THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SAFE NUCLEAR POWER

[segnosaur]

Re: Sending spent nuclear fuel into space...

Look, I think nuclear power will probably be key for long term electricity production. But I do have to question your "fire the waste into space" argument...

Manny, I guess you don't know much about rocketry. Sending fuel rods to the sun is cheap as borscht!

First off, you seal some rods in a container that if a rocket ever crashed would protect the rods from scattering. Make the cargo one big strong lump of metal or ceramic, or both.

The weight of such a cargo is mice nuts for most of the boosters in use today. The cargo sent to the International Space Station would likely mass more.

Keep in mind that the space station is in low earth orbit, and gradually looses altitude. As such, it regularly needs to be 'boosted' into a higher orbit, to keep it from crashing back to earth. If you're going to launch radioactive waste into space you'd have to get it higher than the space station (which costs more money).

I should also point out that the space station weighs 450 metric tons. The US generates around 2000 tons of waste per year. So, you'd have to boost the equivalent of 4 space stations per year.

http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/nuclearwasteamountsandonsitestorage/

You don't have to boost it all the way to the Sun. That would be an extremely expensive and inefficient approach, I grant you, but any rocketry engineer who suggested doing that would be fired as a "nob extreme" on the spot!

You simply get your payload free of Earth's gravity and into a slow orbit that will eventually end up in the Sun.

Ummm... to do that you'd have to get it to at least the L1 Lagrange point (1500000km from Earth.) Given the fact that the moon is only 384000km from earth, you'd have to boost it more than 4 times the distance to the moon.

The cost would be very low, certainly FAR less than what we spend on storage now!

The cost per pound to launch something into geostationary orbit is around $3000/kg. There is approximately 67000000 kg of nuclear waste. Getting rid of all nuclear waste that way would cost at least 200 billion dollars. (And that's a low estimate, since I'm not counting any cost of radiation shielding, etc., plus that's only a boost to earth orbit, and not to the L1 point.)

Yucca mountain was to cost roughly $96 billion, or less than half the cost.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-08-05-2263572427_x.htm

http://www.futron.com/upload/wysiwyg/Resources/Whitepapers/Space_Transportation_Costs_Trends_0902.pdf

[dre]

Once again...

It is irrelevant whether the costs are subsidized or not. We know how much construction costs will be, we know how much fuel costs will be, and we know how much decommissioning costs will be. Whether those costs are paid for with subsidies or not is not an issue. We know the expenditures. That's the important part.

The fact that you're assuming that the costs are hidden via subsidization does not make it so.

Errr... not really. Not any more than any other big, long term engineering/construction project.

Umm... first of all "astronomical" costs do not mean "impossible to calculate".

And yes, a nuclear disaster would be expensive. But guess what? After many decades of nuclear power it has a better safety record (e.g. fewer deaths per kw of generated power) than almost every other form of electrical generation. Nuclear engineers know the risk, and they take precautions.

Again, factored into the cost. The issue is not one of economics or engineering, its political.

That's probably because things like electrical generation from natural gas from Shale has become very cheap lately.

It is irrelevant whether the costs are subsidized or not. We know how much construction costs will be, we know how much fuel costs will be, and we know how much decommissioning costs will be. Whether those costs are paid for with subsidies or not is not an issue. We know the expenditures. That's the important part.

Like I said you DONT know the full costs. People have studied it and tried to put a number on these things but its nearly impossible.

Again, factored into the cost. The issue is not one of economics or engineering, its political.

Show me this accounting of the costs that has all the direct and indirect subsidies itemized, and places costs on the hundreds of different federal laws that make nuclear energy possible. Love to see it.

That's probably because things like electrical generation from natural gas from Shale has become very cheap lately.

We arent talking about "lately" We are talking about no new plants built in North America for almost 40 years. The nuclear industry doesnt even have the money to close down all the plants that nearing the end of their life cycles never mind build new ones, and private investors will not underwrite these projects because the economics simply do not work. The nuclear industry isnt possible without MASSIVE public participation and funding.

