From the GWPF and Dr. Benny Peiser
New Solar Installations Banned
Greece, aiming to stave off a fresh energy crisis, plans to support its main electricity market operator through a temporary tax on renewable power producers and by extending an emergency loan, a senior official said on Friday. The electricity system came close to collapse in June when market operator LAGHE was overwhelmed by subsidies it pays to green power producers as part of efforts to bolster solar energy. Greece has slashed the guaranteed feed-in prices it pays to some solar operators and is no longer approving permits for their installation. –Harry Papachristou, Reuters, 28 September 2012 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/28/us-greece-interview-idUSBRE88R0UQ20120928)
Sharp Corp. plans to end production and sales of solar cells and modules in the U.S. and Europe by March as part of a restructuring, Kyodo News said. Osaka-based Sharp plans to cut more than 10,000 jobs, or about 18 percent of its workforce, and is in talks to sell plants as it tries to return to profit, two people with knowledge of the proposal said yesterday. –Bloomberg, 27 September 2012 (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-27/sharp-to-end-solar-panel-business-in-u-s-europe-kyodo-says.html)
The amount of electricity produced from “green” energy sources in Scotland fell by almost half for a period earlier this year – because it was not wet or windy enough. The figures prompted opposition concerns that Scotland could be left in the dark if the “wind isn’t blowing”. –Scot MacNab, The Scotsman, 28 September 2012 (http://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/scotland-not-windy-enough-for-green-power-1-2550478)
The UK biofuels industry stands to be ‘devastated’ by draft proposals being developed by the European Commission, renewables chiefs have warned. “The great irony is we have been repeatedly asking for a clear pathway to 2020, not least to secure investment in technological advancement. Nobody listened. Now Europe is planning a quantum leap which threatens to wipe us out. It is a double whammy and an absolutely galling prospect for companies that have invested millions in good faith.” –Farmers Guardian, 28 September 2012 (http://www.farmersguardian.com/home/renewables/biofuels-industry-would-be-devastated-by-eu-plans-rea/50036.article)
Switzerland would have to charge higher end-user power prices and resort to new gas-fired plants to fill the supply gap created by its planned nuclear phase-out prompted by Japan’s Fukushima accident, the Swiss energy ministry said on Friday. The statement also said the average household electricity bill, estimated at 890 Swiss Francs ($950) a year, was due to rise in line with higher costs for renewable energy and to cover the costs of investment in the grid. –Reuters, 28 September 2012 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/28/switzerland-gas-idUSL5E8KSFFT20120928)
Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Davey has given the clearest indication yet that he expects gas to continue to play a major role in the UK’s energy mix for at least the next two decades, revealing 20 new gas-fired power plants are likely to built over the next few years. –Business Green, 27 September 2012 (http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2213148/davey-20-new-gas-power-plants-in-the-pipeline-for-the-uk)
The defence of windfarms put forward by Mark Lynas and Chris Goodall, which was discussed a couple of days ago, has now had a response from Gordon Hughes. Hughes is less than impressed with the two greens’ table manners. He seems even less impressed with their analysis of the electricity grid. –Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, 28 September 2012 (http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/9/28/ouch.html)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@James Baldwin Sexton says: September 29, 2012 at 4:48 pm
Face it James the American debt problem is mostly the result of a cabal of Republican wankers under George Bush launching an oil war in Iraq for corporate profit. How many trillion did that war cost and what did the American middle class get for routing out all those WMD’s ? Didn’t those trillions spent in Iraq just end up in the rich mans pocket ? I suggest America’s first step in fixing their debt problem should be “separation of Corporation and State”.
Scotland has about 1,000 MW installed hydro capacity, the equivalent of about 2 large coal fired units.
The capacity is spread across about 50 individual stations at various sizes. The smallest are less than 1 MW, and the largest is 100 MW.
Annual production is typically 3,000 MWh and varies from year to year as you would expect. This is about 30% load factor.
As somebody said, there is limited scope for hydro developments and not a lot of scope for new developments.
Hydro is not as controllable as people often assume. There is good flexible production within Scotland, when rainfall patterns are well matched to storage design. When storage is empty or full, flexibility is lost. Also, a significant portion of Scotland’s hydro has little or no storage and is effectively run-of-river.
Another thing that people often miss is that storage and precipitation is at altitude. It can be stuck in the mountains for much of the winter as snow or ice. Production can therefore be at its greatest in spring, and annual generation volumes do not neatly map-onto peak winter demand for power.
