When oil falls below $70....

[On Guard for Thee]

Even without a storage system it's easy enough to install a system which will take power from , let's say your solar system when the sun is beating down, and have it feed your own grid and then when evening comes you automatically switch to the local grid.

[bush_cheney2004]

....You guys dont seem to have a very strong grasp of nuclear economics. Nobody is going to invest money in them.

Nobody except these guys....and more:

[Bonam]

Nobody is going to invest in nuclear energy in its current form except in countries that have no coal or gas. The glut of natural gas in North America makes nuclear pretty much irrelevant, and countries like France with little coal and gas are already using nuclear extensively (and as a result consumers there pay twice for electricity what we pay in Canada).

And its just flat out false to say that nuclear plants are the only way to reduce CO2 usage. In North America you are far more likely to see things like Allam Cycle coal and gas plants and those have the potential to reduce emmisions just as much as nuclear, and also significantly boost plant efficiency. And these technologies are going to have legs because utilities and energy companies have a lot of capital tied up in in-ground assets such as gas and coal. And they are not only expected have near zero air emissions, but they are also expected to produce electricity for less than current fossil fuel plants.

You guys dont seem to have a very strong grasp of nuclear economics. Nobody is going to invest money in them. Up front capital costs are MASSIVE, and it can take decades for the initial investment to be recovered. As much as 70% of money recovered from selling electricity during the life of the plant is eaten up paying down the origional loans and all the interest. And of course you have to set aside about another 500 million dollars for the eventual decommisioning.

Why on earth would anyone invest money on such a venture if they can invest in a coal or gas plant that costs a fraction of the money to build, produces power at a lower cost, can be just as clean, and doesnt cost half a billion dollars to decommision?

These is certainly an argument against nuclear -- it is indeed quite expensive (partly due to the current regulatory regime). However, coal/oil cannot be "as clean" as nuclear in terms of GHG emissions unless you mean using carbon sequestration technology, which has not yet been deployed on any real scale (and furthermore poses the risk of future leaks from CO2 reservoirs). Yes, there are lots of cool potential innovations out there in the pipeline. We could wait for fusion energy too. But, if the danger is as dire as some predict, how long do we wait?

Nuclear is indeed more expensive than coal/oil - but that is the price you have to pay to reduce CO2 emissions. Why would anyone invest in nuclear? Because new coal/oil is banned, CO2 emissions are taxed or capped, or other similar scenarios. Nuclear is more expensive, but only moderately so. Getting our energy from nuclear is a price the economy can bear without any real hiccups, while nearly eliminating CO2 emissions. If CO2 emissions pose the dire threat that some predict, then nuclear can and must be built to avert this danger.

Keep in mind that the emissions from coal generation are not only a problem for climate change... they are also responsible for widespread health issues, which cost the economy billions as well. These should not be externalized either.

Edited December 3, 2014 by Bonam

[TimG]

This is only true in a grid with no storage capacity. With enough storage capacity you could run a grid on 100% intermittent sources, provided that your total production is greater than the total consumption.

Wide scale energy storage could turn out to be a pipe dream:

The problem is analysed in an important paper by Weißbach et al.1 in terms of energy returned on energy invested, or EROEI – the ratio of the energy produced over the life of a power plant to the energy that was required to build it.

...

There is a minimum EROEI, greater than 1, that is required for an energy source to be able to run society. An energy system must produce a surplus

...

For countries like the US and Germany, Weißbach et al. estimate this minimum viable EROEI to be about 7. An energy source with lower EROEI cannot sustain a society at those levels of complexity

...

Adding storage greatly reduces the EROEI (the “buffered” values in the figure). Wind “firmed” with storage, with an EROEI of 3.9, joins solar PV and biomass as an unviable energy source. CSP becomes marginal (EROEI ~9) with pumped storage, so is probably not viable with molten salt thermal storage. The EROEI of solar PV with pumped hydro storage drops to 1.6, barely above breakeven, and with battery storage is likely in energy deficit.