Edited September 25, 2012 by dre

[segnosaur]

Show me this accounting of the costs that has all the direct and indirect subsidies itemized, and places costs on the hundreds of different federal laws that make nuclear energy possible. Love to see it.

First of all, show me proof that each and every cost estimate has "hidden/subsidized" costs.

I've provided a document laying out the costs of nuclear power. If you don't accept it, then fine. Now way to get into your head without a power drill.

That's probably because things like electrical generation from natural gas from Shale has become very cheap lately.

We arent talking about "lately"...

You didn't specify the time frame...

Of course, I could also point out that coal and oil have also been relatively cheap over the past few decades. For example, when adjusted for inflation the cost of oil was cheaper in the late 1990s than it was for the past half century. Since the secondary costs of using fossil fuels for power generation (eg. global warming, health issues due to smog) are typically not counted, they will appear cheaper (a fact I mentioned in a previous post).

http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Table.asp

We are talking about no new plants built in North America for almost 40 years.

Yup, no new plants started since the 70s (at least in the United States).

Which was right around the time of 3 Mile Island (a "disaster" where there were no fatalities, heck, no injuries.) And around the time the movie "China Syndrome" was released.

Which just goes to demonstrate the fact that people are often dumb and prone to illogical panic. The problems were largely political rather than technical.

You know, its almost like circular reasoning... There's no new construction, because people people are looking at the past few decades and saying "there's no new construction".

http://www.cracked.com/article_16078_the-5-most-ridiculously-over-hyped-health-scares-all-time.html

Oh, and by the way, there actually has been recent work on building new reactors in the past decade. There was a slowdown caused by the problems with the Japan reactors, but there have been around 50 started since 2004.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_renaissance

ETA:

The nuclear industry isnt possible without MASSIVE public participation and funding.

I've already pointed out that building a nuclear plant requires HUGE upfront capital costs. Its not a case of overall costs, its a case of cost distribution. Then there is also the chance that a private investor will sink millions into a plant, only to have it cancelled for political (rather than economic/engineering) reasons...

(On the other hand, a gas/coal/oil plant is cheaper to build, and provides far less risk up-front.)

Edited September 25, 2012 by segnosaur

[dre]

First of all, show me proof that each and every cost estimate has "hidden/subsidized" costs.

I've provided a document laying out the costs of nuclear power. If you don't accept it, then fine. Now way to get into your head without a power drill.

You didn't specify the time frame...

Of course, I could also point out that coal and oil have also been relatively cheap over the past few decades. For example, when adjusted for inflation the cost of oil was cheaper in the late 1990s than it was for the past half century. Since the secondary costs of using fossil fuels for power generation (eg. global warming, health issues due to smog) are typically not counted, they will appear cheaper (a fact I mentioned in a previous post).

http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Table.asp

Yup, no new plants started since the 70s (at least in the United States).

Which was right around the time of 3 Mile Island (a "disaster" where there were no fatalities, heck, no injuries.) And around the time the movie "China Syndrome" was released.

Which just goes to demonstrate the fact that people are often dumb and prone to illogical panic. The problems were largely political rather than technical.

You know, its almost like circular reasoning... There's no new construction, because people people are looking at the past few decades and saying "there's no new construction".

http://www.cracked.com/article_16078_the-5-most-ridiculously-over-hyped-health-scares-all-time.html

Oh, and by the way, there actually has been recent work on building new reactors in the past decade. There was a slowdown caused by the problems with the Japan reactors, but there have been around 50 started since 2004.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_renaissance

ETA:

I've already pointed out that building a nuclear plant requires HUGE upfront capital costs. Its not a case of overall costs, its a case of cost distribution. Then there is also the chance that a private investor will sink millions into a plant, only to have it cancelled for political (rather than economic/engineering) reasons...

(On the other hand, a gas/coal/oil plant is cheaper to build, and provides far less risk up-front.)

You didn't specify the time frame...

