“The US Department of Energy today said it was conditionally committing $2 billion to develop two concentrating solar power projects that it says will offer 500 megawatts of power combined, effectively doubling the nation’s currently installed capacity of that type of power.”
(emphasis added)
Sure it’s an impressive amount. I hope they do it and prove the concept. But since a typical new nuclear unit is 1300 MW, we’re not talking about “all the same energy” as a 17 billion dollar nuclear reactor.
Furthermore, no mention is made of “17 bullion dollar[s]” on that page. Should I bother asking for a citation on the typical cost of a 500 MW nuclear reactor?
So where are your apologies and conceding? You clearly negligently or deliberately posted an incorrect statement in Great Debates - again.
[QUOTE=FXMastermind]
Now comes the inevitable attempt to find some way to weasel out of what was said earlier. But of course no apologies. No conceding anything. It’s one reason I don’t view this a debate. Too much rhetoric, insulting and very little fact.
[/QUOTE]
Your cite doesn’t support your statement. If you don’t want to apologize for that, it’s fine by me. That you ARE weaseling is pretty apparent to everyone at this point. I asked you for a cite that supports your contention and you have not provided one…c’est la vie.
Here is what your cite DOES say:
The DOE is ‘conditionally committing $2 billion to develop two concentrating solar power projects that is says will offer 500 megawatts of power combined’ ($1.2 billion just for the Mojave Solar Project alone…which will produce an ESTIMATED 250 MW). Parsing that, it doesn’t mean the proposed project will only cost $2 billion since we don’t know who else is chipping in funding, and it’s a proposed project…which means it’s an estimate both of the costs and of the potential energy produced. It’s short on details and long on generalities, but even if it works most nuclear power plants produce more than 500 megawatts of power.
You have to account for the capacity factor. A solar plant would have a capacity factor of around 20%, which means that a solar plant with a nameplate capacity of 150mw averages around 30MW. Nuclear plants have a capacity factor of around 90% which means that a 1300mw Nuclear plant will average 1170MW which is 39 times as much electricity.
Notice how nobody pro nuke wants to list the cost of nuclear energy. How much does it cost ot build a 1000 MW nuclear plant? How much does it cost to run it a year?
The real difference in cost is you can’t get insurance for a nuclear plant. If the governments didn’t force the situation, so nobody can sue, the cost would be beyond anything imagined.
Between $1000-$3500/kw is probably a good average for construction costs. If you want a link then provide one for your earlier assertions and I’ll be happy to dig something up for you. Oh, and:
[QUOTE=FXMastermind]
Solar plants don’t have this liability
[/QUOTE]
Are you saying that solar power plants don’t have to buy insurance? If so, do you have a cite to back up THAT assertion as well??
Solar plants, especially large scale ones, aren’t feasible in vast areas of the country. And only certain types can produce power at night. You will still need other forms of power.
He and the links were talking about capital cost versus capacity, not net generation.
I teach this stuff in the real world for real money. I’ve been posting about the difference between capacity and GCF and NCF for more than a decade on here. Believe me I understand the difference.
We have gas, wind and coal for overnight needs, plus they’re working on energy storage so solar can be lengthened into the evening hours. We still have hydro, we have, or are working on geothermal - base load power (nuclear) plants chugging away 24/7 aren’t necessarily part of a smart energy grid. When nuke plants are down - and they are frequently down for refueling, testing, maintenance, etc. you’re taking 1000MW offline and that power has to be made up for. You can’t just fire up a couple more nuke plants.
A recent criticism of large solar thermal plants I read recently is that because smaller roof-top solar systems are always improving, there is the risk we’ll invest billions and years building large solar thermal plants only to have roof-top solar technologies render them obsolete.
If we’re worried a solar thermal plant could be rendered obsolete before it’s paid itself off, then the risk is greater for nuke plants that cost even more and have design lifetimes of 50-60 years with more or less automatic extensions out to 100 years.
Now that is a big risk to take. Who wants to commit to a 100-year-old nuke plant when other technologies are racing forward? You can’t upgrade a nuke plant but maybe every 50 years or so, and then it’s generally too expensive to be worth it.
New renewable technologies get replaced and upgraded in time frames a bit more like desktop computers.
[QUOTE=levdrakon]
A recent criticism of large solar thermal plants I read recently is that because smaller roof-top solar systems are always improving, there is the risk we’ll invest billions and years building large solar thermal plants only to have roof-top solar technologies render them obsolete.
[/QUOTE]
Where did you read this? Do you have a link? It sounds like complete bullshit to project the pretty modest advances in individual rooftop solar systems to making solar power plants ‘obsolete’ so I’d like to get some context. Thanks in advance for your cite.
If we are worried about small coffee maker sized Mr. Fusion plants that can be refueled using garbage and banana peals then by extension we should be worried about heavily investing in rooftop solar as well. Possibly Mr. Fusion devices will indeed render solar plants, nuclear power plants and coal plants obsolete, but, sadly we just can’t count on magic technology so have to make investment choices based on reality. Reality today is that rooftop solar is not going to cut it for our energy needs and will simply be an expensive augmentation to the mix.
However, when the magic rooftop solar systems get here I’ll happily switch out my current reality based rooftop solar panels for the new stuff. Bring it on!
Sure it is. Heck, the capacity for renewables is undoubtably doubling every year, so in 5 years it will be able to meet 110% of our energy needs (in 15th century Romania).
