Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Coal Thread pt 3 (merged)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: THE Coal Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 21 Apr 2017, 13:17:51

Associated Press wrote:By JOHN HANNA,

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Kansas' highest court on Friday cleared a major obstacle to the long-delayed construction of a big, new coal-fired power plant, rejecting an effort by an environment group to force the state to regulate emissions linked to climate change.

The state Supreme Court upheld a 2014 decision by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment to give Sunflower Electric Power Corp. the go-ahead for its project. The utility wants to build an 895-megawatt plant adjacent to an existing one outside Holcomb, in southwestern Kansas and estimates the cost at $2.2 billion.

The Sierra Club sued, partly because the department didn't impose limits on greenhouse gas emissions from the new plant. The group also argued that the agency didn't impose stringent enough standards for other pollutants, including mercury and nitrogen and sulfur dioxide. It suggested that the department was using proper air-pollution models and was rushing its decision.

But in its unanimous ruling , the Supreme Court said the Sierra Club could not show that the agency's action was unreasonable or arbitrary. Justice Marla Luckert wrote for the court that the group "must do more than raise policy arguments."

The company said it was pleased with the decision, though spokeswoman Cindy Hertel called it an "incremental step" and said the utility continues to evaluate its plans. State Attorney General Derek Schmidt also was please. His office defended the department and he supports the project.

Sunflower has been seeking to build a new coal-fired plant outside Holcomb for more than a decade. The project has long had strong support among legislators, particularly those from western Kansas, who have viewed it as economic development.

State House Majority Leader Don Hineman, a Dighton Republican, said while it's too early to tell how quickly the company could move toward building the plant, the Supreme Court decision is good news.

"The economic benefit would accrue to the state," Hineman said.

Sunflower provides electricity to 350,000 central and western Kansas residents through six smaller cooperatives. Its plans for the new plant have called for selling much of the new power in Colorado, long a sore point for many environmentalists.

Sunflower didn't obtain a state air-quality permit until 2010, about 18 months after then-Democratic Gov. Mark Parkinson brokered a deal with the company and the Republican-dominated Legislature that included approval of some green energy initiatives. The permit came just weeks before the federal Environmental Protection Agency issued its first rules on greenhouse gases.

The department argued that because it wasn't issuing a new permit to replace the one issued late in 2010, Sunflower still was not be required to limit greenhouse gas emissions. The Supreme Court agreed.

President Donald Trump, a Republican, has called climate change a hoax, and new EPA chief Scott Pruitt has said he doesn't believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming, rejecting mainstream science. Trump's budget proposes to eliminate funding for the effort to restrict power plant emissions.


https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states ... ower-plant
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13498
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Coal Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 21 Apr 2017, 14:19:37

So a coal fired plant that will produce 895 MW for $2.2 billion. And the largest wind farm in Texas produces 780 MW and cost $1 billion. I'm pretty sure that some of the wind that blows across Texas passes thru Kansas first.

From wiki: "The Roscoe Wind Farm in Roscoe, Texas, is one of the world's largest capacity wind farms with 634 wind turbines and a total installed capacity of 781.5 MW. At the time of its completion in 2009, it was the largest wind farm in the world."

Might cost more then $1 billion to build today. OTOH turbine efficiency has improved significantly in the last 8 years. BTW Sunflower Electric Power Corp. is a utility coop owned by its consumer members. IOW the Kansas consumers are footing the $2.2 billion price tag...plus the cost of future coal purchases. And the Roscoe Wind Farm was paid for by a private company, E.ON SE, a European holding company based in Germany. It runs one of the world's largest investor-owned electric utility service providers.

Seems like folks in Texas and Kansas have a very different view of the future with respect to electricity generation.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9681
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Coal Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 21 Apr 2017, 15:00:18

ROCKMAN wrote:So a coal fired plant that will produce 895 MW for $2.2 billion. And the largest wind farm in Texas produces 780 MW and cost $1 billion. I'm pretty sure that some of the wind that blows across Texas passes thru Kansas first.