Of course, I could also point out that coal and oil have also been relatively cheap over the past few decades. For example, when adjusted for inflation the cost of oil was cheaper in the late 1990s than it was for the past half century. Since the secondary costs of using fossil fuels for power generation (eg. global warming, health issues due to smog) are typically not counted, they will appear cheaper (a fact I mentioned in a previous post).

Right which exactly why the only countries putting much in the nuclear basket are countries with no coal oil, and gas.

Since the secondary costs of using fossil fuels for power generation (eg. global warming, health issues due to smog) are typically not counted, they will appear cheaper (a fact I mentioned in a previous post).

The externalities of the nuclear industry are not counted either. We dont know what nuclear energy would cost if the public stopped assuming much of the risk by limiting their liability and their need for insurance for example.

Then theres also a whole host of other externalities and hidden costs. Like the cost of maintaining nuclear beurocracies to make sure the process is safe and secure.

Edited September 26, 2012 by dre

[Bonam]

We arent talking about "lately" We are talking about no new plants built in North America for almost 40 years. The nuclear industry doesnt even have the money to close down all the plants that nearing the end of their life cycles never mind build new ones, and private investors will not underwrite these projects because the economics simply do not work. The nuclear industry isnt possible without MASSIVE public participation and funding.

A large portion of the cost of nuclear energy has nothing to do with the costs of designing, building, operating, fueling, and decommissioning the plant, but rather simply in bureaucracy and compliance. The public "participates" in the projects, certainly, but the immense bureaucracy also adds enormous overhead costs. I would guess that this cost likely dwarfs the technical, engineering, and operational costs.

Same goes for most things with heavy government involvement. For example, the cost of launching something on the NASA shuttle, per kilogram, over the duration of the program has been about $60,000/kg, or $20,000/kg if you look at NASA's incremental costs for each additional shuttle flight. SpaceX can do it for $4,000/kg, 5-15 times cheaper.

Get the government out of nuclear energy (besides imposing and enforcing a clear and concise set of safety regulations) and I bet the cost drops a factor of at least 2-5.

[dre]

A large portion of the cost of nuclear energy has nothing to do with the costs of designing, building, operating, fueling, and decommissioning the plant, but rather simply in bureaucracy and compliance. The public "participates" in the projects, certainly, but the immense bureaucracy also adds enormous overhead costs. I would guess that this cost likely dwarfs the technical, engineering, and operational costs.

Same goes for most things with heavy government involvement. For example, the cost of launching something on the NASA shuttle, per kilogram, over the duration of the program has been about $60,000/kg, or $20,000/kg if you look at NASA's incremental costs for each additional shuttle flight. SpaceX can do it for $4,000/kg, 5-15 times cheaper.

Get the government out of nuclear energy (besides imposing and enforcing a clear and concise set of safety regulations) and I bet the cost drops a factor of at least 2-5.

A large portion of the cost of nuclear energy has nothing to do with the costs of designing, building, operating, fueling, and decommissioning the plant, but rather simply in bureaucracy and compliance.

Yup and thats another problem with nuclear economics. The materials involve present much larger security and safety concerns. In order to make sure plants are safe and that nuclear material is properly handled and secured, large standards/compliance regimes are necessary.

Get the government out of nuclear energy (besides imposing and enforcing a clear and concise set of safety regulations) and I bet the cost drops a factor of at least 2-5.

No get government out of nuclear energy and the price would more than double, but price is irrelevant because you would never see another nuclear plant built again. The government has to give companies gigantic incentive packages and ongoing operational subsidies in order for people to even run them.

But the real kicker is insurance. Without government involvement limiting liability the private sector simply could not afford to purchase the kind of insurance required to cover a potential accident.

Ever heard of the "Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act" passed in the US in 1957? It caps liability at at 12 billion dollars, and puts Joe taxpayer on the hook for anything over that. Take the government out of THIS little part of the nuclear industry, and now suddenly plant operators need to go and try to buy coverage for porential liabilities exceeding that from private insurers. At this point private investors are starting to pretty much laugh in your face, especially when they can go and build a coal or gas plant for a fraction of the capital cost that produces power at a lower price, and requires way less liability insurance.

