naa. Can’t be bothered.
So you made that up? Got it.
Of all the mercury sources in the world, including the coal plants of 100+ other nations, chlor-alkali plants, pulp & paper mills, cement kilns, industrial boilers, battery manufacturers, and natural mercury emissions, how did they trace it to “Chinese coal power plants?”
If you wish to believe so. I don’t really care either way.
Don’t ask me. That’s what they said in the Danish and Faroese news.
Well, I can’t say that it comes from Chinese coal plants, but here is a cite showing the elevated mercury levels.
This seems to indicate it comes from the US.
-XT
Please don’t do this.
[QUOTE=xtisme]
Well, I can’t say that it comes from Chinese coal plants, but here is a cite showing the elevated mercury levels.
[/QUOTE]
I never denied there was mercury in fish. I know there’s mercury in the environment from coal power plants; I’ve written a technical paper or three on it, and aside from that all we had to do was listen to Marvin Gaye.
The cite wasn’t really for you, Una. I assumed you knew all about it already. It was for levdrakon, and the closest I could find to what Rune was saying.
-XT
Well, I don’t need a cite telling me there’s mercury in fish either.
Rune will be very sad when I hit him/her with this: China Outpaces U.S. in Cleaner Coal-Fired Plants
Sorry Rune, but China is building an “even bigger shitload of coal plants.”
In response to a post by Whack-a-Mole in one of the Pit threads stating that renewables couldn’t meet energy requirements, I posted the following. Then I realised it was off-topic there and so am re-posting it here. References to “the GD thread” actually refer to this one.
I wouldn’t go quite so far. I think if the entire human race got its act together and committed the same level of smarts and resources to the renewables problem that we do to arms and weapons development, we might get somewhere, but the problem is indeed huge. To summarise:
-
To meet the entire world’s current energy demands using wind requires a wind farm area equivalent to 66% of the USA land area
-
To do it with solar power in the highest insolation areas (desert) requires about 6 times less area at 10% conversion efficiency, or 12 times less at 20%. This is possibly doable - there’s a LOT of desert out there.
-
The power distribution infrastructures would require enormous changes with an all-renewables model, (or even a half-renewables model, or a 30% renewables model) including vast power storage capacity, electrification of light transport, synthetic fuels for heavy transport and aircraft, long-range power transmission to distribute solar from the deserts to everywhere else, electrification of steel and concrete production, etc.
-
The area figures above are to meet TODAY’s demand. Chances are that 2 billion-odd Chinese and Indians are going to want the same per-capita energy expenditure as the average European in a few decades time, or even worse: the average Australian. We may well be looking at double the current global energy demand, and at the moment the capacity expansion already underway involves an awful lot of coal plants.
This is a MONUMENTAL task. Looking at the relative costs of nuclear vs. renewables in the current market, where renewables are a small percentage of the grid and their fluctuations can be compensated for elsewhere doesn’t really tell us anything, but even then, solar is still very expensive, wind fairly expensive, nuclear cheaper than either. Shale gas appears to be a cheap stopgap and burning it cuts CO2 emissions by 60% compared with coal, but shale gas extraction releases methane into the atmosphere. Methane is a way more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
None of this is going away. It needs to be faced and dealt with. As I’ve said in the GD thread, it will either take a monumental global effort with renewables, (I’ve mentioned the Manhattan project as an effort analogy before, and I really believe it will take a government-controlled, wartime type of economy all through the developed world to do it in time), or a somewhat less monumental effort with nuclear, or we say to hell with climate change and burn the rest of our fossil carbon, or we figure out something else. Maybe carbon capture on fossil would be easier than developing renewables to the degree required, but it’s really just postponing the problem.
This article speaks of the shrinkage of wind and solar since 2010 as current subsidies are set to dissapear. http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/rutt_bridges_article.pdf This is not good news for renewables in the USA. Table 1 compares plant costs and energy-production costs for various types of plant, and lead-times to build. Nuclear doesn’t look that bad. Of course the figures for nuclear will be disputed but China’s current efforts should shed some light. China is going all-out building coal plants (good, modern, supercritical coal plants getting above 40% efficiency, too), nuke plants, and installed wind capacity, and adapting its grid to match. The Chinese experience with these technologies will show the way to the future and I wouldn’t give good odds on wind vs nuclear. Westinghouse claim a time of 36 months for the construction of an AP1000, from pouring of the first concrete to loading of the fuel. After that comes the comissioning and testing before operation. http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/ap1000_glance.html China started building AP1000s in 2009 with an aim to get the first in operation by 2013. Whether they manage it will be instructive, but nuke plants don’t have to take the 20-odd years it needs to get them running in the USA. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-04/19/content_11217433.htm
Costwise, timewise and practicality wise, I believe nuclear blows renewables away right now and that gap might well widen rather than narrow in the future. Safety is absolutely the sticking point though, and events in Japan have put a major dent in my confidence that private industry can handle reactor safety properly. Early in the GD thread I posted that opinions on nuclear power are a matter of odds vs. stakes - the stakes are high (consquences of accidents can be very bad) but we can design astronomically good odds into the systems. But in Japan, they didn’t. It’s looking like they didn’t even implement a number of safety improvements recommended for the GE Mark 1 over the past forty years, or upgrade their tsunami defences. That’s not acceptable.
