacing all existing U.S. electrical power plants, including our aging fleet of reactors.
The AP-1000 uses 5,800 tonnes of steel, 90,000 tonnes of concrete, with a combined carbon karma of 115,000 t of CO2 that can be paid down in less than 5 days. The entire plant requires 0.04km2, a patch of land just 200 meters on a side, next to an ample body of water for cooling. (Remember, it’s a Gen-3+ reactor. Most Gen-4 reactors won’t need external cooling.) Here’s the digits:
•Steel ………. 2.9 Million t (0.5% of W & CSP / 0.36% of CSP)
•Concrete … 46.5 Million t (3.3% of W & CSP / 1.8% of CSP)
•CO2 ……….. 59.8 Million tonnes (2% of W & CSP / 1.5% of CSP)
•Land ………. 20.8 km2 (4.56 km / side) (0.028% W & CSP / 0.07% of CSP)
1.95 sq. miles (1.39 miles / side)
(1.5 times the size of Central Park)
•60-year cost ……… $2.94 Trillion
That’s 2.9 times the 2014 federal budget.
Both Nuclear and Solar energy are improving technologies and becoming safer and more efficient. I think Solar is a great option and I hope we can improve it enough to be a great contributor, but I don't think wind is worth a damn, and we won't be able to sustain ourselves on 100% Solar anytime soon
Given the 20 year lead time and multi-billion dollar up-front investment for even getting a single kWh out of a nuclear plant, we won't be sustaining ourselves on 100% nuclear anytime soon either.
I've already questioned the cost numbers in that article, and provided real world costs of real nuke plants. They are very high.
You don't need any concrete to put solar panels on people's roofs.
And even if we did need 5 times the annual US production of concrete to create enough new CSP fields to replace all US demand, you presumably wouldn't be installing all that capacity year one. You'd ramp up capacity over 20 years. Or something like a 9% increase in concrete production per year. And you could get that increase from Mexico or wherever else too--not just US.
It's doable. The hurdle has been economics. And the economics are changing. Money motivates action.
Nuclear Energy supplies 20% of the United States electricity and 60% of the clean emission free electricity produced by the United States. Why are people so afraid of it?
Given the 20 year lead time and multi-billion dollar up-front investment for even getting a single kWh out of a nuclear plant, we won't be sustaining ourselves on 100% nuclear anytime soon either.
http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear-energy-vs-wind-and-solar/
From this Article,QuotePowering the U.S. with 1,000 CSP farms, producing 500 MWavg apiece.
•Steel ………………. 787 Million t (1.6 times annual U.S. production)
•Concrete …………. 2.52 Billion t (5.14 times annual U.S. production)
•CO2 ………………… 3.02 Billion t (all U.S. passenger cars for 2.3 years)
•Land ……………….. 63,000 km2 (251 km / side)
24,234 sq. miles (105.8 mi / side)
(the size of West Virginia)
•60-year cost ……. $18.45 Trillion
That’s to 18 times the 2014 federal budget.
Powering the U.S. with 500 AP-1000 reactors.
Rated at 1,117 MWp, and with a reactor’s typical uptime of 90%, an AP-1000 will deliver 1,005 MWav. Five hundred APs will produce 502.5 GWav, replacing all existing U.S. electrical power plants, including our aging fleet of reactors.
The AP-1000 uses 5,800 tonnes of steel, 90,000 tonnes of concrete, with a combined carbon karma of 115,000 t of CO2 that can be paid down in less than 5 days. The entire plant requires 0.04km2, a patch of land just 200 meters on a side, next to an ample body of water for cooling. (Remember, it’s a Gen-3+ reactor. Most Gen-4 reactors won’t need external cooling.) Here’s the digits:
•Steel ………. 2.9 Million t (0.5% of W & CSP / 0.36% of CSP)
•Concrete … 46.5 Million t (3.3% of W & CSP / 1.8% of CSP)
•CO2 ……….. 59.8 Million tonnes (2% of W & CSP / 1.5% of CSP)
•Land ………. 20.8 km2 (4.56 km / side) (0.028% W & CSP / 0.07% of CSP)
1.95 sq. miles (1.39 miles / side)
(1.5 times the size of Central Park)
•60-year cost ……… $2.94 Trillion
That’s 2.9 times the 2014 federal budget.