[Bonam]

Yup and thats another problem with nuclear economics. The materials involve present much larger security and safety concerns. In order to make sure plants are safe and that nuclear material is properly handled and secured, large standards/compliance regimes are necessary.

That you say this with a straight face in response to what I posted gives me the distinct impression you haven't had to deal with government bureaucracy in the areas of nuclear safety, advanced technology, or military equipment. A "regime" which ensures standards and compliance is one thing. What we have is something else entirely.

No get government out of nuclear energy and the price would more than double, but price is irrelevant because you would never see another nuclear plant built again. The government has to give companies gigantic incentive packages and ongoing operational subsidies in order for people to even run them.

But the real kicker is insurance. Without government involvement limiting liability the private sector simply could not afford to purchase the kind of insurance required to cover a potential accident.

Ever heard of the "Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act" passed in the US in 1957? It caps liability at at 12 billion dollars, and puts Joe taxpayer on the hook for anything over that.

Care to calculate the insurance premium? The cost of the Fukushima disaster has been estimated at $250 billion. There are about 450 nuclear plants worldwide. A disaster like Fukushima happens once every ~30 years. Based on just this data set, one can estimate that the cost to insure against large scale disasters exceeding $12 billion is about $18 million / plant / year. Add in a factor of 2 for safety, the insurance company's profit, etc, and you end up with about $40mil/plant/year. The operating cost of a nuclear plant is $200-1,000 million / year, a large chunk of which is administration and compliance. So the insurance cost would be an extra burden, but hardly a dealbreaker, especially since, if the government was "out of nuclear energy", the administration and compliance costs would decrease by at least that much, not to mention up front costs.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Bonam

[dre]

That you say this with a straight face in response to what I posted gives me the distinct impression you haven't had to deal with government bureaucracy in the areas of nuclear safety, advanced technology, or military equipment. A "regime" which ensures standards and compliance is one thing. What we have is something else entirely.

No get government out of nuclear energy and the price would more than double, but price is irrelevant because you would never see another nuclear plant built again. The government has to give companies gigantic incentive packages and ongoing operational subsidies in order for people to even run them.

Care to calculate the insurance premium? The cost of the Fukushima disaster has been estimated at $250 billion. There are about 450 nuclear plants worldwide. A disaster like Fukushima happens once every ~30 years. Based on just this data set, one can estimate that the cost to insure against large scale disasters exceeding $12 billion is about $18 million / plant / year. Add in a factor of 2 for safety, the insurance company's profit, etc, and you end up with about $40mil/plant/year. The operating cost of a nuclear plant is $200-500 million / year, a large chunk of which is administration and compliance. So the insurance cost would be an extra burden, but hardly a dealbreaker, especially since, if the government was "out of nuclear energy", the administration and compliance costs would decrease by at least that much, not to mention up front costs.

There WOULD no nuclear industry if the government "got out of it" except possibly in countries with no coal are gas (which incidentally are the only ones building many plants). People are not going to let you build these things without all the government controls, and the people and government are not going to give up regulatory control of the fuel for safety and national security reasons. And you are basing your insurance calculations on government being in the game. Part of the reason there has been so few accidents is the public put a shitload of money into nuclear r&d in the first place, and because the government imposes a huge standards/compliance regime, and funds agencies to enforce it and subsidizes the crap out of the industry to make it viable.

Yup you could definately do stuff cheaper without standards/compliance/enforcement but nobody would sell you liability insurance, and nobody would let you build one anywhere remotely near them.

And the question is why bother? Its not even close.

A nuclear plant entering service in 2017 in the US would have a levelized per MWH cost of 112 dollars. A combined cycle gas plant will cost about 65 dollars per MWH. And thats based on gas plants being subsidized 0.5 cents per dollar spent on consumption VS over 20 cents per dollar spent on the consumption of nuclear energy.

And THAT is why no plants have been built for 40 years.

