[jbeckton]

To clarify the above, when I tell people that the French get most of their electricity from nuclear power and even export it, the response is usually "Interesting, but that's not a reason for us to do it."

Interesting

[cube]

To clarify the above, when I tell people that the French get most of their electricity from nuclear power and even export it, the response is usually "Interesting, but that's not a reason for us to do it."

Whenever I tell that to a greenie, they lash out like some conspiracy theorist and accuse the French of MASSIVELY subsidizing nuclear energy and furthermore they try to claim that if windmills and solar panels got "fair treatment" they too would be viable!

Again totally false.

There are some people out there who truly believe a windmill can generate electricity at a cost of 4 cents/kWh (same as a coal plant without factoring "externalities")

It's ludicrous statements like that which makes me want to smack my forehead and shake my head in utter disbelief. This is why I don't have any faith in humanity's ability to transition to a power down scenario. There are too many people out there who think windmills, bio-fuels, and solar panels are going to keep the good times rolling.

it won't

windmills cost (ready for this?) about 15 cents/kWh (4X that of coal)

[Twilight]

That's right. I always say you can include nuclear or coal in the mix, or you can use less. Funny, no-one has an answer to that. There is a saying about letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. I don't think people will compromise their living standards until they are compromised.

[Andrew_S]

It's ludicrous statements like that which makes me want to smack my forehead and shake my head in utter disbelief. This is why I don't have any faith in humanity's ability to transition to a power down scenario. There are too many people out there who think windmills, bio-fuels, and solar panels are going to keep the good times rolling.

it won't

windmills cost (ready for this?) about 15 cents/kWh (4X that of coal)

I agree with your criticism of unrealistic greenies.

However, does that mean that serious efforts to mitigate by means of alternatives is futile?

What's the ERoEI on wind power?

People did live before fossil fuel utilization. But not so many.

[Twilight]

The key word is 'serious'.

Efforts to mitigate by means of alternatives are futile without the 'serious' being in there somewhere. So far we have a lot of grand words and little to show for it.

[Andy]

Again, I will reiterate. Nuclear in the present environment, with the present numbers of trained technicians, in the present security environment etc. cannot be scaled up any faster than wind, efficiency and its alternatives can be. I bet any money that France could not repeat what was done in the late 70's through today with the resource issues facing us now.

Take efficiency for instance. What happens to electricity demand if electricity prices double and yet incomes do not rise to compensate? I bet you any money that demand growth would be flat or even negative. Imagine this. Simply getting people to install CFLs rather than incandescents will shave about 5% of total electricity demand or about 1/5 of present nuke capacity in the UK. Does that sound like something that new nuclear can deliver quicker. I would bet my life that that is not possible in a completely free market environment.

The fact is efficiency is much faster than any new nuclear program is capable of and wind has barely started off, with 15,000 MW or about 5 nukes worth being installed on a yearly basis worldwide. That figure is going to go higher. Another thing to keep in mind is the rapid scale up presently occurring in solar PV. The big utilities will have to watch their backs on the residential peak market very soon.

We will just have to agree to disagree. I believe that if the same effort goes into efficiency and renewables as goes into oil, coal and nuclear, they can do the job as effectively minus the headaches that come with oil, coal and nukes.

[jbeckton]

The fact is efficiency is much faster than any new nuclear program is capable of and wind has barely started off, with 15,000 MW or about 5 nukes worth being installed on a yearly basis worldwide.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but 15,000MW of nucler power produces 15,000MWh of power 24/7.

Your 15,000MWh of wind power would be lucky the get 1/3 of that.

So plan on building 3x as much wind power and incorporating a monumental Demand Side Management plan so that you ensure that you use all of that power when its being generated cause you can't store it. (Try getting everyone to do laundry at 3:00am).

Also, wind power is not available everywhere, nor is solar. Now you have to get that power hundreds of miles away which means you need to upgrade the grid which is very expensive and time consuming. Nort to mention the transmission losses along the way.

I will say it again, the choice is nuclear or coal, not nuclear or alternatives.

[kokoda]

It's ludicrous statements like that which makes me want to smack my forehead and shake my head in utter disbelief. This is why I don't have any faith in humanity's ability to transition to a power down scenario. There are too many people out there who think windmills, bio-fuels, and solar panels are going to keep the good times rolling.

it won't

windmills cost (ready for this?) about 15 cents/kWh (4X that of coal)

I agree with your criticism of unrealistic greenies.

However, does that mean that serious efforts to mitigate by means of alternatives is futile?

What's the ERoEI on wind power?

People did live before fossil fuel utilization. But not so many.

Raw figures only tell part of the story.

What is the cost of sequestering carbon?

How much will it cost to mitigate the effects of climate change?

What price do you put on the loss of food production that has occurred as a direct result of climate change?

How much will the cost of coal powered energy increase as a result of increased oil costs?

The ERoEI of wind power depends on the wind, size of the turbine, etc. The bigger, later models return between 5-1 to 40-1 ... depending on their locations.

[Graeme]

I am curious, what is the public consensus about nuclear power in England after they have witnessed what France has done?

Any Brits here?

For the time being, all the money is going into gas.