From wiki: "The Roscoe Wind Farm in Roscoe, Texas, is one of the world's largest capacity wind farms with 634 wind turbines and a total installed capacity of 781.5 MW. At the time of its completion in 2009, it was the largest wind farm in the world."

Might cost more then $1 billion to build today. OTOH turbine efficiency has improved significantly in the last 8 years. BTW Sunflower Electric Power Corp. is a utility coop owned by its consumer members. IOW the Kansas consumers are footing the $2.2 billion price tag...plus the cost of future coal purchases. And the Roscoe Wind Farm was paid for by a private company, E.ON SE, a European holding company based in Germany. It runs one of the world's largest investor-owned electric utility service providers.

Seems like folks in Texas and Kansas have a very different view of the future with respect to electricity generation.


Unless Texas is a whole different reality you need to divide that wind nameplate capacity by 6 to get the real figure. This is one of those games the 'renewable' folks just love to play, the nameplate capacity of Solar PV is the rating at noon on a clear summer day. Of course at midnight that same clear day the Solar PV is producing zero. For Wind the nameplate capacity is if the wind is sustained at the most efficient speed for that particular turbine. A few miles faster or slower and the calculation is way off, and if the wind is too high or too low the effective reading is zero. Wind also generally peaks within two hours of sunrise and sunset and peak electric demand is between 2 PM and 6 PM local time.

I do not like coal, I think it is about the worst choice for energy production there is except for biomass or doing without. But if you are going to compare wind to coal you have to use real numbers, not sales pitch nameplate capacity.

How much energy do wind turbines produce?

Every wind turbine has a range of wind speeds, typically around 30 to 55 mph, in which it will produce at its rated, or maximum, capacity. At slower wind speeds, the production falls off dramatically. If the wind speed decreases by half, power production decreases by a factor of eight. On average, therefore, wind turbines do not generate near their capacity. Industry estimates project an annual output of 30-40%, but real-world experience shows that annual outputs of 15-30% of capacity are more typical.


https://www.wind-watch.org/faq-output.php

You also need to factor in the maintenance costs because 10,000 windmills need a heck of a lot more workers to stay operational than a 3 GWe powerplant needs. They also need tons of rare earth metal magnets and so on and so forth. Is wind better than coal? In theory absolutely. In practice? That picture is a heck of a lot murkier.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13498
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Coal Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 21 Apr 2017, 16:21:40

T - You miss the point I continue to bang out there: Texas wind power was never planned as a replacement for fossil fuel fired plants in Texas but as a supplement. Which is why we didn't have to wait on commercial storage technology: we have lignite/NG resources as a backup.

As far as your "wind speeds, typically around 30 to 55 mph" the Roscoe Farm nameplate is based on 17 mph. As far as dividing by 6 this report on Scientific American shows Texas was doing much better then that in 2014:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/pl ... gy-record/

BTW 7.6% of Sunflower’s generation portfolio is wind. Sunflower does not own or operate wind farms; however, it buys wind energy through a Power Purchase Agreement from Smoky Hills Wind Farm, located in Lincoln and Ellsworth counties.

So they already use coal as backup for their wind power. Wind power they pay for at cost + profit to a private company. And yes: wind turbines require maintenance...and so do coal/NG powered plants.

And that new coal fired plant does something those wind turbines don't: use a LARGE AMOUNT of water. Water resources that new plant will compete for with Kansas farmers: Power generation has been estimated to be second only to agriculture in being the largest domestic user of water. To produce and burn the 1 billion tons of coal America uses each year, the mining and utility industries withdraw 55 trillion to 75 trillion gallons of water annually, according to the US Geological Survey.

We can toss numbers around all day but it will not change a very relevant fact: there never has been a single wind farm built in Texas to "save the environment". We LOVE lignite in Texas. Mostly because it's cheap and we have a 100+ year supply. LOL. Each wind farm was built with a single motive in mind: profit. And every group of electricity consumers in the state that provided at least a portion of the cost for wind power development did so for long term economic reasons. And not to aid in any effort to reduce the generation of GHG as witnessed by the fact we still burn a lot of fossil fuels and make NO APOLOGIES for it. LOL.

