Japan earthquake + tsunami + nuclear problems

[Christian Klippel]

My idea? This is why people need to widen their focus here and read up on other approaches.

Since you seem to care more about semantics than content, let me rephrase and detail it for you:

Do you think it is a good idea to spend massive amounts of resources to build thinks like wind and solar plants all over the continent or even world, since you need a big multiple of capacity installed compared to regular plants; and then also build a massive and complex grid, far more complex and expensive than a regular grid, while at the same time having the need to build/maintain/keep basically the same amount of regular power plants that we already have, just to cope with peak demands and grid failures, because a failure can happen everywhere, anytime?

Do you really think it is a good idea to put that sheer amount of resources into something that needs to be backed up by what we already have in capacity? Are you under the impression that maintaining all these backup facilities will cost nothing, in addition to the huge costs for maintaining the over proportional big number of renewable energy facilities?

Do you really think that even the idea of the grid alone is feasible in most of the places on this earth, were many countries are not half a continent, but where a part of a continent is made up of many, many different countries? Do you think anyone can make sure that no one will ever interfere with the operation of that grid, just to harm a neighboring country? You are probably aware that international treaties are not worth the paper they are written on when it comes to it, i hope. Do you really think it is a good idea to make the power supply of whole countries depend on the ongoing goodwill of other countries?

Really?

That idea seems to make no sense at all, and appears to not have been thought through at all.

Care to answer these points, or is this just one of the many ideas that look good in theory, but are basically impossible to implement?

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Christian Klippel]

BTW, to put my "big multiple of capacity installed" into perspective:

In Germany we have an installed capacity of wind turbines of 27.2 GW. However, the energy produced from them is only 38.6 TWh per year.

If they would be working 24/7 it would be 27.2 * 24 * 365 = 238,272 GWh = about 238 TWh per year.

The German WP article with that data is here

We have roughly 9.8 GWp of photovoltaics installed here in Germany, where the real amount of energy produced is about 6.2 TWh per year.

Again, if they could work 24/7, it would be 9.8 * 24 * 365 = 85,848 GWh = about 86 TWh per year.

These numbers are in the German WP article here.

Compare that with an average 1.3 GW nuclear reactor that could operate almost 24/7 (some have a bit more, some a bit less). In reality, the uptimes here are around 85% to 90%.

That makes 1.3 * 24 * 365 = 11,388 GWh = about 11 TWh per year for 100% duty, so the result for 85% is almost 9.5 TWh per year.

Now set the numbers for wind and PV in relation to the amount of space it needs, compared to what a nuclear plant needs. And then compare that to the amount of materials needed to build each. And the efforts and materials needed to connect them to the grid and keep the grid safe.

I don't know, but i simply see no way to satisfy all our energy demands from renewables only. It's just not going to happen, no matter what wishful thinking the people in Germany have.

They say it could be done until 2050. I wonder how? By inventing a new set of physical laws?

Greetings,

Chris

ETA: Keep in mind that these numbers are from 2009. It takes them a while to release actual data.

ETA2: As you can see, one would need very roughly 9 or 10 times installed capacity of wind & solar renewables combined to get the same factor as a nuclear plant. Given the fact that due to highly subsidized PV energy, the PV market is the fastest growing, IIRC, so that factor may even rise in the future.

ETA3: Damn, with "factor" i mean that, to get the theoretical maximum in real TWh of the installed PV and wind systems we have now, we would need to install 9 times the amount of what we have. Just a huge waste of resources. A nuke brings almost all the TWh it could theoretically produce, minus service/downtime.

 

[Furcifer]

Compare that with an average 1.3 GW nuclear reactor that could operate almost 24/7 (some have a bit more, some a bit less).

A bit more! Witch craft!

In reality, the uptimes here are around 85% to 90%.

If I'm not mistaken that's actually quite low. I think all of the CANDU reactors ever made have averaged 95% lifetime from commissioning.

The only thing that goes 24/7/365 is demand.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

If I'm not mistaken that's actually quite low. I think all of the CANDU reactors ever made have averaged 95% lifetime from commissioning.

CANDUs have the unique capability for Gen II reactors of on-the-fly refueling which accounts for their historically high up times. Other Gen II's have recently closed the gap through practice and refining their procedures.