British Gas warns of big price rises in the pipeline

Centrica, the owner of British Gas, positioned itself to take the lead in an anticipated wave of gas and electricity rate rises from energy suppliers after warn-ing yesterday of "challenging conditions" in the wholesale gas markets.

Most analysts are predicting increases next year of about 15 per cent for gas and electricity bills, due to the inexorably rising prices of natural gas and coal, which are used to generate electricity. Price rises will add to worries about rising inflation in the UK just as the economy is beginning to slow.

independent

[cube]

It's ludicrous statements like that which makes me want to smack my forehead and shake my head in utter disbelief. This is why I don't have any faith in humanity's ability to transition to a power down scenario. There are too many people out there who think windmills, bio-fuels, and solar panels are going to keep the good times rolling.

it won't

windmills cost (ready for this?) about 15 cents/kWh (4X that of coal)

I agree with your criticism of unrealistic greenies.

However, does that mean that serious efforts to mitigate by means of alternatives is futile?

What's the ERoEI on wind power?

People did live before fossil fuel utilization. But not so many.

ERoEI on wind power is positive.....however that does not mean the good times will keep on rolling.

I like to joke with people: "A future world where electricity produced from windmills would be so expensive.......peakoil.com would be a paid website"

[mkwin]

windmills cost (ready for this?) about 15 cents/kWh (4X that of coal)

That is likely the top range of costs for offshore. Economies of scale and technological improvements are reducing costs rapidly in both solar and wind.

Average electricity and energy bills are going to get higher but they are only 5% of disposable income in most developed countries at the moment. But what is the alternative? If we rely on coal and natural gas they are going to get more expensive anyway due to depletion and harder to produce resources.

Wind and other renewables are part of future energy supply solution but they are not, on their own, a silver bullet, we need a mix a nuclear, effciency gains, conservation, life style changes and some fossile fuels.

[essex]

"hn Hutton, the UK business secretary, announced plans yesterday to increase Britain’s production of electricity from wind. According to Hutton, by 2020 the UK will produce 33 gigawatts (GW) from wind power, mainly from offshore turbines, apparently capable of powering 25million homes (1). But actually producing that much electricity from wind is unrealistic, a distraction from the only serious and viable method of producing low carbon, reliable electricity: nuclear.



The reaction of environmentalists to these developments shows how apparently strong principles can be set aside in favour of certain right-on technologies. Try to sink one 15,000 tonne oil platform in the North Sea (as Shell attempted with the Brent Spar platform in 1995) and Greenpeace will vilify you, but announce a plan to plant 7,000 concrete and steel pylons - each weighing 2,000 tonnes - on the seabed and you will be an eco-hero. Pour 60million tons of concrete across the Severn Estuary to build an energy-generating tidal barrage and Sir Jonathon Porritt and his Sustainable Development Commissioners will carry you in triumph through Jerusalem.

The Severn Barrage, essentially a dam across the Severn Estuary to generate power from its 10-metre tides, is equally loved and hated by greens. It will never be built. But, to universal green approval, John Hutton has offered up Britain’s entire continental shelf for industrialisation on a scale that makes the Brent Spar look like as biodegradable as an organic ciabatta.

According to Hutton, ‘Next year we will overtake Denmark as the country with the most offshore wind capacity. This could be a major contribution towards meeting the EU’s target of 20 per cent of energy from renewable sources by 2020.’ The key word in Hutton’s statement is ‘capacity’ because, although it is always claimed that Denmark gets 20 per cent of its electricity from wind power (2), in fact the Danish experience shows that investment in wind is a grandiose and expensive folly – guaranteed neither to supply electricity nor reduce greenhouse emissions. "

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php? ... icle/4173/

[kokoda]

Rising energy costs will happen regardless of whether or not renewable energy is embraced.

The cost of coal powered energy is set to rise substancially over the next 10-20 years. The Kyoto protocol pretty much guarantees that. Nobody disputes that coal power is cheaper with the current unregulated energy policy. But factor in the cost of carbon offsets, clean coal technology, sequestering, etc and the cost of this once cheap energy source will go through the roof.

Wind power on the other hand will receive tax breaks and carbon credits. The next generation of wind turbines will also be more efficient than the current generation.

I honestly don't think that the price difference between coal and wind power will be that great in a decades time.

The problem I see with wind power is simply whether or not it can be scaled up. Also whether or not it will be reliable enough to provide base load power generation.

[cube]

windmills cost (ready for this?) about 15 cents/kWh (4X that of coal)

That is likely the top range of costs for offshore. Economies of scale and technological improvements are reducing costs rapidly in both solar and wind.

Average electricity and energy bills are going to get higher but they are only 5% of disposable income in most developed countries at the moment. But what is the alternative? If we rely on coal and natural gas they are going to get more expensive anyway due to depletion and harder to produce resources.

Ahh this is what makes the energy crisis appears so deceptive. It is not the cost of energy per say but a shortage of energy that will kill the economy. Electricity is used for everything from keeping an ice cream shop open to running the slot machines at casinos. There's a "multiplication factor" with energy, it is the 5% that makes the other 95% of the economy continue working. For every dollar of electricity that gets shut down --> $20 of the economy elsewhere will also get shut down.