But lets jump to france...

Levelized per MWH costs for nat-gas generated power is 61 Euros. Levelized cost of nuclear energy is 50. And the only better option is hydro at 20 and you can only do so much of that.

The economics work there, so you see new plants.

[Bonam]

In regards to your first paragraph, of course government funded the R&D, that is its proper role. I hear and acknowledge your point that government subsidizes nuclear energy. But it also imposes regulatory costs and uncertainties that are so high that I would guess if properly counted, are larger than the subsidies.

In regards to your second paragraph, safety regulations and compliance is of course necessary. But the current paradigm does this at probably somewhere between 100 and 10,000 times the cost it would require to do so if it was done efficiently.

Further, of course nuclear plants should not be built anywhere close to population centers. Same goes for coal, oil, and gas plants, too.

Why bother? Because if we took a sane look at how much cost is imposed on nuclear energy projects by trying to comply with the current monstrosity of a "regime", you could probably cut the "levelized per MWH cost" in half if not even more, suddenly making it competitive.

Do you realize that besides no new nuclear plants having been built in decades, no new designs have even been considered for approval in decades either. There are new designs for nuclear reactors which have been developed in partnerships between national laboratories and private industry which would provide electricity more cleanly, with less nuclear waste, at a lower cost, and with far lower chances of dangerous malfunction. The nuclear regulatory regime has frozen technology at the level that it was at in the 1970s. It is not even a matter of cost, but a matter of simply being frozen in time, unable to move on, because the process is so cumbersome that not even the multitudes of government agencies involved can navigate it whatsoever even given decades to try to do so. Tens of billions of dollars worth of people's time and salary over decades pushing around paper, only to get NOTHING WHATSOEVER done.

Innovation in nuclear energy will likely happen in China or some other such country, and after they are a few decades ahead of us perhaps we'll start to build copies of their advanced reactors.

[dre]

Do you realize that besides no new nuclear plants having been built in decades, no new designs have even been considered for approval in decades either. There are new designs for nuclear reactors which have been developed in partnerships between national laboratories and private industry which would provide electricity more cleanly, with less nuclear waste, at a lower cost, and with far lower chances of dangerous malfunction. The nuclear regulatory regime has frozen technology at the level that it was at in the 1970s

No this is simply not true. In the US for example, there are 4 advanced designs currently approved, all since 1997.

1. ABWR design by GE Nuclear, approved in may 1997

2. System 80+ design by Westinghouse approved in 1997

3. AP600 by Westinghouse approved in 1999

4. AP1000 by Westinghouse approved in 2006

There are six active reviews for even newer designs right now - The AP1000B (Westinghouse), the ESBWR by General Electric, the EPA by Areva, and the USAPWR by Mistubisha.

The nuclear regulatory regime has frozen technology at the level that it was at in the 1970s

Ahhhh no.

would provide electricity more cleanly, with less nuclear waste, at a lower cost, and with far lower chances of dangerous malfunction

The newer designs ARE better but the plants are insanely expensive.

Edited September 26, 2012 by dre

[Bonam]

I should have been clearer, I was referring to NEW designs, not slight evolutionary changes to existing designs. The ones you refer to are all gen3/gen3+ designs, which are using the same fundamental technology of reactors from the 60s-70s. The advances in the designs you mention are nothing more than simplifications in things like valving and pumping layout/topology, simplified structural elements, and optimized control system wiring.

Fundamentally new reactor technologies have been on the back burner.

[dre]

I should have been clearer, I was referring to NEW designs, not slight evolutionary changes to existing designs. The ones you refer to are all gen3/gen3+ designs, which are using the same fundamental technology of reactors from the 60s-70s. The advances in the designs you mention are nothing more than simplifications in things like valving and pumping layout/topology, simplified structural elements, and optimized control system wiring.

Fundamentally new reactor technologies have been on the back burner.

The ones you refer to are all gen3/gen3+ designs, which are using the same fundamental technology of reactors from the 60s-70s.

