Renewable Energy: The Vision And A Dose Of Reality

[D.Turtle]

RTE is the power grid operator for France, it handles their entire power grid and all connections to foreign grids.

Then I guess the statistic you quoted was the downtimes cause by RTE and not of the grid as a whole, as all other numbers I can find for France are in the 60ish minutes range (better than the US at 240).

[Singular Intellect]

More news from the 'dose of reality' about renewables:

UK: Renewables eliminate need for nuclear power

According to a new report, the "explosive" growth of photovoltaics in the U.K., and the related falling costs, mean the market for nuclear is disappearing. Combined with "stiff competition" from other renewables, the case for investing in nuclear is shaky at best.

UK Dounreay nuclear power plant

There is good evidence that, contrary to the often-repeated claims that nuclear power is cheap, it is one of the most expensive ways of generating electricity.

The report, The Financial Risks of Investing in New Nuclear Power Plants, published by U.K.-based Energy Fair, criticizes the government’s plans to introduce nuclear power subsidies and states that in the face of renewable energy growth, the market for nuclear power is diminishing.

"By the time any new nuclear power station could be built in the UK (2020 or later), the market for its electricity will be disappearing-because of explosive growth in photovoltaics (PV) and because consumers will be able to buy electricity from anywhere in Europe," state the report’s authors.

They continue that investment in new nuclear stations is "commercially risky" in light of long build and payback times – at least seven years, and 30 years or more, respectively – and changes in the markets.

"There is good evidence that, contrary to the often-repeated claims that nuclear power is cheap, it is one of the most expensive ways of generating electricity," state the authors, adding "The inflation-adjusted cost of building new nuclear power stations has been on a rising trend for many years. The introduction of new safety measures after the Fukushima disaster will push up prices further. Meanwhile, the cost of most renewable sources of power is falling."

Specifically, on the back of falling costs, improved technology, and comparatively quick installation times, renewable energies are considered to be a much safer investment option.

In its latest report, World Energy Outlook 2012, the International Energy Agency says that by 2015, renewables will grow to become second only to coal as the world’s largest source of power generation; and, by 2035, they will rival coal as the primary forms of global electricity.

Of this, electricity generated by photovoltaics in 2035 is expected to rise 26-fold from 2010, increasing from 32 terawatt hours (TWh) to 846 TWh, and for renewables as a whole, from 4,206 TWh in 2010, to 11,342 TWh in 2035.

In contrast, it says that following the Fukushima disaster, "prospects have been clouded". Under its new policies scenario – the course of events realistically envisioned by the report – by 2035, the share of nuclear generation will fall from 13 to 12%. Currently, it says there are there are 64 reactors under construction across the globe, totaling 66 GW of capacity. By 2035, nuclear production is expected to increase from 2,756 TWh in 2010, to about 4,370 TWh.

Subsidized

The Energy Fair report goes on to discuss nuclear subsidies. Referring to a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists in 2011, the author’s say it has been proven that nuclear is not viable without subsidies. Currently, it receives seven different types of remuneration, including: limitations on liabilities; underwriting of commercial risks; subsidies in protection against terrorist attacks; subsidies for the short-to-medium-term cost of disposing of nuclear waste; subsidies for the long-term cost of disposing of nuclear waste; underwriting the cost of decommissioning nuclear plants; and institutional support for nuclear power.

On top of this, the U.K. government is additionally proposing further nuclear subsidies on the back of the news that Japanese company Hitachi had bought Horizon Nuclear Power from German owners E.ON and RWE npower and will press ahead with plans to build eight new nuclear reactors at Wylfa on the island of Anglesey, north Wales; and at Oldbury in Gloucestershire, England.

While party spokespeople have denied this is the case, a new bill to be presented to parliament this month contains a Contracts for Difference (CfD) regime – which has been described as a tariff by another name. Andrew Pendleton, head of campaigns for Friends of the Earth, told pv magazine, "It seems to me the CfD instrument will be a subsidy."

The Energy Fair report authors continue, "There is good evidence from reputable sources that, in general, renewables can be built much faster than nuclear power stations, they are cheaper than nuclear power (taking account of all subsidies), they provide greater security in energy supplies than nuclear power, they are substantially more effective in cutting emissions of CO2, there are more than enough to meet our needs now and for the foreseeable future, they provide diversity in energy supplies, and they are largely free of the several problems with nuclear power. Evidence in support of these assertions may be found on http://www.energyfair.org.uk/oppcost and in sources referenced there."

Energy Fair counts among its members, Gerry Wolff, coordinator of Desertec-UK and The Kyoto2 Support Group, Pete Roche an energy consultant and policy adviser to the Scottish Nuclear Free Local Authorities, and the National Steering Committee of UK NFLA, and David Lowry an independent research policy consultant, specializing in nuclear issues.

And from the embedded link above about the evidence for support of above assertions:

Opportunity cost

There is an opportunity cost in nuclear power: in terms of the fight against climate change, security of energy supplies and other considerations, nuclear power diverts attention, effort, and large amounts of money away from renewables and the conservation of energy, where those resources would be more effectively spent.

There is abundant evidence from reputable sources that, in general, renewables:
Are cheaper than nuclear power (taking account of all subsidies);
Can provide greater security in energy supplies than nuclear power;
Are substantially more effective than nuclear power in cutting emissions of CO2;
Can be built much faster than nuclear power stations;
Can easily meet all our needs for energy, now and for the foreseeable future;
Provide more flexibility than nuclear power;
Provide diversity in energy supplies;
Are largely free of the several problems with nuclear power.

In more detail:

Nuclear power is one of the most expensive ways of generating electricity:

Jeff Immelt, the chief executive of General Electric—one of the world’s largest suppliers of atomic equipment—has said (in July 2012) that nuclear power is so expensive compared with other forms of energy that it has become “really hard” to justify (Financial Times, 2012-07-30). It is now well established that nuclear power is one of the most expensive ways of generating electricity.

More specifically, nuclear power is more expensive than offshore wind power:

Generation costs for offshore wind power are currently about £140/MWh (see Offshore wind power cost 'could fall one-third by 2020', The Guardian, 2012-06-13).

News reports suggest that EDF will be unwilling to build a new nuclear plant at Hinkley Point in the UK unless it receives a guaranteed price that is close to £100/MWh for the electricity that is generated (see UK close to key deal on price of nuclear power, The Independent, 2012-10-29; and EDF demands subsidy guarantee to build new reactor, The Times, 2012-10-08). Let us assume that it is £90/MWh.

To obtain generation costs for nuclear power, we need to add on the current subsidies for nuclear power:

One of the largest of these is the cap on liabilities for nuclear disasters. Research by Versicherungsforen Leipzig GmbH, a company that specialises in actuarial calculations, shows that full insurance against nuclear disasters would increase the price of nuclear electricity by a range of values—€ 0.14 per kWh up to € 2.36 per kWh—depending on assumptions made (see Calculating a risk-appropriate insurance premium to cover third-party liability risks that result from operation of nuclear power plants (PDF). If we take the minimum value, this equates with €140/MWh or £112/MWh.

In addition, 6 other subsidies have been identified in the report Nuclear Subsidies (PDF). Some of these, such as the cap on liabilities for the disposal of nuclear waste appear to be quite substantial.

If we ignore those other 6 subsidies, then, as a very conservative estimate, the generation cost for nuclear power is 90 + 112 = £202/MWh, considerably more than the £140/MWh generation cost for offshore wind power.

We should bear in mind that the cost of nuclear power has been on a rising trend for many years (see Section 4.2 in The financial risks of investing in new nuclear power plants (PDF)), while the cost of offshore wind power (and other renewables) is falling (see, for example, Offshore wind power cost 'could fall one-third by 2020', The Guardian, 2012-06-13).

