Yes, there have been several nuclear powered navy vessels sent to the bottom. Some US, some from other nations.
So much for that perfect military record.
Set a trap for me? Good luck with that!
No, my ideal world would not have wind and solar providing power, except where the cost for alternatives is too great. I would shut down all nukes immediately and ban any new nuclear plants. Navy can keep building theirs.
Since CO2 is not an issue of concern, I would build coal and natural gas power plants with appropriate scrubbers for proven toxic emissions such as sulfur, NOx, and flyash. I would also build many more hydroelectric plants in mountainous regions, including pumped storage hydro. Finally. I would devote tax funds for developing power from ocean currents. The ocean currents are far better than any other power source: huge, inexhaustible, pollution-free, and zero energy cost.
But, that’s just me. I want the poor people of this world to have abundant and cheap power. The last thing I would ever install to achieve that goal is nuclear power.
I saw first-hand what happened to power prices in Houston and along the US Gulf Coast when nuclear plants were built in the 70s and 80s. Prices zoomed, and poor people were badly hurt. Industry responded by self-generating, removing revenue from the utility companies. The utilities then obtained more rate increases, thereby hurting the poor even more. We called that the nuclear death spiral.
I was quite lucky with a good engineering job, but many of my relatives and millions of others suffered greatly.
So yes, I’m against nuclear power. Especially at this time, when costs to build are much higher, natural gas is far cheaper, and combined cycle gas turbine plants are mature technology.
I’m still waiting for anyone to refute the facts I’ve laid out. There is zero case for nuclear power in this world.
But, if you don’t mind screwing the poor, and handing off your poisons from spent fuel to future generations, and killing no telling how many more people when the next plant explodes and melts down, then you can be an advocate of nuclear power.
@John –
Yes, the entire “renewable” meme is a fraud. So-called “renewables” are dirtier than fossil fuels; they are an environmental as well as an economic disaster. It’s all about enriching der Fuehrer’s crony capitalist buddies, on the one hand, and reducing everyone else to penury and dependency through excessive energy costs. “Saving the planet” is only the guilt trip these thieves are using to get uninformed people to go along with their scams.
Apart from hydroelectric generation, which global warming alarmists routinely dismiss as bad, all other renewable energy resources present major hazards in terms of pollution and environmental damage. To be safe to produce, geothermal energy requires even more elaborate and costly controls than are required for coal-fired power generation. The steam which powers geothermal generators is laced with poisons like arsenic, selenium, mercury, thallium, lead and hexavalent chromium which must be removed before the steam condensate can be released into the environment. The cleansing of the steam effluent is sufficiently costly to make geothermal energy highly uneconomic, and is not entirely effective.
Wind power installations, with their footprints thousands of times larger than fossil-fuel generation for the same output of electricity, disrupt habitats, despoil landscapes, emit substantial pollution from the noxious chemicals used to operate them, and kill millions of birds and bats every year, including California condors, bald and golden eagles, whooping cranes and other endangered species. While rooftop solar is generally not so destructive, large solar power installations do disrupt habitats, emit pollutants and kill animals.
In addition, because of the very low capacity factors for these intermittent sources of power, tobe useful at all they must be supplemented by fossil fuel generation. While capacity factors for wind and solar power are routinely advertised at 30 percent of rated capacity (i.e., actual power production is 30 percent of theoretical total output when running at 100 percent capacity), actual experience has been that power production for neither solar or wind has never regularly exceeded 20 percent of capacity, and the average for wind is closer to 8 percent of capacity. The remaining 80 to 92 percent (or more) of capacity must be supplied by fossil fuel generation (this is called “firming”).
And because this fossil fuel generation must be able to respond at a moment’s notice when the wind stops blowing or clouds cover the sun, only simple-cycle generators are able to perform this function, and simple-cycle fossil generation uses twice as much fuel (and emits twice as much carbon dioxide, and is generally dirtier) as the more efficient and cleaner combined-cycle generating plants than cannot ramp up and down fast enough to maintain the energy balance in the grid. Therefore, attempting to rely on wind and solar power often results in as much as a doubling of emissions and pollutants, compared to relying primarily on combined-cycle generation without wind or solar.
When all land, manufacturing, construction and operating costs are considered, solar power costs from 80 cents to $1.10 per kilowatt-hour to produce. Wind power costs are comparable. This is 4 to 15 times more costly than the average cost of fossil-fuel generation (about 7 cents nationwide; California’s electricity prices are artificially high because of renewable energy mandates and emissions caps). This cost differential is even greater when the added cost of fuel for simple-cycle generation for “firming” is factored in. And of course this added ost is borne by the taxpayers as well as by ratepayers.
Also, as intermittent sources, solar and wind power can hardly be said to be reliable when they can shut off at any moment, including times of peak electrical system load. While wind power is touted as having a 30 percent capacity factor – i.e., total output 30 percent of what would be generated if they ran 100 prercent of the time, in reality output rarely exceeds 20 percent of theoretical capacity, and many wind installations operate at about 8 percent – some even as low as 2 percent, enormously increasing the cost per kilowatt-hour generated. And ironically, since the wind tends to blow less during periods of peak electricity demand, typically between noon and 6 p.m., one often sees the turbines idle when demand is pushing the grid to the breaking point.