And theyre stronger, safer use fuel more efficiently, and produce less waste.

BUt I see your point.

However, the nuclear industry itself says that Gen4 plants are "on the drawing board" and wont even be submitted to the regulatory authorites until about 2020, so Im not seeing any evidence of widespread technology suppression, especially nothing that would support your "government has frozen nuclear technology in the 70's" claim.

[PIK]

We would not need anything if we spent the billons that dalton wasted on his green energy plan, on battery technology for house solar panels. Then we could get rid of nukes and ONT hydro. But the unions would never let that happen.

[segnosaur]

Of course, I could also point out that coal and oil have also been relatively cheap over the past few decades. For example, when adjusted for inflation the cost of oil was cheaper in the late 1990s than it was for the past half century. Since the secondary costs of using fossil fuels for power generation (eg. global warming, health issues due to smog) are typically not counted, they will appear cheaper (a fact I mentioned in a previous post).

Right which exactly why the only countries putting much in the nuclear basket are countries with no coal oil, and gas.

You know, I keep pointing out the whole "global warming" thing. For some reason you keep ignoring it.

2 or 3 decades ago, having plentiful fossil fuels might make coal or gas powered electrical generation possible. But at this point in time many/most countries are trying to reduce their CO2 output.

The externalities of the nuclear industry are not counted either. We dont know what nuclear energy would cost if the public stopped assuming much of the risk by limiting their liability and their need for insurance for example.

Actually we got a pretty good idea... given the fact that we've been using nuclear power for decades and accidents have been relatively rare. We can look at the cost of cleaning up (for example) 3 mile island and calculate and use that as a basis for calculating the expected costs.

And once again, need I remind you that overall, the number of fatalities from nuclear power (when you consider the amount of energy they generate) is actually less than the number of deaths from almost every other power source?

You seem to be running around shouting "Beware evil nuclear, for it can kill dozens", while ignoring the fact that the alternatives are probably killing many more people.

Then theres also a whole host of other externalities and hidden costs. Like the cost of maintaining nuclear beurocracies to make sure the process is safe and secure.

Budget information for the organizations that license/monitor civilian nuclear plans would be available from the government.

[Mr.Canada]

Nuclear power is incredibly safe. I wonder if everyone should install solar panels on their roofs. that's what I am thinking about doing. Installing 4 panels.

[Guest Manny]

Nuclear power is incredibly safe. I wonder if everyone should install solar panels on their roofs. that's what I am thinking about doing. Installing 4 panels.

It's very expensive and you wont recoup those costs for at least a decade or two, if at all.

[Mr.Canada]

It's very expensive and you wont recoup those costs for at least a decade or two, if at all.

I'm curious about it. I like the idea of having solar panels and putting power back onto the grid. I have no idea of cost plus 'expensive' is a subjective term that really depends on individual household income. I take your point though. Still would be cool to have the majority of people selling power back to the grid.

[Guest Manny]

I'm curious about it. I like the idea of having solar panels and putting power back onto the grid. I have no idea of cost plus 'expensive' is a subjective term that really depends on individual household income. I take your point though. Still would be cool to have the majority of people selling power back to the grid.

It is interesting to learn about. Panel efficiency is improving and they are finding new ways to collect all that energy, not just the light to convert it to electricity.

Buddy of mine is a technician, some kind of alternate-energy license so he knows all about the panels, wind, geo-core etc. Good field to get into as the industry grows.

[Mr.Canada]

I think self generated power is the future for sure. Every house will sooner or later become it's own generating station. Some good and worthwhile work is being done for sure. Long live the geeks.

[Wild Bill]

I'm curious about it. I like the idea of having solar panels and putting power back onto the grid. I have no idea of cost plus 'expensive' is a subjective term that really depends on individual household income. I take your point though. Still would be cool to have the majority of people selling power back to the grid.

You would do well to investigate first! We have a unique situation in Ontario.

The majority of people will never be selling power back to the grid in Ontario! Dalton has deliberately structured things so that cannot happen. While many if not most of American states allow bi-directional meters so that people can sell power to the grid that is illegal here.