The one argument that does not fly with the eco-green is cost effectiveness of wind etc. The object is to INCREASE energy costs as a market-driven incentive to reduce consumption, so an increase in cost is a benefit, not a reason to object to green energy. A (false) comment in the Greece article also addresses this: a reference to the “increasingly scarce” resources of coal and oil. In a resource-scarce world of fossil fuels, the energy alternative to green energy will rise also, so that the cost-comparison between green and non-green diminish even if the cost of green energy doesn’t come down. Time – 2020, here, heals this wound, or at least diminishes the bleeding.
The false comment is, of course, that fossil fuels are increasingly scarce. Coal, for certain, is not increasingly scarce. The Chinese know this, and show us this by their building of coal plants. We know where the coal is, we know how to produce it; it is only the CO2 capture costs that prevent us right now from refuelling the future with coal. If/Once we get rid of CAGW, coal can come back into its own.
All arguments with or about green energy have got to occur outside the cost, especially the present cost. Cost is not prohibitive in the eco-green philosophy, as discussed above. The additional cost is a transfer of environmental costs as the eco-green see them from the commons, where everyone suffers but nobody is accountable, to the energy user. At worst, the additional “cost” of green energy is a recognition of hidden costs only. At best it is a recognition that an improvement or sustainability of this world requires us to order a latte or two less in our daily lives.
What we really don’t see in the eco-green costs, however, is the maintenance and replacement of the wind and wave and solar projects. There is insufficient profit in these to operate them, right now, let alone fix and replace them as they wear out. Subsidies for creating are one thing, but the subsidies right now are for running: this is what is alarming. The actual cost is greater, I believe, than the current worst of the current comments.
Oh, I didn’t mention profits, also. Unless the green energy becomes a Department of Defence type mandate, wherein we are taxed for the pleasure of throwing our money away (called “peace”) there has to be profit.
Green is expensive.
“Far rarer than once-in-a-lifetime IIRC the last similar size earthquake and tsunami to affect Japan was something of the order of 1,500 years ago.”
…so this tsunami was clearly exasperated by CO2 and global warming? I mean, how else could such a historically rare event occur? [/sarc]
Sigh, I lost a friend to Fukushima much the same way CodeTech experienced a rip between his brother and himself. I did not even put much effort into it, I simply handed him a few links to theregister.co.uk and that was it. He instantly labelled me as a stupid shill for the nuclear industry or something to that effect and hasn’t spoken to me since, except when he had his gf email to let us know they weren’t going to attend our wedding.
Meanwhile I keep waiting for those reports about kids who glow in the dark or something. We will need glowing kids here in Europe when we finally shut down what remains of our nuclear power plants. I for one enjoy being able to see in the dark.
Doug Proctor says:
September 30, 2012 at 10:49 am
“What we really don’t see in the eco-green costs, however, is the maintenance and replacement of the wind and wave and solar projects. There is insufficient profit in these to operate them, right now, let alone fix and replace them as they wear out. Subsidies for creating are one thing, but the subsidies right now are for running: this is what is alarming. The actual cost is greater, I believe, than the current worst of the current comments.”
Look at the Dutch study mentioned here, it includes energy cost for creation and maintenance.
The Dutch conclude that fuel savings due to wind energy end up being 1% of the nameplate capacity. Most places have a worse capacity factor for wind than the Netherlands so will probably lose fuel.
http://notrickszone.com/2012/09/09/north-holland-province-says-no-to-new-windparks-mega-money-pit-with-virtually-no-merit/
DBCooper said:
“Where do you get that nonsense? Or don’t you have any valid references?”
http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html
“In 2010 the UK’s National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL) published a paper on the thorium cycle, concluding for the short to medium term:
“NNL believes that the thorium fuel cycle does not currently have a role to play in the UK context, other than its potential application for plutonium management in the medium to long term and depending on the indigenous thorium reserves, is likely to have only a limited role internationally for some years ahead. The technology is innovative, although technically immature and currently not of interest to the utilities, representing significant financial investment and risk without notable benefits. In many cases, the benefits of the thorium fuel cycle have been over-stated.”
As I said, “Do it, then talk about it.”
Andyj says: September 30, 2012 at 4:19 am
Nuclear power as we know it now is ***not sustainable***. We are down to a world reserve peak reserves to 40 years of yellow cake. LFTR’s are the only saving grace.
——————————————————————-
The Chinese are currently building 24 large nuke power plants. Do you really think they are so short sighted to do that knowing they will run out of fuel in 40 years? The term “years of yellowcake” is a metric used by Big Green to make nuke power look bad. There’s currently enough burnable power plant waste to add 70 years to that number, whatever it is. If you assume breeding U into Pu and Th into U, there’s a thousand years of fission fuel. And why is breeding thorium into uranium associated with liquid fluorine? LFTRs may be desirable, but it’s not the only way to use thorium.