 

[Christian Klippel]

A bit more! Witch craft!



If I'm not mistaken that's actually quite low. I think all of the CANDU reactors ever made have averaged 95% lifetime from commissioning.

The only thing that goes 24/7/365 is demand.

Hehe, yea, i put that in the wrong place. Of course the power is meant, not the time.

I used a 85%-90% number due to the information i could find on German nuclear plants and averaged it a bit. But even then, with being on the lower side, they still do much better in terms of theoretical vs. real power output throughout a year than wind and solar. And that was my main point, basically.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Pulvinar]

Since you seem to care more about semantics than content, let me rephrase and detail it for you:

Do you think it is a good idea to spend massive amounts of resources to build thinks like wind and solar plants all over the continent or even world, since you need a big multiple of capacity installed compared to regular plants; and then also build a massive and complex grid, far more complex and expensive than a regular grid, while at the same time having the need to build/maintain/keep basically the same amount of regular power plants that we already have, just to cope with peak demands and grid failures, because a failure can happen everywhere, anytime?

Relatively speaking they are not massive amounts. This does require more extra capacity, but peaking plants are already in place to handle peak demands-- this isn't a new concept. And look at nuclear: you'll often have one or more reactors offline being refueled at any given time. A smarter grid is already being planned for, so there isn't a major increase here.

Do you really think it is a good idea to put that sheer amount of resources into something that needs to be backed up by what we already have in capacity? Are you under the impression that maintaining all these backup facilities will cost nothing, in addition to the huge costs for maintaining the over proportional big number of renewable energy facilities?

The maintenance is part of the cost of operating, just as cleaning up a contaminated reactor site is.

Do you really think that even the idea of the grid alone is feasible in most of the places on this earth, were many countries are not half a continent, but where a part of a continent is made up of many, many different countries? Do you think anyone can make sure that no one will ever interfere with the operation of that grid, just to harm a neighboring country? You are probably aware that international treaties are not worth the paper they are written on when it comes to it, i hope. Do you really think it is a good idea to make the power supply of whole countries depend on the ongoing goodwill of other countries?

Right. A supergrid is no more feasible than a single european currency. It'll never happen.

Security is a problem with every energy source.

 

[Aepervius]

Any large scale grid would be high voltage DC due to much greater efficiency. An added benefit is that there is no longer a direct electrical connection which eliminates much of this type of trouble

Are you sure of that ? I can remember not too long ago a catastrophal cascade failure of power in the US... A limited failure expanded to other plant one after the other.

 

[Aepervius]

We can only do our best!

Chernobyl had a big influence on debates about nuclear energy.

No, it's something that needs to be factored into risk assessments.

Whether you like it or, the disaster is not good PR for the nuclear lobby and will weaken its influence.

There are several converging, rare, major disasters bearing down on humanity right now. The energy crunch is just one of them.

Having to use conditional phrases such as "which at the moment do not seem to have catastrophal environmental regional impact" does not inspire public confidence.



You could avoid getting get out of bed until noon.

Alternatively, you could read Dr Euan Mearns' article and discover that he isn't politicking at all.

No the point I have is that if people are getting their panty in a bunch due to Fukushima, as opposed to Chernobyl, they really should rethink their priorities. If Chernobyl WAS NOT a the big changing full of consequence then Fukushima should not be much more. Chernobyl was and is still a bigger disaster by many order of magnitude than the japan plants.

At least Japan can take into account very rare tsunami into account.

 

[JihadJane]

No the point I have is that if people are getting their panty in a bunch due to Fukushima, as opposed to Chernobyl, they really should rethink their priorities.

They are "getting their panty in a bunch" due to both.

If Chernobyl WAS NOT a the big changing full of consequence then Fukushima should not be much more. Chernobyl was and is still a bigger disaster by many order of magnitude than the japan plants.

At least Japan can take into account very rare tsunami into account.

The events at the Fukishima nuclear power plant are an enormous blow to the nuclear power industry, globally. They have "potentially far reaching consequences for civilisation" because they have happened just as our energy-hungry civilization is facing a "Peal Oil" energy crunch which challenges our civilization's dependence on economic growth and ever-increasing consumption.