Both Nuclear and Solar energy are improving technologies and becoming safer and more efficient. I think Solar is a great option and I hope we can improve it enough to be a great contributor, but I don't think wind is worth a damn, and we won't be able to sustain ourselves on 100% Solar anytime soon
People always seem to forget that nuclear power runs on uranium which is also a limited resource on this plant.
Also regarding Uranium.
It's mining is disastrous for the areas where that happens and the people that do it.
And the nuclear waste is impossible to store safely for thousands of years...
Given the 20 year lead time and multi-billion dollar up-front investment for even getting a single kWh out of a nuclear plant, we won't be sustaining ourselves on 100% nuclear anytime soon either.
There is not a 20 year lead time in building a nuclear power plant. They can be built in 4 years or so, if the political environment would permit it. More modern, modular designs can be built and running much faster, but none of them can get a permit.
People always seem to forget that nuclear power runs on uranium which is also a limited resource on this plant.
Also regarding Uranium.
It's mining is disastrous for the areas where that happens and the people that do it.
And the nuclear waste is impossible to store safely for thousands of years...
you are spot on, but your post does not seem to win any approval. The simple fact is that a nuclear reactor is ecological, but the mining and enriching of uranium hardly is. Uranium is not something you just "find", and getting it out of the ground is a tremendous hassle (read: costs huge amount of CO2). Combine that with the fact that half-life of nuclear waste is inconceivably problematic and you have a recipe for disaster. Processing nuclear waste amounts to storing it and making sure the building doesn't collapse due to radiation effects. And that will continue for many, many more generations. I'm not necessarily pro or con nuclear. However, I am very strongly against building new nuclear plants. Why would we? The only passive design (which would be safe-ish in case of a meltdown) is barely tested. The cost of a new plant can finance research and development of new, far better ways of generating energy. So why bother at all with this (hopefully!) dying technology?
And please, don't blame everything on fear of things we don't understand, or bad engineering/politics. I fully understand nuclear power, with all its benefits and all its downsides. Sadly, it are those benefits that simply do not outweight the downsides. Nuclear power just isn't much better than fossil fuels on an ecological level if things go well, and the design is just too sensitive to human error.
The only passive design (which would be safe-ish in case of a meltdown) is barely tested.
Is this what you are talking about? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLOWPOKE_reactor
These things were 20kW! Tiny little science experiments, not commercial power plants.
This part sums up the fate of many similar, very interesting, but ultimately commerically doomed nuclear designs:
...
Estimating a nuclear design is competitive with fossil power (and now renewables) is one thing, actually making it happen is quite rare.
Ratepayers on Long Island got to pay $6 billion for the Shoreham nuclear power plant, and never got a single watt of power from it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoreham_Nuclear_Power_Plant
LI traffic is a mess on an ordinary day. Evacuation after a disaster would be impossible.
I was just thinking about this thread in relation to the new Iran nuclear agreement. With how cheap solar is getting, it's going to be a great solution the next time this type of thing comes around. Instead of negotiating for how much nuclear energy program a country can have, we could just say they can't have anything because it's not necessary at all due to solar+battery being cheaper. It would be so much safer to not have nuclear proliferation, even for legitimate power uses. We're not there yet, but getting a lot closer.except that nuclear is safer than solar, and causes less pollution
I was just thinking about this thread in relation to the new Iran nuclear agreement. With how cheap solar is getting, it's going to be a great solution the next time this type of thing comes around. Instead of negotiating for how much nuclear energy program a country can have, we could just say they can't have anything because it's not necessary at all due to solar+battery being cheaper. It would be so much safer to not have nuclear proliferation, even for legitimate power uses. We're not there yet, but getting a lot closer.except that nuclear is safer than solar, and causes less pollution
I was just thinking about this thread in relation to the new Iran nuclear agreement. With how cheap solar is getting, it's going to be a great solution the next time this type of thing comes around. Instead of negotiating for how much nuclear energy program a country can have, we could just say they can't have anything because it's not necessary at all due to solar+battery being cheaper. It would be so much safer to not have nuclear proliferation, even for legitimate power uses. We're not there yet, but getting a lot closer.except that nuclear is safer than solar
We have to live with that concentrated radioactive material for thousands of years to come. Yes, some can be reused through reprocessing, but many of the decay products are useless and extremely toxic. Nuclear reprocessing reduces the volume of high-level waste, but by itself does not reduce radioactivity or heat generation and therefore does not eliminate the need for a geological waste repository. -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessingI was just thinking about this thread in relation to the new Iran nuclear agreement. With how cheap solar is getting, it's going to be a great solution the next time this type of thing comes around. Instead of negotiating for how much nuclear energy program a country can have, we could just say they can't have anything because it's not necessary at all due to solar+battery being cheaper. It would be so much safer to not have nuclear proliferation, even for legitimate power uses. We're not there yet, but getting a lot closer.except that nuclear is safer than solar, and causes less pollution
PV panels are and will be recycled into more PV panels so I'm not sure where the pollution comes from. http://www.firstsolar.com/en/technologies-and-capabilities/recycling-services
Uranium isn't the only fuel that is fissile, and not even the most ideal for power.Interesting. How far off is economically generating power from Thorium?