Nobody knows what the consequences of this are really going to be in Japan yet. Iodine, I’m not that bothered about. It’s short half-life means it’ll take care of itself: levels are being monitored everywhere, precautionary iodine dosing is effective. The evacuation zone will need to be maintained and some food may need to be dumped, but in three months there won’t be an iodine hazard. It’s manageable. Plutonium oxide doesn’t worry me either - it doesn’t travel, it’s not water-soluble, its bioavailabilty is low, and contamination levels are at the threshold of detection - below the global leftovers of last century’s bomb tests. Plutonium contamination should be limited to the site if it even reaches any kind of non-trivial level. But caesium 137 is nasty, volatile, water-soluble, bioavailable, persistent shit and it’s been vented into the air and washed into the sea. Caesium contamination could end up quarantining the immediate area for decades and killing grazing animal farms over a wider region for the same period of time. c.f Chernobyl, Effects of the Chernobyl disaster - Wikipedia . Venting only with the wind blowing out to sea may have reduced the impact and caesium in the sea should disperse and dilute to negligible levels fairly rapidly, but the size of the caesium release looks to have been large. If the consequences don’t turn out that bad, it will be down to luck. That’s not a good advert for the industry.
[QUOTE=levdrakon]
Sorry Rune, but China is building an “even bigger shitload of coal plants.”
[/QUOTE]
They outpace us in dirty coal plants as well. And even at their relatively lower levels of development and standards of living produce over 22% of all CO2 emissions in the world (just so you know, the US is at 19% and leveling out…China is shooting up). They get over 80% of their generated electrical power from coal.
Why did you ask, then?
-XT
I figured as much. The problem of mercury in coal power plants is a neat one, one which I’ve seen go from “we can’t do much about it” to “we can get rid of most of it” within a very short time. I worked with a plant which went from 30% mercury removal to 97% removal within 1 year. Of course, a serious problem is quantifying how much actually goes into the air, since what’s in the coal is not at all what gets into the air, but most folks seem to ignore that. Ash capture of the mercury (in short, the mercury reacts with chemicals in the coal as and adsorbs on them, and then is removed when the ash is filtered) is incredibly variable and can range from near 0% to as much as 75% (or more). And passive mercury capture in plant equipment is also highly variable. Chinese coal power plants are notable for burning coal with high amounts of mercury, and having passive capture which is not quite as good as seen in the US.
Una, I’ve heard that one of the problems with even the ‘clean’ coal plants in China isn’t the technology but the type of coal they are using that is available. Is that true? Just curious.
-XT
Well the factoid is deceptive for another reason - the US is hardly building ANY new coal plants, so a lot of folks can claim to “outpace” the US in terms of new plants. IIRC, however, our BACT (Best Available Control Technology) is better than Chinese BACT.
I took care of this in the other thread. Your cite was out of date, so I found you a newer version of your report. I showed that the survey you cited does not say nuclear is cheaper. It compares various energy sources and concludes that no one technology is cheaper than others, until you take a WHOLE BUNCH of political, economic, and geographic factors into consideration and then make your own best choice under your own circumstances. That’s not really news to me. Your study also admits it excludes the largest markets for renewables from the study when estimating out much renewables will cost. Wha???
Do these new designs include spent nuclear fuel? No? Where are they going to store the spent nuclear fuel? In pools? That’s not safe, no matter how “safe” the designs are.
You’ll have to be clearer. There’s more than enough wind off the coast of New England and sun hitting the southwest to power the US, and probably the whole world. The problem isn’t availability of energy or generating it, it’s about which technologies are going to make the most sense right now, and then on to the future.
I’d also like some cites about what are future energy demands are actually supposed to be, and what those guesses are based on. I keep hearing over and over about our growing, future energy demands but it seems like something everybody just keeps repeating without much of a source.
I’m not as confident as you stating what NG is going to be doing in 30-50 years. First it’s running out, then it’s in so much abundance nuclear plant designers start jumping out corporate windows. I dunno. Keep in mind nuke is at a disadvantage regarding future energy prices. It has to charge a certain minimum amount to recoup its costs and make a profit, and if for some reason energy prices don’t climb as fast as they think, they are big-time screwed and you’re looking at bailouts, bankruptcies and really expensive shut downs and closures.