The American model is great because it eliminates the most expensive capital investment for generating your own power - a battery bank! Wind and sunlight are not consistent so you must store power in batteries when you are not using it, so that you will have enough at those times when you need it. You then don't need a gigantic system that constantly generates 5-10 kilowatts of power. You need something that generates only a kilowatt or two but stores it in the battery bank.

You need expensive deep cycle batteries. Car batteries will not cut it. Figure on several thousand dollars for the average home, at least.

By using bi-directional meters, the grid is your battery bank! You have your couple of kilowatt system and when you are drawing less than it supplies the extra goes into the grid. The meter tracks it and your bill is merely accounting - credit or debit.

Here, everyone has only two choices. You can be totally off the grid, which means buying that expensive battery bank, or you do it the McGuinty way.

The McGuinty way works like this: You feed your own house from the grid, the same way you always have. You get a bill and you pay it.

As a separate item, you buy a wind or solar generating system. You have no connection to that system for your own use at all. That system feeds the grid and Dalton pays you for the power.

To get paid for generating that power, you must be accepted by Dalton's system. That is no longer open to anyone. They had so many applicants they closed the door. Many farmers signed up, since they had the land and space. Dalton was not prepared for so many. At first they closed the door with several thousand applications that had arrived well before the deadline refused. This caused such an outcry they were forced to grant those applications, but no more.

You see, to stimulate a new industry that supposedly was going to make Ontario rich again Dalton pays 80cents per kilowatt for solar power on a rooftop and a bit less for wind power. Meanwhile, regular power costs about a nickel a kilowatt. A few people with solar panels on their rooftops meant some inexpensive photo-ops and glamour for the Liberal government, for being so "progressive". Thousands of rooftops means a HUGE subsidy for alternate power! That of course would prove embarrassing.

So right now your only choice is to go totally off-grid. You look after yourself. You don't get to sell any surplus to the province. You likely never will!

Right now your electricity bill has some deliberate confusion as to usage, transmission costs and "stranded debt" from the fiasco of the 30 some billion dollar debt Ontario Hydro ran up. By making sure that it is very difficult for large numbers of people to get completely off-grid the Liberals have ensured that stranded debt will be paid off eventually, by us citizens, of course. We have no choice!

So that's the scoop, Mr. Canada. If you want to play around with solar panels as a hobby by all means have fun but as far as any ideas of selling surplus back to the grid, you can just forget it, at least as long as Premier Dalton and his Liberals are running the show.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Wild Bill

[Bonam]

By using bi-directional meters, the grid is your battery bank! You have your couple of kilowatt system and when you are drawing less than it supplies the extra goes into the grid. The meter tracks it and your bill is merely accounting - credit or debit.

Using the grid as the battery bank is awesome for individuals, and certainly a huge incentive for people to adopt home solar-electric systems. But the more people do this, the harder it is on the grid, which has to handle the variable sources of power that are now outside a utility company's control. And, the companies still have to build capacity to satisfy demand, because homeowners with small scale systems are not a reliable source of power, so all the generating capacity that people install on their homes still has to be backed up.

Due to these considerations, and as awesome as it is for homeowners, I don't think unrestricted bi-directional meters will be the norm in many jurisdictions.

[dre]

Using the grid as the battery bank is awesome for individuals, and certainly a huge incentive for people to adopt home solar-electric systems. But the more people do this, the harder it is on the grid, which has to handle the variable sources of power that are now outside a utility company's control.

I dont think thats hard on the grid. Its actually really good and stable architecture. The grid can draw power from all these small consumer/producers, and that storage capacity can be used to smooth over fluctuations in supply.

Thats the inherent advantage of a large network of peers. Stability, failover, redundancy.

You bring up a valid point about control though. The grid authority would have to issue some kind of GTI appliance in order to make it safe.