Wind and solar are not “free” or inexhaustible, the more so since their equipment wears out quickly and is expensive to maintain and replace, with lots of down time. It should come as no surprise that when one passes by a large wind turbine installation, one is likely to see all but a few of the turbines idle, even if the wind is blowing. There is also the enormous cost of building new transmission lines to connect wind and solar facilities to the grid – most of these installations are far from any existing transmission lines, yet the advocates of wind and solar never factor this added cost into their calculations. And this is not to mention the cost of the huge swaths of land needed to build solar and wind power installations – land is NOT free or inexhaustible. In California electric rates are already double the national average because of “renewable” energy mandates.
And again, don’t forget wind’s four dirty little secrets:
(1) millions of dead birds and bats, including endangered California condors and whooping cranes;
(2) habitat disruption (1,500 times as much land required to produce the same juice as a 500-megawatt fossil fuel power plant, if it is operating at capacity – and you have to divide that 1,500 multiple by the effective capacity factor (i.e., if the factor is 20 percent, it takes 7,500 times as much space to produce the juice, not to mention the despoiled landscapes);
(3) the inefficient and dirtier types of fossil fuel generation that must be used to “firm” the power when the wind stops blowing, since more efficient types of generation cannot respond quickly enough to maintain the energy balance on the grid (resulting in a net increase, not decrease, in emissions);
(4) some very nasty chemical pollution leaking from the machines as they run, including PCBs.
Wind power costs 80 cents to $1.10 a kilowatt-hour for a good reason: land cost, equipment cost, depreciation and maintenance. It is anything but free, and it will never compete with fossil fuel power unless the taxpayers subsidize most of the cost of it. The portion of it that can’t be recovered by doubling or tripling electric rates is being picked up by the taxpayer, and together, these cost recoveries represents an interesting redistribution of wealth: der Fuehrer’s crony capitalist buddies get richer off the backs of lower- and middle-income people – so wealth is taken from poorer and given ti richer. And since the whole idea that fossil fuel burning is warming the globe is now so thoroughly proven to be utterly false, it is insane and mean-spirited to force these high costs on consumers, especially poor people who desperately need cheap energy.
England’s Lloyd’s insurance organization recently published a report aiming to quantify what is known about the economic impact of tornadoes, drawing on multiple inputs, including damage reports from insurers, scientific data and government information. Its conclusion, in short, was that insured losses stemming from dangerous tornadoes are growing. However, this is believed to be more a function of where people live in the modern day, rather than a sign that tornadoes and punishing thunderstorms are becoming more frequent or stronger.
gbaikie
August 3, 2013 9:45 pm
” Roger Sowell says:
August 3, 2013 at 11:19 am @ur momisugly arthur4563 re nuclear power.
Nuclear is not safe. It is not reliable. It is not affordable. It is not a boon to mankind. See: http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/reconsider-nuclear-power-is-it-ever.html?m=0
Our children and grandchildren will rightfully ask: You had solar, wind, ocean currents, and hot ocean surface water in the tropics, so why did your generation build all those toxic and deadly nuclear power plants? What did we ever do to you, that you hate us so much that you poisoned the planet with plutonium wastes?”
In your link you mention San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station- Construction began August 1964. And Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. Plant’s completion in 1973.
Neither face similar threat as nuclear reactors related to the Japanese tsunami.
Both Diablo Canyon and San Onofre are at near their expected design lives which when built which were generally 30 to 40 years. And San Onofre is being decommissioned. Upgrading and redesigning for longer operational lifetimes is being done- and there effort to design nuclear reactor for 80 year operational lifetime. I would say it would be important to originally design for long life time for nuclear power plants. Rather than reply on upgraing to extent to operational lifetimes. But it better now to design for long lifetimes, than it would been to do this 40+ years ago, because over the year considerable operational experience has lead to greater actual ability to realistically have these longer life times, and we could expect improvement in the future in this respect.
Advocate of wind farm claim their wind generators have life time of 20 to 25 years.
But:
.” By the time the turbines are 10 years old, the amount of wind energy they are able to provide falls by a third, according to the report. Researchers said, based on the findings, it could be “uneconomic” to operate wind farms for more than 12 to 15 years. The industry has previously said wind farms should be able to operate effectively for 20 to 25 years.” http://www.pennenergy.com/articles/pennenergy/2013/january/study-shows-onshore-wind-turbines-may-have-shorter-life-than-expected.html
And in the rather recent history of modern wind farms we have large fields of no longer functioning wind farms. So we have had nuclear reactors provide cheap and reliable for decades
reducing a significant amount of coal use in US. Far more reduction of CO2 and mercury emission than any and all “green policies” have managed to do, and nuclear energy has had few deaths resulting from it, as compared to other ways of generating electrical power and
there hasn’t been “poisoning the planet with plutonium wastes” which caused humans or animals to die or become sick. Nor is there any reason to suppose in the future this will occur.
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/160131-thorium-nuclear-reactor-trial-begins-could-provide-cleaner-safer-almost-waste-free-energy
Says in part:
At a test site in Norway, Thor Energy has successfully created a thorium nuclear reactor….