If building that new coal fired plant makes better financial sense then adding to the state's wind capacity...so be it. But so far in Texas wind makes better ECONOMIC sense for us...despite the fact we have a huge and relatively inexpensive fossil fuel resource.

Maybe Texans know something those Kansas red legs don't. LOL. BTW Texas consumes almost 10X as much electricity as Kansas. Texas wind power actually produces (not just nameplate capacity) about half the total electricity consumption of Kansas.

As they say in Texas: It ain't braggin' if it's true. LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9681
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Coal Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby Zarquon » Fri 21 Apr 2017, 19:29:54

According to EON, the load factor for the different Roscoe turbine types was between 28% and 32% in 2016. Which is OK for wind power, although offshore installations can do a lot better.

http://www.eon.com/content/dam/eon-com/ ... s_2017.pdf
(see p.76, Projects Roscoe, Champion, Pyron, Inadale)

Also, the average load factor (capacity factor) for coal plants is only about twice as high.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_ ... 1-2013.png
Zarquon
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Fri 06 May 2016, 19:53:46

Re: THE Coal Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby Subjectivist » Fri 21 Apr 2017, 19:44:51

Nuclear has them all beat.

Image
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3833
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: THE Coal Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 21 Apr 2017, 21:56:16

Sub - "Nuclear has them all beat.". Only if existing plants are retained/expanded or new ones built. From

http://www.world-nuclear.org/informatio ... power.aspx

"Despite a near halt in new construction of more than 30 years, US reliance on nuclear power has grown. In 1980, nuclear plants produced 251 billion kWh, accounting for 11% of the country's electricity generation. In 2008, that output had risen to 809 billion kWh and nearly 20% of electricity, providing more than 30% of the electricity generated from nuclear power worldwide. Much of the increase came from the 47 reactors, all approved for construction before 1977, that came on line in the late 1970s and 1980s, more than doubling US nuclear generation capacity. The US nuclear industry has also achieved remarkable gains in power plant utilisation through improved refuelling, maintenance and safety systems at existing plants. Average generating cost in 2014 was $36.27 per MWh ($44.14 at single-unit sites and $33.76 at multi-unit sites), including fuel and capital, and average operating cost was $21/MWh.

The country's 100 nuclear reactors produced 805 billion kWh in 2016, almost 20% of total electrical output. There are four reactors under construction.
Following a 30-year period in which few new reactors were built, it is expected that four more new units will come online by 2021, these resulting from 16 licence applications made since mid-2007 to build 24 new nuclear reactors. Government policy changes since the late 1990s have helped pave the way for significant growth in nuclear capacity.

Some states have liberalized wholesale electricity markets, which makes the financing of capital-intensive power projects difficult, and coupled with lower gas prices since 2009, have put the economic viability of some existing reactors and proposed projects in doubt.

In 2016, the US electricity generation was 4079 TWh (billion kWh) net, 1380 TWh (34%) of it from gas, 1240 TWh (30%) from coal-fired plant, 805 TWh (19.7%) nuclear, 266 TWh from hydro, 226 TWh from wind, and 117 TWh from other renewables (EIA data). Annual electricity demand is projected to increase to 5,000 billion kWh in 2030, though in the short term it is depressed and has not exceeded the 2007 level."
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9681
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

First coal-free day in Britain since Industrial Revolution

Unread postby dolanbaker » Sat 22 Apr 2017, 03:30:19

A bit of an exaggeration as people still use coal for home heating, but still a milestone.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39675418
Image
Britain went a full day without using coal to generate electricity for the first time since the Industrial Revolution, the National Grid says.

The energy provider said Friday's lack of coal usage was a "watershed" moment.

Britain's longest continuous energy period without coal until now was 19 hours - first achieved last May, and again on Thursday.

The government plans to phase out Britain's last plants by 2025 in order to cut carbon emissions.

Friday is thought to be the first time the nation has not used coal to generate electricity since the world's first centralised public coal-fired generator opened in 1882, at Holborn Viaduct in London.