Security of supplies:

Nuclear power is a hindrance, not a help, in ensuring security of energy supplies:

Like all kinds of equipment, nuclear power stations can and do fail. Failure of a nuclear power station is very disruptive on the grid because a relatively large amount of electricity is lost, often quite suddenly and with little warning.

By contrast, variations in the output of renewables are much easier to manage because they are gradual and predictable.

Nuclear power is not a home grown source of power in the UK. All uranium is imported.

Renewables are substantially more effective than nuclear power in cutting emissions. Peer-reviewed research shows that the nuclear cycle emits between 9 and 25 times more CO2 than wind power.

In general, renewables can be built much faster than nuclear power stations. The average time from start of construction to full grid connectiviety for Areva’s last four reactors was 17.5 years.

Renewables can easily meet all our needs for energy, now and for the foreseeable future. There are now many reports showing how to decarbonise the world's economies without nuclear power and many of them are directly relevant to the UK.

Renewables can provide a diversity of sources of power, much greater than we have been relying on for most of the 20th century. In addition to two forms of solar power (concentrating solar power and photovoltaics), there is onshore and offshore wind power, hydro power, enhanced geothermal systems (EGS), biomass-fired generators, combined heat and power (CHP), wave power, and power from tidal streams, tidal lagoons and tidal barrages.

Nuclear power stations are notoriously inflexible and cannot easily be turned up or down to meet variations in demand. By contrast, renewables can provide a fully responsive, and reliable, source of power.

Renewables are largely free of the several problems with nuclear power, including the risk of nuclear disasters, the still-unsolved problem of what to do with nuclear waste that will be dangerous for thousands of years, and facilitating the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

In general, there are more than enough alternatives to nuclear power that can provide greater security, are cheaper, and quicker to build than nuclear power, they are substantially more effective in cutting emissions, they provide diversity in sources of power, and they have none of the many problems with nuclear power. We get bigger cuts in CO2 for a given amount of money, and we get them sooner, if we choose renewables with energy conservation -- and without using nuclear power. We certainly don't need both.

Renewables are driving with the brakes on

Renewables, with conservation of energy, can be expanded fast. But pro-nuclear policies and attitudes of the UK government and its advisors are slowing things up:

Government subsidy cut prompts solar outrage (The Independent, 2011-06-10). See also Solar power battle looms as Government slashes subsidies (The Telegraph, 2011-06-09); 'We believed we had a winner' - funding dries up for community renewables (The Guardian, 2011-06-09).

Big day for renewables (WWF, blog by Bronwen Smith Thomas, 2011-05-09). "Only with much clearer signals from the government on ambition for renewables will the clean tech industry be able to grow to its full potential, bringing massive benefits to the UK economy. ... we need strong commitment to renewable energy from the government in order to deliver the green economy. Nuclear power is an expensive and risky option that could crowd renewables out of the market."

In New Nuclear Power: Implications for a sustainable energy system Catherine Mitchell and Bridget Woodman warn that “new nuclear power will not contribute to the UK’s energy policy goals and, we believe, will actively limit the UK’s ability to meet its climate change targets”. This is because “the scale of the financial, political and institutional commitments required to build new nuclear power plants will undermine support for new technologies (such as renewable generation) and demand reduction measures”.

"Nuclear expansion ... can’t deliver on its claims: it would reduce and retard climate protection, because it saves between two and 20 times less carbon per dollar, 20 to 40 times slower, than investing in efficiency and micropower." Amory Lovins, writing in Grist, 2009-10-14.

Slash renewables target to protect nuclear, says EDF (ENDS Report Bulletin, 2009-03-12).

Interestingly, the above sources demonstrate how nuclear is in fact one of the most expensive methods of producing electricity, is slow to build, takes decades long periods for payback, introduces several security risks, is inflexible in delivery of power, relies heavily on subsidies and isn't viable without them, etc, etc.

To be blunt, nuclear is going the way of the dodo, desperate pleading and protests from the local nuclear fans notwithstanding.

[Irbis]

*yawn* I find the claims the nuclear power is only viable with subsidies versus... renewable power that is of course NOT relying on subsidies to be viable to be pretty funny. But, nuclear power doesn't have to rely on magical, nonexistent durable hydrophobic covers, does not need to be made from material five times as expensive as gold and isn't easily thwarted by bad weather or unknown, rare phenomenon known as 'late autumn/winter/early spring' period.

Frankly, NP might save less CO2, but when you take into account huge ecological damage renewables cause with them relying on toxic materials to produce, or them turning huge areas of land into glass desert (solar), migrating fish killers (hydro) or bird grinders (wind) then nuclear with small, non emitting footprint suddenly ceases to look bad. If we didn't cherrypick one stat renewable power is good in, but instead checked overall ecological damage, and raised standards of disposing with spent solar panels and their toxic insides to such laughably high levels spent nuclear fuel gets (instead of re-processing or burning in breeders) then the toxins in panels alone would bankrupt solar industry instantly. Never mind environmental devastation, disposal alone.

You know, I'd make a bet with you that in 100 years, at opening of yet another fusion power plant, people will wonder what we saw with these idiotically damaging renewables that will be looked on with similar contempt like coal power is today, with wasting fantastical amount of rare earth resources on them being modern equivalent of trying to make perpetuum mobile, but I doubt any of us will live that long.

The only renewable that can compare with nuclear on cleanliness and small area is orbital power plant sending energy down via microwaves, but I have my doubts it will be any less expensive than nuclear. I would like it to be different, but it's and will remain pipe dream. Unlike you, I live in the shadow of dangerous renewable power (472 million cubic meters of water in river dam reservoir threatening 8 million lives with colossal wave had it ever burst) just 30 minutes away and I would have felt much safer if that dam was replaced by nuclear power plant. Especially seeing that salmon and other migrating fish would return to that river, dam made all these species extinct within few years.

[aerius]

So they're claiming that renewables cost 20 cents/kWh and nuclear is about 32 cents/kWh. I would like to see the math for that since it implies that building a 2GW nuke plant in the UK would cost around $100 billion if you cost it out.

Oh, by the way, let's see what South Korea is doing
Excerpts:

Power demand in the Republic of Korea (South Korea) has increased by more than 9% per year since 1990 but slowed to about 2.8% pa 2006-10 and projected 2.5% pa to 2020. Per capita consumption in 2010 was 9200 kWh, up from 850 kWh/yr in 1980. Over the last three decades, South Korea has enjoyed 8.6% average annual growth in GDP, which has caused corresponding growth in electricity consumption - from 33 billion kWh in 1980 to 406 billion kWh in 2009.

In 2011 electricity production was 519 TWh gross, with 233 TWh of this from coal, 150 TWh (29%) from nuclear, 109 TWh from gas, 15 TWh from oil and 8 TWh from hydro.

Generation capacity of 80.5 GWe in 2010 is expected to grow to 101 GWe total in 2022. In 2010 nuclear capacity was 17.7 GWe net (21% of total), supplying 30% of total (149 billion kWh gross). By April 2012 it was 20.7 GWe. In 2020 nuclear capacity of 27.3 GWe is expected to supply 226 billion kWh - 43.4% of electricity, rising to 48% in 2022, though more recent projections suggest 50% by 2020, with the use of gas strongly reduced. By 2030 the government expects nuclear to supply 59% of the power (333 TWh), from 41% of the installed capacity. This will require expanding nuclear capacity from 26% of total, adding about 24 GWe nuclear by 2030. In 2022 nuclear capacity of 32.9 GWe is expected to be 32.6% of the national total of 100.9 GWe.

Nuclear power costs are low in Korea: for 2008 KHNP reports 39 won (KRW) per kWh (about 3c/kWh), compared with coal 53.7 won, LNG 143.6 won and hydro 162 won. KHNP average price to KEPCO is 68.3 won (about 5c) per kWh.