...

In particular, we can’t use batteries or chemical energy storage systems, as they would lead to much worse figures than those presented by Weißbach et al.

http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/

These calculations do not preclude some game changing invention like the transistor but given what we have to work with today I do not think that storage will make variable renewable remotely viable. 50 years from now we will likely still be be talking about the 10-15% limit for solar/wind and we will have to rely on nuclear and fossil fuels.

Edited December 3, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

Wide scale energy storage could turn out to be a pipe dream:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/

These calculations do not preclude some game changing invention like the transistor but given what we have to work with today I do not think that storage will make variable renewable remotely viable. 50 years from now we will likely still be be talking about the 10-15% limit for solar/wind and we will have to rely on nuclear and fossil fuels.

Boy are you out of the loop. Check what's going on in Germany for instance.

[TimG]

Check what's going on in Germany for instance.

No, I suggest you check out what is going on in Germany:

1) Renewable deployment has stalled as the subsidies have become unaffordable;

2) The grid can't really handle the variable power it already has and would have collapsed long ago if Germany could not rely on its neighbors to deal surpluses/deficits;

3) Coal usage has skyrocketed because of the phase out of nuclear. Germany is quietly abandoning any pretense of reducing emissions.

4) The exemptions for industry which protected jobs from the outrageous energy prices are ending and this will have a significant impact on the economy.

5) Germany is under pressure to subsidize fossil fuel sources which are no longer viable given the rules requiring that renewable power be used first.

Germany is a case study in why renewables are not a viable solution for our power needs.

Edited December 3, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/13/3436923/germany-energy-records/

[TimG]

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/13/3436923/germany-energy-records/

And how much did it cost to switch off their base load power for a few hours in order to deal with the "surge"? You don't seem to understand that such stats actually illustrate the problems with renewables rather than show that they are a good thing. Edited December 3, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

And how much did it cost to switch off their base load power for a few hours in order to deal with the "surge"? You don't seem to understand that such stats actually illustrate the problems with renewables rather than show that they are a good thing.

systems always have growing pains. The successes achieved in Germany and elsewhere are here to stay and will only continue to be improved. We are a ways behind here in Canada but then just look at that latest jobs report. We are getting the idea it seems.

[dre]

However, coal/oil cannot be "as clean" as nuclear in terms of GHG emissions unless you mean using carbon sequestration technology, which has not yet been deployed on any real scale (and furthermore poses the risk of future leaks from CO2 reservoirs). Yes, there are lots of cool potential innovations out there in the pipeline. We could wait for fusion energy too. But, if the danger is as dire as some predict, how long do we wait?

Nuclear is indeed more expensive than coal/oil - but that is the price you have to pay to reduce CO2 emissions. Why would anyone invest in nuclear? Because new coal/oil is banned, CO2 emissions are taxed or capped, or other similar scenarios. Nuclear is more expensive, but only moderately so. Getting our energy from nuclear is a price the economy can bear without any real hiccups, while nearly eliminating CO2 emissions. If CO2 emissions pose the dire threat that some predict, then nuclear can and must be built to avert this danger.

Im not talking about technologies that are way off in the future. They are building Allam Cycle plants right now, with a 500 MW plant scheduled to come online in 2016 with near zero emissions that is projected to produce electricity for less than current gas plants, never mind nuclear plants.

But, if the danger is as dire as some predict, how long do we wait?

I wouldnt wait... For North America I would build clean coal and gas plants to bridge the gap until nuclear, renewables, or whatever become viable without driving energy prices way up. Countries with no coal or gas will have to build nuclear plants.

And in the mean time we should be putting money into R&D so that nuclear, renewables, etc can be viable in the future.

[TimG]

systems always have growing pains. The successes achieved in Germany...

The German experiment has largely failed and demonstrated the limits of the technology.

No other country is going to try and follow their path.