As for oil, there are lots of unused sites the oil companies could already be exploiting, but aren’t. The oil industry is in a position to spike oil prices or send them plunging and there’s only so much we can do about it. I really don’t believe much of what they say about future availability. I think it’s really important to wean ourselves off oil, and take back more control over our energy costs, and sources.
Coal for sure, for the foreseeable future. Nuclear doesn’t contribute that much at the moment, and I don’t see any compelling reasons it should contribute more in the future. If you’re talking 100 or 200 years from now sure, maybe small ultra-safe nuke plants will be built right into office buildings and large industrial plants or something. That’s too far in the future to really speculate.
Coal and cars. They both gotta go, in there present forms at least. I don’t have a good answer for that. Decentralized, distributed power generation using as large a variety of energy sources as we can is about the best we can do. Germany’s feed-in tariff plan is something I seriously think we should emulate. The big power companies hate it and fight it like you’re rarely seen them fight, but that’s not surprising. Tell people if they generate power and feed it back to the grid, they will get a nice, fair guaranteed price the big power companies can’t manipulate for 10 or 15 years. Overnight you’ll see individuals and communities teaming up and making more power than they consume. I think we’ll be really surprised at how efficiency-minded people become when they are the power company, and wasteful energy use is money directly out of their pocket.
If the world gets really crappy weather-wise, China is going to have to suffer too. If they don’t care about environment concerns, I’m terrified at the idea they are eventually going to have 100s of nuke plants. China seems to largely follow the US, so in terms of taking the lead, setting an example etc, it would be great for us to tell Westinghouse to fuck off with their stupid nuclear power and show China how to meet its energy needs with much safer, easier to handle energy sources.
Nuclear made its promises 50 years ago. Now it’s 50+ years out. We are that 50+ years out. Nuke hasn’t delivered on any promises other than yes, you can generate electricity with fission. That’s about it. It hasn’t solved any problems at all and instead has become more complicated and expensive than ever. I’m not falling for that again. We’ve got spent fuel rods piling up at nuke plants all over Japan and the US. That was never going to be a problem “in 50 years” yet here we are, up to our necks in fuel rods. I don’t believe nuclear is capable of actually carrying out any of its promises. The whole scam is based on “don’t worry, in 50 years… we’ll all have flying cars!” I’m too old to fall for that crap again.
(FTR: I snipped the quoted part for aesthetic reasons, not to omit what was said as somehow unworthy.)
I cited problems with Wind power in post #984 (freaking thread is so long took me minutes to find my own post). If you have issue with those (admittedly rough) calculations I’d like to hear it.
Additionally you glossed over storage technology. I have seen some ideas out there but so far mass storage of electricity (sufficient to power cities for decent lengths of time) simply do not exist. If you want to build wind and/or solar to be a primary power source this needs to be solved. So far there is no tech for it. Also, when counting the cost of wind/solar, I am reasonably certain they are not counting the cost to build these future-tech storage plants (how could they…no one knows what one would look like to estimate cost).
You also mentioned a major rework of the power grid. I agree. Is that cost included in wind/solar calculations?
I think when you add all these issues up wind/solar simply are not in the mix in a serious way. Yes, they can absolutely make sense some places and more power (heh) to them. They can help mitigate the need for coal/gas/nuclear power plants. I’m all for that.
They simply will not suffice for global (or national) power needs. If the US tried it would severely gimp itself competitively.
(I also wonder if having all your power generation in, say, Death Valley is an eggs in one basket deal…nice terrorist target…take it out and hamstring a whole country.)
ETA: I omitted hydro power because it is my understanding that the US has harnessed about all the hydro power reasonably available in the country. In short, there are no more rivers to be dammed for power left…none worth the effort anyway. If that is in error let me know.
Mostly posting to subscribe.
I agree there is something not acceptable at all in this. Ultimately there can be NO excuse for any reactor accident, no matter what the circumstances. Same goes for any storage accident, even if the storage system has to maintain integrity for 25,000 years.
But the kinds of upgrades you are talking about require loads of cash. Most countries aren’t running surpluses these days; the only way to achieve what you want is to tax the rich more. Raising corporate taxes isn’t the optimum answer, especially in cases where it simply raises prices and burdens the poor. No, taxing wealthy individuals more is where the money is to be found.
I suppose I will continue to support nuke plants as long as I am confident that NO accident will occur in operation or storage. Which realistically includes the direct perception that the funding is available for the proper safeguards.
Otherwise, well I recall from the pit thread an article about a green Britain that involved basically paving the entire place over with energy infrastructure. Another poster mentioned a drive through Kansas in which an hour passed with a windmill always in sight.
I googled some numbers and noticed that Kansas has fully 1/4 the land area of Britain. And there is no London, etc. anywhere in it (though Kansas City, etc. has to count for something). Building scads of windmills won’t bother many people because the area is sparsely populated, plus landowners reap royalties on those things. Plus Kansans can see the sense in wind power, to a point anyway.