From 1961 until April 2001 South Korea's sole electric power utility was Korea Electric Power Company - KEPCO. Set up as a government corporation, 49% of its shares are now held by public and foreign investors. The power generation part of KEPCO was then split into six entities and all the nuclear generation capacity, with a small amount of hydro, became part of the largest of these, Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co Ltd Ð KHNP. KEPCO remains a transmission and distribution monopoly. Korea Power Engineering Company is another KEPCO subsidiary.

KHNP expects to spend 4.7 trillion won ($3.68 billion) on nuclear plants in 2009. It plans to complete 18 nuclear power plants by 2030 at a cost of 40 - 50 trillion won ($32 to 40 billion), to provide 59% of the country's electricity. This target was endorsed by the Prime Minister in March 2010. In December 2010 the Ministry of Knowledge Economy (MKE) projected 14 new nuclear reactors on line by 2024, to provide almost half of the country's electricity.

Shortly following its sale of four modern nuclear power reactors to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the South Korean Ministry of Knowledge Economy declared in January 2010 that it aimed to achieve exports of 80 nuclear power reactors worth $400 billion by 2030, in the course of becoming the world's third largest supplier of such technology, with a 20% share of the world market, behind the USA and France or Russia. "Nuclear power-related business will be the most profitable market after automobiles, semiconductors and shipbuilding," It said, adding that: "We will promote the industry as a major export business." The Korean industry aims to be 100% self-sufficient by 2012, with no residual intellectual property constraints. Following the UAE sale, it is marketing to Turkey, Jordan, Romania and Ukraine, as well as South East Asian countries. In addition to exporting reactors, it also plans to enter the $78 billion market for the operation, maintenance and repair of reactors.

[Sky Captain]

Why is there such big difference between nuclear costs and construction times in Europe and Asia? Hardware is more or less the same so the hardware costs couldn't be the governing factor here. Is this because labour in Asia is cheap, efficient project management strategy or something elese?

In Europe it seems that nearly every major infrastructural project is plagued by delays, cost overruns and political bickering while Asians seem to be able to just build on without major problems.

[D.Turtle]

So they're claiming that renewables cost 20 cents/kWh and nuclear is about 32 cents/kWh. I would like to see the math for that since it implies that building a 2GW nuke plant in the UK would cost around $100 billion if you cost it out.

The math is included in the article. The generating price was derived from looking at the price guarantee EDF is apparently asking for. Then they added the cost estimate for insurance against nuclear disasters calculated by an insurance company.

Oh, by the way, let's see what South Korea is doing
Excerpts:

I wish them the best.

Why is there such big difference between nuclear costs and construction times in Europe and Asia? Hardware is more or less the same so the hardware costs couldn't be the governing factor here. Is this because labour in Asia is cheap, efficient project management strategy or something else?

In Europe it seems that nearly every major infrastructural project is plagued by delays, cost overruns and political bickering while Asians seem to be able to just build on without major problems.

Regulations, bureaucracy, and local opposition. From what I've seen, in Europe there is a lot more ecological thinking, which has encompassed opposition to nuclear power since the 1970s and was especially strengthened through Chernobyl and Fukushima.

[Singular Intellect]

*yawn* I find the claims the nuclear power is only viable with subsidies versus... renewable power that is of course NOT relying on subsidies to be viable to be pretty funny.

I never claimed solar was currently viable without subsidies (although I have claimed it will be), and I previously in this thread did link to the German company Manz proving my assertion.

But, nuclear power doesn't have to rely on magical, nonexistent durable hydrophobic covers,

Magical non existent durable hydrophobic coatings for solar panels? Is it standard practice for you to make blatant lies to favour your nuclear fanboy position?

Here, since you're obviously too fucking lazy to Google an issue for five fucking seconds, here you go:

HYBRIDSIL Solar Coating
Nanoshell
Nanoparticle Solar Panel Coating Helps Maintain Panel Efficiency
Oh wow! Commercially available hydrophobic coatings that are completely transparent, durable, impact resistant, frost resistant, very easy to apply (Can be applied from -25 °C to +80 °C), etc.

'Magical non existent' indeed. Let me know when you start operating in the real world instead of your nuclear fantasy dream one.

does not need to be made from material five times as expensive as gold and isn't easily thwarted by bad weather or unknown, rare phenomenon known as 'late autumn/winter/early spring' period.

*yawn* I linked earlier in this thread about how actual studies of environmental effects upon solar technology are greatly exaggerated.

I'll link it again here, although apparently you're allergic to reading unless it's about tips for improving fellatio skills for nuclear power.

Frankly, NP might save less CO2, but when you take into account huge ecological damage renewables cause with them relying on toxic materials to produce, or them turning huge areas of land into glass desert (solar), migrating fish killers (hydro) or bird grinders (wind) then nuclear with small, non emitting footprint suddenly ceases to look bad.

Yeah, because no one could have possibly dreamed up the concept of recycling solar panels!

Oops! Oops again! Triple oops!

Whole industries preparing to open up for recycling, making money and dropping the costs of remaking new solar cells. Tell me, do nuclear fanboys cry radioactive tears?

You know, I'd make a bet with you that in 100 years, at opening of yet another fusion power plant, people will wonder what we saw with these idiotically damaging renewables that will be looked on with similar contempt like coal power is today, with wasting fantastical amount of rare earth resources on them being modern equivalent of trying to make perpetuum mobile, but I doubt any of us will live that long.

I'll make you a counter bet: in five years the idea of nuclear being competitive with renewables will be a laughing joke and current nuclear projects will be scrambling to determine what the fuck to do with nuclear power plants built and currently being built since they are no longer economically viable and will have no one to sell to. Never mind public opinion being even more against it because the renewable infrastructure and possibilities will be even more blindingly obvious. No one is going to willingly elect to pay more for energy from nuclear power, even if you think nuclear cock tastes simply delicious.

The only renewable that can compare with nuclear on cleanliness and small area is orbital power plant sending energy down via microwaves, but I have my doubts it will be any less expensive than nuclear. I would like it to be different, but it's and will remain pipe dream. Unlike you, I live in the shadow of dangerous renewable power (472 million cubic meters of water in river dam reservoir threatening 8 million lives with colossal wave had it ever burst) just 30 minutes away and I would have felt much safer if that dam was replaced by nuclear power plant. Especially seeing that salmon and other migrating fish would return to that river, dam made all these species extinct within few years.

I'm not arguing for hydro power or other renewables. As far as I'm concerned, solar will pretty much replace all other forms of power generation because it is much cheaper, more flexible, faster to implement, easily integrable with existing infrastructure, enormous public support, effectively infinite source of energy, etc, etc.

Oh, by the way, let's see what South Korea is doing

Oh how cute, I'll play! Let's see what India is doing:

Nuclear energy is expensive and unsustainable, and takes more than a decade to be fully operational. It is also high on risks. Moreover, the 20 nuclear reactors spread across the country generate hardly 60 per cent of the total installed nuclear power

Hidden subsidies have helped the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited to offer power at less than `4 per unit to the State Electricity Boards, even as the Department of Atomic Energy continues breaking promises and failing to realise targets which it set long ago. In real terms, nuclear power has become more expensive because of the inefficiency of the Department of Atomic Energy. What has gone unnoticed is the fall in the price of renewable energy, especially solar, and that too at unbelievable rates. A study reveals that nuclear power has become unsustainable, costly and risky.

“By the turn of the century, we will be generating 10,000 MW power from nuclear energy.” This was the war cry of HN Sethna and Raja Ramanna, chairmen of the Atomic Energy Commission, during the 80s. From all available platforms, these top honchos of the DAE, made this declaration, and it has been parroted by their successors since then.