As to the issue of processing spent uranium fuel; it's a dangerous process, but nearly all spent fuel is re-refined in Europe, and made into new fuel rods. What cannot be included in the new rods, mostly the most radioactive substances known to man, are typically incased in leaded glass balls about the size of a softball, and stored in casks. They don't need to be stored for nearly as long as most people believe, because the more "hot" the radioactive substance is, the shorter it's half-life, generally speaking. The glass balls are likely to be safely handled by human hands in century or so. The US doesn't do things this way for political reasons, namely that the never built long-term storage vault was intended to be an artifical mine, in the event our sources were cut off for political or military reasons. You see, the US doesn't actually have any uranium mines of any account.Interesting - I'd never heard either of the major points you about the nuclear fuel cycle that you raise here. I've spent a solid amount of time reading on Wikipedia and the like about the issues, but do you have a book recommendation that covers it at a deeper level?
This has been a really interesting thread! I actually drove past the Kewaunee power plant three days ago on vacation and it sparked a bit of a nuclear power argument!Uranium isn't the only fuel that is fissile, and not even the most ideal for power.Interesting. How far off is economically generating power from Thorium?
QuoteAs to the issue of processing spent uranium fuel; it's a dangerous process, but nearly all spent fuel is re-refined in Europe, and made into new fuel rods. What cannot be included in the new rods, mostly the most radioactive substances known to man, are typically incased in leaded glass balls about the size of a softball, and stored in casks. They don't need to be stored for nearly as long as most people believe, because the more "hot" the radioactive substance is, the shorter it's half-life, generally speaking. The glass balls are likely to be safely handled by human hands in century or so. The US doesn't do things this way for political reasons, namely that the never built long-term storage vault was intended to be an artifical mine, in the event our sources were cut off for political or military reasons. You see, the US doesn't actually have any uranium mines of any account.Interesting - I'd never heard either of the major points you about the nuclear fuel cycle that you raise here. I've spent a solid amount of time reading on Wikipedia and the like about the issues, but do you have a book recommendation that covers it at a deeper level?
I was just thinking about this thread in relation to the new Iran nuclear agreement. With how cheap solar is getting, it's going to be a great solution the next time this type of thing comes around. Instead of negotiating for how much nuclear energy program a country can have, we could just say they can't have anything because it's not necessary at all due to solar+battery being cheaper. It would be so much safer to not have nuclear proliferation, even for legitimate power uses. We're not there yet, but getting a lot closer.except that nuclear is safer than solar, and causes less pollution
Nuclear energy seems like a reasonable alternative to fossil fuels (though I'd prefer lowering consumption). To me, the big question is where to put the waste. That stuff lingers.
I was just thinking about this thread in relation to the new Iran nuclear agreement. With how cheap solar is getting, it's going to be a great solution the next time this type of thing comes around. Instead of negotiating for how much nuclear energy program a country can have, we could just say they can't have anything because it's not necessary at all due to solar+battery being cheaper. It would be so much safer to not have nuclear proliferation, even for legitimate power uses. We're not there yet, but getting a lot closer.except that nuclear is safer than solar, and causes less pollution
Based on what information?