It is logical to expect that nuclear power plants built where there is a known risk of earthquakes and tsunamis should be able to withstand both.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Tokyo Electric Power Company Managing Director Akio Komiri cries as he leaves after a press conference in Fukushima


"The boss of the company behind the devastated Japanese nuclear reactor today broke down in tears - as his country finally acknowledged the radiation spewing from the over-heating reactors and fuel rods was enough to kill some citizens.

Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency admitted that the disaster was a level 5, which is classified as a crisis causing 'several radiation deaths' by the UN International Atomic Energy.

...

He said officials should have admitted earlier how serious the radiation leaks were.

...

Engineers are trying to get the coolant pumping systems knocked out by the tsunami working again after laying a new power line from the main grid.
And they today admitted that burying reactors under sand and concrete - the solution adopted in Chernobyl - may be the only option to stop a catastrophic radiation release."

 

[Christian Klippel]

Relatively speaking they are not massive amounts. This does require more extra capacity, but peaking plants are already in place to handle peak demands-- this isn't a new concept. And look at nuclear: you'll often have one or more reactors offline being refueled at any given time. A smarter grid is already being planned for, so there isn't a major increase here.

Well, as i have given as example for Germany, here we would need 9 or 10 times the capacity in wind and solar in relation to the actual demand over a year, simple because the renewables here can only deliver that fraction of energy over the period of one year. That _is_ a massive amount of resources needed to build all that.

And you somehow sidestepped the issue about grid failure. In case a part of the grid fails, that part has to be powered by a backup plant locally. Since such a failure can happen anywhere at any time, it follows that we need a backup capacity that equals the currently installed conventional plants. Because, you know, if the grid fails, that also means that any backup plant outside of the failed part of the grid is also cut off.

This is a completely different thing from plant that are used for peak demands. And in fact, you yourself brought up the need for backup plants.

So, my point still stands.

The maintenance is part of the cost of operating, just as cleaning up a contaminated reactor site is.

Yes, indeed it is. The difference is just that it would mean to maintain not only the already absurdly large number of wind and solar plants (that is needed due to the reasons given above and in my other post), but also the backup plants. I fail to see how that can be more economical than maintaining just the plants we have already, even in the case of disaster (which, btw., are still extremely rare, compared to the number of nuclear plants worldwide).

And i haven't even included the fact that after so many years, windmills (and very likely solar panels as well) have to be replaced, because of wear and tear. Which again brings up the problem of the many wind and solar plant required.

Right. A supergrid is no more feasible than a single european currency. It'll never happen.

Security is a problem with every energy source.

You are conflating two things here. A single European currency does not have the same effect as a super grid. If one country decides to go crazy with their Euros, that has little consequence for the others. Besides, some countries here are already thinking to get out of the Euro mess and go back to their own currencies.

[ETA: And sharing the same currency still means that each country has its own money. The super-grid would equal to having a shared amount of money, which one could withhold from another.]

If a country messes around with the super grid, that will effectively cut off another (or several) countries. Or several countries work together to boycott a single one. In that case this country would have to fall back to their own plants completely, another reason why the backup capacity of a country has to be able to handle the full demands of that country.

So, it still turns out that this grid makes no sense at all, except for a nice demonstration of what could be done in theory.

And yes, you are correct: there are risks with _every_ energy source. And as it stands, nuclear has much, much less risks and impact than anything else so far, except for renewables which are simply unable to handle things completely.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[CapelDodger]

This is just silly. The worlds largest solar array in India covers 58 square miles and produces maybe 24,000 megawatt hours per day (and I'm being really generous here) while the largest reactor complex in North America produces six times the energy on one tenth the land area.

It's early days yet. There are enormous areas of desert in the world where really large arrays can be built and the world certainly has the capacity to develop them in the next few decades, along with the distribution network. Wind farms can be built offshore. Widescale local production can be installed.

Consider how quickly steam-power developed once it started. In a much less productive world than now it changed everything within a human lifetime. I see no reason to think we couldn't do the same again.

Renewables are where we will end up, and nuclear power (like the Oil Age) can only be a passing phase. Whether it even pays for itself during its span is debatable.