Cordi O'Hara of the National Grid said: "To have the first working day without coal since the start of the industrial revolution is a watershed moment in how our energy system is changing.
Ronald Coase, Nobel Economic Sciences, said in 1991 “If we torture the data long enough, it will confess.”
User avatar
dolanbaker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3360
Joined: Wed 14 Apr 2010, 09:38:47
Location: Éire

Re: THE Coal Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sat 22 Apr 2017, 04:23:52

Zarquon wrote:According to EON, the load factor for the different Roscoe turbine types was between 28% and 32% in 2016. Which is OK for wind power, although offshore installations can do a lot better.

http://www.eon.com/content/dam/eon-com/ ... s_2017.pdf
(see p.76, Projects Roscoe, Champion, Pyron, Inadale)

Also, the average load factor (capacity factor) for coal plants is only about twice as high.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_ ... 1-2013.png

But that is because coal plants are being throttled back whenever renewables are producing power. Coal has the advantage of being available when needed while the wind and sun are managed by Mother Nature and don't always cooperate. :)
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 7174
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: THE Coal Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sat 22 Apr 2017, 11:21:23

"But that is because coal plants are being throttled back whenever renewables are producing power. Coal has the advantage of being available when needed...".

Exactly as it's been happening in Texas with periods when our electricity generation from coal drops from 35%+ to 15%. And for two reasons: longer term from low NG prices and short term periods when wind power supplies up to 40% of our huge demand.

And now that prices have declined solar is beginning to kick off in very sunny Texas: "The addition of solar is also starting to have an impact. Texas is seeing some of the cheapest utility-scale solar prices in the U.S. Although there is less than 1 gigawatt of solar in Texas today, capacity is expected to quadruple by 2020, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association. Texas grid operator ERCOT has outlined a scenario where solar could make up as much as 17 percent of capacity by 2030, largely replacing retired coal." Reducing/eliminating coal burning...not the eliminating the plants. And other plus often missed: a big reduction in water demand...not an insignificant factor for the big agricultural business in Texas.

Wind and solar will have a big financial advantage over both coal and NG. EXISTING w/s infrastructure: once built those costs are "sunk" and don't impact the go forward economics which are close enough to zero to be meaningless. IOW from the daily ops cost coal/NG will always lose against our EXISTING alts.

But we'll maintain the fossil fuel burners to handle the intermittency problem. A critical aspect that eliminated the wait for economic commercial storage to be develop. But thanks to our ff backup commercial scale electricity storage may have a bigger hurdle to leap in Texas then other states.

But there's more to the story about the Brits shutting down the coal burners. From

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpre ... d-in-2025/

"New UK government projections of capacity and supply suggest that interconnection and electricity imports must grow by over 300% by 2025 if demand is to be met. While imports are not in themselves to be feared, it is worrying that government appears to be using assumptions about interconnection as a free parameter to paper over deficiencies in what is now in effect a centrally planned electricity system.

The GB system currently has about 5.7 GW of interconnectors, and in 2016 net imports of electricity over these lines amounted to about 18 TWh, mostly from France, and the Netherlands, though with traces from Eire and Northern Ireland. This is approximately 6.5% of demand on the GB system.

Data published last week by the Department of Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) as part of the latest iteration of its Updated Energy Emissions Projections shows that interconnection must rise to 20 GW as soon as 2024, and net imports must rise to 77 TWh in the following year, 24% of requirements, if expected demand for electricity is to be met."

So by not burning coal the UK will import a lot of electricity from:

The Netherlands: Production of electric power in 2000 totaled 88 billion kWh, of which thermal power plants using oil and coal as fuel supplied 90.3%, nuclear power plants 4.2%, and other sources 5.4%, and hydropower less than 1%.

And France: Fortunately 75% of its electricity comes from "green" nuclear. But that appears to be changing soon: "In fulfillment of a campaign promise, President François Hollande’s government is aiming to pass legislation in July that will cement a nuclear energy drawdown, bringing nuclear’s share of generation down from 75% to 50%by 2025. The move is a drastic shift for one of France’s iconic industries."

Also: "France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over €3 billion per year from this."