And we have other areas with as much or more potential than Kansas. England lacks a Desert Southwest, for instance. Even without going nuts, the area could export truly significant amounts of solar-generated power. I could go on.
In the end, there is really no reason why America shouldn’t be the world leader in green energy output per capita. Except that all this infrastructure requires loads of cash. The only time you’ll ever see those amounts is after taxing the rich. More.
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
ETA: I omitted hydro power because it is my understanding that the US has harnessed about all the hydro power reasonably available in the country. In short, there are no more rivers to be dammed for power left…none worth the effort anyway. If that is in error let me know.
[/QUOTE]
It’s not in error afaik…though it’s more an environmental than a hydro-potential issue. There are actually places that could be dammed up, but from an environmental impact perspective you have better luck getting a modern design nuclear plant built in the US these days than a major hydro-electric plant, IMHO.
Good post btw, FWIW…you hit all the high points.
-XT
I responded (initially) in the other thread to your claim of nuclear power’s huge costs. My cite and your newer cite debunk that. But thanks for the new cite which, frankly, still supports my assertion.
I do not know the details of their methodology. They do talk about “levelised” costs which I take to mean they are doing an apples-to-apples comparison as best they can. I would presume this includes what nuclear plants spend dealing with spent fuel (it is certainly a cost they incur, no reason to omit it and the IEA seems an honest broker of information on this).
Further, as was mentioned somewhere in this thread, technologies exist and others are being developed that will eat that waste and produce power doing it. So, we can bury the waste or consume it to produce more power. The waste is already sitting there so except for some processing costs to get it suitable for a reactor it is practically free.
IIRC the sun provides 122 petawatts of energy to the earth’s surface. Roughly more in one hour than our global power generation in one year. That doesn’t mean harnessing it for our use is easy or cheap or makes sense (well, makes a lot of sense if the cheaply, efficiently [e.g. not wallpaper the planet with solar panels] and storage part get sorted).
I do not know off hand but I have been using current consumption. India and China are growing like crazy so there is an increase. If we move cars to hydrogen or electricity replace energy from gasoline with electricity.
I am tired of digging up previous cites from this thread. Una Persson cited earlier in this thread that her experts were predicting a 30-50 year horizon on natural gas. This does not mean natural gas will be gone. Far from it. It means that the easy (read cheap) gas will be depleted. There will be plenty left but it will be more expensive. Natural Gas power plants are highly affected by fuel prices (IIRC something like 80% of operating costs…nuclear is somewhere around 5% or so). This will make natural gas un-competitive compared to coal or nuclear.
You also have India and China becoming huge consumers of oil.
Bottom line is oil will not last and certainly is not a contender for power plant operation. Again, oil does not need to be depleted. It just needs to be more expensive to mine than other things. Nuclear and coal will beat it handily in several decades (give or take).
Fossil fuel are finite and we are consuming them at ever greater rates.
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
Fossil fuel are finite and we are consuming them at ever greater rates.
[/QUOTE]
And, of course, it disregards the costs, especially environmental, of continuing to produce CO2.
Definitely…one has but to look at the charts on page 18, or look at the respective loaded costs at 5 and 10% discounts on pages 23 and 24. Frankly, I don’t know why he keeps bringing it up, since it seems a slam dunk against his position that nuclear is clearly more expensive over it’s projected life span than any other energy production source. The only thing that really beats it, at least according to that cite, is non-carbon capture coal.
Definitely…not to mention that both are also major users of coal, and it’s only going up. China, especially, has leaped ahead in the production of CO2, even at it’s relatively low levels of energy use per person, and it’s only going to go up unless they hit a major roadblock in the future. Ironically, I think they are also building or have plans to build more nuclear power plants (MODERN nuclear power plants) than any other country. According the the cite I put in that other thread they are projecting a 10 fold increase in power from nuclear by 2020.
-XT
No issue. My own calculations based on DSeid’s cite were similarly pessimistic, http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13609040&postcount=975. Windfarms take up too much land.
If we go all-nuclear, or all-renewable, then transportable high-density energy to replace fossil fuels is going to be an issue. Batteries are not appropriate for trucks, ships and planes so we’re going to be synthesising fuel (most likely hydrogen by electrolysis) in some manner with electricity. If we’re making fuel, we can store it. So to be fair to renewables, the storage tech needed for renewables will also be necessary (to a far lesser degree) with nuclear. Additionally, battery-powered light vehicles dovetail very neatly with the storage issue since daytime solar can be used to charge vehicles, and vehicle batteries used to maintain low nighttime demand. How well all this would work or what it would cost is another matter, of course.
I’m 99% in agreement. I like to think the human race working together might have a shot at making desert solar work, but then I think it would have the same shot at ending world poverty or establishing world peace, and there seems precious little motivation towards either…