[Bonam]

I dont think thats hard on the grid. Its actually really good and stable architecture. The grid can draw power from all these small consumer/producers, and that storage capacity can be used to smooth over fluctuations in supply.

What storage capacity? No storage capacity is added to the grid by having a bunch of homeowners connected in this way. The only storage capacity is if there is a large hydro dam connected to the grid, and that is only applicable in certain areas.

And that is the real problem. To smooth out load-supply variability, you need storage capacity. For a single homeowner, the grid looks like a giant storage bank. But it's not. The grid has no inherent storage. It is not a giant capacitor.

Thats the inherent advantage of a large network of peers. Stability, failover, redundancy.

The power grid is not like the internet. In the internet, if there is a failure in one spot, that spot becomes effectively disconnected, but most other parts of the network can continue to function and communicate with each other. In a power grid, a failure of one part now means all other areas experience insufficient power, brownouts, and possible overloads which can lead to further damage.

Additionally, consider scenarios such as storms and other natural disasters. Right now, if these cause power failure, it is usually a matter of repairing a few broken power lines or centralized transformer stations or power plants. That is something authorities can deal with quickly and usually get back online within a few days at the very worst. But now imagine if there are millions of homes, each contributing to the grid, and the storm causes damage to the solar panels on the roofs on a large portion of them. It will take months to get it all back up and working at full capacity.

When you talk about advantages of redundancy and stability that are inherent to distributed networks, there is an assumption that failures are random, statistical in nature. But, if there is a strong correlation between failures of different components of the network, such as if failures are caused by natural disasters that strike large parts of the network simultaneously, then this advantage disappears. Instead you are just left with the disadvantage: the difficulty of repairing distributed systems.

You bring up a valid point about control though. The grid authority would have to issue some kind of GTI appliance in order to make it safe.

I'm not familiar with the acronym GTI. What does it refer to?

[segnosaur]

Re: Home solar panels used to return power to the grid...

I dont think thats hard on the grid.

Actually there are problems in some places that have implemented a lot of solar...

From: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/carbon-tax/rooftop-solar-panels-overloading-electricity-grid/story-fn99tjf2-1226165360822

One of Australia's biggest electricity network providers, Ausgrid, yesterday warned that there was a "significant likelihood" that costs would have to rise because of the impact of the solar photovoltaic cells.

...Ausgrid warns that in areas with a high concentration of solar cells, voltage levels can rise and this can have "consequences for appliances and equipment in customers' homes"

[Wild Bill]

What storage capacity? No storage capacity is added to the grid by having a bunch of homeowners connected in this way. The only storage capacity is if there is a large hydro dam connected to the grid, and that is only applicable in certain areas.

And that is the real problem. To smooth out load-supply variability, you need storage capacity. For a single homeowner, the grid looks like a giant storage bank. But it's not. The grid has no inherent storage. It is not a giant capacitor.

You're right about the need for a much smarter grid, Bonam. If there was a problem in one area the losses and difficulty of sourcing from long distances away pose severe challenges.

It doesn't help when we have political snags, like the new transmission lines that are stopped from crossing through areas disputed by Six Nations. Those new lines were to enable using the new power from upgrades at the Niagara Falls generating station. Now McGuinty says we don't need the lines anyway. Which brings questions like why did we build that new capacity and why did we start those new transmission lines in the first place?

I would suggest that if Six Nations doesn't produce any power themselves then if they want to block power to others why should we supply power to them? Seems rather one-sided to me. If they want to make a political point they have every right but if they are indeed the "stewards of the earth" as they love to claim then surely they can produce their own power and in a green fashion, as well.

I don't have deep enough knowledge but I have a hunch that if the grid WERE capable enough storage capacity would not be as much of a problem. There could be so many household contributors that we would offset the need for storage with excess. The "Grey Line" of sunrise moves slowly but wind covers both day and night, when it is there. Again, the grid would have to be able to transport power from much greater distances and respond much more quickly to changes in load.

We are nowhere near that ability, at the moment. Perhaps McGuinty wlll strike another deal with Samsung to make it happen in a few weekends!