But, twelve years now after the turn of the century, India’s total installed capacity of nuclear power is a mere 4780 MW, less than half of what was promised by the country’s eminent nuclear scientists. The 20 nuclear reactors spread across the country generate hardly 60 per cent of the total installed nuclear power due to reasons like the shortage of uranium fuel. But the DAE is still continuing to declare that it is all set to create history. “By 2018, we will meet the 10,000 MW target and we are all set to cross the 20,000 MW mark by 2020”, Swapnesh Kumar Malhotra, official spokesman of the DAE said.

He added that the DAE could not meet the 10,000 MW mark at the turn of the century because of ‘cold shouldering’ by the Union Government. “We did not get due consideration during the Eighth Five Year Plan and that is the reason behind the failure”, Malhotra explained. The DAE spokesman said that four reactors (each of 700 MW) are under various stages of construction in Gujarat and Rajasthan. “We are sure all of them would be commissioned by 2016. The two units at Kudankulam (each of 1000 MW) which are expected to be commissioned shortly, and the 500 MW Fast Breeder Reactor coming up at Kalpakkam, would take the country’s installed nuclear power capability to 10,000 MW”, Mr Malhotra informed.

But the track record of the NPCIL is in stark contrast to what he claims. Works for the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plants began in September 2001. The two units (each of 1000 MW) were scheduled to commence production in December 2007 and December 2008 respectively. Though we are nearing December 2012, there is no sign of the Kudankulam reactors coming alive. The works of the 500 MW Fast Breeder Reactor at Kalpakkam commenced in early 2005. It was announced that the reactor would commence production in early 2010. But even as 2012 will bid us goodbye in a couple of months time, the Fast Breeder Reactor is nowhere near completion. A nuclear power station takes a minimum of 10 years for completion. “The situation is no different in the US, a technologically advanced country. Here in India we can never build a reactor within eight or nine years”, GM Pillai, director general, World Institute of Sustainable Energy, a renewable energy think tank, commented.

Mr Malhotra said the FBR was getting delayed since it was being built without any foreign assistance. Interestingly, the reason for the delay in commissioning the Kudankulam reactors is that the reactors are being built with foreign assistance. One cannot blame SP Udayakumar and Pushparayan, the anti-nuclear activists, for the delay in commissioning of the reactor because the agitation by the People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy got vocal only in September 2011. “Though the agitation was there since the beginning, it was peaceful in all respects”, Sam Rajappa, a veteran journalist who has been closely following the construction of the reactor since the agreement was inked between Rajiv Gandhi and Mikhail Gorbachev in 1988, said.

Cost overruns of the nuclear power plants is the factor worrying power managers in the country. It was declared by the DAE that the power generated at Kudankulam would be as cheap as the hydro-electric power, which is `2 per unit. “Till date the Government has spent more than `17,000 crore on the Kudankulam Power Plant. That makes it costlier than solar power”, a former nuclear scientist remarked. The amount spent on the reactors till date does not include operational and maintenance costs as well as the price of 6,000 acres of land. The scientist said that the cost of producing one MW nuclear power has become `8.50 crore ,which is unsustainable because of operational and maintenance costs. “It costs less than `9 crore to generate one MW of solar power. And remember, it is a one time investment”, Mr Pillai said.

Mr Pillai said solar power stations could be built at competitive prices if the Government reduced the lending rates. He said the Government could bring down the interest rates to 8 or 9 per cent. “We do not require zero per cent interest. We are ready to pay interest”, he said. It will be interesting to note that, according to experts, the financial loans extended to nuclear reactors do not have any interest attached to them. “We get loans at zero per cent interest," Mr Malhotra confirmed.

The latest news is that Reliance is building Asia’s largest solar power plant in Jaisalmer district of Rajasthan. “The 250 MW plant being built with Areva of France would be ready by late 2014. The entire project would be ready by 2014”, Mr Pillai stated.

MG Devasahayam, a former IAS officer who headed many energy utility services, is of the view that it is time for India to rework its nuclear energy options. “Eight years for building a power plant is not sustainable and economically feasible. Our nuclear engineers have failed to deliver the goods”, Mr Devasahayam remarked.

And given you're a fellow Canadian, here's a more local source on the issue:

On Oct. 26, The Windsor Star reported that all of Canada's nuclear reactors are supplying the grid. I find it interesting that it is considered newsworthy that the reactors are actually operating, reportedly for the first time all together in 20 years.

So the status of not operating is the norm, the status of actually operating is the newsworthy exception.

Let me put matters in perspective.

The article reports that New Brunswick's Point Lepreau reactor is finally operating, for the first time since March 2008 - 4-1/2 years ago. It is three years behind schedule, which means it took three times as long as planned. It had cost overruns of $1 billion, so instead of $1.4 billion as budgeted it ended up costing $2.4 billion.

The Point Lepreau nuclear generation station has a net capacity of 635 MW. That means the $2.4 billion capital spent to have 635 MW capacity calculates to a capital invest cost of $3.78 per W.

This is a way to compare the capital investment cost for different electricity generation investments, and does not yet include the annual operating cost.

The article reports that for the first time in 17 years all of the Bruce Power Tiverton reactors are operating. So for 17 long years not all were actually operating.

Bruce Power units 1 and 2 refurbishment have cost $4.9 billion, almost double what was anticipated.

It took 15 years to complete the refurbishment - 15 long non-operating years.

Unit 1 and 2 have a combined 1.5 GW capacity. Capital invest of $4.9 billion over 1.5 GW capacity means a capital invest of $3.27 per W - again not including operating costs.

Both wind and solar capital investment costs for MW size power generation plants are at or below $ 3 per W. In particular solar PV has a very strong track record of decreasing capital investment costs. Based on today's economics, the capital investment cost of solar PV and wind is already lower than the capital investment cost of nuclear power. It is a myth that nuclear power is cheap, it is more expensive than solar and wind power.

Nuclear power plants have high annual operating costs, Bruce Power reported $445 million in operating costs for the first 6 months of 2012 alone. The annual operating costs of a solar PV plant is negligible, and for wind farms is only fractions of the operating costs of nuclear plants.

Again, nuclear power is the far more expensive choice.

A MW size solar PV power plant can be developed and implemented in a few short years, versus up to 15 years for Bruce unit 1 and 2.

Multiple MW size solar power plants can be developed in parallel, in many suitable locations. In 2011, Germany alone added 5.9 GW of new solar PV generation capacity. Globally in 2011, 23.8 GW of solar PV capacity was newly installed.

Finally the article reports that mid-afternoon on Oct. 25, the hourly nuclear power generation in Ontario was 10,130 MW, or 10.13 GW.

Resource-poor Germany presently has 29 GW of total solar PV capacity installed, which will generate clean electricity depending on sun and weather conditions.

Mid-afternoon on Oct. 25, the solar PV actual hourly power contribution to the grid in Germany was 5 GW. (See this link for actual solar PV power generation in Germany: www. sma.de/en/company/pv-elec-tricity-produced-in-germany. html)

In conclusion, solar PV and wind power generation are the less expensive choices when compared to nuclear power.

I'm sure you'll make a nice effort to spin doctor this somehow into how the evil hippie solar empire is picking on poor nuclear power.

And while we're at here, here's a nice article on Tokelau to become world's first solar-powered country:

Tokelau is on it's way to becoming the world's first fully solar-powered nation.

A New Zealand team has been working on the three tropical atolls that make up Tokelau and they're just about ready to start switching off the diesel generators.

The sun scorches all year round in Tokelau and now that energy will play a key part in running the island nation.

Workers from Kiwi company Powersmart Solar are just a week away from converting the atoll Fakaofo from being diesel powered to solar powered.