Natural thorium, which is fairly cheap and abundant (more so than uranium), doesn’t contain enough fissile material (thorium-231) to sustain a nuclear chain reaction. By mixing thorium oxide with 10% plutonium oxide, however, criticality is achieved. This fuel, which is called thorium-MOX (mixed-oxide), can then be formed into rods and used in conventional nuclear reactors. Not only does this mean that we can do away with uranium, which is expensive to enrich, dangerous, and leads to nuclear proliferation, but it also means that we finally have an easy way of recycling plutonium. Furthermore, the thorium-MOX fuel cycle produces no new plutonium; it actually reduces the world’s stock of plutonium. Oh, thorium-MOX makes for safer nuclear reactors, too, due to a higher melting point and thermal conductivity.
Roger Sowell says:
August 3, 2013 at 9:24 pm
Yes, there have been several nuclear powered navy vessels sent to the bottom. Some US, some from other nations.
So much for that perfect military record.
Set a trap for me? Good luck with that!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well even warned, you walked face first right into it. You deliberately cited sunk ships as proof that nuclear power isn’t safe, but the fact of the matter is that you can’t point to ship sinking because of nuclear power problems. In other words, the nuclear reactor was fine, the ships sank for unrelated reasons. If you want to argue that nuclear power is unsafe then cite examples of nuclear power being unsafe instead of shouting about completely unrelated events!
Your inability to cite actual problems with these systems which have logged so many years incident free makes a mockery of your arguments. You don’t have an argument or even evidence to cite, so you raise completely unrelated issues. Problem is that you are so committed to your world view that you can’t even understand that the trap just snapped shut on you.
As for your continued argument about economics, citing rises in electricity costs in the 70’s is just plain silly. Inflation was rampant in the 70’s and 80’s, the price of everything went up dramatically, governments raised interest rates to over 20% to try and get inflation under control. Your example has no more to do with the current economic realities than does the price of tea in China.
Yes, natural gas is driving the price of power generation down. In many cases that’s going to mean that nuclear can’t compete. But that was not the original assertion. The original assertion was that nuclear is safe, affordable, and ghg free. Those things are all true and you haven’t presented a shred of evidence to the contrary.
I do hope the nuclear advocates will read my comment at 9:24 on August 3, especially the part about the nuclear death spiral. A search for “death spiral” should bring the cursor to it.
Increased power prices due to nuckear plants is analogous to the “carbon tax” of which so many CAGW skeptics disapprove. A carbon tax raises costs to all consumers, and will do zero good because CO2 is harmless.
Building more nuclear plants will greatly increase power prices to all consumers and do zero good. In fact, nuclear plants do much harm as I argued above.
u.k.(us)
August 3, 2013 10:17 pm
I’m sick of hearing about thorium this and that.
If it can’t be scaled up to industrial size, then who cares.
Not those that buy ball-bearings and pressure cookers.
Energy is cheap right now, exploit it.
Ric Werme;
Natural thorium, which is fairly cheap and abundant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
My understanding is that some coal deposits are so high in thorium that recovery from the fly ash is commercially viable. Cheap power that generates cheap fuel. Win-win!
Roger Sowell;
Building more nuclear plants will greatly increase power prices to all consumers and do zero good. In fact, nuclear plants do much harm as I argued above.
>>>>>>>>>>>
No, you claimed above, you presented no evidence of same and attempted to misdirect the discussion. As to your understanding of what drives power prices, if other means are more economical, the free market will turn to them. The point of the discussion, which you seem incapable of following, is that nuclear is a safe, affordable and ghg free option.
@David Hoffer, you make me laugh!
Seriously? You think that inflation caused the gulf coast power prices to zoom in the 70s? Your utter lack of knowledge is clearly evident.
It is also clear that your mind is closed.
But please don’t worry yourself. The attorneys including myself will see to it that US new nuclear power plants either don’t get built, or are delayed so long that their owners give up. We have far more attorneys now than in the 70s, and far more legal tools at our disposal.
As for your so-called “trap”, seriously? Try again, sir, try again! You make me laugh.
Roger Sowell;
But please don’t worry yourself. The attorneys including myself will see to it that US new nuclear power plants either don’t get built, or are delayed so long that their owners give up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I see. You’ve provided precisely no evidence to support your position, but you are a lawyer and going to use those good old lawyer skills to get your way. How’s the saying go?
When you have the facts, pound the facts.
When you don’t have the facts, pound the law.
If you have neither facts nor law, pound the table.
It is unfortunate that you are using your legal skills to pound the law, and it is clear from your poor representation of same that you have no facts to cite. Either that or your legal skills are wanting. My mind isn’t closed, I’m just waiting for you to present some actual evidence. All you seem to have is that you are a lawyer and you will use the law to force your belief system down everyone else’s throat, facts be damned.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
u.k.(us)
August 3, 2013 10:53 pm
Roger Sowell says:
August 3, 2013 at 10:43 pm
—————–
“The attorneys including myself will see to it that US new nuclear power plants either don’t get built, or are delayed so long that their owners give up. We have far more attorneys now than in the 70s, and far more legal tools at our disposal.”
—————
Be very,very,very careful this ain’t the 70’s anymore.
Roger Sowell;
The attorneys including myself will see to it that US new nuclear power plants either don’t get built, or are delayed so long that their owners give up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Gee. So its lawyers filing law suits that are preventing nuclear power plants from being built, not economics as you claimed earlier.
Yup, you’re a lawyer all right.
I am curious if any of the nuclear advocates who insist that nuclear power plants are safe are aware of the following report. This details many of the ongoing safety issues at US nuclear power plants. It should give you much pause, and much about which to be very concerned.