As I said before: renewables up to 10-15% of grid capacity can be a benefit but beyond that you need fossil fuels or nuclear.

Edited December 3, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

The German experiment has largely failed and demonstrated the limits of the technology.

No other country is going to try and follow their path.

As I said before: renewables up to 10-15% of grid capacity can be a benefit but beyond that you need fossil fuels or nuclear.

As I said before, hardly a failure, growing pains for sure. The German population (for one) is behind the concept from the start which is what will inevitably make it successful.

[TimG]

As I said before, hardly a failure, growing pains for sure.

German policy makers are gradually rolling back all of the regulations which created the mess they currently have. German consumers are fed up with the prices they have to pay and are looking for politicians that will get costs under control (which means more fossil fuels, fewer renewables).

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/high-costs-and-errors-of-german-transition-to-renewable-energy-a-920288.html

But this week, the issue is forcing its way onto the agenda. On Thursday, a government-sanctioned commission plans to submit a special report called "Competition in Times of the Energy Transition." The report is sharply critical, arguing that Germany's current system actually rewards the most inefficient plants, doesn't contribute to protecting the climate, jeopardizes the energy supply and puts the poor at a disadvantage.

http://notrickszone.com/2014/04/27/angela-merkels-vice-chancellor-stuns-declares-germanys-energiewende-to-be-on-the-verge-of-failure/

In a stunning admission by Germany’s Economics Minister and Vice Chancellor to Angela Merkel, Sigmar Gabriel announced in a recent speech that the country’s once highly ballyhooed transformation to renewable energy, the so called Energiewende, a model that has been adopted by a number of countries worldwide, is “on the verge of failure“.

You need to learn what is actually happening instead of what you wish would happen. Edited December 3, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

German policy makers are gradually rolling back all of the regulations which created the mess they currently have. German consumers are fed up with the prices they have to pay and are looking for politicians that will get costs under control (which means more fossil fuels, fewer renewables).

Well that's your version, and you are entitled to it. There is ample evidence that says otherwise. Here is one thing you may want to consider, Europe gets 35% of it's fossil fuel from Russia, which could turn off the spigot just as winter sets in. As I'm sure you are aware, not even Putin can shut out the sun or turn off the wind.

[dre]

Wide scale energy storage could turn out to be a pipe dream:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/

These calculations do not preclude some game changing invention like the transistor but given what we have to work with today I do not think that storage will make variable renewable remotely viable. 50 years from now we will likely still be be talking about the 10-15% limit for solar/wind and we will have to rely on nuclear and fossil fuels.

Its entirely possible that large scale energy storage may be a long ways off, but Im certainly not going to take Barry (nuclear lobbiest) Brook's word for it.

[Bonam]

Im not talking about technologies that are way off in the future. They are building Allam Cycle plants right now, with a 500 MW plant scheduled to come online in 2016 with near zero emissions that is projected to produce electricity for less than current gas plants, never mind nuclear plants.

They do have a nice website with some nice marketing. But do you know how many times I've seen that for nuclear? Hyperion, Terrapower, countless others.

I think the costs will end up far higher than they forecast, as will the dangers and the regulatory burden. Burning fossil fuels with pure oxygen? Do you have any idea how dangerous pure oxygen is? A single spark in the wrong place can spark an inferno that will burn the whole power plant to ash in seconds, literally. Not to mention the expense and energy cost of producing pure oxygen (which they account for in a very hand-wavy manor: "our plant will be more efficient and we won't need other parts, so we can afford the oxygen!").

They also have not addressed the costs of actually sequestering the CO2. Yes, it's all fine to say the CO2 will be "ready for sequestration"... that's good. But where is it actually being sequestered, and for how much? By the way, the risk associated with pressurized underground CO2 reservoirs leaking and releasing vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere unexpectedly in the future is not something to ignore.