The greatest crisis is trying to find something that can be "scaled up": windmills and solar panels cannot do this.

[cube]

windmills cost (ready for this?) about 15 cents/kWh (4X that of coal)

That is likely the top range of costs for offshore. Economies of scale and technological improvements are reducing costs rapidly in both solar and wind.
....

On the contrary that is not the "top range" costs. One of the major costs of wind power is it's intermittent nature. The "cheapest" way to manage wind power is to couple it with hydro-electric or probably NG (natural gas) plants if there are no hydroelectric sources. Trying to store surplus electricity in batteries is out of the question, that's just a techno-cornucopian dream.

this is the way it would work:
If the wind is weak then you turn up the NG plant to take over. If the wind is strong then you power down the NG plant. NG plants are cheap and the primary cost is the natural gas so that's why it compliments wind power.

A wind farm coupled with an NG plant in theory should be able to produce reliable power just like coal or nuclear. Once you factor in the cost of the NG plants, natural gas, extra grid connections....to say that windpower is 4x the cost of coal is NOT an understatement. This is why wind power cannot be realistically scaled up.

[SolarDave]

...snip...

(Try getting everyone to do laundry at 3:00am).

...snip...

I though that is exactly what the major electric utilities ARE trying to do.

1. My washer has a "delayed start" feature - explain that if not for uses like the one above

2. Utilities are trying to get control of my major appliances - remotely - explain that if not for uses like the one above

I believe the utilities are already far down the road towards a "monumental Demand Side Management plan" - and accelerating. If they can turn off my washer to protect their precious coal and nuke plants thet can turn it back on when the wind picks up. Or is that something different from "demand manegement?"

[cube]

...
I believe the utilities are already far down the road towards a "monumental Demand Side Management plan" - and accelerating. If they can turn off my washer to protect their precious coal and nuke plants thet can turn it back on when the wind picks up. Or is that something different from "demand manegement?"

not to get too far off topic but I have this feeling that electricity production is subsidized.

If customers where paying fair market value for electricity and utility companies were making a fat profit then they would encourage the consumption of electricity. Much like walking into Starbucks the more coffee you drink the more happy the store owner should be making extra money.......so I guess the more energy you use the happier the utility company should be!

So why is it that the utility company keeps on trying to get their customers to conserve? something isn't adding up. There can be only one conclusion. Electricity production is probably subsidized through some weird government program.

am I getting paranoid or am I onto something here?

[mkwin]

Code: Select all

Ahh this is what makes the energy crisis appears so deceptive. It is not the cost of energy per say but a shortage of energy that will kill the economy. Electricity is used for everything from keeping an ice cream shop open to running the slot machines at casinos. There's a "multiplication factor" with energy, it is the 5% that makes the other 95% of the economy continue working. For every dollar of electricity that gets shut down --> $20 of the economy elsewhere will also get shut down.

Energy costs are 5% of disposable household income, that is income left over after tax, housing, food and other essential needs. If this rises to 10 or 15% it will hurt the economy because i'll have less money to spend of IPods and other consumables. This will reduce consumption of goods and reduce economic growth. How much remains to be seen. The feedback into the credit and property makrets will be bad. This is why I am, in some ways, happy the credit and property markets will deflate now to lesson the blow when peak oil arrives.

The belief that energy = economic growth is a common one on these forums. Maybe you have seen a chart showing the correlation of energy use and GDP or something. However, if it were true, countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran would be the economic capitals of the world but instead the best capitalists in the world are energy staved countries like Germany and Japan.

The greatest crisis is trying to find something that can be "scaled up": windmills and solar panels cannot do this.

Who says they can't be scaled up? What are the limiting factors? Other than short-term limitations like current silicon production or factory capacity, both of which can be scaled up in a few years if the demand was there.

[cephalotus]

...
The belief that energy = economic growth is a common one on these forums. Maybe you have seen a chart showing the correlation of energy use and GDP or something...

I have a chart for Germany.

green = energy
pink = GDP
blue = energy productivity



source:
http://www.env-it.de/umweltdaten/public ... Ident=2847

[cephalotus]

There are some people out there who truly believe a windmill can generate electricity at a cost of 4 cents/kWh (same as a coal plant without factoring "externalities")
....
windmills cost (ready for this?) about 15 cents/kWh (4X that of coal)

In Germany you get ~8,x (Euro)-ct/kWh for wind energy (on shore) and this -is- profitable, otherwise Germany wouldn't be the largest producer of wind energy...

If you rate the external cost for CO2 at 85US$ (60€) and if 1kWh produces ~ 1kg of CO2 from coal fired plants you have to add 6ct/kWh to that.

So:

wind = 8,x ct/kWh
coal = 4 ct/kWh
coal + external costs = 10 ct/kWh

wind energy still gets cheaper, coal gets more expensive, building new coal power plants got significantly more expensive.

In Germany price for the average consument has fallen(!) during the first half of 2007 because of wind energy (merit-order-effects)...

I only know studies in German:

http://www.wind-energie.de/fileadmin/do ... mpreis.pdf