The report for 2012 describes 15 near misses, a bit more than one per month. http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/NRC-nuclear-safety-2012-report.pdf
There are similar reports for earlier years.
Roger Sowell;
The report for 2012 describes 15 near misses, a bit more than one per month.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You claim to be a CAGW skeptic and yet cite as a source a report from the Union of Concerned Scientists?
I didn’t think there was a way to drop your credibility any lower, but you found a way.
King of Cool
August 3, 2013 11:33 pm
Interesting that Michael Smith of michaelsmithnews.com has drawn attention to an Interpol report warning about carbon trading crime which describes CO2 as an intangible substance and is therefore more prone to fraud.
In comparison Tony Abbott, the Opposition Leader of the Australian Coalition was lampooned recently by much of the MSM for describing Carbon trading as a “so-called market, in the non-delivery of an invisible substance to no one”.
Aussie Election called for September 7. We will know on Sept 08 who will be the one who is untouchable and whether CO2 trading has a future in OZ.
Current betting Labor 3.6, Coalition 1.27.
But Labor are renowned to do whatever it takes to retain power and have recently recruited Tom McMahon, the former executive director of the powerful Democratic National Committee during President Obama’s last campaign, Joon Kim of the consulting firm New Partners, and the British social media expert Matthew McGregor to form the digital brigade for Rudd in electioneering on the Social Media front.
However, Tony Abbott’s might say “Prime Minister Rudd, you’re no Barack Obama.”
Richard111
August 3, 2013 11:38 pm
Got this link via TonyfromOz on the JoNova blog. Should be of interest to some of the commenters on power stations above. http://globalenergyobservatory.org/
u.k.(us)
August 3, 2013 11:38 pm
Roger Sowell says:
August 3, 2013 at 11:22 pm
“I am curious if any of the nuclear advocates who insist that nuclear power plants are safe are aware ….”
—————
Definition of AWARE
1
archaic : watchful, wary
2
: having or showing realization, perception, or knowledge
—————————–
Just might be.
David Hoffer, how many facts must I repeat? Did you not read? Or do you simply refuse to comprehend?
Let’s review…
A new Nuclear power plant, proposed to double the South Texas plant, was scrapped for being too costly. Fact.
Nuclear power plant, licensed and operating with years remaining on its license, was shut down because it is not economic. Fact.
Fukushima reactors melted down and poisoned the countryside as well as yet unknown radiation to people. Radiation continues to pour into the ocean. Fact.
Nuclear industry lied and continues to lie about reactor safety. Fact.
Power prices zoomed due to the nuclear death spiral in the 70s and 80s along the US gulf coast, due to new nuclear power plants. Fact.
No island with 1 million population (nominal) has a nuclear power plant, instead they use diesel or similar and pay 25 to 30 cents for their power. Fact.
Nuclear powered naval vessels rest on the bottom of the oceans, spewing forth their radiation. Fact.
I could go on, but your mind is closed.
I have not argued any law here tonight, merely presented facts. I could indeed argue some law, such as the legal requirements for safety equipment and procedures in those “safe” nuclear power plants. But I won’t do that. It would be too easy.
You are free to try to prove me wrong on the facts. Prove any of those seven wrong, and I’ll present plenty more.
Give it your best shot.
markx
August 3, 2013 11:44 pm
Roger Sowell says:August 3, 2013 at 10:43 pm “…It is also clear that your mind is closed….”
“….The attorneys including myself will see to it that US new nuclear power plants either don’t get built, or are delayed so long that their owners give up*. We have far more attorneys now than in the 70s, and far more legal tools at our disposal**. …”
Thanks Roger. Here you have neatly encapsulated two major problems:
1. * Why nuclear power stations cost so much.
2. ** One of the primary problems with modern civilization.
I’d also suggest you are as close-minded as anyone who has posted here.
Roger Sowell says:
August 3, 2013 at 11:42 pm
David Hoffer, how many facts must I repeat? Did you not read?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have to provide some facts in order to repeat them. Making alarmist assertions with no facts behind them, and then repeating the assertions has nothing to do with repeating the facts. You’re argument is based on one single cited report, and that is from the Union of Concerned Scientists, a group that has nothing to do with science, much to do with political advocacy, and even has a dog as a member.
You are just a fear monger with a law degree and a poor grasp of both science and economics.
Khwarizmi
August 4, 2013 12:10 am
Roger Sowell is correct to compare nuclear plants to a “carbon tax.”
see Hooked on Subsidies – Why conservatives should join the left’s campaign against nuclear power: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/hooked-subsidies
–“The only reason investors are interested: government handouts.”–
Also, nuclear power was supposed to make electricity production “too cheap to meter” – like the free electricity supplied throughout Qatar.
GHG is the primary focus of today’s nuclear proponent. The cost of subsidies, the cost of cleaning up after a disaster (including the cost of an exclusion zone), and the cost of decommissioning go unmentioned. http://www.google.com/search?q=fukushima%2C+cleanup%2C+cost
@ur momisugly markx
You wrote:
“I’d also suggest you are as close-minded as anyone who has posted here”
No, actually I amend my conclusions when new and valid data are presented. I have done that for more than 40 years as a working professional. Here, I have presented facts to support my position, and invited others to refute those facts. None have done so. (likely, because they cannot)
Refute the facts, then I will consider a change in my position.