“It’s been quite a milestone week for us, we now have all the solar panels erected, 1584 solar modules, all the batteries are in place,” says mechanical engineer Dean Parchomchuk.

More than 4,000 solar panels on the atolls will provide electricity to the nation's 1,400 people. The $7.5 million project has been funded by the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and it is being welcomed by the Tokelau community.

“It’s going to be an amazing change from using fossil fuel,” says Tokelau energy minister Foua Toloa. “It avoids expenses, but also bringing them there, it’s dangerous and any spill will affect the environment.”

More than 2,000 barrels of diesel are used to generate electricity in Tokelau each year costing more than $1 million.

“To date they have relied on diesel fuel for all their needs, and it’s had to be imported, and they’re reliant on generators which have had a knack for breaking down,” says Mr Parchomchuk.

Speaking in New Zealand Powersmart Solar's director says the project will save money in the long run.

“We would expect this system to repay itself in five years, and have a 20 year life before it needs any sort of significant maintenance,” says director Mike Bassett.

Workers on Fakaofo will soon move on to install solar panels on the two remaining atolls, Atafu and Nukunon, and all work is expected to be completed by September.

This is obviously a small example (for some strange reason smaller examples will pop up first, go figure), so I'm sure we can greatly look forward to you borrowing creationist logic on how evolution solar power can work on small scale, but not large scale.

[aerius]

That article on Bruce Nuclear is so full of lies that I don't even know where to begin. The Bruce A reactors were shutdown in the mid to late 1990's since we had a surplus of generating capacity and didn't need them. The units were idled for 5-15 years, after which they were refurbished and put back into service. The refurbishment didn't take 15 years as the article claims, the author needs to be shot for not doing any research. The actual refurbishment time was 2-4 years on the reactor units.

And of course the retard, like yourself, doesn't understand the difference between power and energy. I could try to explain the difference to you once again but given that the previous 20 attempts have failed since you clearly slept through high school physics, I'm not going to bother again. Hint: energy is what matters. I have a beer can sized capacitor. If I short it out it'll flow over 8MW of power, but it only stores around 25J of energy. If you don't understand why this is important, and as far as I can tell you don't, you need to go back to school and retake math and physics. Because at this point you're completely unqualified to take part in this discussion.

[Sky Captain]

Until storage systems of sufficient capacity are put in place building tons of solar and wind farms will also mean you must keep your conventional power plants to back them up. Only cost savings will be in fuel that is not used while the sun is up or wind blows.
Also in places like Germany or Canada you simply can't compare solar to fossil or nuclear. Solar will provide next to no power during late autumn and winter. All it can do is supplement fossil powered generation during spring and summer, but it can't replace them. Wind is better because it typically is more windy during autumn and winter, but still there is no guarantee that wind will blow all the time so sufficient fossil powered reserve capacity must be on standby all the time.

[madd0ct0r]

Solar will provide next to no power during late autumn and winter.

really? can you back that up?

[Singular Intellect]

Solar will provide next to no power during late autumn and winter.

really? can you back that up?

I did cover this earlier in the thread here:

Solar Panels Work Great in Snowy Regions, Research Shows
Summary: Solar technology actually works just fine in snowy regions. Overall power losses due to snow coverage are 'minimal' and in some cases actually increases efficiency due to increased ambient light from reflective snow. Never mind when we start applying advanced superhydrophic coatings such as NeverWet capable of withstanding 1000 hours of freezing rain, year long submerging in ocean water, etc. Dusty areas like deserts can have self cleaning panels that utilize eletrostatic charges for self cleaning.

From the article:

Solar power installations are well worth the investment, even in snowy climates, according to new research from Michigan Technological University. The albedo effect caused by white snow cover actually helps to increase solar panel efficiency (counter to what many of us might have thought).

While a layer of snowfall temporarily covers the panel and stops production, the panels don’t remain covered for long, even in the most snow-heavy regions.

“Sometimes snow actually helps solar cells,” says Michigan Tech’s Joshua Pearce. Referring to the albedo effect, which is caused by white colors reflecting sunlight. “It can make a panel generate more electricity in the same way that it gives skiers sunburn on sunny winter days.”

For the new research, scientists from St. Lawrence College and Queen’s University, along with a group of 20 industry partners, investigated the effects of snow on the Open Solar Outdoors Test Field.

“They created a computer model to predict how much power generation would decline in various amounts of snow cover and on different types of solar modules mounted at different angles, from flat to steeply pitched. Then they validated their model with data from many of Ontario’s huge commercial solar farms.”

“In most cases power losses are minimal, even in snowy Canada,” Pearce said. As part of the research, though, they also created a model that is designed to help the most efficient photovoltaic systems, even in extremely snowy areas.

Pearce and R. W. Andrews have authored a paper based on the preliminary study, “Prediction of Energy Effects on Photovoltaic Systems Due to Snowfall Events,” published in proceedings of the 2012 38th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference.

Bolded areas are of particular note.

[aerius]

Solar will provide next to no power during late autumn and winter.

really? can you back that up?

Page 8 of the following PDF
http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/downloa ... n-2011.pdf

Energy from solar takes a nosedive from November to February. You can't cheat the laws of physics.

[D.Turtle]

Thats a very interesting document. Thanks for linking to it.

[madd0ct0r]

hmm. so the lowest month (december) is at 15% of the monthly average production in 2011.

I dunno if I class that as 'next to nothing' but's it's not great, especially considering the heating load.

[ryacko]

Basically, Hawaii is going to be the best example of why renewables aren't feasible.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 5680.story

WAILUKU, Hawaii — On an island whose stock in trade is sun, and lots of it, Lawrence and Cindy Lee figured they'd be foolish not to join their neighbors and put a few solar panels on the roof.

The Lees called one of the solar contractors racing around Hawaii these days, and put in their order. Eleven months later, in October — after endless consultations, emails and a $3,000 study required by Maui Electric Co. — they were still waiting for a permit.

"Instead of it being like they want to help you get your solar system in," Lawrence Lee said, "it's more like they don't want you to."

Solar power has grown increasingly popular across the U.S. Sun Belt, but hardly anywhere has it taken hold as it has in Hawaii. Friendly tax credits, the highest average electricity rates in the nation and the most aggressive renewable energy program adopted by any state have sent homeowners scrambling to install photovoltaic systems on their roofs.

The number of solar power systems across the island state has doubled every year since 2007, with nearly 20,000 units installed. But with homeowners and businesses now producing nearly 140 megawatts of their own power — the equivalent of a medium-size power plant — and solar tax credits biting seriously into the state budget, Hawaii legislators and electrical utilities are tapping the brakes.

Solar tax credits cost the state $173.8 million this year in foregone revenue, up from $34.7 million in 2010, prompting state tax authorities to announce this month that they will temporarily cut the tax credit in half, effective Jan. 1.

Hawaiian Electric Co. on Oahu, which oversees subsidiary utilities on Maui and the Big Island, has warned that the explosion of do-it-yourself solar could threaten parts of the power grid with the possibility of power fluctuations or sporadic blackouts as the power generated by homeowners — unpredictable and subject to sudden swings — exceeded output from power plants in some areas.

So rapid is the growth that Hawaiian Electric at one point proposed a moratorium on solar installations, a plan that met with immediate outrage and was quickly withdrawn. But utilities are requiring expensive "interconnection" studies, such as the one the Lees had to do, in solar-saturated areas to analyze what impact a new unit is going to have on the utility system before it can connect to the grid.

"The last three months are turning into a madhouse of solar here on Oahu," Hawaiian Electric spokesman Peter Rosegg said. "We're doing everything we can to get in as much solar as possible, but there's a strong sense that we're kind of at a crossroads here in trying to deal with these issues."