I hope it works out for them, I really do, but to say that our problems are solved because of NetPower and the Allam cycle is far, far, far overstating things. Otherwise this company would already have been bought out for somewhere around... $10 trillion dollars or so.

Edited December 3, 2014 by Bonam

[TimG]

Well that's your version, and you are entitled to it.

My version is based on facts and evidence. Your version is based on wishful thinking and willful ignorance.

The German experiment is largely a failure. They will eventually return to the model which I have said all along: 10-15% renewables + fossil fuels for the rest.

[On Guard for Thee]

My version is based on facts and evidence. Your version is based on wishful thinking and willful ignorance.

The German experiment is largely a failure. They will eventually return to the model which I have said all along: 10-15% renewables + fossil fuels for the rest.

Right, as I said, you are entitled to your version, which does sound like willful ignorance.

[bush_cheney2004]

Germany is just a bigger version of really dumb Ontario energy policy.

[TimG]

Im certainly not going to take Barry (nuclear lobbiest) Brook's word for it.

An ad-hom attack that does not make sense given the article was written by someone else:

Guest Post by John Morgan. John is Chief Scientist at a Sydney startup developing smart grid and grid scale energy storage technologies. He is Adjunct Professor in the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering at RMIT, holds a PhD in Physical Chemistry, and is an experienced industrial R&D leader.

More importantly, the article referenced an academic paper that makes a rational argument that could be right.

Edited December 3, 2014 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

TimG - you are quite knowledgeable on this topic - can you explain the Estimated Levelized Cost table here ?

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

The wind costs seem to be hugely variable, for example...

[TimG]

TimG - you are quite knowledgeable on this topic - can you explain the Estimated Levelized Cost table here?

It is just an attempt to create an apples to apples comparison for different energy sources that are extremely dependent on the assumptions (and by implications the political objectives) built into a specific set of calculations. For example, the DOE calculations inflate fossil fuel costs by including charge for CO2 emissions. This completely undermines the value of the DOE numbers because it is not possible to quantify the cost of CO2 emissions and adding such costs make the number a subjective value judgement rather than an objective economic one.

It is also important to distinguish between the marginal cost (the cost of adding a single plant to an existing network) with the aggregate cost (the cost of making a certain type of power a significant source of production). I can believe that the marginal cost of wind is fairly low - the big costs only occur if wind production exceeds 10-15% of grid capacity which is why my argument is not 'wind/solar have no place in the grid' but rather 'the bulk of electricity generation must come from nuclear or fossil fuels for the foreseeable future'.

Edited December 3, 2014 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

It is just an attempt to create an apples to apples comparison for different energy sources that are extremely dependent on the assumptions (and by implications the political objectives) built into a specific set of calculations. For example, the DOE calculations inflate fossil fuel costs by including charge for CO2 emissions. This completely undermines the value of the DOE numbers because it is not possible to quantify the cost of CO2 emissions and adding such costs make the number a subjective value judgement rather than an objective economic one.

I got that, and I concur but the charge was stated as a percentage at 3% no ?

It is also important to distinguish between the marginal cost (the cost of adding a single plant to an existing network) with the aggregate cost (the cost of making a certain type of power a significant source of production). I can believe that the marginal cost of wind is fairly low - the big costs only occur if wind production exceeds 10-15% of grid capacity which is why my argument is not 'wind/solar have no place in the grid' but rather 'the bulk of electricity generation must come f

rom nuclear or fossil fuels for the foreseeable future'.

I see.

[TimG]

I got that, and I concur but the charge was stated as a percentage at 3% no ?

It is still a number pulled out of a hat. But even if you accept the DOE numbers at face value you cannot have a grid built with wind/solar even if the Levelized Cost was the lowest because the majority of power has to come from sources that produce power when it is needed.

[GostHacked]

Nuclear is indeed more expensive than coal/oil - but that is the price you have to pay to reduce CO2 emissions.

It's the long term secure storage of radioactive nuclear waste that instantly counter acts any CO2 reduction.