Which raises a couple of important issues. How much electricity will France export in the future if it cuts back nukes that much? Fossil fuels currently provide very little electricity today and the French are pushing for more alt energy development. But will that happen fast enough to make up the loss of nuke power? And equally import at what price for those "green" energy exports?

And then there's an even bigger question regarding all British electricity imports from Europe: how will Brexit affect the electricity import dynamic? Not only in availability but also price: without the old trade policies the Brits may have to deal with a very strong electricity sellers market.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9681
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Coal Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby Zarquon » Sat 22 Apr 2017, 14:47:44

According to what I've read about EDF (the French nuke company, basically state-owned), the reason why they can sell electricity for 14 cents is that EDF sucked up huge losses for decades. Today they don't even have enough money to dismantle the aging reactors which will have to go offline in the next decade, let alone build replacements. EDF is a financial black hole. So, if I understand it correctly, cutting down nuclear power in France is not so much a courageous policy decision as simply acknowledging the facts.
Zarquon
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Fri 06 May 2016, 19:53:46

Re: THE Coal Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 22 Apr 2017, 20:44:48

Zarquon wrote:According to what I've read about EDF (the French nuke company, basically state-owned), the reason why they can sell electricity for 14 cents is that EDF sucked up huge losses for decades. Today they don't even have enough money to dismantle the aging reactors which will have to go offline in the next decade, let alone build replacements. EDF is a financial black hole. So, if I understand it correctly, cutting down nuclear power in France is not so much a courageous policy decision as simply acknowledging the facts.


180 degrees backwards like most anti-nuclear claims. Like most state owned enterprises all the considerable money generated by EDF has gone into the national budget as if it were pure tax and then been spent by the irresponsible politicians. EDF has only 'lost money' in the same sense that the Mexican and Venezuelan oil companies have 'lost money', in each case the politicians spent it as fast as the money came in.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13498
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Coal Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby kublikhan » Sat 22 Apr 2017, 22:13:30

ROCKMAN wrote:"But that is because coal plants are being throttled back whenever renewables are producing power. Coal has the advantage of being available when needed...".

Exactly as it's been happening in Texas with periods when our electricity generation from coal drops from 35%+ to 15%. And for two reasons: longer term from low NG prices and short term periods when wind power supplies up to 40% of our huge demand.
I don't think coal's situation is quite that rosy. The majority of coal power plants perform rather poorly as load following plants. IE, they can't be shut down or started up quickly or economically. That is why we are seeing negative power rates in Texas & California at certain times of the day. Having large amounts of unused coal capacity sitting around is not what Texas really needs to deal with the variable renewable supply. Natural gas is a better fit for that role. Economical commercial scale storage would be even better.

And although coal plants have some ability to ramp, the majority of this responsibility falls on the shoulders of the gas-fired fleet.
Solar and Wind Power Generation: The Challenge for Grid Operators and Generators

In the spring and fall, the wind blows so hard at night that wind turbines supply all of the power that Texas needs in the wee hours of the morning. More surprising is that all of that wind means the price of electric power is not just free, but generators have to pay the grid operator to take their electricity. Coal and nuclear plants can't shut down and restart quickly, which means they have to keep spinning even when prices go negative. "Negative prices usually result when generators with high shut-down or restart costs must compete with other generators."

It's easy to blame the negative pricing on wind and solar during the periods when they are most productive, but the truth is that the prices wouldn't go negative if coal and nuclear power plants could shut down at night. Their inability to switch on and off quickly is what creates the surplus on the grid. "The grid of the future will be flexible and composed of resources that can ramp up or down and still economically operate. Large base-load plants where you simply can't shut them down quickly and can't bring them online quickly, and that aren't price competitive with natural gas and renewables, are destined to fail."
Going negative on energy pricing

A phenomenon in wholesale power markets that forces prices below zero when renewable energy supplies surge is occurring more than ever in markets from California to Texas. Even the Midwest and Northeast aren’t immune.

It’s expensive for nuclear plants and coal- and natural gas-fired units to turn on and off. So when output from wind and solar farms jumps and supply exceeds demand, prices have to fall below zero to force some generators offline. The growing frequency of these price plunges are a testament to how renewable power is reshaping U.S. power markets and squeezing the profits of traditional power generators.