Hawaii has become a solar laboratory for the rest of the country. Many states are experiencing sun-power booms, but few have had their grids overwhelmed to the extent seen in Hawaii.

"No one knows exactly when this is going to take place, but we are approaching a red line…. We will reach a point where they will not accept any more generating capacity," said Marco Mangelsdorf, who runs a private solar company, ProVision Solar, and teaches energy politics at the University of Hawaii in Hilo.

Historically, power is supplied to homes and businesses from big central power plants, easily controlled by engineers who dial up the turbines when demand peaks, such as on hot afternoons when customers come home and turn on air conditioners. But the push for renewable energy has introduced into the equation "nonfirm" power — electricity generated by wind, which comes and goes, or sun, which can suddenly disappear behind a cloud.

As customers generate more than they need and feed the excess back into the grid for others to use, it makes managing the system much more complex. What happens when a cloud passes over and dozens of rooftop units suddenly grind to a halt? What's to be done on a sunny autumn day, when rooftop solar systems are producing way more power than the grid can use?

The problem is especially pronounced in Hawaii, where each island has its own isolated power grid and can't quickly compensate with power generated elsewhere. The result, if not carefully managed, can be computer-killing power surges (in cases of excess generation), flickering lights, isolated blackouts or worse.

"It can crash the entire system," said Robert Alm, executive vice president of Hawaiian Electric.

California, which has more than 120,000 solar energy systems online, doesn't have Hawaii's serious overload problems, but has recently faced its own debate over how much can be paid to solar-equipped homeowners for power they feed into the grid. The Sacramento Municipal Utility District is studying Hawaii's operations to learn what happens when solar power inundates a power system.

"As an engineer, you always want to look at the worst-case scenario. Well, they have it," project manager Elaine Sison-Lebrilla said.

Hawaii finds itself pushing the envelope not just because of its abundant sunshine. A bigger driver has been the state's reliance on oil to fuel its power plants. Oil is always more expensive than natural gas, but prices shot up even higher last year when Japan's nuclear disaster sent demand, and soon prices, skyrocketing on the Asian markets where Hawaii buys its supplies.

The state has set a goal of obtaining 40% of its power from locally generated renewable sources by 2030. Already, the Big Island has jumped ahead and is producing 44% of its power from renewable sources, and it could hit 100% by the end of the decade.

Kauai announced earlier this month that it would build its third large-scale solar plant and expected to generate half the island's power by the sun soon. "Our understanding is that would be the highest penetration of any utility, certainly in the United States," said Jim Kelly, spokesman for Kauai Island Utility Cooperative.

The state is studying a multibillion-dollar undersea cable that would connect outlying islands — the big generators of wind, geothermal and solar power — to Oahu, home to most of Hawaii's population. This would not only allow them to serve as energy farms for the state, but it would also allow the kind of interconnected grid that would alleviate wind and solar variability problems.

Over the last few months, new rules have liberalized the standards for allowing solar connections, and a week ago, the Lees completed their long journey through the energy bureaucracy: They had their rooftop unit installed. They're no longer worried about turning off the lights in empty rooms.

"I wish I hadn't had to go through all this," Lawrence Lee said. "But it was worth it."

[D.Turtle]

Basically, Hawaii is going to be the best example of why renewables aren't feasible.

Did you read the article?

I read it as: rapid adoption has lead to some problems, measures have been (and are being) taken to address those problems, and Hawaii is forging ahead with more renewables in the future.

[Spoonist]

So I'm back after a weeks vacation and you guys basically ignored everything I said to rehash something completely ridicilus?
It amazes me to no end that people actually believe that a proven globally competetive region like the EU or even a nation like germany suddenly is assumed to be bound for failure due to their affection for renewables. And not only that somehow but they have tricked all the fastest growing economies in the world to fall for the same scheme. Its almost like a vast conspiracy of the world against the truthsayers.

Meanwhile the pragmatically oriented energy market is doing better and better regardless of how many times the doomsayers are crying out doom-doom-doom.

@J
Why did you ignore what I said about your first article and instead just posted a second one? You made some claims that are false. Do you really think we are going to ignore that because you post something else?

@Singular Intellect
By focusing on pie in the sky projects you are detracting the value of existing proven technologies already in the energy market place. It's people like you that point at everything that is new and shiny that give the illusion of the strawman people like J and aerius are trying but failing to attack. If you wouldn't drink the party coolaid as much you'd be better off discussing these things.

I'll go through some specifics later in the week but this post stuck out:

Maybe people would realize that without subsidies, renewable energy just simply does offer a sufficient return to investment.

Even at current no-interest market rates.

The costs inflicted by our current energy strategy would easily be covered for less then what we would pay to go towards renewables.


Furthermore, residential and commercial use makes up a large but not total part of energy consumption.

This is either willfully ignorant, completely mad or using a 1984 dictionary for the words cause it makes no sense.

First, let me simply point you to human history. We have been using renewable and non-renewable energy sources throughout our tool-using history. Fire being the best example of non-renewables. Our agricultural industry have been using hydro-mills since at least Mesopotamia maybe earlier in china. Windmills are a little later but even conservative estimates points to at least 3000 years. So there has been so caled renewables since the birth of civ.
But lets look at electricity since that is where you get this silly idea. The first electrical plant driven by hydro was this one:
http://www.americaslibrary.gov/jb/gilde ... dro_1.html
And I think that you wouldn't take a bet on whether or not mr Rogers was getting some sweet governement subsidies or whether he get ROI.
If we fast forward to today we have thousands upon thousands of small projects like that which use a local power source to produce electricity for a local need.
So your generalisations are completely baseless.

But lets give you the benefit of a doubt and lets assume you are talking about mass-market energy plants. Then we come to part two why its willfully ignorant or mad and that is because ALL energy resources in the mass-market are governement subsidized. It doesn't matter if you are talking non-renewables or renewables. Neither makes "economic" sense without goverment subsidies. This because a single company without state monopoly can't make the needed investements necessary to pull mass-market energy projects off. Initially because of the huge investment in infrastructure - but ignoring that because of all the surrounding costs. If you are going to build big you need police, military, vast amounts of labour, etc etc.
It doesn't matter if you are building a nuclear plant or a hydrodam, if its a strategic resource its going to be in the state calculations. Look at taiwan threatening the three-gorges as a pawn in their politics.
So goverment subsidies are not a bad thing - they are a necessary thing in a mass-market energy production and distribution scenario. So pointing the finger at renewables and saying they need subsidies is missing an Executor sized point.
I haven't heard of any nuclear, coal, oil etc etc plant that hasn't received goverment subsidies. But they do receive them from different budgets.

Where you have a sliver of a point is if we are only talking about the already developed world, ie europe and north america, where the grid is already in place and a rising consumption is distributed on it. Then when ignoring local geography and comparing base costs only then nuclear beats hydro by a very slim margin. Oil, coal, gas etc or wind, solar, thermal, etc doesn't come close to those two.
But for the global market, nope. Nuclear comes with political investment as well, which in some cases isn't giving feasable ROIs. Especially since political entities like NATO, EU, UN etc doesn't really want all countries in the world to have the technology to do nuclear plants themselves. And some of the same entities doesn't really want them to consume up vast amounts of oil either since we reserve them for "us" already.
So in a pragmatical world its usually more ROI feasable to rely on what humans have relied on since the dawn of civilization and that is a mixed energy production of BOTH renewables and non-renewables.

Care to explain why China, India, Brazil, EU, US, etc etc are all not only investing but also re-investing in renewables if its all just a conspiracy? Wouldn't at least one, like the US, take a stand for profit?

[aerius]

Care to explain why China & South Korea are building nuke plants by the dozens?

Also

Tax breaks by energy source. That's from the CBO.