A man who changes his mind on the unfounded assertions of a stranger is indeed a fool.
Yes, there have been several nuclear powered navy vessels sent to the bottom. Some US, some from other nations.
So much for that perfect military record.
Set a trap for me? Good luck with that!
No, my ideal world would not have wind and solar providing power, except where the cost for alternatives is too great. I would shut down all nukes immediately and ban any new nuclear plants. Navy can keep building theirs.
Since CO2 is not an issue of concern, I would build coal and natural gas power plants with appropriate scrubbers for proven toxic emissions such as sulfur, NOx, and flyash. I would also build many more hydroelectric plants in mountainous regions, including pumped storage hydro. Finally. I would devote tax funds for developing power from ocean currents. The ocean currents are far better than any other power source: huge, inexhaustible, pollution-free, and zero energy cost.
But, that’s just me. I want the poor people of this world to have abundant and cheap power. The last thing I would ever install to achieve that goal is nuclear power.
I saw first-hand what happened to power prices in Houston and along the US Gulf Coast when nuclear plants were built in the 70s and 80s. Prices zoomed, and poor people were badly hurt. Industry responded by self-generating, removing revenue from the utility companies. The utilities then obtained more rate increases, thereby hurting the poor even more. We called that the nuclear death spiral.
I was quite lucky with a good engineering job, but many of my relatives and millions of others suffered greatly.
So yes, I’m against nuclear power. Especially at this time, when costs to build are much higher, natural gas is far cheaper, and combined cycle gas turbine plants are mature technology.
I’m still waiting for anyone to refute the facts I’ve laid out. There is zero case for nuclear power in this world.
But, if you don’t mind screwing the poor, and handing off your poisons from spent fuel to future generations, and killing no telling how many more people when the next plant explodes and melts down, then you can be an advocate of nuclear power.
Roger Sowell says:
August 3, 2013 at 8:37 pm
More evidence of why nuclear power plants cannot compete.
http://www.powermag.com/gas/gas_power_direct/Is-Cheap-Gas-Killing-Nuclear-Power_5743.html
——————–
Just where are you going with this ?
Death to nuke’s is good, fracking killed the nuke’s.
Windmills will kill fracking, and save us all ?
Seriously ?
@John –
Yes, the entire “renewable” meme is a fraud. So-called “renewables” are dirtier than fossil fuels; they are an environmental as well as an economic disaster. It’s all about enriching der Fuehrer’s crony capitalist buddies, on the one hand, and reducing everyone else to penury and dependency through excessive energy costs. “Saving the planet” is only the guilt trip these thieves are using to get uninformed people to go along with their scams.
Apart from hydroelectric generation, which global warming alarmists routinely dismiss as bad, all other renewable energy resources present major hazards in terms of pollution and environmental damage. To be safe to produce, geothermal energy requires even more elaborate and costly controls than are required for coal-fired power generation. The steam which powers geothermal generators is laced with poisons like arsenic, selenium, mercury, thallium, lead and hexavalent chromium which must be removed before the steam condensate can be released into the environment. The cleansing of the steam effluent is sufficiently costly to make geothermal energy highly uneconomic, and is not entirely effective.
Wind power installations, with their footprints thousands of times larger than fossil-fuel generation for the same output of electricity, disrupt habitats, despoil landscapes, emit substantial pollution from the noxious chemicals used to operate them, and kill millions of birds and bats every year, including California condors, bald and golden eagles, whooping cranes and other endangered species. While rooftop solar is generally not so destructive, large solar power installations do disrupt habitats, emit pollutants and kill animals.
In addition, because of the very low capacity factors for these intermittent sources of power, tobe useful at all they must be supplemented by fossil fuel generation. While capacity factors for wind and solar power are routinely advertised at 30 percent of rated capacity (i.e., actual power production is 30 percent of theoretical total output when running at 100 percent capacity), actual experience has been that power production for neither solar or wind has never regularly exceeded 20 percent of capacity, and the average for wind is closer to 8 percent of capacity. The remaining 80 to 92 percent (or more) of capacity must be supplied by fossil fuel generation (this is called “firming”).
And because this fossil fuel generation must be able to respond at a moment’s notice when the wind stops blowing or clouds cover the sun, only simple-cycle generators are able to perform this function, and simple-cycle fossil generation uses twice as much fuel (and emits twice as much carbon dioxide, and is generally dirtier) as the more efficient and cleaner combined-cycle generating plants than cannot ramp up and down fast enough to maintain the energy balance in the grid. Therefore, attempting to rely on wind and solar power often results in as much as a doubling of emissions and pollutants, compared to relying primarily on combined-cycle generation without wind or solar.
When all land, manufacturing, construction and operating costs are considered, solar power costs from 80 cents to $1.10 per kilowatt-hour to produce. Wind power costs are comparable. This is 4 to 15 times more costly than the average cost of fossil-fuel generation (about 7 cents nationwide; California’s electricity prices are artificially high because of renewable energy mandates and emissions caps). This cost differential is even greater when the added cost of fuel for simple-cycle generation for “firming” is factored in. And of course this added ost is borne by the taxpayers as well as by ratepayers.