With more renewable power on the way in Texas, generators have been asking policy makers for incentives to keep conventional plants running. “It’s a challenging environment for generators.”
One Thing California, Texas Have in Common Is Negative Power

Something has got to give when it comes to how Texas generates, transmits and sells electricity. NRG's coal and nuclear plants can't be easily stopped and restarted, so they run almost nonstop. It will bid very low prices to make sure it sells all it produces, even if it sometimes loses money.

Texas' wholesale market has contributed to some of the lowest electricity bills in the world, but it is also killing electric company profits, offering no incentive to invest in new power plants. "When you need that dispatchable generation to make up for when the wind is not blowing, you need to compensate for that."
Where will your power come from? Big decisions ahead for Texas
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3666
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Coal Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby Zarquon » Sun 23 Apr 2017, 00:00:53

Sorry, maybe I misunderstood these:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/edf- ... -z3dgd6tb0

"The French state group building Britain’s new nuclear plant does not have enough cash to dismantle its domestic reactors, according to an official study. A French parliamentary committee said that EDF would need a public bailout to meet the cost of closing ageing power stations. The warning was issued after unions expressed fury about an announcement that EDF plans to cut 3,900 jobs in France over the next three years. Jean-Marc Sylvestre, an economics commentator, said that the group was on the “edge of a precipice” and faced a choice between privatisation and bankruptcy. He described EDF’s situation as a “catastrophe foretold”. EDF’ s critics say that the company, which has debts of more than 37 billion euros lacks the financial resources to meet its commitments in France, let alone embark upon the Hinkley Point scheme. Their concerns were fuelled with the publication of a report by the committee for sustainable development, which accused EDF of failing to plan for the dismantling of its plants. EDF has set aside has 36 billion euros to pay to clean up reactors at the end of their working lives."

https://nuclear-news.net/category/2-wor ... orld-area/

"A French Parliamentary report from the National Assembly’s Commission for Sustainable Development and Regional Development says the clean-up of French reactors will take longer, be more challenging and cost much more than French nuclear operator EDF anticipates. Whereas Germany has set aside €38 billion to decommission 17 nuclear reactors, and the UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority estimates that clean-up of UK’s 17 nuclear sites will cost between €109?250 billion over the next 120 years, France has set aside only €23 billion to decommissioning its 58 reactors. In other words France estimates it will cost €300 million per gigawatt (GW) of generating capacity to decommission a nuclear reactor, Germany estimates €1.4 billion per GW and the UK estimates €2.7 billion per GW.

EDF says it wants to set aside a €23 billion fund to cover decommissioning and waste storage for an estimated €54 billion final bill - and the difference between these two figures will be closed through the appreciating value of its equities, bonds and investments - in other words, ‘discounting’. Unfortunately, recent experience has taught us that markets can go up and down over time - especially the very long-time periods involved in radioactive waste management. But for a company that has huge borrowings and an enormous debt of €37 billion, €23 billion is a large sum of money to find. Any significant change in the cost of decommissioning would have an immediate and disastrous impact on EDFs credit rating - something that the debt-ridden corporation can simply not afford. EDF is already in financial trouble. Along with bailing out collapsing AREVA, EDF also has to bear the huge financial burden of the failing reactor newbuild at Flamanville. It will also have to pay for extending the life of France’s existing nuclear power stations (to 2025), at a cost of €55 billion.

On top of all this the French authority tasked with disposal of all the countries vast and increasing waste burden (Andra) has recently ramped up the estimated cost for the planned national nuclear waste repository at Cigéo, to €25 billion - and EDF must pay for most of Cigéo’s construction. Although €5 billion more than EDF anticipated, it still seems a gross underestimation, and the costs are likely to rise considerably."