Don't forget that the process of creating electricity from nuclear reactions involves the concentration (enrichment) of radioactive heavy metals from low levels in naturally occurring ores. We have to live with that concentrated radioactive material for thousands of years to come. Yes, some can be reused through reprocessing, but many of the decay products are useless and extremely toxic. Nuclear reprocessing reduces the volume of high-level waste, but by itself does not reduce radioactivity or heat generation and therefore does not eliminate the need for a geological waste repository. -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing
PV panels are and will be recycled into more PV panels so I'm not sure where the pollution comes from. http://www.firstsolar.com/en/technologies-and-capabilities/recycling-services
I was just thinking about this thread in relation to the new Iran nuclear agreement. With how cheap solar is getting, it's going to be a great solution the next time this type of thing comes around. Instead of negotiating for how much nuclear energy program a country can have, we could just say they can't have anything because it's not necessary at all due to solar+battery being cheaper. It would be so much safer to not have nuclear proliferation, even for legitimate power uses. We're not there yet, but getting a lot closer.except that nuclear is safer than solar, and causes less pollution
Um, yes. In that same way that bananas in the US are usually purple and no one buys Apple products.
None of those links support your assertion that nuclear power is safer or greener than solar power.http://www.zdnet.com/article/nuclear-less-co2-than-solar-hydro-biomass/
I was referring to the "safer" claim. I should have been more clear. They had to evacuate Chernobyl. And still no one can go back for long. They evacuated Fukushima. Nuclear is not without risks. Other than a solar panel falling on someone's head, or someone falling off a roof while installing one, I can't think of how solar power would kill anybody or require evacuation of a huge area.They use Quartz in solar panels, people have to mine the quartz, people die while mining the quartz. Yes people have to mine for nuclear material as well, which is even more dangerous mining, but you need a LOT more quartz than nuclear material
Regarding pollution, I think any lifecycle analysis comparing total pollution between solar and nuclear makes too many assumptions to be useful. What kind of solar? What kind of nuclear? What kind of mining for the materials? For the ore? How do you evaluate the use of nasty chemicals vs the presence of huge quantities of highly radioactive material packed around reactors around the country? How do you account for the occasional meltdown and the land that it renders uninhabitable? The damages are nearly impossible to adequately account for and compare without a lot of opinion involved. They are both much cleaner than coal or even gas. Beyond that any amount of pollution is incredibly minor and a dramatic improvement over the status quo. Let's leave it at that.
Hey, Grantmename; how close do you live to Ohio State University?The reactor is next to a bike path (https://goo.gl/maps/nsbrw) I use on almost all of my recreational rides. I was a student at OSU through May and live about a mile from the nearest part of campus (four miles from the reactor). They don't do tours anymore which is a total bummer.
Did you know that there is a reactor on campus?
https://reactor.osu.edu/
Hey, Grantmename; how close do you live to Ohio State University?The reactor is next to a bike path (https://goo.gl/maps/nsbrw) I use on almost all of my recreational rides. I was a student at OSU through May and live about a mile from the nearest part of campus (four miles from the reactor). They don't do tours anymore which is a total bummer.
Did you know that there is a reactor on campus?
https://reactor.osu.edu/
I'm pretty sure the corn in the field next to the reactor will glow blue if you ask it nicely enough.
The light on the back flashes red.
I'm pretty sure the corn in the field next to the reactor will glow blue if you ask it nicely enough.
(http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp51/InternNin/YouandIareenemiesnow.jpg)I'm pretty sure the corn in the field next to the reactor will glow blue if you ask it nicely enough.
And thus one gets the maize that is blue.
Sorry, not a graduate of either school but the setup was too much to resist.... ;)
I'm pretty sure the corn in the field next to the reactor will glow blue if you ask it nicely enough.
And thus one gets the maize that is blue.
Sorry, not a graduate of either school but the setup was too much to resist.... ;)
glow blue!
They use Quartz in solar panels, people have to mine the quartz, people die while mining the quartz. Yes people have to mine for nuclear material as well, which is even more dangerous mining, but you need a LOT more quartz than nuclear material