Subsidies by source
http://www.thingsworsethannuclearpower. ... art-2.html

And they still don't come anywhere near nuclear on cost. Which you admit yourself. It's only when political considerations, in other words, anti-nuclear hysterics and the resultant public policies are taken into account that renewables make sense.

Speaking of hysterics, let's see how many people die from wind & solar.
Deaths per kWh for various energy sources

Code: Select all

Energy Source               Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)

Coal – global average         170,000    (50% global electricity)
Coal – China                     280,000   (75% China’s electricity)
Coal – U.S.                         15,000    (44% U.S. electricity)
Oil                                     36,000    (36% of energy, 8% of electricity)
Natural Gas                                4,000    (20% global electricity)
Biofuel/Biomass                    24,000    (21% global energy)
Solar (rooftop)                              440    (< 1% global electricity)
Wind                                                 150    (~ 1% global electricity)
Hydro – global average          1,400    (15% global electricity)
Nuclear – global average            90    (17%  global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)

So renewables cost more and kills more people. If you want to replace fossil fuels, sure, but it's still far more expensive (which you just admitted) and kills more people than nuclear.

[Sky Captain]

Solar will provide next to no power during late autumn and winter.

really? can you back that up?

You can also look here to see how much daily solar power production fluctuates between summer and winter in Germany.
http://www.sma.de/en/company/pv-electri ... rmany.html

Did you read the article?

I read it as: rapid adoption has lead to some problems, measures have been (and are being) taken to address those problems, and Hawaii is forging ahead with more renewables in the future.

Well, it shows that unless very expensive infrastructure upgrades are put in place there is certain limited amount of solar generation capacity that can be installed. Add more and the grid will go haywire.

[Spoonist]

Care to explain why China & South Korea are building nuke plants by the dozens?

That was the lamest response so far. But maybe I should see that as an improvement since you didn't respond to me at all last time I addressed you, (which I'm still expecting you to do or concede the points I made). But lets adress that lame response by simply quoting my own post which you responded to but clearly didn't read properly:

So in a pragmatical world its usually more ROI feasable to rely on what humans have relied on since the dawn of civilization and that is a mixed energy production of BOTH renewables and non-renewables.

See? I don't argue that renewables is the solution to everything, I'm not in the SingularIntellect camp. I'm arguing that claims in J's first article, J's interpretetation thereof and your following "defence" thereof was inaccurate, unsubstantiated and aimed at strawmen. The strawman thing you just proved by the above response to my question.
This is the claim J made: "This article thoroughly covers why renewable energy as envisaged by its proponents does not and cannot work, and why it will end in tears and epic failure." Hence why it's a valid to ask anyone making or defending such a claim why so many countries and companies are making renewable energy projects with a clear ROI etc, ie a claim that something which we have had throughout human civilization, which is already working in the marketplace with clear and steady ROI and did so before the environmental movement even existed "cannot work". Such a claim is just silly hyperbole.

Now, why your question to me is not a valid retort like mine was is because I never made a claim that non-renewables does not and cannot work. It can and will. Just like the so called renewables can and will continue to work. Why china is investing heavily into nuke, hydro, solar, wind, oil, coal, gas, bio and whatever is because the ROI and feasability studies are all unique for each project context. Its about exploiting the geography and resources to get a calculated energy return in an expanding and growing market - again you can't falsify an existing and working business segment like you are trying to do. Renewables are more than some current fad projects or political visions, so much more that J's and your generalisations become false by fiat. You need to put in a lot of caveats before your statements even resemble reality.

Also

Tax breaks by energy source.

That's from the CBO.


Subsidies by source
http://www.thingsworsethannuclearpower. ... art-2.html

And they still don't come anywhere near nuclear on cost. Which you admit yourself.

This shows that you are not listening.
I talk about the global energy market and you give me shit stats from the US? Really?
I talk about the reality is that to lots of countries and in lots of regions its not feasable with specific powersources like nuke while it is with feasable with other sources and you give me shit about nuclear costs in the US? Really?
I talk about subsidies other than direct ones and you list the tax subsidies only? Really?

"direct federal financial interventions" "fiscal year 2007 and 2010"

Did you actually think that would give you any brownie points?

Then for your deliberately flawed subsidies argument. Take the stats you provided from CBO and let's timewarp to the year 2000, fossils (I'm assuming mostly oil) in the US had decades upon decades as the most favored and subsidized energy source of all. Does that in any way make an argument that "fossil energy does not and cannot work"? Of course not. Its silly and it's a red herring. Fossils does and will work regardless of subsidies, however those subsidies if used correctly will drive R&D and boost an industry that a specific country considers strategic or profitable in the future. Like oil/fossils was for the US.
So how come you make the silly assumption that an argument like that would be valid against renewables when it wasn't for the fossil business segment? (Again remember that renewables is a very diverse field).

It's only when political considerations, in other words, anti-nuclear hysterics and the resultant public policies are taken into account that renewables make sense.

Ignoring geopolitical issues makes you an idiot. Mass energy production feasabilities MUST ALWAYS consider geopolitical issues. Especially in regions where you have to make military considerations in all your infrastructure investments. A ROI and feasability study for a nuclear plant in areas like the middle-east must take security &/ political costs into consideration.
Ignoring public opinions makes you either a dictatorship or not re-elected. This also goes into feasability studies. Hence why so few hydrodams are built in europe today even in projects where their ROI is better than nuke.
You are also missing that even if it wasn't ROI effective, the US would be missing a huge business opportunity selling the renewable tech stuff to the EU etc, a business opportunity the chinese etc will not miss. So even if you were right, which you are not, it would make perfect capitalistic sense for US gov & companies to spend all those R&D money on renewables.

And for Cthulhu's sake, stop blaming a business segment for the workings of democracy. Its reality, live with it.

Speaking of hysterics, let's see how many people die from wind & solar.
...snip... If you want to replace fossil fuels, sure, but it's still far more expensive (which you just admitted) and kills more people than nuclear.

Those figures in context are as silly as your arguments. Go to the source and check out the limitations, or even better go to the author of the figs the forbes art quoted. Someone who has not only updated the figs but also comments on actual ideas and reasoning.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/deaths ... orbes.html
Now, in my opinion the death count is much higher in all segments. Production of raw-material alone should account for much more deaths in nuke, wind and solar for instance. Transport isn't included, that is huge in coal. Then ofcourse people killed defending or attacking such resources are not considered. etc etc
Then you have the added issue of what it replaces, if you have cities relying on burning coal/wood for food preperation and heating, like you do in the regions cited with the highest death tolls from the 2008 study, then sometimes the net effect of building a coal plant and supplying electricity instead is a decrease in pollution and death toll in the city.

But let's ignore all of such things and let's look at the conclusions drawn from the study and further studies on this topic quoted by the author of the figs. Here is a summary version since your reading comprehension of the studies so far is, well, lets say selective...
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/loweri ... r-for.html
ie, bringing first world polution-reduction legislation and technology to emerging markets.
It is also why nuke has as few deaths as it does, ie its the most legislated energy source we have - due to its possible hazards and effects.
It also notes why solar has as many deaths as it does, ie accidents when installing it on household roofs. Great argument against mass installations projects there...

So again, did you really think arguments like these would get you and brownie points?

[Spoonist]

Did you read the article?

I read it as: rapid adoption has lead to some problems, measures have been (and are being) taken to address those problems, and Hawaii is forging ahead with more renewables in the future.

Well, it shows that unless very expensive infrastructure upgrades are put in place there is certain limited amount of solar generation capacity that can be installed. Add more and the grid will go haywire.

But that is a silly argument against the power source. It just means they have not listened to the suppliers and added the correct installation points into the grids.
ABB, Alstom, Siemens, Schneider etc all have small, mid, large, huge installation solutions for these things.