Also, as intermittent sources, solar and wind power can hardly be said to be reliable when they can shut off at any moment, including times of peak electrical system load. While wind power is touted as having a 30 percent capacity factor – i.e., total output 30 percent of what would be generated if they ran 100 prercent of the time, in reality output rarely exceeds 20 percent of theoretical capacity, and many wind installations operate at about 8 percent – some even as low as 2 percent, enormously increasing the cost per kilowatt-hour generated. And ironically, since the wind tends to blow less during periods of peak electricity demand, typically between noon and 6 p.m., one often sees the turbines idle when demand is pushing the grid to the breaking point.
Wind and solar are not “free” or inexhaustible, the more so since their equipment wears out quickly and is expensive to maintain and replace, with lots of down time. It should come as no surprise that when one passes by a large wind turbine installation, one is likely to see all but a few of the turbines idle, even if the wind is blowing. There is also the enormous cost of building new transmission lines to connect wind and solar facilities to the grid – most of these installations are far from any existing transmission lines, yet the advocates of wind and solar never factor this added cost into their calculations. And this is not to mention the cost of the huge swaths of land needed to build solar and wind power installations – land is NOT free or inexhaustible. In California electric rates are already double the national average because of “renewable” energy mandates.
And again, don’t forget wind’s four dirty little secrets:
(1) millions of dead birds and bats, including endangered California condors and whooping cranes;
(2) habitat disruption (1,500 times as much land required to produce the same juice as a 500-megawatt fossil fuel power plant, if it is operating at capacity – and you have to divide that 1,500 multiple by the effective capacity factor (i.e., if the factor is 20 percent, it takes 7,500 times as much space to produce the juice, not to mention the despoiled landscapes);
(3) the inefficient and dirtier types of fossil fuel generation that must be used to “firm” the power when the wind stops blowing, since more efficient types of generation cannot respond quickly enough to maintain the energy balance on the grid (resulting in a net increase, not decrease, in emissions);
(4) some very nasty chemical pollution leaking from the machines as they run, including PCBs.
Wind power costs 80 cents to $1.10 a kilowatt-hour for a good reason: land cost, equipment cost, depreciation and maintenance. It is anything but free, and it will never compete with fossil fuel power unless the taxpayers subsidize most of the cost of it. The portion of it that can’t be recovered by doubling or tripling electric rates is being picked up by the taxpayer, and together, these cost recoveries represents an interesting redistribution of wealth: der Fuehrer’s crony capitalist buddies get richer off the backs of lower- and middle-income people – so wealth is taken from poorer and given ti richer. And since the whole idea that fossil fuel burning is warming the globe is now so thoroughly proven to be utterly false, it is insane and mean-spirited to force these high costs on consumers, especially poor people who desperately need cheap energy.
New topic: regarding former VP Al Gore’s theory of “dirty weather” (anthropogenic global warming causing more tornadoes & hurricanes), we have this study: http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/economics-tornadoes-232625991.html
” Roger Sowell says:
August 3, 2013 at 11:19 am
@ur momisugly arthur4563 re nuclear power.
Nuclear is not safe. It is not reliable. It is not affordable. It is not a boon to mankind. See:
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/reconsider-nuclear-power-is-it-ever.html?m=0
Our children and grandchildren will rightfully ask: You had solar, wind, ocean currents, and hot ocean surface water in the tropics, so why did your generation build all those toxic and deadly nuclear power plants? What did we ever do to you, that you hate us so much that you poisoned the planet with plutonium wastes?”
In your link you mention San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station- Construction began August 1964. And Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. Plant’s completion in 1973.
Neither face similar threat as nuclear reactors related to the Japanese tsunami.
Both Diablo Canyon and San Onofre are at near their expected design lives which when built which were generally 30 to 40 years. And San Onofre is being decommissioned. Upgrading and redesigning for longer operational lifetimes is being done- and there effort to design nuclear reactor for 80 year operational lifetime. I would say it would be important to originally design for long life time for nuclear power plants. Rather than reply on upgraing to extent to operational lifetimes. But it better now to design for long lifetimes, than it would been to do this 40+ years ago, because over the year considerable operational experience has lead to greater actual ability to realistically have these longer life times, and we could expect improvement in the future in this respect.
Advocate of wind farm claim their wind generators have life time of 20 to 25 years.
But:
.” By the time the turbines are 10 years old, the amount of wind energy they are able to provide falls by a third, according to the report. Researchers said, based on the findings, it could be “uneconomic” to operate wind farms for more than 12 to 15 years. The industry has previously said wind farms should be able to operate effectively for 20 to 25 years.”
http://www.pennenergy.com/articles/pennenergy/2013/january/study-shows-onshore-wind-turbines-may-have-shorter-life-than-expected.html
And in the rather recent history of modern wind farms we have large fields of no longer functioning wind farms. So we have had nuclear reactors provide cheap and reliable for decades
reducing a significant amount of coal use in US. Far more reduction of CO2 and mercury emission than any and all “green policies” have managed to do, and nuclear energy has had few deaths resulting from it, as compared to other ways of generating electrical power and
there hasn’t been “poisoning the planet with plutonium wastes” which caused humans or animals to die or become sick. Nor is there any reason to suppose in the future this will occur.
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/160131-thorium-nuclear-reactor-trial-begins-could-provide-cleaner-safer-almost-waste-free-energy
Says in part:
At a test site in Norway, Thor Energy has successfully created a thorium nuclear reactor….