This one puts the mess in a larger perspective:

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_a ... epens.html

"Nuclear giant EDF could be heading towards bankruptcy, writes Paul Brown, as it faces a perfect storm of under-estimated costs for decommissioning, waste disposal and Hinkley C. Meanwhile income from power sales is lagging behind costs, and 17 of its reactors are off-line for safety tests. Yet French and UK governments are turning a blind eye to the looming financial crisis.
..."
Zarquon
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Fri 06 May 2016, 19:53:46

Re: THE Coal Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Sun 23 Apr 2017, 04:30:12

Nope, you understood the propaganda message of the anti-nukes and bought into the narrative picture they drew you hook line and sinker. Things like the long term cost of waste storage are directly influenced by political opportunists who delay projects for no reason other than political expediency. Propagandists also love to stretch out timelines to make things appear either much cheaper or much more expensive than they are. If you claim nuclear waste has to be guarded forever then even at a cost a 1 euro a day forever adds up to a LOT of money.

Here is an example for you. What does 'clean up of a nuclear site' mean? In reality it means the spent nuclear fuel and easily portable waste are hauled off to facilities intended for those things. Then uncontaminated materials, steel scrap and machinery for the most part, is hauled away. Once all that is done which only requires a few months you have the reactor vessel and its containment structure plus the portions of the power production equipment that was 'contaminated'.

The next step is to put a padlock on the building and ignore it for 10-25 years depending on your planning and budget. Why? The remaining structures that are 'contaminated' are not going anywhere. It requires some pretty heavy duty work to do so and people notice when other people show up with heavy machinery and start tearing structures apart. By ignoring the 'contaminated' structures the residual radiation caused by neutron activation has time to decay away to nothing, and the longer you wait the less remaining radioactivity it has.

Finally 10-25 years after the 'contamination' has had time to decay away heavy machinery is brought in, the remaining structures are demolished and the very slightly radioactive steel and concrete is hauled away for permanent disposal. In 99 percent of cases you could move into the containment building a few months after they had hauled away all the portable materials and you would get a lower dose living inside their the rest of your natural lifespan than you would laying on the beach in Brazil for an hour a week during that same lifespan.

So what it costs to 'decontaminate' a nuclear site in the western way of doing things is a huge charge that is completely unnecessary for any location where normal practices were followed for the 60 year or less period the plant operated. Civilian radiation standards are insanely tight. For example a Nuclear worker is permitted to receive hundreds of times the civilian permitted dosage during a 40 year working career. With rare exception few workers ever receive those permitted levels of exposure. Yet the cancer rate for nuclear workers is much LESS than that of the general public who receive fractions of a percent of the permissible worker dose.

Politicians and anti-nuclear propagandists make all sorts of claims that are disproven by science constantly, and yet the anti-science left takes those claims at face value in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Then after accepting those disproven claims as truth the politicians use the propaganda to justify passing regulations and laws that reflect unfounded fear that place an enormous technological and financial burden on nuclear power suppliers. Meanwhile in countries where science is used instead of fear mongering the expense of nuclear power is much lower.

Take everyone's favorite anti-nuclear example of Chernobyl. A huge territory was marked off on maps by political fiat and declared unsuitable for human habitation 31 years ago. Since that time the governments of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus have changed significantly. In Russia and Belarus actual scientists have tested the marked off territory and much of it has been found to be suitable for human habitation and put back into productive use. In the Ukraine on the other hand the political leadership from several different parties over that 31 years has used Chernobyl as a scapegoat. They use it to cry on the world stage about how poor they are and how badly they were treated under the former USSR regime and make tons of excuses about why they can't accomplish much of anything useful. Real world testing has shown that not only does a good slice of the 'exclusions zone' now meet reasonable exposure limits for human habitation, many locations that were never part of the zone have equal or stronger background dose rates. This is true for a few 'hot spots' inside the Ukraine but is especially true of places where tens of thousands of people live perfectly normal lives around the world. Iran, India and Brazil all have significant and populated areas with higher background radiation levels than most of the 'exclusion zone'. Propaganda says the 'exclusion zone' is unfit for human habitation forever, or at least a thousand years. Reality says most of it is as safe as anywhere else TODAY. What are you going to believe, the Propaganda, or the scientific reality?
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13498
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Previous

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSNbot Media and 10 guests