Short of the Earth suddenly moving closer to the sun and stopping its rotation (frying or freezing all life on the surface in the process) solar energy will never compete with nuclear.

The economics of nuclear power have always been as transparent as mud, so it's not really possible to determine its competitiveness with solar or anything else. For example, UK nuclear power was always economic and profitable under CEGB accounting but when the electricity industry was privatised the city boys demanded to see the reall figures. When they did they walked away giggling like fools, and nuclear had to be taken out of the deal. Nobody thinks the French figures mean anything.

I have a little thing of my own I call the rule of cubes.

1 cubic meter of moving air will push a toy boat across a pond.

1 cubic meter of petroleum will drive a semi trailer truck from New York to Chicago.

1 cubic meter of uranium or thorium will light a city for a year.

I'm trying to picture a m³ of sunshine .

It's the ability to squeeze a large amount of energy into a small package that determines the success of an energy source. To think that wind and solar will compete with nuclear when they never could with oil is pure dreaming.

Energy density is important, obviously; the energy density of gasoline made the Great Car-Culture possible, not to mention some seriously destructive wars. The energy density of bunker oil made it the must-have fuel of navies by the late 19thCE.

The great advantage of solar energy is that it pours down all the time for free, in amounts way beyond anything we'll ever need. It's density isn't really an issue, it just needs to be exploited and inevitably will be.

 

[Belz...]

Consider how quickly steam-power developed once it started. In a much less productive world than now it changed everything within a human lifetime.

Hum. But did they have to replace an existing infrastructure to accomodate it, or did they just add it to those already there ?

In order to switch to "renewables", we'd need a lot of reworking. Of course, that's assuming those technologies can even supply us with what we need without draining our ore ressources dry.

And, hell, repairing hundreds of thousands of offshore wins mills would be a nightmare.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Wind farms can be built offshore. Widescale local production can be installed.

I'm happy to invite you to Germany. Welcome to the land of the bizzare.

Here we think that wind farms are a really, really green way to produce energy.

But please, don't build them over there. That will ruin the landscape. Nope, not over _there_ either, because that would make too much noise, you know. And hell, do you stay away from the land left and right of the highways. You see, we have built small tunnel underneath the lanes, so that these rare frogs can cross it without getting driven over. And hey, don't even think about putting the windmills in that field over there. Because we found a single exemplar of some obscure hamster species on that field, so it's a no-go zone either. What? Offshore? Are you insane? That will disturb the ocean life there, not going to happen.

Really, i'm not kidding you. That is what you will hear in this country of the bizzare.

Oh, and did i mention you cant place them over _there_ either? Because, you see, there are some obscure birds that could be killed if they get catched by the rotors....

And so it goes on and on. Yes, they surely want to extend wind power. They just don't want to have them damned windmills standing around anywhere. In many areas, people are complaining about the already installed ones. Some even group together to force their local community to get rid of them.

Sad, but true. People want the green electricity, but do not want to have the facilities, that are required for that, standing around where they can see or hear them.

A similar situation exist for solar panels. It's perfectly OK to put them up on roofs. But putting them on the ground, not so much. Because that would require some ground. On which you will probably find some frogs. Or hamsters. Or whatever.

And don't even get me started on hydro storage plants.....

Greetings,

Chris

ETA: Well, i actually lied to you. It's not really always OK to put solar panels on the roof. Sometimes some neighbours are annoyed by the "aesthetics" of them, and fight bitterly in courts to stop that. Rare, but happens as well.

 

[CapelDodger]

That's universally considered to be impossible in the energy community. There simply isn't enough resources to atually be able to feasibly switch over.

There are the resources available to make the transition over the next few decades. We will end up using renewables, and doing a loop through nuclear power on the way just delays the process.

We'll end up living differently as well, of course. The Great Car-Culture is a passing phase.

 

[CapelDodger]

I'm happy to invite you to Germany. Welcome to the land of the bizzare.

We landed up in the species of bizarre, lets face it. Lyre-birds may seem bizarre but at least they make sense to each other. Only HomSap has the intellect to get really freaky.