Xtisme, to be honest, your replies have for some time now been so filled with snottiness and “horseshits” and “bullshits” that I pretty much just don’t read you anymore. If you something legitimate to say, maybe you could get one of your friends to say it for you.
How about me, am I full of snottiness and bullshits?
My problem with the claim that no one is willing to invest is that there are several other problems in with a rooftop solution, even if we had cells with 100% efficiency. Let’s start at the top, which is that in a regulated utility State, the utility will go to the PUC and get permission to cover the entire costs of the R&D before proceeding with the solar plant, so even if the technology is somehow obsolete, the utility doesn’t care, they’re going to get paid. The ratepayers of course will be forced to pay for both their rooftop system and the utility system, but them’s the breaks when you go regulated - there are pluses and minuses (mostly pluses IMO - unlike most of my peers I think utility regulation is good).
There are always going to be huge baseloaded point sinks which either cannot get enough MW from this 100% efficient solar, or else just don’t want to. There will be scads of people who can’t afford, or don’t want to buy a rooftop system. The average American is not only a grasshopper with no savings to their name to invest in a system, they’re likely maxed out on their credit. As far as maintenance/upkeep, well…consider the average American, in all their dumbassery. I posted at one time that the utility companies are working on plans to leverage their skill, experience, manpower, and name-recognition to provide these rooftop services, but they also are going to need the grid for the “what if”. What if we have 2 weeks of storms with a huge reduction in solar? What if a hailstorm destroys thousands of systems? We recently had a storm here which damaged more than a thousand roofs to the point of needing complete replacement. We need a grid as a backup, and a grid needs frequency stabilization, and that means baseload. Whether it’s nuke or coal or gas or huge solar, someone is going to have to invest.
So that, without snark, is why I think the prospect of large companies and utilities being scared off by a rooftop threat is not likely. Do utilities drag their feet? Absolutely, they do. Are they dragging their feet? Yes, I believe they are to a large extent. But I also think there are some legitimate reasons they are dragging their feet, as well as the non-legitimate ones
The discussion just goes around and around in a huge circle. Nuclear is so dangerous. Well no…it’s not when we actually look rationally at it. But nuclear is so costly. Well, no…it’s more expensive than coal, but it’s not actually as expensive as it seems when you look at the costs of construction over the lifetime of the plant and the fact that fuel costs are very low (and that money is actually set aside for final disposal of the site in the maintenance costs). But alternatives like wind and solar are the way to go. Well, no…they just can’t scale up to meet our needs currently, and without a whole range of fundamental breakthroughs they aren’t going to be able too. Certainly they aren’t today. But rooftop solar is going to make large scale solar plants AND nuclear obsolete! Well, no, because even disregarding the massive costs and the human costs there would have to be a bunch of those fundamental breakthroughs that would have to happen in order for that to work on the scales we are talking about.
What a stupid post - of course nuclear is dangerous. The argument which you’re choosing to ignore is that we’re weighing that danger against the dangers and costs of other means of power generation and nuclear still has a place.
But feel free to keep responding to the arguments that only exist in your head.
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
What a stupid post - of course nuclear is dangerous.
[/QUOTE]
Puppies are dangerous. Driving a car is dangerous. Climbing on your roof is dangerous. The point is weighing relative risks.
As to my post being stupid, well, I’m sure many would agree and point out that the poster is as well.
I’m not choosing to ignore that at all…I’ve pointed it out many times in fact. THIS post was merely a funny way (to me anyway) to show the circular nature of this discussion, as points come up and are addressed, the subject is changed to something else, and then eventually the discussion circles back to points that were already addressed pages ago. Rinse and repeat.
I’m not sure if you were being serious here or not (it’s hard to tell with you), but FTR I still support nuclear power plants and definitely think that nuclear still has a place. I also think that wind and solar have places, and that in the future our energy mix is going to be just that…a mix of different technologies providing different aspects to the grid for the energy we need. Nuclear will just be one of those technologies (I hope). My other hope is that we can start using a lot less coal in the future both from an air quality perspective as well as from a lessening of CO2 perspective, but I don’t see how that’s going to be really possible without nuclear to step in.
Well, it’s good to have that sort of freedom granted. I appreciate it…
The reason I ignore questions like that is because they are a logical fallacy. It’s like a leading question combined with another fallacy, so it’s not even easy to explain why the question is a fallacy.
Plus it is a waste of time. Let me try to help.
What you really want to know (I think of course) is what level of safety in regards to nuclear reactors, spent fuel, and nuclear waste would make it better than using coal for the time being, until solar, wind, bio-fuels, hydro and tide power can replace the “need” for electric energy production?
Is that a fair restatement of what you are asking?
(in retrospect, I did explain before why I ignore certain queries)
I personally don’t see a difference between the two questions other than the (fairly strong) assumption of yours that your listed sources will be able to replace coal and nuclear, and the (fairly mild) implication that these will not be able to do so on the part of DSeid.
Perhaps a more neutral wording would be:
What level of safety in regards to nuclear reactors, spent fuel, and nuclear waste would make it better than using coal for the time being to provide the energy that alternative fuels cannot currently provide? It makes no assumption one way or the other about future viability.
Heck, the capacity for renewables is undoubtably doubling every year, so in 5 years it will be able to meet 110% of our energy needs (in 15th century Romania).
No worries