Natural thorium, which is fairly cheap and abundant (more so than uranium), doesn’t contain enough fissile material (thorium-231) to sustain a nuclear chain reaction. By mixing thorium oxide with 10% plutonium oxide, however, criticality is achieved. This fuel, which is called thorium-MOX (mixed-oxide), can then be formed into rods and used in conventional nuclear reactors. Not only does this mean that we can do away with uranium, which is expensive to enrich, dangerous, and leads to nuclear proliferation, but it also means that we finally have an easy way of recycling plutonium. Furthermore, the thorium-MOX fuel cycle produces no new plutonium; it actually reduces the world’s stock of plutonium. Oh, thorium-MOX makes for safer nuclear reactors, too, due to a higher melting point and thermal conductivity.
Roger Sowell says:
August 3, 2013 at 9:24 pm
Yes, there have been several nuclear powered navy vessels sent to the bottom. Some US, some from other nations.
So much for that perfect military record.
Set a trap for me? Good luck with that!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well even warned, you walked face first right into it. You deliberately cited sunk ships as proof that nuclear power isn’t safe, but the fact of the matter is that you can’t point to ship sinking because of nuclear power problems. In other words, the nuclear reactor was fine, the ships sank for unrelated reasons. If you want to argue that nuclear power is unsafe then cite examples of nuclear power being unsafe instead of shouting about completely unrelated events!
Your inability to cite actual problems with these systems which have logged so many years incident free makes a mockery of your arguments. You don’t have an argument or even evidence to cite, so you raise completely unrelated issues. Problem is that you are so committed to your world view that you can’t even understand that the trap just snapped shut on you.
As for your continued argument about economics, citing rises in electricity costs in the 70’s is just plain silly. Inflation was rampant in the 70’s and 80’s, the price of everything went up dramatically, governments raised interest rates to over 20% to try and get inflation under control. Your example has no more to do with the current economic realities than does the price of tea in China.
Yes, natural gas is driving the price of power generation down. In many cases that’s going to mean that nuclear can’t compete. But that was not the original assertion. The original assertion was that nuclear is safe, affordable, and ghg free. Those things are all true and you haven’t presented a shred of evidence to the contrary.
I do hope the nuclear advocates will read my comment at 9:24 on August 3, especially the part about the nuclear death spiral. A search for “death spiral” should bring the cursor to it.
Increased power prices due to nuckear plants is analogous to the “carbon tax” of which so many CAGW skeptics disapprove. A carbon tax raises costs to all consumers, and will do zero good because CO2 is harmless.
Building more nuclear plants will greatly increase power prices to all consumers and do zero good. In fact, nuclear plants do much harm as I argued above.
I’m sick of hearing about thorium this and that.
If it can’t be scaled up to industrial size, then who cares.
Not those that buy ball-bearings and pressure cookers.
Energy is cheap right now, exploit it.
Ric Werme;
Natural thorium, which is fairly cheap and abundant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
My understanding is that some coal deposits are so high in thorium that recovery from the fly ash is commercially viable. Cheap power that generates cheap fuel. Win-win!
Roger Sowell;
Building more nuclear plants will greatly increase power prices to all consumers and do zero good. In fact, nuclear plants do much harm as I argued above.
>>>>>>>>>>>
No, you claimed above, you presented no evidence of same and attempted to misdirect the discussion. As to your understanding of what drives power prices, if other means are more economical, the free market will turn to them. The point of the discussion, which you seem incapable of following, is that nuclear is a safe, affordable and ghg free option.
@David Hoffer, you make me laugh!
Seriously? You think that inflation caused the gulf coast power prices to zoom in the 70s? Your utter lack of knowledge is clearly evident.
It is also clear that your mind is closed.
But please don’t worry yourself. The attorneys including myself will see to it that US new nuclear power plants either don’t get built, or are delayed so long that their owners give up. We have far more attorneys now than in the 70s, and far more legal tools at our disposal.
As for your so-called “trap”, seriously? Try again, sir, try again! You make me laugh.
Roger Sowell;
But please don’t worry yourself. The attorneys including myself will see to it that US new nuclear power plants either don’t get built, or are delayed so long that their owners give up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I see. You’ve provided precisely no evidence to support your position, but you are a lawyer and going to use those good old lawyer skills to get your way. How’s the saying go?
When you have the facts, pound the facts.
When you don’t have the facts, pound the law.
If you have neither facts nor law, pound the table.
It is unfortunate that you are using your legal skills to pound the law, and it is clear from your poor representation of same that you have no facts to cite. Either that or your legal skills are wanting. My mind isn’t closed, I’m just waiting for you to present some actual evidence. All you seem to have is that you are a lawyer and you will use the law to force your belief system down everyone else’s throat, facts be damned.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Roger Sowell says:
August 3, 2013 at 10:43 pm
—————–
“The attorneys including myself will see to it that US new nuclear power plants either don’t get built, or are delayed so long that their owners give up. We have far more attorneys now than in the 70s, and far more legal tools at our disposal.”
—————
Be very,very,very careful this ain’t the 70’s anymore.
Roger Sowell;
The attorneys including myself will see to it that US new nuclear power plants either don’t get built, or are delayed so long that their owners give up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Gee. So its lawyers filing law suits that are preventing nuclear power plants from being built, not economics as you claimed earlier.
Yup, you’re a lawyer all right.