The South Koreans have taken up some reactor development abandoned by the US, including waste burning in their Dupic versions of Canadian Candu reactors. They now generate about 30% of their electricity with nukes and plan to double that in the next decade. S. Korea’s biggest problem is the ability to do research without violating US/Korean agreements. Ironic, isn’t it?
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf81.html
The Chinese are doing lots of development, including fast neutron breeder commercialization.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63b_china_nuclearfuelcycle.html
Dan in California says:
September 30, 2012 at 12:24 pm
“The Chinese are currently building 24 large nuke power plants. Do you really think they are so short sighted to do that knowing they will run out of fuel in 40 years? The term “years of yellowcake” is a metric used by Big Green to make nuke power look bad. ”
Oh and another thing. The Japanese have tested extraction of Uranium from seawater using plastic sponges. Which lead ChiefIO to speculate about…
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/ulum-ultra-large-uranium-miner-ship/
40 years to build that? Should suffice.
Peak uranium ?!?!
Why in the world would anyone want to capture CO2, and deprive the world of CO2 enhanced growth, to feed a growing population?! Are you someone who believes the human population should be culled? Try not to be anti-human. GK
Gamecock said: DBCooper said: “Where do you get that nonsense? Or don’t you have any valid references?”
Gamecock replied September 30, 2012 at 12:21 pm: “http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html”
Thorium? Is that your whole point, that thorium makes a problematic nuclear fuel? I guess I didn’t understand how little you know about the subject. You are confusing a subset of potential breeder-reactor fuels with an entire technology, including using “spent” fuel from conventional reactors. Our current use of uranium is profligate, Just a few percentages of the fuel is actually consumed plus some extremely long-lived isotopes are produced which creates long-term disposal problems. Breeder reactors can produce ten times the energy from nuclear waste as was obtained by conventional reactors the first time around and reduce the long-term radioactivity produced from tens of thousands of years to a few hundred years. Yucca Mountain and similar disposal proposals would become far more practical.
In short, the quote you extracted from the reference you gave suggests that thorium is not likely to be among early solutions, but the quote is meaningless with respect to breeder reactors in general. Congress absolutely did not scrap the breeder programs because there are better fuels than thorium. If you think that thorium is critical to breeders, you need to read more. Start with the two references that I gave you.
It’s time we got off our backsides and did some serious development studies on a variety of breeders, coolants, and fuel reprocessing solutions. Reducing plutonium production and/or using it as additional fuel in breeder reactors is reason in and of itself not to dismiss the benefits of breeder technology.
But don’t write off thorium as a fuel. In several hundred years we could run low on uranium and spent fuels. Thorium is far more abundant. Several hundred years ago the idea of heavier-than air flight was ridiculous.
The USA did not achieve greatness because it was a nation of Luddites.
Sir, thorium is not a fuel. And a “thorium reactor” is preposterous.
Gamecock says: “Sir, thorium is not a fuel. And a “thorium reactor” is preposterous.”
This is getting ridiculous. Get back to us when you have something important to say and figure out how to say it. You are wasting our time.
Gamecock says: October 1, 2012 at 1:50 pm
Sir, thorium is not a fuel. And a “thorium reactor” is preposterous.
—————————————————————-
For the benefit of the non-nuke savvy readers, this is technically correct and completely misleading. There are “breeders” and “burners”. In most current commercial power plants, the Uranium235 fuel loaded into the reactor accounts for about 70% of the fuel burned. During operation the non-fissionable but predominant U238 is bred into Plutonium239. The Pu239 is fissionable and accounts for the other fraction of fuel burned.
In a Thorium reactor, Th232 is bred into U233, which in turn fissions (burns) to generate heat and power. Since Thorium is far more plentiful than U235, it is a very long term resource. Here’s further reading: http://energyfromthorium.com/
Dan said: “In a Thorium reactor, Th232 is bred into U233, which in turn fissions (burns) to generate heat and power.”
Preposterous. You can seed a uranium reactor with thorium, but it is still a uranium reactor.
Calling it a thorium reactor is nice marketing, but it is BS.
LFTR: “Conceptual designs for these reactors have never shown sufficient economic promise or security advantages to compete with LWRs and FRs.” This is from Mr. Cooper’s second link.
His first one is 7 years old.
Breeding thorium into useful, integral fuel is still just theoretical, even though the concept is older than me. And I’m on Social Security.
Do it, then talk about it.
Well, that’s true. But brown coal is great, CO2 is beneficial, and the more produced the better. Not that mankind’s CO2 output has squat to do with the atmospheric balance.