If you do it locally at the same time you install the power source its very low cost and effective. Its only when you allow any locality to add to the grid freely, like they did for a while in germany or in this case hawaii, that you need the heavy investments in the big grid itself.
Looking at wind, you can't really buy a windmill solution without a box feeder solution anymore. The suppliers are getting tired of getting a blameshare for local politicians browsing a shopping list and not understanding what they are buying.

[aerius]

This is the claim J made: "This article thoroughly covers why renewable energy as envisaged by its proponents does not and cannot work, and why it will end in tears and epic failure." Hence why it's a valid to ask anyone making or defending such a claim why so many countries and companies are making renewable energy projects with a clear ROI etc, ie a claim that something which we have had throughout human civilization, which is already working in the marketplace with clear and steady ROI and did so before the environmental movement even existed "cannot work". Such a claim is just silly hyperbole.

Maybe, if you'd read the opening post, the BNU paper, the DENA paper, and all the other links which have been posted you'd know that the goal is to generate somewhere between 80-100% of all energy production with renewables. That is the vision. And maybe, if you'd read the papers, you'd see that they all depend on massive grid connections, as well as connections between the electrical, natural gas, and steam heating/co-generation systems. Which you claim to be a blue sky project that no one takes seriously, but is in fact vital to the success of renewables.

No one ever argued that all renewables can't work or don't work. In fact it's noted that they have a role to play. But it's not going to be a leading role.

[Spoonist]

Maybe, if you'd read the opening post, the BNU paper, the DENA paper, and all the other links which have been posted you'd know that the goal is to generate somewhere between 80-100% of all energy production with renewables. That is the vision. And maybe, if you'd read the papers, you'd see that they all depend on massive grid connections, as well as connections between the electrical, natural gas, and steam heating/co-generation systems. Which you claim to be a blue sky project that no one takes seriously, but is in fact vital to the success of renewables.

No one ever argued that all renewables can't work or don't work. In fact it's noted that they have a role to play. But it's not going to be a leading role.

I did read the opening post and the article it linked to. I read the summery as well. It would have been hard for me not to when I did the strikethrough thingie. For you to make a claim that I did not is disproven by my first and second response.
In which I argued that attacking visions as an argument against real projects with real ROI and feasability studies is a strawman. For you to again claim that this is only vs that vision is perpetuating that strawman. So to repeat that argument now is for you to concede the whole points I made in my posts vs J and you.

Now if you'd read the quoted paper's sources you'd see that most of the ROI on so called supergrids stands with or without a reliance on renewables, simply because the european energy markets are more profitable when connected. Just look at spot prices for that. If we just took the current power supply without any renewable future visions, we still need to invest heavily into connectivity grids, because market profitability comes when we can sell surplus to demand. There is lots of waste in the current system which can be better utilized if we can trade more freely.
Especially given the decision by germany the market profits will increase with germany buying more, specifically from producers who can claim that it comes from renewables.

But all of your arguments so far turns to bullshit anyway since the gov in the US does not have a realistic goal of 80-100% renewables. (Nor does germany, just look through the actual decisions for the very long lists of caveats used). So using US stats or circumstances to argue a eurovision contest (pun inteded) is deliberately misleading.
Germany's current politicial decisions against nuke, has nothing to do with US trends, current or former. So that is another red herring.
There is no political will in the US by the democrats or republicans against nuke in any shape or form resembling the trend in Germany. So trying to use German or EU politics as a bait and switch for US political pro-nuke arguments is as misleading as using EU statistics in US gun control debates.

This is the same unsubstantiated stuff that I did strikethrough on in the firstplace which you refused to discuss.

[aerius]

But all of your arguments so far turns to bullshit anyway since the gov in the US does not have a realistic goal of 80-100% renewables. (Nor does germany, just look through the actual decisions for the very long lists of caveats used).

And no one has ever claimed the US has any sort of plan. Germany does have one, their goal is 80% renewables by 2050
http://www.wind-works.org/FeedLaws/Germ ... r2012.html

My google skills are rusty, so enlighten me on those caveats.

Now if you'd read the quoted paper's sources you'd see that most of the ROI on so called supergrids stands with or without a reliance on renewables, simply because the european energy markets are more profitable when connected. Just look at spot prices for that. If we just took the current power supply without any renewable future visions, we still need to invest heavily into connectivity grids, because market profitability comes when we can sell surplus to demand. There is lots of waste in the current system which can be better utilized if we can trade more freely.
Especially given the decision by germany the market profits will increase with germany buying more, specifically from producers who can claim that it comes from renewables.

Without renewables, the required connections aren't as extensive and remain limited to the electrical grid itself. There's no interconnection to the natural gas plus steam/co-generation systems. The system remains simpler and more robust.

[Spoonist]

Now you are getting me pissed.

I address every and any point you make and you just skip whole sections rehashing shit I've already covered?
Check out the rules on this forum you should know them by now.
You made the claims, you either prove them or concede them. I'm not here to do your homework.

And no one has ever claimed the US has any sort of plan.

So what can you do with the US stats you have tried to use as arguments? That's right, and a little bit further until you can taste them.
Hence my comparison to gun control.

Germany does have one, their goal is 80% renewables by 2050
http://www.wind-works.org/FeedLaws/Germ ... r2012.html

And? Goals and visions change all the time. Do you really think that if germany thought it couldn't remain competetive to maintain these goals they will go ahead anyway?
This is the strawman argument. You can argue against a vision on its own. But you can't use a vision to argue against a business segment or current market trends. It just doesn't compute.
If germany continues like they have done they will come pretty close to that target in 40 years. It will cost them an arm and a leg, and will see more starvation in africa, but they will get close if they want to. They do have the money.
While if they do run up against unforseen events or the trend regress, you will see changes in the goals.
But right now the market trends are in line with their former predicitions, they are beating their earlier targets like many other countries. Its natural for entities that easily reached targets to aim higher. So right now it is rather silly to try to pursuade them that it isn't working, when we can statistically see that it is.

My google skills are rusty, so enlighten me on those caveats..

Ah, you claim that others who did read the studies didn't and when you yourself use an article that cites the actual decision papers you can't be bothered to click and read?
Nice form there...

Now if you'd read the quoted paper's sources you'd see that most of the ROI on so called supergrids stands with or without a reliance on renewables, simply because the european energy markets are more profitable when connected. Just look at spot prices for that. If we just took the current power supply without any renewable future visions, we still need to invest heavily into connectivity grids, because market profitability comes when we can sell surplus to demand. There is lots of waste in the current system which can be better utilized if we can trade more freely.
Especially given the decision by germany the market profits will increase with germany buying more, specifically from producers who can claim that it comes from renewables.

Without renewables, the required connections aren't as extensive and remain limited to the electrical grid itself. There's no interconnection to the natural gas plus steam/co-generation systems. The system remains simpler and more robust.

What the fuck are you talking about?
a) The existing power sources include renewables. They are already there, plenty of them as per the cite you provided. So when I say with already existing power sources then how the fuck can you try to make that into a point trying to exclude renewables?
b) The system does not, I repeat does not, remain simpler and more robust by not investing in so called smart grids. All distribution benefits. Even the distribution of nuke, coal, gas and whatever.
This is what I have been beating you and J with, the ROI on smart grids DOES NOT RELY ON POWER SOURCE. Yes it gives a better ROI on badly managed fluctuating ones, but they are not a requirement for such investments to meet ROI.
Smart means smart, not investing would be dumb.
c)The interconnection to natural gas point I can't even deduce from dumb to normal text. What are you trying to say?
Maybe I can shortcut futility by saying that there are good ROI projects looking at placing the plants closer to gasprom and instead of importing the gas itself, just simply buy the electricity on the common market. The problem is political since gasprom likes its pipelines and putin's gang likes the resulting geopolitics of the pipelines.