I am curious if any of the nuclear advocates who insist that nuclear power plants are safe are aware of the following report. This details many of the ongoing safety issues at US nuclear power plants. It should give you much pause, and much about which to be very concerned.
The report for 2012 describes 15 near misses, a bit more than one per month.
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/NRC-nuclear-safety-2012-report.pdf
There are similar reports for earlier years.
Roger Sowell;
The report for 2012 describes 15 near misses, a bit more than one per month.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You claim to be a CAGW skeptic and yet cite as a source a report from the Union of Concerned Scientists?
I didn’t think there was a way to drop your credibility any lower, but you found a way.
Interesting that Michael Smith of michaelsmithnews.com has drawn attention to an Interpol report warning about carbon trading crime which describes CO2 as an intangible substance and is therefore more prone to fraud.
In comparison Tony Abbott, the Opposition Leader of the Australian Coalition was lampooned recently by much of the MSM for describing Carbon trading as a “so-called market, in the non-delivery of an invisible substance to no one”.
Aussie Election called for September 7. We will know on Sept 08 who will be the one who is untouchable and whether CO2 trading has a future in OZ.
Current betting Labor 3.6, Coalition 1.27.
But Labor are renowned to do whatever it takes to retain power and have recently recruited Tom McMahon, the former executive director of the powerful Democratic National Committee during President Obama’s last campaign, Joon Kim of the consulting firm New Partners, and the British social media expert Matthew McGregor to form the digital brigade for Rudd in electioneering on the Social Media front.
However, Tony Abbott’s might say “Prime Minister Rudd, you’re no Barack Obama.”
Got this link via TonyfromOz on the JoNova blog. Should be of interest to some of the commenters on power stations above.
http://globalenergyobservatory.org/
Roger Sowell says:
August 3, 2013 at 11:22 pm
“I am curious if any of the nuclear advocates who insist that nuclear power plants are safe are aware ….”
—————
Definition of AWARE
1
archaic : watchful, wary
2
: having or showing realization, perception, or knowledge
—————————–
Just might be.
David Hoffer, how many facts must I repeat? Did you not read? Or do you simply refuse to comprehend?
Let’s review…
A new Nuclear power plant, proposed to double the South Texas plant, was scrapped for being too costly. Fact.
Nuclear power plant, licensed and operating with years remaining on its license, was shut down because it is not economic. Fact.
Fukushima reactors melted down and poisoned the countryside as well as yet unknown radiation to people. Radiation continues to pour into the ocean. Fact.
Nuclear industry lied and continues to lie about reactor safety. Fact.
Power prices zoomed due to the nuclear death spiral in the 70s and 80s along the US gulf coast, due to new nuclear power plants. Fact.
No island with 1 million population (nominal) has a nuclear power plant, instead they use diesel or similar and pay 25 to 30 cents for their power. Fact.
Nuclear powered naval vessels rest on the bottom of the oceans, spewing forth their radiation. Fact.
I could go on, but your mind is closed.
I have not argued any law here tonight, merely presented facts. I could indeed argue some law, such as the legal requirements for safety equipment and procedures in those “safe” nuclear power plants. But I won’t do that. It would be too easy.
You are free to try to prove me wrong on the facts. Prove any of those seven wrong, and I’ll present plenty more.
Give it your best shot.
Roger Sowell says:August 3, 2013 at 10:43 pm
“…It is also clear that your mind is closed….”
“….The attorneys including myself will see to it that US new nuclear power plants either don’t get built, or are delayed so long that their owners give up*. We have far more attorneys now than in the 70s, and far more legal tools at our disposal**. …”
Thanks Roger. Here you have neatly encapsulated two major problems:
1. * Why nuclear power stations cost so much.
2. ** One of the primary problems with modern civilization.
I’d also suggest you are as close-minded as anyone who has posted here.
Roger Sowell says:
August 3, 2013 at 11:42 pm
David Hoffer, how many facts must I repeat? Did you not read?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have to provide some facts in order to repeat them. Making alarmist assertions with no facts behind them, and then repeating the assertions has nothing to do with repeating the facts. You’re argument is based on one single cited report, and that is from the Union of Concerned Scientists, a group that has nothing to do with science, much to do with political advocacy, and even has a dog as a member.
You are just a fear monger with a law degree and a poor grasp of both science and economics.
Roger Sowell is correct to compare nuclear plants to a “carbon tax.”
see Hooked on Subsidies – Why conservatives should join the left’s campaign against nuclear power:
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/hooked-subsidies
–“The only reason investors are interested: government handouts.”–
Also, nuclear power was supposed to make electricity production “too cheap to meter” – like the free electricity supplied throughout Qatar.
GHG is the primary focus of today’s nuclear proponent. The cost of subsidies, the cost of cleaning up after a disaster (including the cost of an exclusion zone), and the cost of decommissioning go unmentioned.
http://www.google.com/search?q=fukushima%2C+cleanup%2C+cost
@ur momisugly markx
You wrote:
“I’d also suggest you are as close-minded as anyone who has posted here”
No, actually I amend my conclusions when new and valid data are presented. I have done that for more than 40 years as a working professional. Here, I have presented facts to support my position, and invited others to refute those facts. None have done so. (likely, because they cannot)
Refute the facts, then I will consider a change in my position.
A man who changes his mind on the unfounded assertions of a stranger is indeed a fool.