In the medium-term, pragmatism always comes through. When electricity pylons started marching across the rolling hills and green pastures of England there was hell to pay, but they got built. When Welsh villages were submerged to provide water for England there were dynamite attacks, but they got built. When push comes to shove, stuff happens.

 

[Furcifer]

Are you sure of that ? I can remember not too long ago a catastrophal cascade failure of power in the US... A limited failure expanded to other plant one after the other.

A rare chain of events, mostly human error, led to that blackout. The real issue was none of the plants could start back up again because power plants require large amounts of power to start. There's a procedure in place now called "black start". Several plants maintain diesel generators that fire up small turbines that in turn fire up and feed larger and larger plants, that can the grid back up and running in 3(?) hours.

This was an oversight in the NA, that black out wouldn't have happened in Europe. I believe it was because of deregulation, but plants didn't feel the need to maintain $$$ diesel generators and small turbines for the very rare chance the entire grid lost power. Now basically "the grid" (the IESO here) pays plants in each zone to do so.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

It's early days yet. There are enormous areas of desert in the world where really large arrays can be built and the world certainly has the capacity to develop them in the next few decades, along with the distribution network. Wind farms can be built offshore. Widescale local production can be installed.

Consider how quickly steam-power developed once it started. In a much less productive world than now it changed everything within a human lifetime. I see no reason to think we couldn't do the same again.

Renewables are where we will end up, and nuclear power (like the Oil Age) can only be a passing phase. Whether it even pays for itself during its span is debatable.



The economics of nuclear power have always been as transparent as mud, so it's not really possible to determine its competitiveness with solar or anything else. For example, UK nuclear power was always economic and profitable under CEGB accounting but when the electricity industry was privatised the city boys demanded to see the reall figures. When they did they walked away giggling like fools, and nuclear had to be taken out of the deal. Nobody thinks the French figures mean anything.



I'm trying to picture a m³ of sunshine .



Energy density is important, obviously; the energy density of gasoline made the Great Car-Culture possible, not to mention some seriously destructive wars. The energy density of bunker oil made it the must-have fuel of navies by the late 19thCE.

The great advantage of solar energy is that it pours down all the time for free, in amounts way beyond anything we'll ever need. It's density isn't really an issue, it just needs to be exploited and inevitably will be.

I missed in your post where you explained how to overcome wind and solars lack of density, intermittency, unpredictability and inability to produce on demand. Or how to make them work without huge taxpaeyer subsidies. Despite having a "fuel supply" that is essentially free, no one has been able to make money providing renewable energy without governments making up the losses. And it still ends up costing the consumer.

What cripples wind and solar are written into the laws of physics itself and cannot be changed. They cannot and will not ever compete with nuclear.

 

[CapelDodger]

Hum. But did they have to replace an existing infrastructure to accomodate it, or did they just add it to those already there ?

Steam-power created its own infrastructure. Railways, for instance. Entire industries. Before steam there wasn't much infrastructure to add to.

When the Oil Age came along it created its own infrastructure too.

In order to switch to "renewables", we'd need a lot of reworking. Of course, that's assuming those technologies can even supply us with what we need without draining our ore ressources dry.

Resource depletion is a problem in itself. Nuclear power will suffer the same restriction.

And, hell, repairing hundreds of thousands of offshore wins mills would be a nightmare.

All at once, yes it would. Any technology requires maintenance. When fixing a wind turbine at sea is commonplace the equipment and techniques will be available, and there won't be much need for shiny protective clothing. Nor evacuations.

 

[Belz...]

What cripples wind and solar are written into the laws of physics itself and cannot be changed. They cannot and will not ever compete with nuclear.

To this I often heard "well, we'll just have to devellop better technologies to cope with that." Or something to that effect. Since when do we make decisions based on future, may-or-may-not-exist technology ?

 

[Belz...]

Steam-power created its own infrastructure. Railways, for instance. Entire industries. Before steam there wasn't much infrastructure to add to.

So it really doesn't compare to the current situation, then.

Resource depletion is a problem in itself. Nuclear power will suffer the same restriction.

Yeah, sure. But at least, compared to coal and petroleum, we don't actually need uranium for just about everything else we do, as well.

All at once, yes it would.

Considering how many it'd take to get any significant amount of power, you'd be changed many of them a day.